ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

Standards for university libraries: Evaluation of performance

Prepared by the ULS University Library Standards Review Committee Kent Hendrickson, Chair

Approved by the ACRL Board at the 1989 Midwinter Meeting.

The initial “Standards for University Libraries” were adopted by ACRL in 1979. This new revision was prepared by ACRL’s Ad Hoc University Library Standards Review Committee. The members are Patricia L. Bril, California State University, Fullerton; Murray S. Martin, Tufts University; Richard W. Meyer, Clemson University; Maxine Reneker, Arizona State University; Jack A. Siggins, Yale University; and Kent Hendrickson, UniversityofNebraska-Lincoln (chair).

Foreword

The 1979 Standards were the product of a joint effort by ACRL and ARL and the cumulation of eleven years of work by several committees of both organizations. An excellent background on the development of standards for university libraries may be found in Beverly Lynch, “University Library Standards,” Library Trends 31 (Summer 1982):33-47. Other articles and related documents are referenced in the appendices to this document. Appendix 1 cites other standards, statements, and guidelines relating to specific aspects of university libraries. Appendix 2 lists materials providing further information on the application of these standards.

As part of the process of reviewing the 1979 Standards the Committee solicited advice from other members of the university library community. First, open hearings were held during the ALA Midwinter Meetingin 1986; and second, a number of guests consulted with the Committee at the ALA Annual Conference in 1986 and the 1987 Midwinter Meeting. Comments were also received from representatives of regional accrediting associations and selected university administrators. Once the decision was made to revise the existing Standards, the Committee continued to seek advice, culminating with an open hearing during the 1988 ALA Annual Conference.

Many of the same issues discussed by the committees responsible for the 1979 Standards were raised again. By far the most important of these was the question of whether standards should be quantitative or qualitative. In the end, based on the information received, we concluded that neither approach was appropriate. A model procedure for determining measurable expectations is the primary need.

This approach was chosen very carefully. In the course of its deliberations the Committee looked at three issues: Who uses Standards ? Why do they use them? What do they need? Standards are addressed to library managers, institutional managers, and evaluating bodies such as accreditation teams. While each of these groups may use standards to arrive at an evaluation of a library, they may do so for quite different reasons. Common needs, however, relate to how well the library is doing, how well it is supported, and how well it compares to other libraries. To answer these questions, facts are needed; not the kind that can be set out readily in a series of prescriptive statements or normative figures, but those gathered through the process described by these standards.

Basic to this document is the proposition that each university library system is unique and therefore should determine its own criteria for performance and evaluation. This process should be undertaken within the framework of the university’s mission and goals. Another assumption is that, however the library is placed within the governing structure of the university, its relationship should be such that adequate communication flows to it concerning basic shifts in the mission of the university and changes in its programs. This document also assumes that the critical assessment resulting from the defmedprocess will be transmitted appropriately throughout the university.

It is further assumed that within the library, administrators will have achieved the balance of hierarchical and collegial management which will allow the libraries’ goals to be achieved, as well as adequate representation of staff views into the goal-setting and evaluation process, and appropriate development of the staff in the managerial, scholarly, and professional facets of their job responsibilities.

Finally, this document is necessarily prescriptive in several of its concepts. University libraries must become skilled in the process of examining and redefining as necessary their missions, establishing coherent goals whose attainment may be measured, continually and effectively assessing the needs of users, and identifying and applying those measures that will reveal the extent to which it has been successful in fulfilling its mission.

Introduction

These standards are intended to help members of the library and university administration responsible for determining priorities and evaluating performance to optimize the performance of the library in terms of the mission of the university.

While standards are needed, they cannot be stated as absolutes equally applicable to all universities and be useful. These standards are not a series of expectations or prescriptive sets of figures. They set forth the process by which expectations maybe established, and enumerate the topics that should be addressed in the evaluation of university library performance. For supporting detail, see theappendices.

These standards begin with a basic statement of purpose, explain the underlying assumptions, and lead to a statement of expectations.

Standards

General Statement of Purpose

These standards set out the role of the university library within the context of the institution’s information policies and academic goals. The mission of the university library is to provide information services in support of the teaching, research, and public service missions of the university. The achievement of that mission requires the development of standards to address the ways in which goals should be developed and measured, needed resources estimated, and success in goal achievement evaluated.

Underlying Assumptions

(1) Centrality of the Library

The library is of central importance to the institution. It is an organic combination of people, collections, and buildings, whose purpose is to assist users in the process of transforming information into knowledge.

Information and knowledge are central to the attainment of any university’s goals. The ways in which information is selected, acquired, stored or accessed, and distributed within the institution will, in large measure, determine the level and success of teaching, scholarship, and research. The institution needs clear policies concerning access to and provision of information. The library must take an active role in the development of these policies.

(2) The Significance of the Investment in the Library

The library represents one of the largest cumulative capital investments on any campus. Libraries provide added value as part of all learning and research processes. The concept of the library as an investment is basic to these standards.

(3) The Individual Nature of Each Institution

Each institution has a unique mix of goals, programs, and expectations. These are influenced by geographical location, obligations to other institutions, history, and mission.

(4) The Individual Nature of Each Library

The library serving the institution is, as a result, unique. The application of prescriptive measures to a group of unique institutions has been rejected as inapposite. It is the use and interpretation of measures that is importantin developing a process for managing change. The need is for a mixture of input and output measures, both qualitative and quantitative, but fundamentally process-oriented.

