College and Research Libraries Book Order Procedures In the Publicly Controlled Colleges And Universities of the Midwest By F R I T Z V E I T S C O P E O F T H E S T U D Y T h i s study is not concerned with all facets of library order work. T h e ques- tions are rather focused on several large problems which were of practical con- cern to the inquirer, who wanted to com- pare certain phases of the order proce- dure operative at his institution with those followed at other institutions of higher learning. Before introducing these aspects of library order work, it may be well to state the limits of the study which are determined by form of con- trol of the institutions, by their loca- tion, and by their size. It is assumed that privately supported institutions usually are free to shape their acquisition policies in such ways as the various controlling private agencies see fit, while institutions under public con- trol usually are bound by restrictive laws and regulations. Since such differ- ences are presumed to exist, the investi- gation has been exclusively devoted to institutions under public control. It is further assumed that geographi- cal proximity of states would favor simi- larity in their governmental machinery, including regulations and practices gov- erning library order work. T h i s con- sideration has led to the geographical limitation of the study. Since the library with which the author is affiliated is located in the midwest, he was particu- larly interested in the library acquisi- tion patterns of this region. T h e study, therefore, includes only the states which form the midwestern region. T h e r e is no unanimity as to the exact limits of the Dr. Veit is Director of Libraries, Chicago Teachers College and Wilson Junior College. midwest. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Mich- igan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Mis- souri, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota are the states included in this region, following the widest ap- plication of the term.1 T h i s designation is used in the present study. However, it is conceded that the common char- acteristics of the several midwestern states which would favor procedures and forms common to all of them may be outweighed by the differences between them—e.g., differences in natural wealth, industrialization, urbanization, and pop- ulation density. All of these differences would favor diversity in procedure. Another factor considered in establish- ing the limits of the study was size of institution. Small organizations do not require a complex administrative ma- chinery. If the organization is small, the head himself frequently performs the functions which in a larger organization are distributed among several persons. For this reason, institutions numbering fewer than three hundred students have not been treated in this study. It is granted that the cut-off point is arbitrary and that size of student body is not the only factor determining the intricacy of the administrative machinery, but this factor has been singled out because it can be isolated quite easily. 1 Columbia-Lippincott Gazetteer of the World, ed. by Leon Seltzer. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), p. 1199. J A N U A R Y 1 9 6 2 33 T h i s study, then, includes all types of midwestern publicly supported institu- tions of higher education having an en- rollment of three hundred or over. Fol- lowing the scheme adopted by the U. S. Office of Education in its Education Di- rectory, the institutions are divided into four main classes in accordance with the highest level of their offerings.2 T h e classes are: I. T w o but less than four years of work beyond the 12th grade; I I . Only the bachelor's and/or first professional degree; I I I . Master's and/or second profes- sional degree; IV. Doctor of philosophy and equiv- alent degrees. Classification in accordance with level of training seems highly meaningful for our purposes, since, in general, book needs are influenced by level of studies. As a rule, book coverage must be both more specialized and more complete as the level of training rises. An order pro- cedure which may be suitable for a Class I institution might not, therefore, be appropriate for a Class I I I or a Class I V institution. Also, while practically all of the colleges above Class I are under direct state control, the junior colleges traditionally have been under local ad- ministrative control. It must be recog- nized, however, that in recent years there have been significant exceptions to this principle, especially in states in which junior college programs have been intro- duced by special legislation or as a part of the state university system.3 T h e institutions of higher learning could be further subdivided by type of program offered.4 For instance, is the junior college devoted to preparation 2 U. S. Office of Education, Education Directory 1958/1959, Part 3: Higher Education (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1959), p. 1. This directory gives a fuller description of the several classes. 