ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries September 1989 / 679 Standards fo r university lib raries: Evaluation o f p erform an ce P re p a re d by the ULS U niversity L ib rary Standards Review Com m ittee Kent Hendrickson, C hair Approved by the ACRL Board at the 1989 Midwinter Meeting. T he initial “Standards for University Librar­ ies” were adopted by ACRL in 1979. This new revision was prepared by ACRL’s A University Library Standards Review Committee. The members are Patricia L. Bril, California State University, Fullerton; Murray S. Martin, Tufts University; Richard W. Meyer, Clemson Univer­ sity; Maxine Reneker, Arizona State University; Jack A. Siggins, Yale University; and Kent Hen­ drickson, UniversityofNebraska-Lincoln (chair). Forew ord 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 Li­ brary Standards,” L ib ra ry 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 fur­ ther information on the application of these stan­ dards. As part o f the process of reviewing the 1979 Standards the Committee solicited advice from other members o f the university library commu­ nity. First, open hearings were held during the ALA Midwinter Meetingin 1986; and second, a number d Hoof gc uests consulted with the Committee at the ALA Annual Conference in 1986 and the 1987 Midwin­ ter 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, culminat­ ing with an open hearing during the 1988 ALA Annual Conference. Many of the same issues discussed by the com­ mittees responsible for the 1979 Standards were raised again. By far the most important of these was the question of whether standards should be quan­ titative 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 pri­ mary 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 6 8 0 / C ^ R L News 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 o f prescriptive statements or normative figures, but those gathered through the process described by these standards. Basic to this document is the proposition tha each university library system is unique and there fore should determine its own criteria for perform ance and evaluation. This process should be under taken within the framework o f the university’s mission and goals. Another assumption is that however the library is placed within the governing structure o f the university, its relationship should b e such that adequate communication flows to it concerning basic shifts in the mission of the univer sity and changes in its programs. This document also assumes that the critical assessment resulting from the definedprocess will be transmitted appro­ priately throughout the university. It is further assumed that within the library, administrators will have achieved the balance o hierarchical and collegial management which wil allow the libraries’ goals to be achieved, as well as adequate representation o f staff views into the goal-setting and evaluation process, and appropri­ ate development o f the staff in the managerial, scholarly, and professional facets o f their jo b re­ sponsibilities. Finally, this document is necessarily prescrip­ tive in several o f its concepts. University libraries must becom e skilled in the process o f examining and redefining as necessary their missions, estab­ lishing coherent goals whose attainment may be measured, continually and effectively assessing the needs o f 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 o f the library and university administration respon­ sible for determining priorities and evaluating perform ance to optimize the perform ance o f the library in terms o f the mission o f the university. W hile standards are needed, they cannot be stated as absolutes equally applicable to all univer­ sities and be useful. These standards are not a series o f expectations or prescriptive sets o f figures. They set forth the process by which expectations maybe established, and enumerate the topics that should be addressed in the evaluation o f university library performance. For supporting detail, seetheappen- dices. These standards begin with a basic statement o purpose, explain the underlying assumptions, and lead to a statement o f expectations. Standards G en era l Statem ent o f P u rp o se These standards set out the role o f the university library within the context o f the institution’s infor­ t mation policies and academic goals. The mission of ­ the university library is to provide information ­ services in support o f the teaching, research, and ­ public service missions o f the university. The achievement o f that mission requires the develop­ , ment o f standards to address the ways in which goals should be developed and measured, needed resources estimated, and success in goal achieve­ ment evaluated. ­ U nderlying Assumptions (1) C en trality o f t h e L ib r a r y T h e library is o f central importance to the insti­ tution. It is an organic combination o f people, f collections, and buildings, whose purpose is to l assist users in the process o f transforming informa­ tion 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 o f teaching, scholarship, and research. The institution needs clear policies concerning access to and provision o f information. The library