(5) Technological Change

The pace of technological change has rendered outmoded any concept of isolation and self-sufficiency. The library now exists within a complex information world, most of whose participants are not on campus. The library must be dynamic and future-oriented. This orientation does not seek change for its own sake, but recognizes the mutable natureof information in the computer age. Libraries will not abandon their traditional roles as collectors and conservators. Rather they will add new ones as facilitators and processors, and these new roles need to be recognized in the evaluation process.

Section A: Setting Goals and Objectives

To determine the appropriate goals for a university library, representative bodies should engage in a continuing dialogue, carried out at several levels, and documented in a memorandum of understanding or a mission statement adopted by the governing board of the institution.

(T) Participants

The participants involved in the process of setting goals should include appropriate representatives from the following groups:

(A) University and Library administration

(B) Faculty

(C) Librarystaff

(D) Students

(E) Trustees or regents

(F) Advisory Boards

(G) State or other governmental units associated with the institution.

The roles of these constituencies vary, but their basic purpose is to bring to the discussions information concerning needs, goals, abilities, and points of view, as these affect the library.

(2) Process

The process is one of communication, both formal and informal, designed to increase the level of shared understanding concerning the goals and capabilities of the library.

Formal communication includes committee reports, internal memoranda and newsletters, the annual and special reports of the library and the institution, and discussion in the appropriate public forums.

The administrative organization of the university is itself a means of communication and it is essential that the library, through its administration, be placed so as to have access as needed to the appropriate officers and committees of the institution.

Informal communication is the result of daily contact between members of the community. The library staff should be able to participate fully in such contact. Continuous communication through the daily activities of the library also conveys a message about its role within the institution.

(3) Product

The object of this dialogue is to establish goals, provide for their measurement, and assess the degree to which they are reached.

The result should be a shared statement that may take various forms and cover various periods as determined by the institutional policies regarding such matters. The library is responsible for developing shortand long-term goals and objectives in response to this statement, again in consultation with the other participants in the dialogue.

A process of review and revision is required to keep current with need and capacity.

Section B: Factors to be Considered in Developing Goals

The development of goals and objectives requires that the resources needed and available to meet those goals be kept in mind. This section sets forth some of those factors.

Definition:The library consists of a combination of three resources: people, collections, and buildings. These resources are paid for from a budget. They need to be in correct proportion to one another to meet the service goals of the library. There are no comprehensive formulas for arriving at these proportions, but there are ways of determining whether the allocation of resources is in line with expectations.

(3) Budgetary Support and Sources

The library represents a major capital investment. As such, it requires ongoing annual investment to retain its value.

The sources of funding vary greatly, in accordance with the style of the parent institution. Whatever the source, the library should control its funds. Although there are many different methods of organizing and controlling budgets, the method chosen should make it possible for the library to operate without undue constraint.

(A) Capital Expenditures. It is customary to distinguish and separate major capital expenditures, such as new buildings, renovations, or the installation of automated systems from annual operating budgets. Added resources and services needed to keep up-to-date, and maintain expanded plant are also needed.

Minor capital investments will be made each year for extensions or renovations. Adequate provision should be made for both kinds of capital expenditure.

(B) Operating Budget. The operating budget of the library must be appropriate to the mission of the library within the university, and sufficient to sustain all operations, including the maintenance of automated systems. The budget should be developed interactively by the university and the library in accordance with the general practice of the institution. If it is impossible to meet all expectations or fund specific new programs this should be made clear, and a means for setting priorities established.

(C) Budgetary Control. The library must be responsible for the internal allocation and control of the approved budget, with provision for appropriate consultation. Transactions should be carried out in accordance with the accounting practices of the university. Those practices should recognize the special needs of the library, particularly in purchasing library materials.

(D) Maintenance. The complex modern library requires constant attention to ensure that it continues to function smoothly.

i. The library is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of its resources and services. This includes not only provision for replacement of equipment and library materials, but also keeping adequate statistics and other performance measures to determine whether the standards of service are being maintained.

ii. Appropriate budgetary provision should be made for maintenance, replacement, repair, renovation, and for investment in new and improved means of information access and delivery.

(2) Human B.esources

The library is dependent on human resources skilled in the knowledge-based disciplines to achieve its goals. People select, acquire, process, and organize the library’s collections, and provide access to the information contained in those collections and the collections of other libraries; they direct its activities and provide its services.

(A) Level of Staffing. The library should be staffed in such a way as to meet the university’s expectations. The numbers required are determined by the programs offered, the number of buildings and service points, and the hours during which service is offered. While there are no absolute requirements, it is clear that the level of service is determined by the availability of staff.

(B) Kinds of Staff Needed. The staff should include librarians and other professionals, support staff, clerks, and students to provide services at the appropriate levels. The proportions of each group to the whole are determined by the programs supported and the locations served. The staff should incorporate the needed skills and academic training to meet the academic needs of the university, and to provide management support.

To reflect the library’s involvement in the academic programs of the university, librarians should have appropriate educational backgrounds in library and information science as well as in other disciplines. Librarians require the protection necessary to ensure intellectual freedom, so that they may not be subject to improper pressure in matters such as censorship, copyright, instruction, or the selection of materials. They have the right, as professionals, to speak out on behalf of their professional concerns without fear of reprisal or dismissal.