3 American Junior Colleges, ed. by Jesse P. Bogue. 4th ed. (Washington: American Council on Education, 1956), p. 25. 4 U. S. Office of Education, op. cit., p. 1-2. for advanced study or is it terminal in nature? Or, is the institution in Cate- gory I I liberal arts and general, or pri- marily teacher preparatory? In our pres- ent study this type of program subdivi- sion has not been considered, since a partial analysis did not reveal any sig- nificant differences in acquisition pro- cedure between the schools of the same class offering various types of programs. T o obtain answers to the problems, questionnaires were submitted to the libraries of the various midwestern in- stitutions of higher learning under pub- lic control which had a student body of three hundred or over. In the spring of 1959, when the study was undertaken, the number of midwestern institutions involved was 116.5 (In a few instances, institutions included in the study have branches. These branches were consid- ered parts of the main units; therefore, no separate questionnaires were sub- mitted to the branches.) As may be seen from summary table, 107 libraries returned the questionnaire: 30 in Category I; 21 in Category I I ; 35 in Category I I I ; and 21 in Category IV. Replies were not received from 6 in Category I; one in Category I I ; and 2 in Category I I I . All institutions in Cate- gory I V replied. If the regional total is subdivided by states the returns are as follows: I l l i n o i s 15 (8 in Category I , e x c l u d i n g 1 n o t r e p o r t i n g ; 5 in Category I I I ; a n d 2 in Category I V ) ; I n d i a n a 5 (1 in I ; 2 in I I ; a n d 2 in I V ) ; Iowa 4 (1 in I ; 1 in I I I ; a n d 2 in I V ) ; Kansas 13 (5 in I , e x c l u d i n g 1 n o t re- p o r t i n g ; 1 in I I ; 1 in I I I ; a n d 2 in I V ) ; M i c h i g a n 16 (8 in I, e x c l u d i n g 3 n o t re- p o r t i n g ; 2 in I I , e x c l u d i n g 1 n o t report- ing; 3 in I I I , e x c l u d i n g 1 n o t r e p o r t i n g ; a n d 3 in I V ) ; M i n n e s o t a 7 (2 in I ; 4 in I I I , e x c l u d i n g 1 n o t r e p o r t i n g ; a n d 1 in I V ) ; Missouri 10 (2 in I, e x c l u d i n g 1 n o t re- 5 The selection is based on the listings under "Insti- tutions by States" in U. S. Office of Education, op. cit. 34 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S p o r t i n g ; 3 i n I I ; 4 in I I I a n d 1 in I V ) ; N e b r a s k a 8 (2 in I ; 5 in I I I ; a n d 1 i n I V ) ; N o r t h D a k o t a 6 (1 i n I ; 4 i n I I ; a n d 1 in I V ) ; O h i o 9 (1 in I ; 4 in I I I ; a n d 4 in I V ) ; South D a k o t a 5 (3 in I I ; 1 in I I I ; a n d 1 in I V ) ; W i s c o n s i n 10 (7 in I I ; 2 in I I I ; and 1 in I V ) . T h e first question noted on the form which was sent to the libraries concerns the number of funds. May the library draw on one fund only, or does it have several funds available for the purchase of books? I f there is more than one fund, is one clearly the principal fund and are the others subsidiary in nature (Ques- tions I and II)? If there are subsidiary funds, are they subject to the same rules as the principal fund (Questions V, VI)? T h e overwhelming majority of the re- spondents did not consider small gift funds as subsidiary funds. As compared to the total spent for the purchase of books, these funds were in most instances rather negligible amounts. Most of the institutions which indicated that small gifts were being received from time to time noted, nevertheless, that essentially they have just one fund, and they checked affirmatively Question I, which reads: "Do you have one book fund only?" In a few instances, responses in- dicated a different understanding of the question. T h i s could, of course, be taken into account in their interpretation. Several respondents explained that the appropriated fund was split into a num- ber of departmental funds. T h e y pro- vided this information to explain in what manner the principal fund was being used. T w o or three institutions reported that such an arrangement would produce several funds and checked Question II, rather than Question I, affirmatively. In this study departmental library funds which are a portion of the principal fund are not treated as sep- arate entities but rather as components of this fund. Again, only a few ques- tionnaire replies revealed a different in- terpretation, and they were adjusted. Item I I I of the questionnaire was in- tended to reveal whether the spending of the money from the major appro- priated fund was limited to one specified date, to several specified dates, or whether full leeway was granted and spending could be spread over the whole academic year. T h e next item on the Questionnaire (IV, 1-3) was concerned with the chan- nels through which orders have to move. T h r e e main possibilities were suggested: (1) O r d e r i n g through the c e n t r a l purchas- i n g d e p a r t m e n t of the p r o p e r govern- m e n t a l level. ( I n case of a library which is