regional association criteria and the standards for college libraries: the informal role of...

Regional Association Criteria and the Standards for College Libraries: The Informal Role of Quantitative Input Measures for Libraries in Accreditation

by Paul Coleman and Ada D. Jarred

librarians use the Standards for College Libraries in

accreditation reviews, and most accrediting bodies, while not

formally adopting the Standards, deem them a credible auxiliary tool. A comparison reveals they address issues raised by

accreditation criteria. Questions about them remain,

however, and a demonstrable basis in research would

increase their usefulness.

Paul Coleman is Library Director,

Adrian College, Adrian,

Michigan 49221-2575.

Ada D. jarred is Director of Libraries,

Northwestern State University of Louisiana,

Natchitoches, Louisiana 71497.

T he Standards for College Librar- ies, produced by the College Libraries Section (CLS) of the

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), play a prominent but ambiguous role in academic librarianship. Academic librarians report that they frequently employ the Standards in efforts to gain institutional accreditation and enhance program support, but their status as a basic tool of library evaluation may be based more on their simple presence than perceived authority. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, while the imprimatur of ACRL grants the Standards credibility, their basis and function are actually unclear to many librarians and college administrators.

The most salient component of the Standards-their specification of quantitative inputs-seems to engender equal measures of popularity and controversy. Despite the current ascendancy of output measurement and quality assessment in evaluation theory, a recent survey indicates that the Standards’ prescriptions of quantities of personnel, media, and facilities for library programs are frequently quoted.’ While college librarians have expressed their preference for a quantitative element in their standards, however, they admit uneasiness with the murky der- ivation of the formulas currently in use. Indeed, many parties with an interest in academic library evaluation wonder whether the Standards’ input formulas are reflective of current practice, demonstrably related to the success of library programs, or simply artificial constructs of a self-serving professional association.

Another question related to the authority of the Standards, and one which this article addresses, is whether they deal with aspects of library operation that librarians and other concerned parties want to have evaluated. To examine that question, the authors compared the Standards for Col-

lege Libraries with the mandates for library programs issued by the various regional accrediting associations. While the Standards lack the “clout” of a formal enforcement mechanism, the necessity of meeting accreditation criteria is indisput- able. It is hoped that an examination of the Standards’ treatment of issues covered by accreditation criteria, and a consideration of the de facto role of the Standards in the accreditation process, will help librarians determine the effective authority of the Standards in at least one eminently practi- cal application.

“Indeed, many parties with an interest in academic library

evaluation wonder whether the Standards’ input formulas are reflective of current practice, demonstrably related to the

success of library programs, or simply artificial constructs of a

self-serving professional association.”

The Role of the Standards in Accreditation Evaluative devices for libraries in post-

secondary education are legion. Variously called guidelines, standards, criteria, and checklists, they are promulgated by agencies of state and federal government, library organizations, and the associations of various other professions and disci- plines. A list of “standards and guidelines published by ALA [the American Library Association] and related associations” alone sprawls across several densely printed pages of College & Research Libraries News.2 Of all the sets of standards at the disposal of library evaluators,

November 1994 273

however, two are especially familiar to most college libraries in the United States: the ACRL/CLS Standards and the accreditation criteria employed by the regional accrediting body to which a library’s par- ent institution belongs or aspires to belong.

None of the ambiguity of purpose asso- ciated with the Standards attaches to accreditation criteria. Although accrediting bodies emphasize the voluntary and advisory nature of the process, regional accreditation is a sine qua non of postsec- ondary education in the United States. Almost every relationship a college has with an external party-whether a prospective student, a potential provider of grants to the institution or loans to its students, or another institution with which it seeks a cooperative agreement-is contingent on accreditation.

Because there is no comparable imper- ative to meet the ACRL Standards, their role is harder to discern, but the preambles to their successive editions provide at least nominal statements of purpose. In their first incarnation, in 1959, the Standards were simply described as “a guide for the evaluation of [college] libraries.“3 The 1986 Standards, currently in effect, hold that “the Standards seek to describe a real- istic set of conditions which, if met, will provide an adequate library program in a college.“4 The most robust statement of the nature and purpose of the Standards for College Libraries, however, is found in the introduction to their 1975 revision. There the Standards are presented as “an attempt to synthesize and articulate the aggregate experience and judgment of the academic library profession as regards requisite resources, services, and facilities for a minimal library program in a college.“5 The Standards, while lacking the apparatus of formal application that attends accreditation criteria, are the man- ifestation of the profession’s prerogative to define libraries.6

In 1992, David B. Walch undertook to determine what the library profession does with its definition. His survey revealed that college librarians commonly used the Standards to justify the expansion or improvement of various aspects of a library’s program or facilities, and “to ori- ent/educate college administration.” By a plurality, however, survey respondents most often said the Standards were used in preparation for accreditation and/or institutional self-studies.7 Walch’s evidence corroborates the findings of a less extensive 1980 survey by George Bailey, which

found that “most librarians indicated that they made use of the ACRL standards or guidelines in preparation for the [accreditation] visit....“8

This evidence that librarians informally applied the Standards to the accreditation process does not imply official endorsement of the Standards by the regional associations. While accrediting bodies may find it useful to refer to the many sets of standards produced by professional associations, they necessarily refrain from explicitly adopting and enforcing them, and sometimes overtly distance themselves from them.