must take an active role in the development o f these policies. (2) T h e S ig n ifican ce o f th e In v estm en t in th e L i­ brary The library represents one o f the largest cumu­ lative capital investments on any campus. Libraries provide added value as part o f all learning and research processes. The concept o f the library as an investment is basic to these standards. (3) T he In d iv id u a l N ature o f E a c h Institution Each institution has a unique mix o f goals, pro­ grams, and expectations. These are influenced by geographical location, obligations to other institu­ tions, history, and mission. (4) T he In d iv id u a l N ature o f E a c h L ib ra ry The library serving the institution is, as a result, unique. The application of prescriptive measures to a group o f unique institutions has been rejected as inapposite. It is the use and interpretation o f measures that is important in developing a process f for managing change. The need is for a mixture o f input and output measures, both qualitative and quantitative, but fundamentally process-oriented. September 1989/681 (5) Technological Change The pace of technological change has rendered outmoded any concept of isolation and self-suffi­ ciency. 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 nature of information in the computer age. Librar­ ies will not abandon their traditional roles as collec­ tors and conservators. Rather they will add new ones as facilitators and processors, and these new roles need to be recognized in the evaluation proc­ ess. Section A: Setting Goals and Objectives To determine the appropriate goals for a univer­ sity library, representative bodies should engage in a continuing dialogue, carried out at several levels, and documented in a memorandum of understand­ ing or a mission statement adopted by the govern­ ing board of the institution. (1) Participants The participants involved in the process of set­ ting goals should include appropriate representa­ tives from the following groups: (A) University and Library administration (B) Faculty (C) Library staff (D) Students (E) Trustees or regents (F) Advisory Boards (G) State or other governmental units associ­ ated with the institution. The roles of these constituencies vary, but their basic purpose is to bring to the discussions informa­ tion concerning needs, goals, abilities, and points of view, as these affect the library. (2) Process The process is one of communication, both for­ mal 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 pub­ lic forums. The administrative organization of the univer­ sity is itself a means of communication and it is essential that the library, through its administra­ tion, be placed so as to have access as needed to the appropriate officers and committees of the institu­ tion. 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 devel­ oping short- and 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 C onsidered in Developing Goals The development of goals and objectives re­ quires 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 build­ ings. 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 deter­ mining whether the allocation of resources is in line with expectations. (1) Budgetary Support an d Sources The library represents a major capital invest­ ment. As such, it requires ongoing annual invest­ ment to retain its value. The sources of funding vary greatly, in accor­ dance 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) C apital Expenditures. It is customary to distinguish and separate major capital expendi­ tures, 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 provi­ sion should be made for both kinds of capital expenditure. 682 /C&RL News (B) O peratin g Budget. The operating budget of the library must be appropriate to the mission o f the library within the university, and sufficient to sus­ tain all operations, including the maintenance o f automated systems. The budget should be devel­ oped interactively by the university and the library in accordance with the general practice o f the institution. I f it is impossible to meet all expecta­ tions or fund specific new programs this should be made clear, and a means for settingpriorities estab­ lished. (C) B u d g eta ry C ontrol. The library must be responsible for the internal allocation and control o f the approved budget, with provision for appro­ priate consultation. Transactions should be carried out in accordance with the accounting practices of the university. Those practices should recognize the special needs o f the library, particularly in purchasing library materials. (D ) M aintenance. The complex modern library requires constant attention to ensure that it contin­ ues to function smoothly. i. The library is responsible for the ongoing maintenance o f its resources and services. This includes not only provision for replacem ent of equipment and library materials, but also keeping adequate statistics and other performance meas­ ures to determine whether the standards o f service are being maintained. ii. Appropriate budgetaiy provision should be made for maintenance, replacement, repair, reno­ vation, and for investment in new and improved means o f information access and