p a r t of the state g o v e r n m e n t , the c e n t r a l state purchasing agency would be considered the p r o p e r cen- tral agency; in case of a library which is p a r t of the city g o v e r n m e n t , the cen- tral city purchasing agency would be so treated, etc.) (2) A n a r r a n g e m e n t which would involve the purchasing d e p a r t m e n t of the col- lege o r university. (3) D i r e c t purchasing by the library itself. In respect to central purchasing, the analysis revealed differences in interpre- tation of this concept. In several in- stances, libraries in Category I noted that they ordered through the purchas- ing department of the board of educa- tion of the city's public schools. Some respondents considered this purchasing department as a central purchasing de- partment (IV-1), others treated it as if it were a purchasing department of a col- lege (IV-2). In order to assure uniformity of approach, in this study, all of these instances have been viewed as involving a central purchasing department (IV-1). In the summary, they are, therefore, re- corded in the column entitled "Central," but, in addition to being included in this column, they are also separately enumerated in the column headed "Bd. of Ed." J A N U A R Y 1 9 6 2 35 It should be noted that the first three sub-entries under I V are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. If, for in- stance, an order may not be placed di- rectly by the library order department (Item IV-3), but must be placed through the state (or district, or municipal) cen- tral order department (IV-1), it may, nevertheless, have to be first channeled either through the library order depart- ment (IV-3) or through the order depart- ment of the college (IV-2) before it reaches the central order department. A number of libraries indicated that more than one level was involved by checking not only one (IV-1; or IV-2; or IV-3) but two or even all three of these sub-entries. In tabulating the question- naire returns, only the highest level in- volved was recorded. For instance, if both IV-1 and IV-2 were checked by a respondent only IV-2 was recorded in our tabulations. It was further considered important to discover whether only the library was charged with the ordering of library books, or whether books might also be ordered directly by teaching departments without involving the library at all. (IV-4). Another problem to which an answer was sought concerned the carrying over of funds. Do all moneys appropriated for a certain fiscal period have to be expended during this period or may funds be carried over into subsequent periods? Under Question IV-5, the re- spondents were asked to "specify." Nearly all gave an explanation of their prac- tice. T h e y distinguished between the encumbered and the unencumbered por- tion of the balance. T h e encumbered balance was treated as if it had been spent during the current fiscal year even if payment was to occur in the course of the subsequent fiscal year. "Unex- pended" was used by nearly all respond- ents in the meaning of "unencum- bered." T h i s interpretation has also been adopted in our study; in Question IV-5, "unexpended balance" should therefore be interpreted to mean "unencumbered balance." S T A T E - B Y - S T A T E C O M P A R I S O N 6 If a state-by-state comparison is made, distinct differences are immediately ap- parent. Only 9 of the 12 states have institutions of Ty pe I. (They are lack- ing in Ohio, South Dakota, and Wis- consin.) Ty pe I I institutions are found in even fewer states: 7 of the 12. (They are lacking in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska.) All states but North Dakota have at least one repre- sentative of Type I I I , and one of Type I V has been established in each of the states forming the midwest. T u r n i n g to book funds, we find that most states favor one single book fund for their libraries, while in some states subsidiary funds are received by libraries of various types. Subsidiary funds occur with greatest frequency in Ohio, North Dakota, and Michigan, in that order. Scattered examples of subsidiary funds may also be found in Illinois, Minne- sota, Missouri, and South Dakota. T h e subsidiary funds of the two Illinois in- stitutions which are under board of edu- cation control—one of Ty pe I and one of Type I I I — a r e derived from student fees. T h e same holds true for the one Missouri institution which is under board of education jurisdiction. All in all, there are only five instances in which book orders must be placed at specified periods, one instance each in the following states: Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. T h e institutions involved are in Cate- gory I, except for the one in Wisconsin, which is in Category II. 6 The original study includes a table for each of the midwestern states. These tables carry the same items for the various states as the summary table does for the whole midwest. In the original, the textual state-by-state analysis is also somewhat more extensive. As long as the limited supply lasts, interested persons may obtain copies by writing the author at Chicago Teachers Col- lege, 6800 S. Stewart Avenue, Chicago 21, Illinois. 