ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 327 faculty/staff newsletter; the University Libraries, a quarterly library publication; and a number of departmental newsletters. The MSU News Bulle­ tin proved to be the second most effective public­ ity method. Copies of the flyer were made avail­ able to the MSU branch libraries, and to the Main Library reference desks. Confirmation of registrations was also time-consuming b u t re­ sulted in much better attendance. Many people attended more than one session and professors encouraged their graduate students to attend par­ ticular sessions. In this way, the seminars have begun to publicize themselves. These seminars have had a variety of benefits, some of them indirect. Unquestionably, the par­ ticipants learn a great deal and come back the next term if they were drawn to a seminar rele­ vant to their needs. The program as a whole pro­ vides very good public relations for the library. Like other instructional programs, this one has increased demands for computerized literature searches and for specialized help in some subject areas. Librarians, of course, learn much about both their resources and their patrons in the pro­ cess of seminar preparation. Finally, it appears that the seminar program is an effective but un­ obtrusive way to help regular library users adjust to the machine-age library. Has it been worth the effort? Opinions of the library staff involved in the planning and present­ ing of the seminars are definitely positive, al­ though there is an acknowledgment of the large amount of time spent on preparation and on pub­ licity. Those librarians skeptical of the benefits of library instruction for any group remain uncon­ vinced, despite the good will towards the library and librarians this program seems to be generat­ ing. That some sort of continuing education in li­ brary usage is needed for advanced researchers is beyond doubt; the kind of series reported here may prove to be a useful, flexible means to pro­ vide this group with information and training, particularly as technology continues to transform the library.—Linda de Wit, Agnes Haigh, and Julie Hurd. Editors Note: Linda de Wit and Agnes Haigh are reference librarians at Michigan State University, East Lansing; Julie Hurd is science librarian at MSU. L ib rary O rgan ization D evelop m en t at N o rth ea stern U n iv ersity Thomas H. Cahalan, Chair Northeastern University Library Organization Development Study Team A library organization development program is being conducted at Northeastern University, Bos­ ton, as a result of a survey of library staff mem­ bers which indicated a high interest in organiza­ tional change. Plans for the program are based on recommendations given in a report of a study of the Management Review and Analysis Program (MRAP), a self-study program designed by the Association of Research Libraries Office of Man­ agement Studies and used in more than 20 large academic libraries.1 These include giving careful consideration throughout the study to the feasi­ bility of implementing recommendations being developed, having the study team work closely with the Dean of Libraries and Learning Re­ sources, and providing for consultation of NU administrators, faculty, and students as well as widespread participation of library staff. The first phase of th e program includes selected modules of the Academic Library De­ velopment Program (ALDP), a self-study program designed by ARL/OMS for use in medium-sized academic libraries. Because of plans for an archi­ tectural competition for the design of a new cen­ tral library facility, it is focusing on desired or­ ganizational changes with implications for the de­ sign of the new facility. Funds for this phase, to be completed by March 1982, are being provided by the National Endowment for the Arts Design Arts Program on a matching basis in considera­ tion of funds being spent by NU for the design competition and in accordance with NEA/DAP policy of fostering excellence in design by pro­ moting design competitions. Jeffrey J. Gardner of ARL/OMS is serving as the organization consul­ tant for this phase, and an internal study team to direct the self-study is chaired by Thomas H. Cahalan, assistant librarian for acquisitions. The first two units of the study have been con­ cerned with planning for integration of the indi­ vidual libraries in the new facility and planning for integration of various reference services now segregated because of the design of the present main library building. Reports of both of the task forces involved have been fully accepted for im­ plementation by the library administration. The method of selection and the composition of the study team provides an interesting model for a library organization development program. In- 328 stead of having a separate study team for this purpose, it was decided to have the study con­ ducted by a pre-existing Library Joint Committee which had been formed to provide liaison b e ­ tween various staff levels. As members of this com mittee are elected to rep resen t th eir con­ stituent groups, this arrangement has helped se­ cure support for the organization development program at all levels. It also should provide a use­ ful mechanism for reassessment of the work of the present study team and for further study in future years because m em bers of th e Library Joint Committee are selected annually. 1E. R. Johnson & S. H. Mann, Organization Development fo r Academic Libraries; an Evalua­ tion o f the M anagement Review and Analysis Program. W estport, C onn., Greenwood Press, 1980. W A S H I N G T O N H O T L I N E by Carol Henderson ALA Washington Office An analysis of the fourth round of Higher Education Act Title II-C re­ search library awards indicates that more institutions are receiving grants tha ever before in the program’s history. The thirty grants this year include thre joint projects, bringing the number of libraries receiving funds to 41 institu­ tions in 25 states. Almost half of the grantees have not previously partici­ pated in the program. Dissatisfaction within the library community about the small number of grants awarded (previously about 23 per year), congressional criticism, and slight changes in the regulations for II-C have all played a part in enlarging the number of participants. Some potential grantees complained to congressional funding committees with the unfortunate result that in FY 1981 the House refused to go along with the $1 million increase requested by the Carter Administration, and funding for II-C remained at $6 million. More constructively, concerns were voiced to the congressional authorizing committees which have the power to make changes in the workings of the program. When the Higher Education Act was extended last year in PL 96-374, no statutory changes were made in II-C, but the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee report (S. Rept. 96-733) on the legislation in­ dicated the committee believed that at least 50 grants should be made and that the same small number of institutions should not continue to receive grants year after year. The one substantive change in the “interim” final regulations for II-C published last December was a change in the selection criteria to conform with the Education Division General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). The EDGAR criteria shifted the point balance from the previous 60 points for significance as a major research library and 50 points for the nature of the project, to 48 points for eligibility and 62 points for the project itself. Since then, the II-C regulations have undergone further review, and a new set of proposed re­ vised regulations will be published soon for public comment. These combined influences have called for a larger number of grants, and this year's results (funds received by 41 institutions compared with last year's 27 on the same amount of funds— $6 million) indicate that the Education Department has been responsive. Academic and research librarians should watch for the new regulations which will be published in the Federal Register, and comment on their effec­ tiveness and the degree to which they implement the purposes of the program. Those purposes are to assist the nation's major research libraries "in main­ taining and strengthening their collections, and in making their holdings available to other libraries whose users have need for research materials." n e