delivery. (2) H um an R esou rces The library is dependent on human resources skilled in the knowledge-based disciplines to achieve its goals. People select, acquire, process, and or­ ganize the library’s collections, and provide access to the information contained in those collections and the collections o f other libraries; they direct its activities and provide its services. (A) L e v e l o f Staffing. The library should be staffed in such a way as to meet the university’s expectations. The numbers required are deter­ mined by the programs offered, the number o f buildings and service points, and the hours during which service is offered. W hile there are no abso­ lute requirements, it is clear that the level o f service is determined by the availability o f staff. (B ) K inds o f S t a ff N eed ed . The staff should include librarians and other professionals, support staff, clerks, and students to provide services at the appropriate levels. The proportions o f each group to the whole are determined by the programs supported and the locations served. The staff should incorporate the needed skills and academic train­ ing to m eet the academic needs o f the university, and to provide management support. To reflect the library’s involvement in the aca­ demic programs o f the university, librarians should have appropriate educational backgrounds in li­ brary and information science as well as in other disciplines. Librarians require the protection nec­ essary to ensure intellectual freedom, so that they may not be subject to improper pressure in matters such as censorship, copyright, instruction, or the selection o f materials. They have the right, as pro­ fessionals, to speak out on behalf o f their profes­ sional concerns without fear o f reprisal or dis­ missal. (C) R ela tion sh ip to O th er Staff. The director is responsible for all staff within the library and should ensure that the library adheres to the personnel policies and practices o f the university. These poli­ cies and practices should recognize the special needs o f librarians as professionals working in the field o f information. (D ) O rgan ization. The organization o f the li­ brary should reflect its nature and purpose. As a service institution its interest is in people as provid­ ers o f 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 par­ ticipate in research and the work o f 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 o f policies, in accordance with the style o f the institution. (E ) M anagem en t. The library, under the direc­ tor, should be responsible for managing its own affairs. This autonomy does not abrogate the responsi­ bility o f the library for maintaining relationships with administration and faculty to achieve the dia­ logue recommended in these standards. The li­ brary should also adhere to local procedures and practices as they are stated by the appropriate university agencies. (F ) S t a ff D evelopm ent. Librarians need to keep pace with change in the fields o f library and infor­ mation science, and other disciplines. The staff and the library administration have a joint responsibil­ ity for the development of knowledge and skills. The administration should provide the leadership, resources, and management to foster the coopera­ tive 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 o f keeping up-to-date by expanding their own aca­ demic and professional knowledge. (3) C ollection s The primary goal o f the library is to select, September 1989 /683 collect, organize, and provide access to all varieties ofinformation forusers. Library programs should be developed with that goal in mind. (A) C ollection M anagement. 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-shar­ ing and cooperative storage, and electronic access to databases. ii. The collections should be extensive enough to support the academic programs offered, recogniz­ ing 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 fund­ ing to ensure the addition of needed newresources, to maintain growth not only in existing areas of study and research, but also in newly added disci­ plines 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 o f 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 preserva­ tion of materials, either locally or with otherlibrar- ies and agencies. Such a program should be inte­ grated 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 manage­ ment, 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 na­ tional 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 regu­ larly to ensure that changes in expectations, aca­ demic programs, or the library and information world are taken into account. (A) Amount o f 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 con­ trolled environment. The relationships between buildings, spaces, and functions should reflect an appropriately developed written program. (B) Distribution o f 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 accor­ dance 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) L ocation o f 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. I f shared storage facilities are available and economi­ cal, 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 equip­ ment) 