36 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S T h e channeling of orders shows con- siderable variation if comparisons are made on a state-by-state basis. Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin—except for their Type IV institutions—reveal par- ticipation of a central purchasing agency as the predominant, though not exclu- sive, pattern. In the other states, the cen- tral purchasing agency is either not in- volved at all or only for certain types of institutions, again usually not exclu- sively for any of the categories. In Kan- sas, for instance, only the two Type I I I institutions and two of the four Type I institutions which responded to the questionnaire noted involvement of a central purchasing agency. Similarly, Il- linois is represented by only two institu- tions of Type I and one of Type I I I ; Iowa and Nebraska by one Type I insti- tution each, and South Dakota by one in Category II. In the various states, all Type I V institutions may place orders directly through their respective library order departments with the one single exception in which the college purchas- ing department is employed. Except for Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin, Type I I I libraries most frequently place their orders either directly through their own order departments or, as the second favored procedure, through their college purchasing office. With regard to the next item on the questionnaire—"Is the Library the Sole Agency for Ordering of Library Books?" —no significant differences were revealed from state to state. In all states the pre- vailing pattern for all types of libraries was that the library had sole charge of book purchases. Also, the next query, which related to the carrying over of the balance from one fiscal year to the other, did not show state patterns varying dis- tinctly from each other. In all states but one, Nebraska, the preponderant prac- tice was to disallow the carrying over of the unspent balance into subsequent fiscal years. Noteworthy variations from the pattern, in addition to Nebraska, J A N U A R Y 1 9 6 2 were found in Kansas and Michigan. In Kansas, 3 institutions out of 12, in Ne- braska 5 out of 8, and in Michigan, 4 among the 16 institutions, reported that they might carry over such funds. T h e three Kansas institutions are of Ty pe I ; in Nebraska one is of Type I, and four are of Type I I I ; and in Michigan one is of Type I, one of Type I I I , and two are of Type IV. It should again be em- phasized that this question does not cover subsidiary funds, such as funds derived from fees. With regard to sub- sidiary funds, a considerable number of the institutions observed that time limitations did not apply. T H E R E G I O N A L P A T T E R N In evaluating the library order pro- cedure of the publicly supported insti- tutions of higher learning for each of the several states, we have discovered defi- nite trends with regard to various aspects of the procedure. An inspection of the summary table including all midwestern states presents certain trends in even clearer focus. Of the 107 midwestern institutions which supplied data for our inquiry, 84 have essentially only one fund at their disposal. Twenty-three of the institutions have a principal as well as subsidiary funds. As has been explained before, the gift funds which represent a negligible percentage of the total spent for books are not viewed as separate subsidiary funds. It is quite evident that the institutions with the more varied and more complex book requirements are more likely to have subsidiary funds then the others. Nine of the 21 Type I V institutions in- dicate that they have such funds, while only 2 of 30 Type I institutions obtain funds from more than one source. T h e table reveals further that institutions of Types I I and I I I include a higher per- centage of libraries with subsidiary funds than those of Type I. In 14 of the 23 in- stances, the libraries with subsidiary 37 funds derive these allotments in whole or in part from various forms of student fees. These are frequently general cur- ricular fees but graduate, psychology, education, and other special subject fees are also mentioned as sources for the subsidiary funds. Student fees are espe- cially favored by libraries of Categories I I and I I I . In Category IV, only 2 indi- cate that fees are their subsidiary sources, while others report gift funds and en- dowed funds of considerable magnitude. Rotary funds of significant size, for fines and replacements, are also listed in a few cases. As to the periods during which orders may be placed, there is practically com- plete uniformity among the libraries of the region. Out of 107, 102 may order books anytime during the period for which the fund is appropriated. Only one Type I library is compelled to con- centrate all its orders on a specified date. One Type I I and