“Almost every relationship a college has with an external

party-whether a prospective student, a potential provider of

grants to the institution or loans to its students, or another institution with which it seeks a

cooperative agreement-is contingent on accreditation.”

At a 1980 symposium co-hosted by the Standards and Accreditation Committee of ACRL and the Council on Post-secondary Accreditation (COPA), Patricia Thrash of the North Central Association critiqued the ACRL Standards from the perspective of the accrediting bodies by voicing four “concems.“9 She found the Standards detailed to the point of being “fastidious,” carrying an implication that the achievement of their provisions is “not only possible but mandatory.” Second, she pointed out that accrediting bodies are wary of the use of quantitative formulas such as those propounded in the Standards. A third area of concern, the Standards’ protectionist orientation towards “librarians as professionals,” elicited relatively sympathetic criticism. Her fourth objection, one she viewed as properly directed toward the regional associations’ criteria as well as the ACRL Standards, was the emphasis that the Standards place on “process criteria” rather than “evidence of effectiveness.”

The regional associations are not unaware, however, of the salutary auxiliary part the Standards can play in accreditation. A canvass of the six regional bodies in the spring of 1992 elicited statements from five of them that they formally apply only their own criteria in the accred-

itation process. lo One association indicated that it encourages institutions to refer to standards such as the ACRL’s in their self-studies, however, and three others approvingly acknowledged that such standards may partially inform the delib- erations of accreditation team members.

Johnnie E. Givens and Wanda K. Siv- ells may have best summarized the intriguing complementary relationship of the Standards-particularly their quantitative aspect-to the criteria of the accrediting associations. Their account, although published almost 20 years ago and descriptive of the development of standards that have been superseded, seems, nonetheless, applicable to current circumstances. They wrote:

It is a point of pride among the regional accrediting associations to utilize the qualitative evaluation directed to the objectives, goal and purposes of the institution; it is a generally held concept that this provides a regional determina- tion of adequacy for library programs which is suited to regional needs. This procedure is in contrast to the quantifying measurements which were part of the 1959 standards for college libraries developed by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Inter- action between representatives from the regional accrediting associations and FRACHE [the predecessor of the Coun- cil on Post-secondary Accreditation (COPA)] with the ACRL committee working to revise the 1959 college standards focused in detail on the advan- tages and limitations of trying to combine qualitative evaluation with quantifying measurements. Extensive discussion has led to an understanding that, while quality can be stated per se in concept, in actual practice of on-site evaluation the definitions for “enough” or “adequate to support the educational objective” were inevitably developed against the nationally accepted measurements of quantity. This tacit but generally accepted practice of evaluators provides substantiation and justification for the development of base-level measurements of quantity within national standards.”

In the model posited by Givens and Sivells, the Standards for College Librar- ies can, at the discretion of evaluators, effectively supplement and give form to accreditation criteria that are necessarily general in character. Howard Simmons of the Middle States Association confirmed the vitality of this model with his observa- tion that “peer reviewers, who themselves are library and information specialists, often consult standards of the American

274 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Library Association as a base of reference, even though most accrediting bodies do not give official endorsement or recogni- tion to these standards.“12 Librarians on both sides of the accreditation process need to be aware of this “tacit but generally accepted practice,” consulting and referring to the Standards when it is appropriate and helpful to do so, while respecting the autonomy of the accrediting body.

The Standards Compared with Accreditation Criteria To further examine the relevance of the

Standards to accreditation and assist librarians involved in the accreditation process the authors prepared the appendix, “A Comparison of Library Assessment Criteria of Five Regional Accrediting Bodies with the Standards for College Libraries.” The appendix collocates by subject key provisions of the accreditation criteria that specifically address libraries and places them beside comparable provisions of the Standards. l3 The accreditation criteria were extracted from publications of the regional associations enumerating the exact criteria to be applied by accreditation teams. l4

“NO aspect of college libraries covered by the regional

associations is absent from the ACRL standards.”

The associations also typically publish, separately from their criteria, instructions for teams regarding the collection of data and the application of the criteria. They further provide institutions with guides for self-study, and, in some cases, output measurement. Like the criteria, these guides customarily include the treatment of the library. For the purpose of comparing like entities, however, the present comparison is confined to a consideration of only the accreditation criteria.

Citations of criteria in the appendix include section numbers if the association used a format of section delineation in its criteria publication. Otherwise, a page number of the publication is cited. The appendix reproduces virtually the entire texts of the library-related sections of the associations’ criteria documents. Only matters of a general or prefatory nature are omitted.

The appendix includes most of the actual standards (as distinguished from the

commentaries) from the Standards for College Libraries. Standards which do not have specific correlates in the accreditation criteria are omitted; these deal with the finer points of objective-setting (Sec- tion 1) and administration (Section 7). In cases where the commentaries appear to address points raised in the accreditation criteria more directly than the standards themselves, the appendix includes pas- sages from those commentaries. In addition to a few of the standards and most of the commentaries, the Standards’ quantitative formulas are excluded. Hence, the appendix is not an exhaustive compilation of the Standards. It does provide, however, a reasonably complete, categorized rendition of the accreditation criteria, and indicates whether the Standards address the same criteria as the accreditation documents.