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 work- 684 / C (?RL News ing drawings, and construction require that library projects be built into long-term university space planning. (5) Services The overarching goal o f 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 m eeting user needs. (A) A ccess. T h e library should ensure optim access to its own collections and to needed re­ sources available elsewhere by developing and maintaining appropriate policies and procedures. The goal is to make library resources accessible to all members o f the institutional community, in accordance with their needs and with regard for the preservation o f materials, compliance with legal requirem ents 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-to- date, and adhere to accepted national and interna­ tional standards. ii. Collections should be systematically arranged, using a readily understandable taxonomy. The li­ brary should not unduly restrict access, but should take account o f the need to preserve fragile m ate­ rials. I f storage facilities are used, retrieval should not place an undue burden on the user. iii. The library should check collection availabil­ ity at regular intervals. iv. The rules and regulations for the use o f the library and its collections should be readily acces­ sible to users. v. The library should provide information trans­ fer services o f two kinds: the physical transfer o f documents and facsimiles o f documents, and the transfer o f data electronically. (a) W ith the development o f online catalogs, telefacsim ile transmission, and other forms o f in­ formation transfer, many users are now able to conduct their bibliographic research outside the library. In such instances, providing access implies the delivery o f information, whether in printed or electron ic format, by the library to the user at the user’s location. This process should be reflected in the policies and procedures o f the library. (b) T h e library should participate in programs for the sharing o f bibliographic data. (c) T h e library should participate in programs for interlibrary loan, telefacsimile, and document delivery and adhere to the codes for the borrowing and lending o f materials. The rules and conditions relating to these programs should be clearly ex­ plained. Where charges are required this should be a made clear to potential users; similarly, where restrictions apply. (d) The library should be prepared, wherever appropriate, to facilitate direct transfer to the user o f information so available, as, for example, from databanks, or by referral to other agencies capable o f m eeting the need. ( B ) E x p lan ation o f R esou rces a n d Services. The library should provide directional, informational, instructional, and referen ce services. These serv­ ices include not only the answering o f questions and instruction in the use o f the library, but also the l provision o f printed, graphic, or electronic aids. By these means the library staff should seek to create an awareness o f the need to understand the ways in which information-seeking has changed and is changing. The program should th erefore be dy­ namic rather than static in its orientation. i. T h e library should provide services designed for all levels o f user from freshman to faculty member. By teaching, the use o f printed guides, bibliographies, the development o f 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 makingthe 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 o ff campus, including extension programs. (6) U niversity-w ide C oop era tion 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 o f the univer­ sity. (A) G e n e r a l R equ irem en ts. T h e 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, publish­ ing, copyright, royalty, depository, and exchange arrangements. (B ) C o m p u te r a n d T elecom m u n ication s S erv ­ ices. The close link between the library’s informa­ tion services and the provision o f computer and telecommunications services for the university as a whole requires that a relationship be established, and that the development o f all such services be seen as a unified university responsibility. September1989/685 (C) Other Services. Other internal relationship 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) C ooperative Programs The library exists within a network of relation­ ships extending beyond the institution. These rela­ tionships maybe customary, contractual, coopera­ tive, 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 mis­ sion 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 library should bring that service and its implica­ tions 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 olderones, 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) Experim entation. The library should be conceived as existing within and central to a net­ work of information services, rather than as a stand­ alone function. The library needs to assess, by testing and experimentation, the role of new infor­ mation formats as they emerge. Section C: M easuring Achievement and Form ing a Statement o f Expectations The responsibility for the evaluation of the li­ brary 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 feed­ back. The process should be continuous rather than unitary, though it must also fit intoany process established by the university for self-evaluation. s 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 achieve­ ment. 