three T y p e I libraries are limited to several specified dates. Ob- viously, it has been recognized on all levels of college and university admin- istration that the libraries must have the freedom to order whenever the need arises during the academic year. T h e r e is considerable variety among the libraries with regard to the channels through which the orders must pass. About a third of the group—37 of 107 —may order books through the library's own order department. About another third—36 of 107—must avail themselves of the services of a central order agency. T h i s latter group includes 15 institutions which use as their agency the Board of Education under whose respective juris- diction they are. T h e remaining 33 li- braries utilize the facilities of their col- lege or university business office. It has been emphasized earlier in this study that only the highest level is tabulated and that in several instances more than one level is involved. A library which must order through a central state agency may have to forward the orders through the college business office. In this case, however, only the "Central" column has been checked as applying. It is interest- ing to note that there is a significant dif- ference between the several categories with regard to the channels utilized. Of 21 T ype I V institutions, 20 handle the orders through their library's own order department; one uses the university's business office. Among the 35 Type I I I institutions, we find that the college busi- ness office is designated in 14 instances. T h e library's own order department and the central purchasing department are represented with 11 instances and one instance respectively. In one of the cases which were recorded under central pur- chasing department, the Board of Edu- cation is considered as the central agency. Of 21 Ty pe I I institutions, only one orders through the library's order depart- ment. T h e college business department appears in 9 instances and the central purchasing department is represented 11 times. Only 1 of these—as was the case with the T y p e I I I institutions—channels the orders through the Board of Educa- tion. Fifteen of the 30 institutions in- cluded in Category I report that they use a central purchasing department. In 13 instances of the 15 which utilize a central department, the Board of Education (municipal, or other subordinate govern- mental level) is the agency. In 9 in- stances, Ty pe I institutions use the col- lege business office as their purchasing agents; 5 of the Ty pe I libraries may order directly through their order de- partments. T h e questionnaire which encouraged the respondents to comment on any as- pect of the procedure elicited a number of emphatic statements in the matter of channeling of orders. High satisfaction was expressed by libraries which are per- mitted to order directly. T h e librarian of one institution included in this study described how, in gradual fashion, the library's order department had been given an increasing number of book or- 38 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S der functions and how it will eventually assume practically all of the book order responsibilities—a change which appears to be highly advantageous to the library as well as the university's purchasing de- partment.7 On the other hand, in several instances in which libraries had to for- ward orders to a state purchasing depart- ment which, in turn, had to send them to a jobber or publisher, strong dissatis- faction was expressed about slowness with which the books reached the library. T h e next question brought nearly identical replies. Ninety-eight of 107 li- braries reported that they were the sole agencies for the ordering of library books. T h e only notable exceptions were six of the 30 Type I institutions. T h e over- whelming majority of the institutions which were considered the sole agencies said that occasionally departments used some of their own non-library funds to acquire books which were treated as lab- oratory tools. These items might be man- uals or clippings, some special diction- aries or occasionally even textbooks. In most, though not all, institutions mate- rials so acquired do not become part of the library's collection. A few libraries reported that departments which had this privilege were required to order books through the library even if their own non-library funds were involved. In other cases, departments must utilize the general college business office for these transactions. T h e next question revealed again a nearly uniform practice. Most libraries, 92 of 107, noted that they were not al- lowed to carry over into subsequent years the unencumbered balance of the ap- propriated fund. With regard to the subdiary funds, the practice varied. Most of the libraries which had funds from other sources—for instance, fees—frequently added that the restrictions which applied to the appro- 7 Sidney E. Matthews, "Simplifying Library Acquisi- tions with University Purchasing," CRL, X V I I I (1957), 