Findings The ACRL Standards treat substan-

tially the same topics as the regional criteria, but with greater specificity and detail. The provision of such a sharply focused evaluative tool as the Standards is an appropriate undertaking for a professional association. As Charles Atwell, executive vice president of Pensacola Junior Col- lege, recently stated, “Accrediting agencies define library effectiveness; librarians can refine it.“15

The appendix displays 20 subjects addressed by both the ACRL Standards and the regional criteria: academic community involvement in library programs, bibliographic instruction, budget authority, building, circulation, collection media, collection quality, collection quantity, funding, hours of operation, intellectual access, off-site programs, physical access and arrangement, policies, preservation, program evaluation, reference, reserves, resource sharing, and staff.16 While these categories encompass the range of accreditation criteria, they are not all covered by each of the associations. All five associations addressed only seven of the subjects: bibliographic instruction, building, collection quality, collection quantity, physical access and arrangement, resource sharing, and staff. Only one association mentioned each of the categories of budget authority, program evaluation, and reserves. No aspect of college libraries covered by the regional associations is absent from the ACRL standards.

The Western Association of Schools and Colleges is the most prescriptive in its library criteria, addressing 17 of the 20 categories. The Southern Association of

Colleges and Schools treats 15 subject areas, the New England Association of Schools & Colleges deals with 13, and the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges covers 12. The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools treats only 10, or 50 percent, of the topics. As noted earlier, the North Central Associa- tion does not specifically mention libraries at all in its accreditation criteria, and is not included in the table.

“Indeed, a central precept of the Standards is that a critical mass of personnel, services, media, and facilities which

constitutes a threshold-level college library program can, and should, be determined

and assembled.”

The reader may make a category-by- category comparison of the Standards for College Libraries with the criteria of the five regional accrediting agencies. The format of the table facilitates such an examination.

Future Prospects While there is considerable symmetry

between accreditation criteria and the Standards, different approaches to evaluation and accreditation may be evolving. In the estimation of some critics, the accrediting associations’ library-related criteria are dubious guides for library assessment and improvement. In a 1988 survey of commentary from the library’s perspective on accreditation criteria, Antoinette Kania found evidence of widespread dissatisfac- tion. The studies she examined held the criteria are “too broad and vague and, generally, just not very useful in guiding self- study.“17 Her own assessment of the accreditation criteria found them inconsis- tent from one regional association to the next, and almost devoid of measurement of outcomes. Her article concluded with an appendix containing her synthesis of what she described as a “composite set of regional accreditation library standards that could accommodate the three major academic library sectors with increased overall content coverage more representa- tive of practitioners’ concerns and with greatly increased focus on outcomes.1’t8

In a more recent article, Ronald Leach found that technology-related changes in academic libraries, such as “networking,”

November 1994 275

“the potential relationship between libraries and computer centers,” and “timely document delivery” are dealt with insub- stantially or not at all in the criteria used by the accrediting associations. He urged academic librarians to “work to ensure that applications of technology are repre- sented in the criteria,” and, taking up Kania’s theme, “that evaluations are more outcome oriented.” This could be accom- plished, he proposed, if librarians would “expend more effort in working with regional accrediting bodies and [COPA] to inform and influence the establishment of evaluative criteria.“19

A recent paper by Ralph A. Wolff of the Western Association of Schools and Col- leges advanced the case for reform in academic library evaluation.*’ In the course of a spirited critique of the easy treatment he contends libraries customarily receive in accreditation reviews, Wolff encourages a movement away from quantitative input assessment. Positing that “...holdings,...periodical subscriptions, staff positions, facility size and hours of operation, are important but not determinative of quality,” he urges a new focus on “evidence of outcomes of the applications of these resources” gained through devices such as user surveys, syllabus reviews, focus groups, and student journals of library interactions. (While seeming to characterize inputs measurement and “budget issues” as passe, however, Wolff, nonetheless, underscores the importance of ubiquitous access to computer-based information tools and thoroughgoing bibliographic instruction programs.)

Conclusion Regional accreditation criteria are gen-

eral in nature, and they differ from one association to another. The Standards for College Libraries tend to be more precise than the regional associations’ criteria. A comparison of the criteria with the Stan-

dards reveals that the Standards treat all issues raised by the various accrediting bodies, often in a more concrete and detailed manner.

A comparison of the Standards with accreditation criteria demonstrates that the use of the Standards as an important informal component of the accreditation process makes sense. The appendix may facilitate the use of the Standards in this way. Two important controversies involv- ing the Standards remain, however, and must be addressed.

The Standards are frequently criticized for their concentration on inputs, and especially for their specification of quanti-

ties of inputs. Indeed, a central precept of the Standards is that a critical mass of personnel, services, media, and facilities which constitutes a threshold-level college library program can, and should, be determined and assembled. In this period of growing interest in output measurement, that precept may be under challenge. It seems clear, however, that even the most committed advocates of output measures believe such measures should augment,

rather than supplant, input criteria in the assessment of academic libraries. The above-mentioned criteria proposed by Antoinette Kania, for instance, while sig- nificantly calling for periodic assessments of library use and user satisfaction, are substantially concerned with inputs, such as collection size and quality, services, means of access, hours of operation, and size and training of staff.