(C) Relationship to Other Staff. The director is responsible for all staff within the library and should ensure that the library adheres to the personnel policies and practices of the university. These policies and practices should recognize the special needs of librarians as professionals working in the field of information.

(D) Organization. The organization of the library should reflect its nature and purpose. As a service institution its interest is in people as providers of services. There is general agreement that librarians should be able to exercise independent professional judgment, within the rules, policies, and codes governing professional conduct; to participate in research and the work of professional organizations; to undertake consulting and other professional tasks; and to find advancement within the library, without necessarily having to undertake administrative and supervisory duties. Librarians should participate in the formulation of policies, in accordance with the style of the institution.

(E) Management. The library, under the director, should be responsible for managing its own affairs.

This autonomy does not abrogate the responsibility of the library for maintaining relationships with administration and faculty to achieve the dialogue recommended in these standards. The library should also adhere to local procedures and practices as they are stated by the appropriate university agencies.

(F) Staff Development. Librarians need to keep pace with change in the fields of library and information science, and other disciplines. The staff and the library administration have a joint responsibility for the development of knowledge and skills. The administration should provide the leadership, resources, and management to foster the cooperative process, the goal being to ensure that the library retain the skills needed to provide service to the university community at the proper level. The library staff should contribute to meeting the goal of keeping up-to-date by expanding their own academic and professional knowledge.

(3) Collections

The primary goal of the library is to select, collect, organize, and provide access to all varieties ofinformation forusers. Library programs should be developed with that goal in mind.

(A) Collection Management. The library shall select and acquire materials in all formats to the level required to support academic programs in research, teaching, and public service.

i. Collection management includes not only purchase for retention, but also leasing, renting, deselection, providing access to other collections, including, as appropriate, planned resource-sharing and cooperative storage, and electronic access to databases.

ii. The collections should be extensive enough to support the academic programs offered, recognizing that there are instances where reliance can and should be placed on access to other resources rather than on ownership.

iii. There should be provision for adequate funding to ensure the addition of needed newresources, to maintain growth not only in existing areas of study and research, but also in newly added disciplines or extensions of existing disciplines.

iv. Recognition should be given to changes and academic programs. Equally, recognition should be given to library contributions to consortial or other resource-sharing programs.

v. The collection management program of the library should be developed jointly by the library and the university, indicating the depth and breadth of the collections, as set out in an appropriate taxonomy. The policies setting out this program should be in written form, openly accessible, and regularly reviewed.

vi. The library is responsible for relations with vendors, contractors, and other agencies, and for reviewing the efficacy of such relationships.

(B) Collection Preservation. The library should have a program for the conservation and preservation of materials, either locally or with other libraries and agencies. Such a program should be integrated with national programs for conservation and preservation.

i. The library requires variable combinations of temperature and humidity control, and a program for fire and damage prevention. These should be provided and reassessed at regular intervals.

ii. The library should have an emergency plan to cover minor and major disasters and include both damage prevention and damage recovery. It should also provide for alternative service and management, and be coordinated with campus-wide plans.

iii. The library should not only be able to provide for the care and preservation of its own collections, but able to participate in local, regional, and national preservation plans.

iv. The library should have adequate safeguards against loss, mutilation, and theft. Since the library has a primary goal of maintaining open access to information, it is particularly vulnerable to those who take advantage of the public good that the library represents. To reduce loss and damage the library should exercise appropriate control over use and borrowing.

(4) Building Resources

The library should be housed in one or more buildings adequate to its role within the university, and should reflect a coherent planning effort. That plan should be developed with the participation of all affected parties, and should be reviewed regularly to ensure that changes in expectations, academic programs, or the library and information world are taken into account.

(A) Amount of Space. The library should provide space to house collections, space for study and research, and space for associated processing and public service functions, including the provision of space for automated services in a properly controlled environment. The relationships between buildings, spaces, and functions should reflect an appropriately developed written program.

(B) Distribution of Space. The choice for the physical organization of the university library must be made in terms of its administrative organization, tempered by recognition of the costs involved. Historically, there have been several solutions to the provision of library space, some philosophically based, others based on cost and institutional style. These range from centralization in one library building to dispersal among several faculty, college, or departmental libraries. Whatever the spatial mode chosen, the choice must be made in accordance with programmatic need, and following a careful process of decision. It is essential to provide the resources needed to implement the style of organization chosen.

(C) Location of Space. To fulfill their service missions, libraries need to be close to the center of campus activity. The space occupied is likely to be high in value, as is the cost of the building itself. In planning library facilities, consideration should therefore be given to the possibility of using remote or compact storage for lesser-used materials. If shared storage facilities are available and economical, their use should be considered. In any such case, a solution of this kind should not make access for the user onerous. In a similar manner, space planning should take into account advances in electronic storage, transmission, and retrieval of information.

(D) Planning Needs. Because the library grows with the addition of resources (not simply books, but people, workspace, machines, and other equipment) long-term planning is essential. External changes, such as the effect of telecommunications, must also be taken into account. The lead time for the accumulation of capital, the reparation of working drawings, and construction require that library projects be built into long-term university space planning.

(5) Services

The overarching goal of the library is to provide services to the university community.

