College and Research Libraries Extra-University Sources of Financial Support for Libraries: A Symposium A P E R S O N wishing to study the sources of operating funds in university li- braries will find little to guide him in the existing literature. Practically noth- ing appears to have been written upon it, and the reason for the neglect is dif- ficult to identify. Perhaps it is that his- torically there has been only one major source of operating funds—that is, the university coffers—which has been sup- plemented in varying degrees by gifts from private donors. Recently altering social patterns, how- ever, are having an impact on the sources of funds in university libraries. T a x laws are encouraging the establishment of philanthropic foundations. Business and industry are experiencing increased in- formation needs and are seeking, in some cases, to purchase information from neighboring libraries. Most important, perhaps, of all is the growing tendency on the part of the government to look upon our great libraries as a national resource which should be nourished from public funds. W h a t exactly is the present meaning of these new considerations in university library financing? Can trends be iden- tified that will enable us to budget more intelligently for the future? Ought we to avail ourselves of new opportu- nities for fiscal support more than we have in the past? Are our impressions of the changing patterns of extra-uni- versity sources of library finance borne out by the facts? In an effort to find answers to these and other related ques- tions, the University Libraries Section of the A C R L sponsored the following three papers. T h e y were first read to the membership meeting of the group in Miami Beach on June 1 8 — D a v i d Kaser, Chairman, University Libraries Section. P R I V A T E AND I N D U S T R I A L F U N D S F O R U N I V E R S I T Y L I B R A R I E S B y R A L P H H . H O P P IF ONE were to draw the profile of an academic librarian perhaps he would be inclined to include some of the char- acteristics of bookman, administrator, re- searcher, and professor but, according to considerable evidence, he would prob- ably include less about such a person being a fund-raiser. T h i s aspect of uni- versity library administration has been for many librarians one of the less de- sirable and somewhat less successful parts of their positions. T h i s appears, how- Mr. Hopp is Associate Director of Li- braries, University of Minnesota. ever, to be an area of considerable po- tential—one which ought not to be over- looked in this day of unprecedented development and growth of research li- braries. I t is the purpose of this paper to ex- amine extra-university support for aca- demic libraries coming from essentially N O V E M B E R 1 9 6 2 509 private and commercial sources, exclud- ing foundation and federal government funds. In order to base it on factual data the author resorted to the timeworn method of the questionnaire survey of libraries. T h i s paper will describe the results of an analysis of the survey and make observations as to what might be potential sources of support which could be regarded as other than direct uni- versity allocations. P R E S E N T S T A T U S O F L I B R A R Y G I F T S In order to determine the magnitude of the segment of support of university libraries coming from private and com- mercial sources a survey was made of the libraries of those institutions holding membership in the Council of Graduate Schools. According to the most recent listing, a total of 135 institutions be- longed to this group, and returns were received from eighty-two libraries, or 61 per cent of the membership. In analyzing the survey results it ap- peared useful to compare state tax-sup- ported with privately-supported institu- tions. Also some attention was given to the relative sizes of the libraries within each category. Of the eighty-two libraries used, forty-seven were supported by state tax funds, thirty-two were privately sup- ported, and three were libraries of mu nicipal universities. Approximately half of the libraries had from one hundred thousand to five hundred thousand vol- umes each. Surprisingly, and bearing in mind that these are libraries of uni- versities holding membership in the Council of Graduate Schools, fourteen had less than one hundred thousand volumes apiece. Twelve of the eighty- two had over one million volumes each. Therefore the distributions of the li- braries by size formed the normal bell curve. Whether or not this adds to the validity of the statistical data is difficult to determine. T h e total 1960-61 operating expendi- tures of the reporting libraries were just over fifty million dollars. If one were to T A B L E 1 Main Sources of Nonuniversity Funds Received by 82 Academic Libraries, 1960-61 S O U R C E OF F U N D S Friends of the Library gifts Memorial funds Individual donors Special gifts for buildings Alumni contributions Grants Endowments Fees from individual outside users Service to industry fees Sale of parts of gift collections. . . . Class gifts Student fraternity funds Miscellaneous T o t a l C A S H R E S O U R C E S R E C E I V E D 47 S t a t e 32 Privately 3 Municipal T o t a l T a x Supported Supported Supported for University University University all Libraries Libraries Libraries Libraries $ 56,635 $ 28,468 $ 6,028 $ 91,131 89,583 33,148 2,120 124,851 140,032 64,626 8,280 212,938 425,000 5,428,848 0 5,853,848 53,226 2,500 837 56,563 43,256 1,500 800 45,556 2,077,248 580,536 10,408 2,668,192 0 2,235 0 2,235 200 396 0 596 4,565 11,975 1,276 17,816 3,132 6,730 0 9,862 472 1,046 0 1,520 273,189 23,438 400 297,027 $3,166,540 $6,185,446 $30,149 $9,382,137 510 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 exclude the funds given specifically for buildings, the income received from sources considered to be private or in- dustrial totaled three and one-half mil- lion dollars, or 7 per cent of the total operating expenditures of these libraries. Including funds received for buildings, these libraries received a total of over nine million dollars from nonuniversity sources. T h e r e was a considerable variety of sources from which libraries received such funds. By far the largest amounts were from endowment funds. These ac- counted for 75 per cent of the extra- university funds received, excluding building funds. T a b l e 1 shows the rela- tive amounts obtained and the sources from which they were received. Over the years we have come to be- lieve, and with good reason, that pri- vately-endowed universities and their li- braries had achieved a measure of success in attracting gifts that was envied by state-supported institutions. Powell found, for example, in his survey of non- university support received by twenty- two selected libraries in 1956-57 that endowed universities were much more successful in attracting cash and mate- rials than were state universities. T h e average of the cash gifts of the nine pri- vate university libraries was $102,000 as opposed to $12,422 reported by eleven state universities libraries.1 In analyzing gifts by type and size of libraries in the present survey there ap- peared to be somewhat surprising re- sults. T h e most successful seemed to be the state-supported university libraries whose expenditure ranged from five hun- dred thousand to one million dollars an- nually. T a b l e 2 presents an analysis by type and size of library. Powell found that the selected private institutional libraries received cash rep- resenting 18.5 per cent of their total ex- penditures whereas the present survey showed them to receive only 7.3 per cent. For state-supported, libraries Powell found cash gifts representing but 2.5 per cent of their total operating expendi- tures whereas the present survey revealed 8.2 per cent. One obvious difference in the two surveys was that he had among his private universities one library which received $649,000 (probably Harvard), whereas Harvard did not reply to the present questionnaire. He also included Yale which again was not included in the present survey for the same reason. T h e reasons for the difference in the state-supported libraries, however, is less 1 B e n j a m i n E . P o w e l l , " S o u r c e s o f S u p p o r t f o r L i - b r a r i e s in A m e r i c a n U n i v e r s i t i e s , " U n i v e r s i t y of T e n - n e s s e e L i b r a r y L e c t u r e s , No. 10, 1 9 5 8 ( K n o x v i l l e : U n i - v e r s i t y o f T e n n e s s e e , 1 9 6 1 ) . T A B L E 2 Per cent of Operating Expenditures Coming from Nonuniversity Support as Received by 82 Academic Libraries in 1960-61 (Excluding Gifts for Buildings and Funds from Government and Foundation Sources) O P E R A T I N G E X P E N D I T U R E S S T A T E T A X S U P P O R T E D P R I V A T E L Y S U P P O R T E D M U N I C I P A L O P E R A T I N G E X P E N D I T U R E S Percent Number of Libraries Percent Number of Libraries Percent Number of Libraries U p t o $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 t o $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 t o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 . 5 4 . 3 3 2 4 1 0 1 0 4 . 5 1 . 6 1 1 . 7 7 . 1 1 1 1 2 7 2 . 5 3 $ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 up 0 3 2 2 . 5 4 . 3 3 2 4 1 0 1 0 4 . 5 1 . 6 1 1 . 7 7 . 1 1 1 1 2 7 2 Total 0 3 2 2 . 5 4 . 3 3 2 4 1 0 1 0 4 . 5 1 . 6 1 1 . 7 7 . 1 1 1 1 2 7 2 Total 8 . 2 4 7 7 . 3 3 2 . 5 3 N O V E M B E R 1 9 6 2 511 apparent since many of the same institu- tions were included in both surveys. T h e r e is perhaps some hint of explana- tion found in recent remarks made by Robert Vosper to the Friends of the U C L A library. He said, " T h e r e was a time, you know, and not long since, Avhen state university libraries of this country excused the inadequacies and rawness of their collections on the grounds that only the libraries of the privately-supported universities could ex- pect to attract private funds and sophis- ticated friendly help. But this is demon- strably no longer true, and the recent alteration in this pattern represents a milestone in American cultural and phil- anthropic history."2 T h e largest sums of money received were for building construction. However, despite the obvious appeal of having a major university building named for a donor, the amount of such funds was perhaps less than one would expect. T h e eighty-two institutions reported that less than six million dollars were received for buildings and these at twelve librar- ies. Of this type of gift only seven could be considered major amounts. T h e pri- vate institutions were by far the most successful in obtaining gifts in this