“It seems clear, however, that even the most committed

advocates of output measures believe such measures should

augment, rather than supplant, input criteria in the assessment

of academic libraries.”

Recent papers by officers of regional associations attest that interest in library inputs also remains high in the accrediting bodies, even as their advocacy of output assessment gains momentum. The prolif- eration of off-campus and satellite campus programs and the growing tendency to substitute delayed access to resources for conventional ownership have brought renewed attention to the importance of program inputs.*l While a need for increased emphasis on output assessment in the Standards may exist, it is unlikely that a concomitant diminution of their treatment of personnel, media, and facilities would benefit the users or the evaluators of academic libraries.

If the need for the Standards to address inputs is accepted, however, a second question arises: Are the input prescriptions in the Standards soundly based? Per- haps input prescriptions should not be based on norms, as they are currently, but rather on the input levels found in programs that have been deemed successful according to widely accepted output measures. As the lavish attention accorded print media in the Standards increasingly

seems dated, it appears that the inputs cho- sen for measurement should also be reex- amined. Perhaps a newly-defined unit of information which is not medium-specific will replace the venerable “volume” in future standards. Perhaps future standards will offer guidance regarding an accept- able amount of time for the procurement of requested information which is not available on-site or immediately by elec- tronic means. The present ACRL/CLS Standards Committee advocates research that may provide fresh insights on issues such as these.

Concerned observers continue to direct their attention toward issues of library evaluation-issues in which both the accreditation community and the profession of librarianship have a stake. The two groups’ interest in each other’s activities is evidenced by a recent call from Simmons for ACRL to join the Middle States Asso- ciation in fostering “information literacy,” and by ACRL’s establishment of an Accreditation Advisors Board.22 Further collaboration between librarians and accreditation experts will undoubtedly occur as more accurate and effective means of library evaluation are developed.

Notes and References 1. David B. Walch, “The 1986 College Library Standards: Application and Utilization,” College & Research Libraries 54 (May 1993): 217-226. 2. “Standards and Guidelines Relating to Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries News 45 (October 1984): 474-479. 3. “ALA Standards for College and Research Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 20 (July 1959): 274. 4. “Standards for College Libraries, 1986,” College & Research Libraries News 47 (March 1986): 189. 5. “Standards for College Libraries,” College & Research Libraries News 36 (October 1975): 277. 6. For useful overviews of the development of the Standards see David A. Kaser, “Standards for College Libraries,” Library Trends 31 (Summer 1982): 7-19; Larry Hardesty, “Standards for College Libraries,” paper presented at the College Libraries Section program, American Library Association Annual Conference, San Francisco, June 28, 1987. 7. Walch, “The 1986 College Library Standards.” 8. George Bailey, “Evaluation of Libraries in the Accrediting Process-From the Standpoint of the Library,” in Libraries and Accreditation in Institiutions of Higher Education, edited by Julie Carroll Virgo and David Alan Yuro (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 1981), p. 61.


9. Patricia Thrash, “Evaluation of Libraries in the Accrediting Process from the Standpoint of the Accrediting Association,” in Libraries and Accreditation in Institutions of Higher Education, pp. 52-53. 10. The six associations are the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, the New England Association of Schools & Colleges, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The Western Association of Schools and Colleges did not respond to a question regarding its stance on the application of the ACRL Standards. 11. Johnnie E. Givens and Wanda K. Sivells, “Accrediting Agencies and Library Cooperation in Education,” Library Trends 24 (October 1975): 365. 12. Howard L. Simmons, “Accreditation Expectations for Library Support of Off- Campus Programs,” Library Trends 39 (Spring 1991): 401. 13. Of the six named in note 10, only the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools does not specifically address libraries in its institutional requirements.

14. Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Standards for Accreditation (Philadelphia, PA: Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 1990); Standards for Accreditation (Winchester, MA: Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, New England Association of Colleges & Schools, 1992); Accreditation Handbook (Seattle, WA: Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Colleges, 1988); Crireria for Accreditation (Decatur, GA: Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 1992); Handbook of Accreditation (Oakland, CA: Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges & Universities, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, 1988). 15. Charles Atwell, remarks at the ACRL Community & Junior College Libraries Section Committee program, American Library Association annual conference, New Orleans, June 26, 1993 following the presentation of his paper, “Standards at the Crossroads: The Accreditation Process and Library Standards.” 16. The authors of this article determined the terminology of these classes. 17. Antoinette M. Kania, “Academic Library Standards and Performance Measures,”

College & Research Libraries 49 (January 1988): 17. 18. Ibid., pp. 20,22-23. 19. Ronald G. Leach, “Academic Library Change: The Role of Regional Accreditation,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 18 (November 1992): 289-29 1. 20. Ralph A. Wolff, “Rethinking Library Self Studies and Accreditation Visits,” in The Challenge and Practice of Academic Accreditation: A Sourcebook for Library

Administrators, edited by Edward D. Garten (Westport, CT: Greenwood, in press). 21. Simmons, “Accreditation Expectations;” Mimi Harris Steadman and Ralph A. Wolff, “Evaluating Library Quality in the Accreditation Process: What Changes Do New Technologies Bring?,” paper presented at the Western Association of Schools and Colleges President’s Forum (November 1991). 22. Mignon Adams, The Role of the Academic Library in Teaching and Learning: An Interview with Middle States’ Howard Simmons,” College & Research Libraries News 53 (July/August 1992): 442-445; “Need to Talk to Someone about Accreditation?,” College & Research Libraries News 53 (July/ August 1992): 448-449.