The resources considered in the four preceding sections are the tools with which the library staff develops programs of service. Those programs are measured by their effectiveness in meeting user needs.

(A) Access. The library should ensure optimal access to its own collections and to needed resources available elsewhere by developing and maintaining appropriate policies and procedures.

The goal is to make library resources accessible to all members of the institutional community, in accordance with their needs and with regard for the preservation of materials, compliance with legal requirements such as copyright, and the right to personal privacy.

i. Catalog and other records should inform the user about what is owned, where it is, and how to find it. They should be comprehensive and up-todate, and adhere to accepted national and international standards.

ii. Collections should be systematically arranged, using a readily understandable taxonomy. The library should not unduly restrict access, but should take account of the need to preserve fragile materials. If storage facilities are used, retrieval should not place an undue burden on the user.

iii. The library should check collection availability at regular intervals.

iv. The rules and regulations for the use of the library and its collections should be readily accessible to users.

v. The library should provide information transfer services of two kinds: the physical transfer of documents and facsimiles of documents, and the transfer of data electronically.

(a) With the development of online catalogs, telefacsimile transmission, and other forms of information transfer, many users are now able to conduct their bibliographic research outside the library. In such instances, providing access implies the delivery of information, whether in printed or electronic format, by the library to the user at the user's location. This process should be reflected in the policies and procedures of the library.

(b) The library should participate in programs for the sharing of bibliographic data.

(c) The library should participate in programs for interlibrary loan, telefacsimile, and document delivery and adhere to the codes for the borrowing and lending of materials. The rules and conditions relating to these programs should be clearly explained. Where charges are required this should be made clear to potential users; similarly, where restrictions apply.

(d) The library should be prepared, wherever appropriate, to facilitate direct transfer to the user of information so available, as, for example, from databanks, or by referral to other agencies capable of meeting the need.

(B) Explanation of Resources and Services. The library should provide directional, informational, instructional, and reference services. These services include not only the answering of questions and instruction in the use of the library, but also the provision of printed, graphic, or electronic aids. By these means the library staff should seek to create an awareness of the need to understand the ways in which information-seeking has changed and is changing. The program should therefore be dynamic rather than static in its orientation.

i. The library should provide services designed for all levels of user from freshman to faculty member. By teaching, the use of printed guides, bibliographies, the development of electronic aids and personal interactions, the library staff should seek to assist users in finding needed material and developing appropriate search strategies.

ii. Bibliographic instruction, both formal and informal, should play a significant role in helping library users improve their skills.

iii. Library design should also play a role in making the library understandable. Similarly, new services such as online catalogs should be designed with the user in mind.

iv. These services should be provided not only in the library itself but also in the classroom and through public media, both on and off campus, including extension programs.

(6) University-wide Cooperation

To fulfill its goals, the library requires support from within the institution, and, in turn, supports other programs. Such interdependence requires clear relationships with other parts of the university.

(A) General Requirements. The library should cooperate with and participate in all university services and programs concerned with information and communication. These activities include such functions as admissions, continuing education, development, public relations, computer services, telecommunications, audiovisual services, publishing, copyright, royalty, depository, and exchange arrangements.

(B) Computer and Telecommunications Services. The close link between the library’s information services and the provision of computer and telecommunications services for the university as a whole requires that a relationship be established, and that the development of all such services be seen as a unified university responsibility.

(C) Other Services. Other internal relationships are less direct, but equally important to the mission of the library. The library is, for example, a factor in attracting students and faculty. Because the library plays a central role in research and teaching, it should be involved in plans for the development of the university. Where access to library services is made possible for any external community, for example, the surrounding community, students in off-campus courses, or the residents of a state, such policy decisions should be made with full library consultation.

(7) Cooperative Programs

The library exists within a network of relationships extending beyond the institution. These relationships maybe customary, contractual, cooperative, or symbolic.

In cooperation with other libraries, consortia, networks, vendors, and other agencies, the library should participate in programs that will assist it in meeting its goals and are consistent with the mission of the university.

(8) Responsiveness to Change

The library should anticipate changes in the field of information. While this need not mean that the library itself should undertake a particular service, the libraiy should bring that service and its implications to the attention of the university community.

(A) New Technology. The library should adopt and maintain new technologies as they develop and are useful in meeting its goals. New services do not totally replace older ones, and the institution must be prepared to provide needed support for an increasing range of information technologies, or to make choices between the services that can be provided within the budget.

(B) Experimentation. The library should be conceived as existing within and central to a network of information services, rather than as a standalone function. The library needs to assess, by testing and experimentation, the role of new information formats as they emerge.

Section C: Measuring Achievement and Forming a Statement of Expectations

The responsibility for the evaluation of the library lies with the university administration.

The university and the library administration together should establish a mechanism to measure the level of achievement of the library.

This mechanism should establish identifiable outcomes, both qualitative and quantitative, using agreed-on criteria, and providing appropriate feedback. The process should be continuous rather than unitary, though it must also fit intoany process established by the university for self-evaluation.

The goal is to arrive at a clearly stated set of expectations, which can be matched against the resources needed, in both cases with the support and understanding of the library and the other participants in the process.

There is no single best way of measuring achievement. A variety of procedures should be used. The budgetary process is one of these, in the course of which goals are set and their achievement measured. Annual reports review progress and set new goals. Accreditation visits offer similar opportunities.