cate- gory, accounting for nearly 93 per cent of the total moneys received, as shown in T a b l e 1. Summarizing the present survey, the eighty-two university libraries which re- ported had, in 1960-61, total operating expenditures slightly in excess of fifty million dollars of which about three and one half million, or 7 per cent, were received from nonuniversity sources, ex- cluding funds obtained from the federal government and foundations. In addi- tion nearly six million dollars were ob- tained as gifts toward buildings. State tax-supported university libraries were slightly more successful in attracting gift money than were privately-supported 2 Robert Vosper, " A Word to the W i s e and the F r i e n d l y , " (University of California Library, Los Angeles, 1962) pp. 12-13. university libraries, except for buildings, where the private institutions, with the exception of two state institution gifts, received all of the funds. P O T E N T I A L S O U R C E S O F S U P P O R T Wha t about the potential sources of gift moneys to which all libraries per- haps should be giving more attention? "Charitable bequests in the United States have shown an extraordinary growth in recent years," according to Foundation News.3 A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e federal estate-tax returns filed in 1944 and 1959 shows charitable bequests in- creasing from about two hundred mil- lion to nearly six hundred and seventy million dollars in this fifteen-year pe- riod.4 Seventeen and five tenths per cent of the 1959 bequests were to private edu- cation, and 4.6 per cent were to public education, a total of 22.1 per cent, with a balance to religious and other char- itable categories. In other words, in 1959 nearly one hundred fifty million dollars went to education, broadly defined as including museums, art galleries, etc., and this analysis exempts entirely estates of less than $60,000. Libraries probably should be getting a larger share of these bequests. It is an area deserving greater attention. If university librarians are thinking of bequests as a potential source for more funds, then, according to Foundation News, they would find that large estates are more apt to be fruitful than small estates. For "the proportional support for education climbs with the size of estate. For estates under $100,000 about 15 per cent was given to combined pub- lic and private education institutions" in both 1944 and 1959. But "for estates of one million or more 25 per cent was so assigned."5 T h e magnitude of this po- tential source of funds is manifest by 3 F . M. Andrews, "Charitable Bequests: A New A n a l y s i s , " Foundation News, I I I , No. 2 (March 1962), 1. * Ibid., p. 2 B Ibid., p. 2 512 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 the fact that gross estates reported during 1959 totaled eleven and six-tenths billion dollars, which is about the same amount that the Foundation Library Center esti- mated to be the total assets of all Amer- ican philanthropic foundations in that year. Also, charitable bequests almost equalled the amount estimated for the grants of all these foundations. One other interesting observation has been made by the Foundation Library Center; it is that smaller estates, since they are mostly given over to family support, are not likely to yield substan- tial bequests. T h i s is in direct contrast to charitable receipts from living donors, where the small-income benefactors, be- cause of their large number, contribute the largest proportion of total gift dol- lars. A few words might also be said about that much praised, sometimes much maligned, organization know as the Friends of the Library. T h e present questionnaire asked for information on the net income realized directly from Friends organizations, deducting iden- tifiable management costs, dinner costs, printing and brochure distribution ex- penses, speaker honoraria, and so forth. Twenty of the eighty-two libraries had such an organization, and net income ranged from a low of minus $705 to a high of $7,486. T o t a l net gain for all twenty libraries was $28,515; Friends memberships totaled about sixty-six hun- dred people. It appears from these statistics that Friends organizations, with several ex- ceptions, are not especially effective as a money-raising device. However, these statistics reflect only cash gifts. Undoubt- edly many have been instrumental or helpful in bringing both funds and col- lections to libraries from various donors. Cornell, UCLA, Southern Illinois, and no doubt others, have Friends groups which are serving very useful purposes. A surprising number of libraries which re- ported not having Friends groups indi- cated that they planned to start such organizations soon. However, the above experience no doubt indicates that li- braries would be well advised to get first the facts on the likelihood of achieving the goals set forth. T h e record is prob- ably in favor of the failures rather than the successes, if the goal is primarily that of obtaining money. If, on the other hand, the chief objective is to stimulate interest and good will on behalf of the university and the library, then there appears to be a greater chance of achiev- ing it. I suspect that the librarians managing the going Friends organizations will tell us that their success has been the result