Appendix A Comparison of Library Assessment Criteria

of Five Regional Accrediting Bodies with the Standards for College Libraries

Collection Quantity

Middle States Standards for College Libraries

Holdings must be in reasonable proportion to the needs to be served, but numbers alone are no assurance of excellence. (p. 35)

New England

2.1 Commentary: While it is possible to have quantity without quality, it is not possible to have quality without quantity defined in rela- tion to the characteristics of the institution.

[Clollections and services are sufficient in.. .quantity.. .to support and enrich the institution’s academic offerings. (sec. 7.2)

2.2 The amount of print material to be provided by the library shall be determined by a formula [i.e., Formula A] which takes into

Northwest

Materials shall have the depth and breadth appropriate for the achievement of the goals and objectives of the library and learning resources program (p. 44-45).

Southern The library collections and data bases must* be sufficient to support the educational, research and public service programs of the institution. (sec. 5.2.3)

account the nature and extent of the academic program of the institution, its enrollment, and the size of the teaching faculty. Moreover, audiovisual holdings and annual resource sharing transactions should be added to this volume count in assessing the extent to which a library succeeds in making materials available to its users.

Western Basic collections held by the institution are sufficient in.. . quantity to meet substantially all the needs of the educational program on and off campus. (sec. 6.B.l)

Note: *“Statements throughout the [Southern Association’s] Crireriafor Accrediration using the word ‘must’ (or similar imperatives) are interpreted to mean that the institutions are required to meet those specific criteria. Statements Including the word ‘should’ are advisory and are not requirements. The imperatives are Indicated in bold.” (Criteriafor

Accreditation [Decatur, GA: Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 19921, p. ii)

November 1994 277

Appendix Continued

Collection Quality

Middle States Standards for College Libraries The quality of the holdings [and] their relevance to the institution’s current educational programs.. are essential characteristics of an effective center. (p. 34)

New England These collections and services are sufficient in quality, level, diversity.. and currency to support and enrich the institution’s academic offerings. (sec. 7.2)

Northwest Materials shall have the depth and breadth appropriate for the achievement of the goals and objectives of the library and learning resources program. (p. 44-45)

Southern

2.1 Commentary: [O]nce a collection has attained the size called for by [Formula A], its usefulness will soon diminish if new materials are not acquired at an annual gross growth rate of from two to five percent.. The proper development of a collection includes concern for quality as well as quantity. A collection may be said to have quality for its purpose only to the degree that it possesses a portion of the bibliography of each discipline taught, appropriate in quantity both to the level at which each is taught and to the number of students and faculty members who use it..

No easily applicable criteria have yet been developed, however, for measuring quality in library collections.

The library collections and data bases must be sufficient to support the educational, research and public service programs of the institution. (sec. 5.2.3)

Western Basic collections held by the institution are sufficient in quality., to meet substantially all the needs of the educational program on and off campus. (sec. 6.B.l)

Collections are structured in direct relationship to the nature of curricular offerings.. . (Sec. 6.B.3)

Intellectual Access

Southern Standards for College Libraries The library must provide adequate records of materials through 3.0 Library collections shall be organized by nationally approved catalogs, indexes and bibliographies; access of information conventions and arranged for efficient retrieval at time of need. sources, regardless of location, through standard indexes and bibliographies; and, where appropriate, access to external biblio-

3.1 There shall be a union catalog of the library’s holdings that per-

graphic databases. (Set, 5.2.2) mits identification of items, regardless of format or location, by author, title, and subject.

Western All materials are catalogued or appropriately listed so as to make them easily available to their users. Where appropriate, a union catalog is established to provide a central listing for all resource centers serving the institution. (Sec. 6.C.3)

3.1.1 The catalog shall be in a format that can be consulted by a number of users concurrently.

3.1.2 In addition to the union catalog there shall also be requisite subordinate files to provide bibliographic control and access to all library materials

Physical Access and Arrangement

Middle States Access to the instructional resources is essential to students and faculty. (p. 36)

New England Through the institution’s ownership or guaranteed access, sufficient collections and services are readily accessible to students whenever programs are located or however they are delivered (Sec. 7.2)

Northwest Services include providing convenient and comprehensive access to library and learning resources.. (p. 45)

Southern The library must have adequate physical facilities to . make the library collections easily available.. [and] provision for rapid access to any remotely stored materials.. .(Sec. 5.2.2)

The collections of print and non-print materials must be well- organized. (Sec. 5.2.3)

Western Collection and services are readily accessible.. . (Sec. 6.E.4)

Standards for College Libraries 2.1 The library shall provide as promptly as possible a high percentage of materials needed by its users.

3.0 Library collections shall be organized by nationally approved conventions and arranged for efficient retrieval at time of need.

3.2 Library materials shall be arranged to provide maximum accessibility to all users. Certain categories of materials may be segregated by form for convenience.