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 meas­ ured. Annual reports review progress and set new goals. Accreditation visits offer similar opportuni­ ties. Ongoing interactive communication with com­ mittees 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 li­ braries in other universities. Although such com­ parisons 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 criti­ cal 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 mis­ sions, goals, and programs. This enables the evalu­ ator 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 proce­ dure to be followed be understood by all partici­ pants, 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 re­ view, the membership of the reviewteam should be agreed on by the library and university administra­ tions. The reviewers should be informed of the procedures to be followed, and provided with appropriate documentation. Reports and testimony from both libraiy and non-library sources are proper, in particular from those intimately concerned with the setting of goals. The report resulting from the review should be 686 / C &-RL News made available to both library and university ad­ ministrators, but acceptance, rejection, and any subsequent implementation o f recommendations are the responsibility of the university administra­ tor who is responsible for the library. ( 2 ) P rocess The procedure followed should parallel that for any major academic or administrative unit. (A) A nnual Review . This kind o f review is usually associated with the development o f the library budget, and will, therefore, consist principally o f a dialogue among those responsible for that process. There should be provision for review and discus­ sion o f the library’s budget presentation, together with review o f goals and objectives. The dialogue should give all parties the opportunity to examine the relationships between resources and expecta­ tions without preconditions. Similarly, the annual reporting process provides an opportunity for review o f successes and failures, and for the development of new goals. These proc­ esses can be as formal or informal as required by the university. (B ) P e r io d ic R eview . Reviews o f this nature, whether carried out by internal or external review teams, should include self-assessment, examina­ tion by the review team, and review o f any reports and recommendations by the university and the library. The process o f self-assessment should provide adequate time for the preparation of the necessary information, and for preliminary reviewwithin the university. I f the review team requires further information, time should be allowed for its prepa­ ration. This process should involve all parties con­ cerned 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 sup­ ply further evidence. C riteria for the evaluation o f library resources and services are set out in the following section o f these standards. All criteria need to be adapted to the circumstances of each institution, as part o f the process o f review. Whatever the criteria, they should reflect the views o f all participants and be stated clearly. (3) P rodu ct The results o f 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 becom e the basis for future action by the institution. The outcome o f reporting and discussion should be a reassessment o f the library’s goals and o b jec­ tives. It should take into account budgetary and operational limitations, and should establish realis­ tic expectations for the future. By this process the university and the library can maintain a practical balance between resources and mission. S ection D : E v alu a tiv e C riteria The questions that follow are suggested as a means o f reaching a proper assessment o f 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 partici­ pation in its planning process? (B) Are there plans for future library develop­ ment? (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 plan­ ning and decision-making? (F) Are there appropriate strategies for reaching stated goals? (G) Are the goals and timetables realistic? (2) A d eq u a cy o f B u d g et (A) Are the budgetary resources sufficient to support current activities and to provide for future development? (B ) Does the budget support the purchase o f or provision o f access to the necessaiy range o f library materials? (C) Does the budget support the appropriate numbers and kinds o f staff for the programs of­ fered? (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 appropri- September 1989/687 ate level of discretion and control over the expen­ diture of the allocated budget? (3) Adequacy o f 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 sup­ port staff appropriate to the functions served? (D) Is there an established staff development program for maintaining and improving the educa­ tion and skills of the library staff? (E) Are staffing needs properly taken into ac­ count 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 as­ signed by level and that the staff are performing work appropriate to the level? 