Ongoing interactive communication with committees and other advisory groups is a necessary complement. All these activities provide a setting, based on economic and political realities, within which the review process can go forward.

Inevitably, comparisons will be made with libraries in other universities. Although such comparisons are difficult because of major differences among both institutions and libraries, comparative judgments can be made. These should be aided by appropriate quantitative measures and should not be based solely on subjective evaluations. The critical point is that, if the institution determines to use peer evaluation, the library and the university should agree on a list of institutions having similar missions, goals, and programs. This enables the evaluator to avoid comparing dissimilar libraries.

All these procedures recognize that the library is not static but dynamic and needs to be evaluated from that perspective. As the goals and needs of the university change so do those of the library. Past measures may no longer be important and new ones may need to be found. An example that has emerged over recent years is the use of access rather than ownership of materials as a criterion.

Any evaluation requires that the responsibility for the evaluation be clearly assigned, the procedure to be followed be understood by all participants, and the goal be defined.

(1) Participants

The participants will vary, depending on whether the review is annual, in which case they are likely to be internal to the institution, or if the review is periodic, when the review team is likely to be external. Such external review may also be linked to accreditation or other mandated reviews of the whole institution. Whatever the basis for the review, the membership of the review team should be agreed on by the library and university administrations. The reviewers should be informed of the procedures to be followed, and provided with appropriate documentation. Reports and testimony from both library and non-libraiy sources are proper, in particular from those intimately concerned with the setting of goals.

The report resulting from the review should be made available to both library and university administrators, but acceptance, rejection, and any subsequent implementation of recommendations are the responsibility of the university administrator who is responsible for the library.

(2) Process

The procedure followed should parallel that for any major academic or administrative unit.

(A) Annual Review. This kind of review is usually associated with the development of the library budget, and will, therefore, consist principally of a dialogue among those responsible for that process. There should be provision for review and discussion of the library’s budget presentation, together with review of goals and objectives. The dialogue should give all parties the opportunity to examine the relationships between resources and expectations without preconditions.

Similarly, the annual reporting process provides an opportunity for review of successes and failures, and for the development of new goals. These processes can be as formal or informal as required by the university.

(B) Periodic Review. Reviews of this nature, whether carried out by internal or external review teams, should include self-assessment, examination by the review team, and review of any reports and recommendations by the university and the library.

The process of self-assessment should provide adequate time for the preparation of the necessary information, and for preliminary reviewwithin the university. If the review team requires further information, time should be allowed for its preparation. This process should involve all parties concerned with the university library.

The review should allow for consultation with the appropriate persons concerned with the library and should not be subject to prior decisions as to results.

The resulting reports and recommendations should be reviewed by the appropriate library and university administrators, and there should be an opportunity to clarify misunderstandings and supply further evidence.

Criteria for the evaluation of library resources and services are set out in the following section of these standards. All criteria need to be adapted to the circumstances of each institution, as part of the process of review. Whatever the criteria, they should reflect the views of all participants and be stated clearly.

(B) Product

The results of any review or evaluation should be made available in written form to those responsible for administering the library, who should be given the chance to respond or to amplify. The final review should then become the basis for future action by the institution.

The outcome of reporting and discussion should be a reassessment of the library’s goals and objectives. It should take into account budgetary and operational limitations, and should establish realistic expectations for the future. By this process the university and the library can maintain a practical balance between resources and mission.

Section D: Evaluative Criteria

The questions that follow are suggested as a means of reaching a proper assessment of the library. There maybe other questions that are more appropriate for any individual university library and all libraries should use any measures that are available locally.

(1) Planning

(A) Does the institution include library participation in its planning process?

(B) Are there plans for future library development?

(C) Is the mechanism for making these plans adequate?

(D) Do the plans show appropriate consultation within the university?

(E) Is the library staff properly involved in planning and decision-making?

(F) Are there appropriate strategies for reaching stated goals?

(G) Are the goals and timetables realistic?

(2) Adequacy of Budget

(A) Are the budgetary resources sufficient to support current activities and to provide for future development?

(B) Does the budget support the purchase of or provision of access to the necessary range of library materials?

(C) Does the budget support the appropriate numbers and kinds of staff for the programs offered?

(D) Is the salary and benefits program adequate and designed to foster retention and recognize achievement?

(E) Does the budget provide adequate support for other operating expenses, including automated services?

(F) Does the budget provide adequate support for newprograms and innovations?

(G) Does the process by which the budget is developed allow for appropriate consultation?

(H) Does the library director have the appropriate level of discretion and control over the expenditure of the allocated budget?

(3) Adequacy of Human Resources

(A) Are the numbers of staff adequate for the services provided?

(B) Is the distribution of staff among programs appropriate?

(C) Are the proportions of professional and support staff appropriate to the functions served?

(D) Is there an established staff development program for maintaining and improvingthe education and skills of the library staff?

(E) Are staffing needs properly taken into account in planning new ventures or expansions of existing programs?

(F) Are the policies and procedures for handling staff matters properly formulated and available to staff members? Are they in written form? Do they facilitate performance or hinder it?

(G) Is there a means for staff utilization/job analysis to assure that positions are properly assigned by level and that the staff are performing work appropriate to the level?

(4) Adequacy of Collection

(A) Is there a written policy for managing the collection?

(B) Does this policy address issues of user satisfaction?