3.3 Materials placed in storage facilities shall be readily accessible to users.


Appendix Continued

Academic Community Involvement in Library Program

Middle States Standards for College Libraries Faculty and libraryilearning resources staff need to work closely together to plan for collection development and utilization.. Faculty should demonstrate the importance of books and other materials in their teaching, research, and in their personal growth and development. (p. 35)

Northwest The library and learning resources program shall be administered.. .with representatives of the faculty acting in an advisory capacity. (p. 45)

Southern Librarians must work cooperatively with the teaching faculty in assisting to use resource materials effectively. (Sec. 5.2.2)

Librarians, teaching faculty, and researchers must share in the development of the collections and the institution must establish policies defining their involvement. (Sec. 5.2.3)

Western

1.1 The development of library objectives shall be the responsibility of the library staff, in consultation with members of the teaching faculty, administrative officers, and students.

2.1 Commentary: Although the scope of the collection is ultimately the responsibility of the library, this responsibility can be best ful- filled by developing clear selection policies in cooperation with the teaching faculty. Moreover, the teaching faculty should be encouraged to participate in the selection of new titles for the collection.

7.3 There shall be a standing advisory committee comprised of students and members of the teaching faculty which shall serve as a channel of formal communications between the library and its user community.

Faculty participate in the selection and evaluation of resources. (Sec. 6.C.2)

Collection Media

Middle States [A library/learning resources center] stimulates broad interests among its users by surrounding them with basic and interpretive books and periodicals, journals, non-print materials, and standard reference works.. Audio-visual aids such as videotapes, video- discs, cassettes, audiotapes, records, or film should be evaluated and carefully utilized to develop the strength and quality of the collection. (p. 35)

New England Library and information resources may include the holdings and necessary services and equipment of libraries, media centers, computer centers, language laboratories, museums, and any other repositories of information required for the support of institutional offerings. (Sec. 7.1)

Western

Standards for College Libraries 2.0 The Library’s collections shall comprise all types of recorded information, including print materials in all formats, audiovisual materials, sound recordings, materials used with computers, graph- its, and three-dimensional materials.

2.2 Commentary: The range, extent and configuration of non-print resources and services in college libraries varies widely according to institutional needs and characteristics. Although audiovisual materials may constitute an important and sometimes sizeable part of a library collection, it is neither appropriate nor possible to establish a generally applicable prescriptive formula for calculating the number of such items which should be available.

Collections.. .include adequate holdings in non-book media as appropriate. (Sec. 6.B.3)

Resource Sharing

Middle States An institution’s library/learning resources center can augment existing collections and draw upon the special strengths of other institutions through collaboration, networks, and cooperative agreements. (p. 36)

New England The institution participates in the exchange of resources and services with other institutions and within networks as necessary to support and supplement its educational programs. (Sec. 7.5)

Northwest Occasionally an institution will make library and learning resources services available to students and faculty through specific arrangements with another institution or other agencies where the holdings and services are adequate to support the programs and capable of maintaining an adequate level of support. In such cases, it is incumbent on the institution to demonstrate that these arrangements are truly effective, will continue to be so in the foreseeable future, and are capable of meeting the needs of prospective program changes and additions. (p. 45)

Standards for College Libraries 2.1 Commentary: While it is important that a library have in its collection the quantity of materials called for in Formula A, its resources ought to be augmented whenever appropriate with external collections and services. A library that meets part of its responsibilities in this way must ensure that such activities do not weaken a continuing commitment to develop its own holdings.

2.2 Commentary: The extent of resource sharing through formal cooperative arrangements among libraries should be recognized in any assessment of the ability of a library to supply its users with needed materials.

5.2.1 The quality of collections shall be enhanced through the use of interlibrary loan and other cooperative agreements.

5.2.2 Cooperative programs, other than traditional interlibrary loan, shall be encouraged for the purpose of extending and increasing services and resources.

November 1994 279

Appendix Continued

Resource Sharing (continued)

Southern The library must have...provision for interlibrary loan agreements . (Sec. 5.2.2)

Cooperative relationships with other libraries and agencies should be considered in order to increase the ability of the library to provide the resources and services needed by its users. However, these cooperative relationships must not be used by institutions to avoid responsibility for providing their own adequate and accessible library resources and services. In all cases of cooperative arrangements, formal agreements must be established, thereby safeguarding the integrity and continuity of library resources and services. The effectiveness of such cooperative arrangements must be evaluated regularly. (Sec. 5.2.5)

Western Interlibrary loan or contractual use arrangements may be used to supplement basic holdings, but are not to be used as the main source of learning resources. (Sec. 6.B.2)

Institutions having formalized agreements to supplement their own collections with those of other institutions have mutually agreed upon arrangements with those other institutions and con- tribute appropriately to the maintenance of those resources. (Sec. 6.B.5)

Staff

Middle States Librarians and other resources center staff must demonstrate their professional competence on the basis of criteria comparable to those for other faculty and staff. Status and privileges should be commensurate with the significance and responsibilities of their positions. Excellence in the professional staff is measurable in part by the extent to which they are active participants in the academic enterprise, not merely custodians. (p. 36)

New England Professionally qualified and numerically adequate staff adminis- ter the institution’s library and information resources. (Sec. 7.4)

Northwest The library and learning resources program shall be administered as part of the instructional program by qualified professional staff.... The number of library and learning resources personnel and their competencies must be based upon the specific objectives established for the program. (p. 45)

Southern The library must be adequately staffed by trained professionals who hold graduate degrees in library science or learning resources. In exceptional cases, outstanding professional experience and demonstrated competence may substitute for this academic preparation. Such exceptions must be justified by the institution on an individual basis. Because professional or technical training in specialized areas is increasingly important in meeting user needs, professionals with specialized non-library degrees may be employed, where appropriate, to supervise these areas.