14 ) Adequacy o f Collection (A) Is there a written policy for managing the collection? (B) Does this policy address issues of user satis­ faction? (C) Is there provision for considering change in academic needs? (D) What basis is used for determining collec­ tion 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 appropri­ ate level of program support? (H) Is there appropriate provision for the review of the current collections? (I) Is there provision for the transfer and reloca­ tion of collections or portions of collections if and when appropriate? (J) Is there provision for the consideration of consortial and other relationships? (5) Adequacy o f 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 equip­ ment 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 ofplanningforthe use of new and improved technologies? (6) Access and Availability o f the Collections (A) Are the policies governing access to and use of the collections clearly stated and readily avail­ able? (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 pro­ vision 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 o f 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? 688 / C irRL News Appendix 1: Standards, Statem ents, and Guidelines Standards, statements, and guidelines relating to specific aspects o f university libraries may pro­ vide additional valuable guidance in evaluation. Due to size differences and variations in the pro­ grams 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 H an d b ook o f O rganization for a fuller listing o f standards and guidelines. Offprints o f many of these are available from the American Library Association. Items listed are sorted according to the major topics o f the standards in Section B. Budgetary Support ALA. ACRL. “Standards for College Libraries.” C olleg e a n d R esea rch L ib r a r ie s N ews 47, no. 3 (March 1986): 189-200. Human R esources ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines and Procedures for the Screening and Appointment of Academic Librarians.” C ollege an d R esearch L ib ra ries News 38, no. 8 (September 1977): 231-33. ALA. ACRL. “Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion in Aca­ demic Rank, andTenure for College and Univer­ sity Librarians.” C olleg e a n d R esearch L ib r a r ie s N ew s 48, no. 5 (May 1987): 247-54. ALA. ACRL.“Standards for Ethical Conduct for Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Librarians.” C ollege an d R esearch L ib ra ries News 48, no. 3 (March 1987): 134-35. ALA. ACRL. “Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians.” C olleg e an d R esearch L ibra ries News 35, no. 5 (May 1974): 112­ 13. ALA. ACRL. “Statement on Collective Bargain­ ing.” (1975). Photocopy. ALA. ACRL. “Statement on Terminal Profes­ sional Degree for Academic Librarians.” (1975). Photocopy. ALA. ACRL, Association of American Colleges, and American Association of University Professors. “Statement on F acuity Status o f College and Uni­ versity Librarians.” C ollege an d R esearch L ibra ries N ew s 35, no. 2 (February 1974): 26. ALA. Office for Library Personnel Resources. “Comparable Rewards: The Case for Equal Com­ pensation for Non-Administrative Expertise.” Chicago: ALA, 1979. ALA. Office for Library Personnel Resources. “Guidelines for Affirmative Action Plans.” Chi­ cago: 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 o f policy statements pre­ pared by the ACRL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section’s Committee on Manuscripts Collections. 1977. Photocopy. ALA. Resources andTechnical Services Division. G uidelin es f o r C ollection D evelopm ent. Edited by David L. Perkins. Chicago: ALA, 1979. ALA. Resources andTechnical Services Division. G u id elin es f o r H andling L ib ra ry O rders f o r In ­ p rin t M on og rap h ic P ublications. 2ded. Chicago: ALA, 1984. ALA. Resources andTechnical Services Division. P rep aration ofA rc h iv a l C opies o f Theses an d Dis­ sertatio n s, by Jane Boyd and Don Etherington. Chicago: ALA, 1986. Building R esources ALA. ACRL. “Access Policy Guidelines.” C o l­ leg e a n d R esearch L ib r a r ie s News 36, no. 10 (November 1975): 322-23. ALA. ACRL and Society of American Archivists. “Joint Statement on Access to Original Research Materials.” C ollege a n d R esearch L ib ra ries News 40, no. 4 (April 1979): 111-12. ALA. ACRL.’’Guidelines for the Security of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Other Special Collections.” C olleg e an d R esearch L ib r a r ie s News 43, no. 3 (March 1982): 90-93. Program s an d Services ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines for Audiovisual Serv­ ices in Academic Libraries.” C ollege an d R esearch L ib r a r ie s News 48, no. 9 (October 1987): 533-36. ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines for Bibliographic In ­ struction in Academic Libraries.” C olleg e an d R esearch L ibra ries News 38, no. 4 (April 1977): 92. ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines for Branch Libraries in Colleges and Universities.” C olleg e a n d R e­ s e a r c h L ib r a r ie s News 36, no. 9 (October 1975): 281-83. ALA. ACRL. “Guidelines for Extended Campus Library Services.” C ollege an d R esearch L ib ra ries N ew s 43, no. 3 (March 1982): 86-88. ALA. ACRL. “The Mission o f an Undergradu­ ate Library: Model Statem ent.” C olleg e a n d R e­ September 1989 / 689 s ea rc h L ib r a r ie s News 48, no. 9 (October 1987): 542-44. ALA. Reference and Adult Services Division. “A Commitment to Information Services: Develop­ mental Guidelines.” Chicago: ALA, 1979. C ooperative Programs ALA. Reference and Adult Services Division. “Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or Other Special Groups o f 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 forProcedure(1978).”£l<220,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 informa­ tion relating to the application of these standards to libraries. They were selected with a view to aug­ menting 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 con­ cern. 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 R e­ search 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 institu­ tions. In addition, the SPEC Kite published by the ARL and the C L IP N otes published by A CRL can be helpful in synthesizing a profile o f the generic research library. Items listed are sorted according to the major topics of the standards in Section B . Budgetary Support C ollege ir University Business A dm inistration. 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 develop­ ment. Although it contains little information di­ rectly relevant to library evaluation, the organiza­ tional structure, budgeting process, and adminis­ trative procedure recommended for and typical of most campuses is covered clearly. This work facili­ tates 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. R atio A nalysis in H ig h er E d u catio n : A G u ide to Assessing th e In stitu tion ’s F in an cial C on d i­ tion. 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 ex­ plains the fundamentals of the balance sheet and recasts it into ratios designed for comparative evalu­ ation of the health of the institution relative to its peers. Human Resources Riggs, Donald E. S trategic Planning f o r L ib ra ry M anagers. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1984. In order to develop mission, goals, and o bjec­ tives, substantial planning is required. This work provides an overview of the strategic planning process so that library managers may better under­ stand the current state of their libraries, where they are going, where they should be going, and how best they may get th ere. Collections Christiansen, Dorothy E ., C. Roger Davis, and JuttaReed-Scott. G uide to C ollection Evalu- ation th rou g h Use an d User Studies. Chicago: ALA, 1983. “This document was prepared by the Subcom­ mittee on Use and User Studies, Collection Man­ agement and Development committee of R T SD .. .to provide librarians and others with a summary of the types o f methods available to determine the extent to which...library materials are used. It is not in­ tended to readily equip librarians to do use or user studies for collection evaluation but rather to allow them to identify the kind o f study best suited to their needs.” Hall, Blaine H. C ollection A ssessm ent M anual f o r C olleg e a n d University L ib ra ries. 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 effective­ ness in meeting collection goals. National Enquiry into Scholarly Communication. 6 9 0 /C & R L News S cholarly C om m unication: The R ep ort o f th e N ational Enquiry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979. “Report o f a comprehensive three-year research effort conducted under the auspices o f the Ameri­ can Council o f Learned Societies. ” This assessment o f the state o f 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. M a n u a lfo rth e N orth A m erican In v en tory o f R esea rch L ib r a r y C ollection s. Washington, D .C.: O ffice o f Management Studies, Association o f 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 o f Management Studies o f ARL for comparative evaluation o f collections against pro­ files o f other libraries. Collection strengths can be identified by means o f a standard tool for descrip­ tion and assessment with the use o f this manual. Stubbs, Kendon. Q uantitative C riteria f o r A c a ­ d e m ic R esea rc h L ib ra ries. Chicago: ALA, 1984. Using statistical techniques, the author devel­ oped quantitative guidelines from the H E G IS 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 o f these standards and desire quantitative criteria to articu­ late their mission. Use o f L ib r a r y M aterials: T he U niversity o f Pitts­ bu rg h 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 o f developing a model useful in predicting the return on increasing library expenditures. Although widely criticized, this is one o f the few quantitative approaches ever made to model collection development efforts. Building R esources M etcalf, Keyes D eW itt. Planning A c a d em ic a n d R esearch L ib ra ry Buildings. 2nd ed. by Philip D. Leighton and David C. W eber. Chicago: ALA, 1986. An update to M etcalf 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, equip­ ment, organization, and other factors. P rogram s a n d Services ALA. ACRL. E v alu atin g B ib lio g r a p h ic In stru c­ tion: A H an d book . 