(C) Is there provision for considering change in academic needs ?

(D) What basis is used for determining collection levels and sizes?

(E) Is there evidence of areas of undersupply?

(F) Is there evidence of areas of oversupply?

(G) Does current collecting reflect an appropriate level of program support?

(H) Is there appropriate jirovision for the review of the current collections?

(I) Is there provision for the transfer and relocation of collections or portions of collections if and when appropriate?

(J) Is there provision for the consideration of consortial and other relationships?

(5) Adequacy of Buildings and Equipment

(A) Are the buildings sufficient to house staff and collections?

(B) Are the buildings adequately maintained?

(C) Are there appropriate space plans?

(D) Is there appropriate provision for use by the handicapped?

(E) Is the range, quantity, and location of equipment adequate to the programs offered?

(F) Is the equipment adequately maintained?

(G) Is there budgetary provision for upgrading, repair, or replacement?

(H) Is there evidence of planning for the use of new and improved technologies?

(6) Access and Availability of the Collections

(A) Are the policies governing access to and use of the collections clearly stated and readily available?

(B) Are the collections properly housed?

(C) Are the collections actually accessible and available?

(D) Are the bibliographic records appropriate?

(E) Is the staff that is provided for automation, technical services, and other collection-related functions sufficient for the task?

(F) How readily can the library provide materials not owned?

(G) What kinds of cooperative programs are in place?

(H) Is the level of staff support adequate?

(7) Preservation and Conservation

(A) Does the library have proper environmental controls?

(B) Does the library have an emergency plan?

(C) Does the library budget have adequate provision for the preservation and repair of damaged, aged, and brittle books?

(D) Does the library have adequate safeguards against loss, mutilation, and theft?

(8) Resource Usage

(A) What are the library policies for resource use?

(B) How much is the collection used?

(C) How well is the collection used?

(D) What is the fulfillment ratio?

(E) What is the relationship between collection size, collection growth rate, and collection use?

(9) Adequacy of Services

(A) What range of services is offered? Over what range of time?

(B) Are these services appropriate to the mission of the library?

(C) Are the locations where services are offered adequate to the purpose?

(D) What statistics and other measures of quality and quantity are maintained?

(E) Are the size and distribution of public service staff adequate for the numbers and kinds of users?

Appendix 1: Standards, Statements, and Guidelines

Standards, statements, and guidelines relating to specific aspects of university libraries may provide additional valuable guidance in evaluation. Due to size differences and variations in the programs of universities, all of the following standards may not be useful for any individual library. For example, “Standards for College Libraries” may provide relevant guidance to smaller universities in establishing minimal standards for collections and facilities, but will be less meaningful for large research libraries. The reader is referred to the ALA Handbook of Organization for a fuller listing of standards and guidelines. Offprints of many of these are available from the American Library Association.

Items listed are sorted according to the major topics of the standards in Section B.

Budgetary Support

ALA. ACRL. “Standards for College Libraries.” College and Research Libraries News 47, no. 3 (March 1986): 189-200.

Human Resources

ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines and Procedures for the Screening and Appointment of Academic Librarians.” College and Research Libraries News 38, no. 8 (September 1977): 231-33.

ALA. ACRL. “Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and University Librarians.” College and Research Libraries News 48, no. 5 (May 1987): 247-54.

ALA. ACRL.“Standards for Ethical Conduct for Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Librarians.” College and Research Libraiies News 48, no. 3 (March 1987): 134-35.

ALA. ACRL. “Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians.” College and Research Libraries News 35, no. 5 (May 1974): 112- 13.

ALA. ACRL. “Statement on Collective Bargaining.” (1975). Photocopy.

ALA. ACRL. “Statement on Terminal Professional Degree for Academic Librarians.” (1975). Photocopy.

ALA. ACRL, Association of American Colleges, and American Association of University Professors. “Statement on F acuity Status of College and University Librarians.” College and Research Libraries News 35, no. 2 (February 1974): 26.

ALA. Office for Library Personnel Resources. “Comparable Rewards: The Case for Equal Compensation for Non-Administrative Expertise.” Chicago: ALA, 1979.

ALA. Office for Library Personnel Resources. “Guidelines for Affirmative Action Plans.” Chicago: ALA, 1976.

ALA. Office for Library Personnel Resources. “Library Education and Personnel Utilization.” Chicago: ALA, 1976.

Collections

ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines on Manuscripts and Archives.’’Compilation of policy statements prepared by the ACRL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section’s Committee on Manuscripts Collections. 1977. Photocopy.

ALA. Resources andTechnical Services Division. Guidelines for Collection Development. Edited by David L. Perkins. Chicago: ALA, 1979.

ALA. Resources andTechnical Services Division. Guidelines for Handling Library Orders for Inprint Monographic Publications. 2ded. Chicago: ALA, 1984.

ALA. Resources andTechnical Services Division. Preparation of Archival Copies of Theses and Dissertations, by Jane Boyd and Don Etherington. Chicago: ALA, 1986.

Building Resources

ALA. ACRL. “Access Policy Guidelines.” College and Research Libraries News 36, no. 10 (November 1975): 322-23.

ALA. ACRL and Society of American Archivists. “Joint Statement on Access to Original Research Materials.” College and Research Libraries News 40, no. 4 (April 1979): 111-12.