331-334. priated fund did not affect the subsid- iary funds. Since only a limited number of in- stitutions have more than one fund available, only 31 responses were received to the question "Does the Order Pro- cedure for the Major Appropriated Fund Apply to Subsidiary Funds?" ( T h e 23 listed in the Column "Principal and Sub- sidiary Funds" were joined by seven in- stitutions which had minor gift funds but not "subsidiary funds," according to the definition we adopted.) Twenty-one followed the same procedure for both, and ten noted that they preferred to fol- low a different, usually simplified, order pattern for subsidiary funds. C O N C L U S I O N S As stated in the introductory chapter, the study was based on data supplied by publicly supported colleges and univer- sities of the midwest. Since we interpreted "midwest" in a broad sense, we included in this region as many as twelve states. While these states have certain charac- teristics in common which may favor sim- ilarities in procedures, they differ in such important factors as natural wealth, pop- ulation density, and degree of industrial- ization—all factors likely to cause diver- sity in the patterns of the governmental machinery. Whether the sample is sufficiently di- versified to represent a cross section of the United States scene cannot be stated with certainty. T h i s question can be an- swered with greater confidence as similar studies covering other regions of the U. S. become available. It is hoped that such studies will be undertaken. While studies which give a broad view of the order procedures in large segments of our country would be valuable, it would also be highly desirable if investi- gators concerned themselves thoroughly with individual institutions. Case studies could deal at length with details of a spe- cific procedure and, by probing deeply, could possibly establish causes for exist- J A N U A R Y 1 9 6 2 39 Cate- gories S U M M A R Y : A L L M I D W E S T E R N S T A T E S Num- ber in Cat. Book Funds One Subsid. Only also' Order Periods One Several Any- Date Dates time Channeling of OrdersT Bd. Cen- of Col- Lib- tral E d . ' lege rary Library Sole Agency May Carry Over Bal- Same Proc. for Subsid. Funds Yes No Yes No Yes No I 3 0 X L 2 8 2 1 3 2 6 1 5 1 3 9 5 2 4 6 5 2 4 3 5 I I 2 1 * 2 1 6 5 1 2 0 11 1 9 1 2 0 1 2 0 5 1 I I I 3 5 * » 2 8 7 3 5 1 0 1 1 4 11 3 4 1 5 3 0 5 3 I V 2 1 12 9 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 3 1 8 1 4 1 107 84 23 1 4 102 36 15 33 37 98 8 14 92 27 10 ' = Of the subsidiary funds, the following include fee funds: 1 of 2 in I, all 5 in II, 6 of 7 in III, and 2 of 9 in IV ' = In Category I, under "Channeling of Orders," only 29 out of 30 reported • = In Category II, under "Library Sole Agency," only 20 out of 21 reported * = The Libraries listed in this column are also counted in the preceding "Central" column = Excluding six non-reporting institutions x2 = Excluding one non-reporting institution *3 = Excluding two non-reporting institutions ing practices, for both those deemed ef- fective and those deemed inadequate. With sufficient evidence on hand, it should then be more easily possible than it is today to introduce and maintain practices which produce full user satis- faction at small expenditure of money and time. A C R L Meetings At Midwinter T h e A C R L board of directors will meet twice at the Midwinter meeting of ALA —at 10:00 A.M. Monday, January 29, and 10:00 A.M. Tuesday, January 30. T h e Steering Committee of the College Libraries Section will meet at 4:30 P.M. Tues- day, January 30, to be followed by dinner at 6:30 P.M.; the Steering Committee of the J u n i o r College Libraries Section will meet at 8:30 P.M. January 29; the Subject Specialists Section Steering Committee will meet three times—8:30 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. January 29, and 2 : 0 0 P.M. January 30; the SSS Law and Political Science Subsec- tion will have a meeting of its Steering Committee at 4:30 P.M. January 29; the Steer- ing Committee of the University Libraries Section will meet at 8:00 P.M. January 29; the ULS Research and Development Committee will meet at 4:30 P.M. January 29, and the ULS Committee on Urban University Libraries will meet at 4:00 P.M. January 30. A C R L committees scheduled to meet Monday, January 29, are: Conference Pro- gram Committee (4:30 P.M.); Publications Committee (8:30 A.M.); Committee on Standards (8:30 P.M.). Scheduled to meet Tuesday, January 30, are: Committee on Appointments and Nominations (4:30 P.M.); Advisory Committee T o Administer the Burmese Projects (12:30 P.M. luncheon meeting); Grants Committee (2:00 P . M . ) . Meeting on Wednesday, January 31, are: Advisory Committee on Educational and Professional Organizations (10:00 A.M.); National Library Week Committee (8:30 P.M.); A C R L / A R L Metcalf Project Advisory Committee (12:30 P.M. luncheon meeting). Thursday, February 1, there will be a meeting of the Organization Com- mittee at 8:30 A.M. 40 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S