The library support staff must be adequate to carry out the responsibilities of a technical nature. Qualifications or skills needed for these support positions should be defined by the institution. (Sec. 5.2.4)

Western Professional staffs with appropriate expertise are available to assist users of the library.... (Sec. 6.A.4)

Standards for College Libraries 4.0 The staff shall be of adequate size and quality to meet the library’s needs for services, programs, and collection organization.

4.1 Librarians, including the director, shall have a graduate degree from an ALA accredited program, shall be responsible for duties of a professional nature, and shall participate in library and other professional associations.

4.3 The number of librarians required shall be determined by a formula and shall further take into consideration the goals and services of the library, programs, degrees offered, institutional enrollment, size of faculty and staff, and auxiliary programs.

4.4 The support staff and part-time assistants shall be assigned responsibilities appropriate to their qualifications, training, experience and capabilities. The support staff shall be no less than 65% of the total library staff, not including student assistants.

4.5 Library policies and procedures concerning staff shall be in accord with institutional guidelines and sound personnel management.


Appendix Continued

Funding

New England Standards for College Libraries The institution provides sufficient and consistent financial support 8.1 The library’s appropriation shall be six percent of the total insti- for the effective maintenance and improvement of the institution’s Mona1 budget for educational and general purposes. library and information resources.... It allocates resources for scholarly support services compatible with its instructional and

8.1.1 The library’s appropriation shall be augmented above the six

research programs and the needs of faculty and students. (Sec. 7.3) percent level depending upon the extent to which it bears responsibility for acquiring, processing, and servicing audiovisual and

Northwest microcomputer resources. Adequate and dependable support must be provided to assure efficient resources and services. (p. 45)

Western Annual budget allocations for acquisitions provide suffkient learning resources to support degree programs. (Sec. 6.C.l)

Bibliographic Instruction

Middle States Standards for College Libraries The centrality of a library/learning resources center in the educa- 5.1 The library shall provide information and instruction to the user tional mission of an institution deserves more than rhetoric and through a variety of techniques to meet differing needs. These shall must be supported by more than lip service. An active and contin- include...bibliographic instruction programs designed to teach users uous program of bibliographic instruction is essential to realize how to take full advantage of the resources available to them. this goal. (p. 35)

New England The institution provides appropriate orientation and training for the use of these [library and information] resources. (Sec. 7.4)

Northwest Services include...assisting in effective utilization of the library and learning resources.... (p. 45)

Southern Basic library services must include an orientation program designed to teach new users how to obtain individual assistance, access to bibliographic information and access to materials. Any one of a variety of methods, or a combination of them, may be used for this purpose: formal instruction, lectures, library guides and user aids, self-paced instruction and computer-assisted instruction.... The library should offer point of use instruction.... The library must provide students with opportunities to access information in a variety of formats so that they can continue life- long learning. (Sec. 5.2.2)

Western Comprehensive training programs to promote library use are available to both students and faculty. Library orientation is responsive to the needs of the nontraditional as well as the traditional student. (Sec. 6.D.6)

Budget Authority

Northwest Standards for College Libraries Development and management of the budgets are responsibilities 8.0 The library director shall have the responsibility for preparing, of the administrator(s) of the library and learning resources pro- defending, and administering the library budget in accord with gram. (p. 45) agreed upon objectives.

8.2 The library director shall have sole authority to apportion funds and initiate expenditures within the library budget and in accord with institutional policy.

Program Evaluation

New England Standards for College Libraries

The institution regularly and systematically evaluates the adequacy 7.4.1 The library shall maintain a systematic and continuous pro- and utilization of its library and information resources, and uses the gram for evaluating its performance, for informing the community

results of the data to improve and increase the effectiveness of these of its accomplishments, and for identifying needed improvements.

services. (Sec. 7.6)

November 1994 281

Appendix Continued

Building

Middle States Standards for College Libraries Seating, lighting, arrangement of books, acoustical treatment and 6.0 The library building shall provide secure and adequate housing the like are to be judged by their serviceability in making the cen- for its collections, and ample well-planned space for users and staff ter an attractive place for study. (p. 36) and for the provisions of services and programs.

New England 6.1 The size of the library building shall be determined by a formula The institution provides facilities adequate to house the collec- which takes into account the enrollment of the college, the extent tions and equipment so as to foster an atmosphere conducive to and nature of the collections, and the size of the staff. inquiry, study, and learning among students, faculty, and staff. (Sec. 7.4)

6.2 In designing or managing a library building, the functionality of the floor plan and the use of space shall be the paramount concern.