ALA. ACRL.’’Guidelines for the Security of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Other Special Collections.” College and Research Libraries News 43, no. 3 (March 1982): 90-93.

Programs and Services

ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines for Audiovisual Services in Academic Libraries.” College and Research Libraries News 48, no. 9 (October 1987): 533-36.

ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines for Bibliographic Instruction in Academic Libraries.” College and Research Libraries News 38, no. 4 (April 1977): 92.

ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines for Branch Libraries in Colleges and Universities.” College and Research Libraries News 36, no. 9 (October 1975): 281-83.

ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines for Extended Campus Library Services.” College and Research Libraries News 43, no. 3 (March 1982): 86-88.

ALA. ACRL. “The Mission of an Undergraduate Library: Model Statement.” College and Research Libraries News 48, no. 9 (October 1987): 542-44.

ALA. Reference and Adult Services Division. “A Commitment to Information Services: Developmental Guidelines.” Chicago: ALA, 1979.

Cooperative Programs

ALA. Reference and Adult Services Division. “Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or Other Special Groups of Libraries. ”RQ 20, no. 1 (Fall 1980): 26-28.

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Section on Interlibrary Lending. “International Lending Principles and Guidelines for Procedure (1978).”RQ 20, no. 1 (Fall 1980): 32- 36.

ALA. Reference and Adult Services Division. “National Interlibrary Loan Code, 1980.” RQ 20, no. 1 (Fall 1980): 29-31.

Appendix 2: Supporting Materials

The items listed here provide further information relating to the application of these standards to libraries. They were selected with a view to augmenting the standards, by providing additional guidance in evaluating university libraries or in establishing criteria. The items cited are those considered to provide the best entry to the subject. In a few instances, journal articles were cited when no monograph was available on the issue of concern. The annotations are intended only to suggest the means by which each item may supplement the standards.

The reader is also reminded that the statistics collected by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) of the American Library Association and by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) contain a wealth of comparative data useful for developing profiles of peer institutions. In addition, the SPEC Kits published by the ARL and the CLIP Notes published by ACRL can be helpful in synthesizing a profile of the generic research library.

Items listed are sorted according to the major topics of the standards in Section B.

Budgetary Support-

College & University Business Administration.Edited by Lanora F. Welzenbach. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: National Association of College and University Business Officers, 1982.

This is the authoritative reference manual for university administrators involved in establishing business procedures, including budget development. Although it contains little information directly relevant to library evaluation, the organizational structure, budgeting process, and administrative procedure recommended for and typical of most campuses is covered clearly. This work facilitates an understanding of the process that results in placement of the library within the institutional setting. It also describes the accounting practices often required of libraries.

Ratio Analysis in Higher Education: A Guide to Assessing the Institution’s Financial Condition.New York: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, 1980.

This book attempts to provide explicit guidance in obtaining information from financial reports of an institution about its condition. The work explains the fundamentals of the balance sheet and recasts it into ratios designed for comparative evaluation of the health of the institution relative to its peers.

Human Resources

Riggs, Donald E. Strategic Planning for Library Managers. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1984.

In order to develop mission, goals, and objectives, substantial planning is required. This work provides an overview of the strategic planning process so that library managers may better understand the current state of their libraries, where they are going, where they should be going, and how best they may get there.

Collections

Christiansen, Dorothy E., C. Roger Davis, and Jutta Reed-Scott. Guide to Collection Evaluationthrough Use and User Studies. Chicago: ALA, 1983.

“This document was prepared by the Subcommittee on Use and User Studies, Collection Management and Development committee of RTSD.. .to provide librarians and others with asummaryofthe types of methods available to determine the extent to which…library materials are used. It is not intended to readily equip librarians to do use or user studies for collection evaluation but rather to allow them to identify the kind of study best suited to their needs.”

Hall, Blaine H. Collection Assessment Manual for College and University Libraries. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1985.

This manual is designed to provide the reader with tools to plan collection assessment, apply the right measurement techniques, analyze the results, and report findings in order to deter mine effectiveness in meeting collection goals.

National Enquiry into Scholarly Communication.

Scholarly Communication: The Report of the National Enquiry.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.

“Report of a comprehensive three-year research effort conducted under the auspices of the American Council of Learned SocietiesThis assessment of the state of modern communication through scholarly journals and books provides relevant guidance to librarians attempting to understand the methods used by researchers to document and share their work.

Reed-Scott, Jutta. Manualforthe North American Inventory of Research Library Collectio ns. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries, 1985.

The analytical framework developed by the Research Libraries Group, referred to as the RLG Conspectus, was expanded into a broader based North American inventory project by ARL. This manual documents the methodology codified by the Office of Management Studies of ARL for comparative evaluation of collections against profiles of other libraries. Collection strengths can be identified by means of a standard tool for description and assessment with the use of this manual.

Stubbs, Kendon. Quantitative Criteria for Academic Research Libraries. Chicago: ALA, 1984.

Using statistical techniques, the author developed quantitative guidelines from the HEGIS survey statistics to distinguish research libraries from non-research libraries. On the basis of this research, minimal criteria for research libraries are suggested. This information may be useful for some libraries that fall under the guidelines of these standards and desire quantitative criteria to articulate their mission.

Use of Library Materials: The University of Pittsburgh Study.NewYork: M. Dekker, 1979.