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 effec­ tiveness o f bibliographic instruction programs. Chapters are contributed by several authors. Cronin, Mary J. P erform an ce M easures f o r Public Services in A cadem ic an d R esearch L ibraries. Washington, D .C .: O ffice o f Management Studies, Association o f Research Libraries, 1985. “Quality o f service in academic libraries... is de­ fined in terms o f the needs o f the library user, and the skills o f the library staff in assessing and m eet­ ing those needs.” This paper pulls together the theory, application and potential o f performance measures for academic libraries. It provides a start­ ing point for evaluating library effectiveness in meeting user needs and academic goals. D eterm ining the E ffectiven ess o f Cam pus Services. Robert A. Scott, editor. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1984. Includes six papers covering the major aspects of determiningthe effectiveness o f campus services. Designed to be a source book for those selected to conduct evaluations o f campus services such as the library, computer services, public relations, and student services. While not covering libraries ex­ haustively, the information relevant to other serv­ ices provides useful insights into overall evaluation methodology. Dougherty, Richard M. “Libraries and Computing Centers: A Blueprint for Collaboration.” C ol­ leg e a n d R e sea rc h L ib r a r ie s 48, no. 4 (July 1987): 289-96. F or the institution attempting to articulate the mission o f the library, this article provides a useful pattern for determining the relationship o f the library to the computer center for the individual campus. Kantor, Paul B. O bjectiv e P erform an ce M easures f o r A cad em ic a n d R esea rc h L ibra ries. W ash­ ington, D.C.: Association ofResearch Librar­ ies, 1984. Libraries operating within an environment that “constrains, supports, and evaluates” require some means to determine achievement o f objectives. Sept e mbe r 1 9 8 9 1691 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 Evalu­ ation o f Library Services.W ashington,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. R eferen ce Policy and Administrative Documents. Edited by Paula D. Watson. Chicago: ALA, 1985. Reference services policies, online service poli­ cies, 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 de­ partments. Watson, Paula D. R eferen ce Services in Academ ic R esearch Libraries. Chicago: ALA, 1986. The results of sixty-six medium and large re­ search libraries surveyed on the organization, staff­ ing, and functional operations of research library reference departments are reported. Analysis of bibliographic instruction and online search serv­ ices provides additional comparative information. U niversity-wide Programs Boyer, Ernest L. C olleg e: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. A cogent analysis of the condition of under­ graduate 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. A cadem ic L ibra ries on the Periphery: How Telecommunications In for­ mation Policy Is Determined in Universities. OMS, ARL Occasional paper, no. 11. Wash­ ington, 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 tele­ ommunications policy on research campuses. arvin, David A. The Econom ics o f University c G Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1980. This analysis by an economist describes the university with a model characterizing it as a pres­ tige-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 f o r C ollege 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 accredit­ ing agencies. Responsiveness to Change Moran, Barbara Academic Libraries: The Chang­ ing Know ledge Centers o f C olleges and Uni­ versities. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1984. The impact of new technology, rising costs, physical preservation problems, and new manage­ ment 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. Prioritiesfor Academic Libraries. Thomas J. Galvin and Beverly P. Lynch, editors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982. This collection of papers by librarians and uni­ versity 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 re­ quires librarians to re-articulate the rationale be­ hind their enterprise. The goal of this work is to assist with that task. ■ ■ ACQ UISITIO N PERSPECTIVES 4 . W e have established a reputation for accuracy in billing and shipping to y our specifications. Invoices arranged alphabetically by author or title, or numerically by purchase order, and separate billing available upon request for Grant Funds, Title II, gifts, etc. Book House error rate last year was under one third of one percent of the books we delivered. The best value is accurate fulfillment o f y o u r orders. * COMPLETE DELIVERY 3 OPEN ORDER REPORTS STANDING ORDERS CALL TOLL-FREE the TODAY 1-800-248-1146 In Canada & Michigan H BO O• OK CALL COLLECT (517) 849-2117 JO BB ER S SERVI U N V G LIB S R f AR El IES WITH ANY BOOK IN PRINT SINCE 1962 208 W E S T C H IC A G O S T R E E T OCLC Vendor No. 17397 SAN 169-3859 JO N ES V ILLE, MICHIGAN 49250