Northwest Facilities, materials, and equipment shall be provided at a level of quality which will support and enhance the educational phi-

6.3 Except in certain circumstances, the college library’s collections and services shall be administered within a single structure.

losophy, mission, and objectives of the institution. Facilities shall be adequate to accommodate a satisfactory percentage of users in an inviting and efficient atmosphere. (p. 44)

Southern The library must have adequate physical facilities to house [and] service [the library collections].... (Sec. 5.2.2)

Western The size of the central library structure and other decentralized units, as required, is adequate and appropriate to the nature of the academic programs, student enrollment, the size and character of the collections, the specialized equipment, and the size of the staff. (Sec. 6.E.l)

Adequate space is provided for immediate growth and plans have been laid for the future. As new technology is adopted for library functions and services, adequate space is provided for equipment. (Sec. 6.E.2)

Space and furnishings have been laid out for efficient use; needs of the physically disabled are accommodated. (6.E.3)

Preservation and Security

New England Standards for College Libraries [The institution] makes provision for [its library and learning 3.2 Commentary: Some materials such as rarities, manuscripts, or resources’] proper maintenance and adequate security. (Sec. 7.3) archives, may be segregated for purposes of security and preserva-

Southern tion.

Each library should have a procedure providing for the preserva- 6.0 The library building shall provide secure...housing for its collection, replacement or removal of deteriorating materials in the col- tions.... lection. (p. 47)

Western . ..[P]rovision has been made for adequate security and the long- range preservation of library materials. (Sec. 6.E.4)

Policies

New England Standards for College Libraries Clear and disseminated policies govern access, usage, and mainte- 7.4 The library shall maintain written policies and procedures man- nance of library and information resources. (Sec. 7.4) uals covering internal library governance and operational

Southern activities. Each library must have a policy governing resource material selection and elimination.... (Sec. 5.2.3)

Western Written collection development and weeding policies are docu-

mented, updated, communicated to the faculty, and imple- mented. These policies include the bases for accepting gifts. (Set 6.B.4)


Appendix Continued

Hours of Operation

Southern Adequate hours must be maintained to ensure accessibility to users. (Sec. 5.2.2)

Western

Standards for College Libraries 5.3 The hours of access to the library shall be consistent with reasonable demand.

Open hours provide for convenient access to library collections and resource centers. (Sec. 6.D.l)

Circulation

Southern The library must have...an efficient and appropriate circulation system. (Sec. 5.2.2)

Western An efficient circulation system facilitates the expeditious check- ing out and reshelving of library resources. (Sec. 6.D.2)

Standards for College Libraries 5.2 Library materials of all types and formats that can be used out- side the library shall be circulated to qualified users under equitable policies without jeopardizing their preservation or availability to others.

Reserves

Western The intensive-use service is available for reserve materials required by the curriculum. (Sec. 6.D.3)

Standards for College Libraries

3.2 Materials in exceptionally active use, reference works, and assigned readings, may be kept separate as reference and reserve collections to facilitate access to them.

Reference

Northwest Standards for College Libraries Services include...assisting in effective utilization of the library 5.1 The library shall provide information and instruction to the user and learning resources.... (p. 45) through a variety of techniques to meet differing needs. These shall

Southern include...a variety of professional reference services.... The library should offer...personal assistance in conducting library research and traditional reference services.... Professional assistance should be available at convenient locations when the library is onen. (Sec. 5.2.2)

5.1 Commentary: Professional [reference] services are optimally available all hours the library is open. Use patterns should be stud- ied to determine those times when the absence of professional service would be least detrimental.

Off-site Programs

Middle States Standards for College Libraries Multi-campus institutions and those with off-campus programs 5.4 Where academic programs are offered at off-campus sites, should design special procedures or systems to provide sufficient library services shall be provided in accord with ACRL’s “Guide- on-site access to learning resources. Computer systems and other lines for Extended Campus Library Services.” technological means, such as voice/data/facsimile transmission can assist in developing access to all constituencies; however, technology must be carefully evaluated in terms of cost and long range implications. (p. 36)

New England Through the institution’s ownership or guaranteed access, sufficient collections and services are readily accessible to students wherever programs are located or however they are delivered. (Sec. 7.2)

Northwest Wherever an institution provides programs, it must demonstrate that library and learning resources services, fully adequate to the programs, are conveniently available and used by students and faculty. (p. 45)

Southern At any off-campus location where credit courses are offered, an institution must ensure the provision of, and access to, adequate learning resources and services required to support the courses, programs, and degrees offered. The institution must own the learning resources or provide them through formal agreements.

November 1994 283

Appendix Continued

Off-site Programs (continued)

When formal agreements are established for the provision of Standards for College Libraries library resources and services, they must ensure access to library 5.4 Where academic programs are offered at off-campus sites, resources pertinent to the programs offered by the institution and library services shall be provided in accord with ACRL’s “Guide must include provision for services and resources which support lines for Extended Campus Library Services.” the institution’s specific programs, in the field of study and at the degree level offered. (Sec. 5.2.6)

Western The institution provides services and holds readily available basic collections at all program sites not serviced by the mail library. (Sec. 6.B.2)

Where off-campus programs exist, students are provided ready access to basic collections held by the institution. (Sec. 6.D.5)


regional association criteria and the standards for college libraries: the informal role of...

Documents