This study attempts to determine “the extent to which library materials are used and the full cost of such use” with the intent of developing a model useful in predicting the return on increasing library expenditures. Although widely criticized, this is one of the few quantitative approaches ever made to model collection development efforts.

Building Resources

Metcalf, Keyes DeWitt. Planning Academic and Research Library Buildings. 2nd ed. by Philip D. Leighton and David C. Weber. Chicago: ALA, 1986.

An update to Metcalf s 1956 edition which served as the Bible for building guidelines, this work is designed to be used by librarians and architects. Tables provide formulas and other information relevant to standards for space, lighting, equipment, organization, and other factors.

Programs and Services

ALA. ACRL. Evaluating Bibliographic Instruction: A Handbook. Chicago: ALA, 1983.

As well as providing an introduction to the basic precepts of evaluation, this manual is designed to provide the reader with tools to evaluate the effectiveness of bibliographic instruction programs. Chapters are contributed by several authors.

Cronin, Mary J. Performance Measures for Public Services in Academic and Research Libraries. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries, 1985.

“Quality of service in academic libraries… is defined in terms of the needs of the library user, and the skills of the library staff in assessing and meeting those needs.” This paper pulls together the theory, application and potential of performance measures for academic libraries. It provides a starting point for evaluating library effectiveness in meeting user needs and academic goals.

Determining the Effectiveness of Campus Services.Robert A. Scott, editor. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1984.

Includes six papers covering the major aspects of determining the effectiveness of campus services. Designed to be a source book for those selected to conduct evaluations of campus services such as the library, computer services, public relations, and student services. While not covering libraries exhaustively, the information relevant to other services provides useful insights into overall evaluation methodology.

Dougherty, Richard M. “Libraries and Computing Centers: A Blueprint for Collaboration.” College and Research Libraries 48, no. 4 (July 1987): 289-96.

For the institution attempting to articulate the mission of the library, this article provides a useful pattern for determining the relationship of the library to the computer center for the individual campus.

Kantor, Paul B. Objective Performance Measures for Academic and Research Libraries. Washington, D.C.: Association ofResearch Libraries, 1984.

Libraries operating within an environment that

“constrains, supports, and evaluates” require some means to determine achievement of objectives.

Three measures of performance provided in this manual give concrete means for library staff to determine the effectiveness of library programs in fulfilling the mission of the library. The model covers the areas of availability, accessibility, and delay analysis.

Lancaster, F. Wilfrid. The Measurement and Evaluation of Library Services. Washington, D.C.: Information Resources Press, 1977.

This is a general manual of procedures and techniques to use in evaluating the various service functions of the library where evaluation is defined as comparison of performance with objectives.

Reference Policy and Administrative Documents.Edited by Paula D. Watson. Chicago: ALA, 1985.

Reference services policies, online service policies, and reference collection development policies collected in response to the survey conducted by RASD were edited by Paula Watson. These policy statements, along with accompanying organization charts and job descriptions, provide comparative information on the organization of reference departments.

Watson, Paula D. Reference Services in Academic Research Libraries. Chicago: ALA, 1986.

The results of sixty-six medium and large research libraries surveyed on the organization, staffing, and functional operations of research library reference departments are reported. Analysis of bibliographic instruction and online search services provides additional comparative information.

U niversity-wide Programs

Boyer, Ernest L. College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.

A cogent analysis of the condition of undergraduate education in the United States in the 1980s, this report provides many useful insights into changing directions that will affect the mission and organization of libraries. Based on visits to twenty-nine representative campuses along with exhaustive surveys conducted at hundreds more, this work makes numerous recommendations for changing the program approach typically followed by today’s colleges. Those changes will affect the organizational setting of libraries.

Flower, Kenneth E. Academic Libraries on the Periphery : How Telecommunications Information Policy Is Determined in Universities. OMS, ARL Occasional paper, no. 11. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries, 1986.

Developments in twenty-six universities were examined to reveal that libraries tend to be outside the decision-making process that determines telecommunications policy on research campuses.

Garvin, David A. The Economics of University Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1980.

This analysis by an economist describes the university with a model characterizing it as a prestige-maximizing organization subject to market forces, which helps to explain the behavior of the university community. It provides useful insights into the issues which shape the institution.

Hardesty, Larry L., Jamie Hastreiter, and David Henderson. Mission Statements for College Libraries. CLIPNote #5. Chicago: ALA, 1985.

This is a collection of actual mission statements from twenty-six institutions ranging in size from small colleges to moderately large universities. It also includes statements from six regional accrediting agencies.

Responsiveness to Change

Moran, Barbara B. Academic Libraries: The Changing Knowledge Centers of Colleges and Universities. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1984.

The impact of new technology, rising costs, physical preservation problems, and new management approaches requires clear articulation to university administrators of the problems facing libraries. This work attempts to codify in one place those issues driving the restructuring of academic libraries during a period of substantial change and provides a synthesis essential to communicating the options to university administrators.

Priorities for Academic Libraries.Thomas J. Galvin and Beverly P. Lynch, editors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.

This collection of papers by librarians and university administrators, edited by Thomas Galvin and Beverly Lynch, provides an overview of the changes that have caused libraries to be moved from the realm of benign neglect to the center of administrative attention. That attention often requires librarians to re-articulate the rationale behind their enterprise. The goal of this work is to assist with that task.