of a great deal of effort and hard work over a long time. Even then success in attracting gifts is a difficult thing to measure for one never knows how many of the important gifts might have come to the library anyhow, whether or not there was a Friends organization. Nonetheless, the potential support of academic libraries from private and in- dustrial sources is great. It is such that university librarians might well consider seriously the desirability of adding to their staffs someone who could devote a considerable amount of time to fund raising. No doubt one could draw here a parallel to other areas of specializa- tion in the university libraries. Most di- rectors of libraries do not presume to be catalogers, nor special collection cura- tors, nor acquisitions nor reference spe- cialists. T h e y employ highly skilled peo- ple to manage these aspects of their organizations. By the same token, direc- tors, by virtue of their position alone, are not necessarily skilled as money-rais- ers, although there are among them some who have a known talent for doing this. It would seem that chances are good that such a fund-raising specialist could at least bring in the equivalent of his own salary annually. N O V E M B E R 1 9 6 2 513 F E D E R A L F U N D S F O R U N I V E R S I T Y L I B R A R I E S B Y R U S S E L L S H A N K T H R E E C A T E G O R I E S of federal support are examined in this essay: (1) the direct sources, or those that are reasonably di- rect, even though they are a minor ele- ment of assistance; (2) the indirect sources whence funds are transmitted via several institutional agencies before they are deposited in library accounts; and (3) federal government activities which involve the expenditure of funds for materials which are made available to academic libraries which they may not reasonably have been expected to ac- quire otherwise with their own funds. Not included are any parts of libraries' budgets stemming from funds available from the indirect costs of federally-spon- sored research, a portion which no aca- demic administrator could possibly ear- mark for tabulation. Also excluded are funds provided for limited-access activ- ities such as special libraries in agencies associated with faculty and research de- partments and not part of the general library activities of the campuses. No attempt is made to access the dol- lar worth to academic libraries of scien- tific and technical information activities supported by federal funds which even- tually result in bibliographies, report literature, indexing and abstracting ser- vices, and other items of primary utility to libraries. T h e federal government in- vested ninety-eight and six-tenths million dollars in such activities in fiscal year 1962 supporting such items as the production and frequently free distribution of tech- nical reports of the Atomic Energy Com- mission and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, major ab- stracting services like Nuclear Science Abstracts, t h e Bibliography of Agricul- ture, Index Medicus, a n d t h e i n f o r m a - tion programs of the National Library Mr. Shank is Assistant Librarian, Univer- sity of California, Berkeley. of Medicine, the Armed Services Tech- nical Information Agency, and the Of- fice of Technical Services.1 T h e value of these activities to academic research li- braries is not unimportant, but it is not within the scope of this article. No mat- ter how little the federal government budget seems presently to provide as di- rect dollars for operation of academic libraries, the indispensable role of fed- eral funds in these other activities, which ultimately are so essential to American librarianship, cannot be denied. Data for the study came from three sources: (1) a survey of about forty-five academic institutions, particularly those participating in the programs of T i t l e V I of the National Defense Education Act; (2) government documents and re- ports; and (3) a variety of personal sources, including the Washington office of the American Library Association. T h e r e is no guarantee that some amounts have not been counted twice, although reasonable care has been made to avoid duplication. T h e r e are more likely to be gaps, since the sources of money for library activities are fre- quently obscure, even to the librarians who spend them. Various provisions of the National De- fense Education Act are obvious sources of federal funds for academic libraries. T i t l e I V provides that about one half of the funds of National Defense fellow- ships "appropriated go to the partici- pating institutions in support of the ap- proved new or expanded programs. 1Federal Funds for Science X: Fiscal Years 1960, 1961, and 1962 (Washington: National Science Foun- dation, 1 9 6 1 ) , p. 47. 514 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 These funds may be used to add mem- bers to the faculty, strengthen library acquisitions, or buy laboratory equip- ment. In academic year 1960-61, about $6 million [was paid] to participating graduate schools."2 T i t l e V I (Language and Area Centers) provides that approxi- mately 50 per cent of the funds are for "administration of the Centers' use (not purchase and installation) of language laboratories, library acquisitions, and em- ployment of pertinent library personnel, grants for staff travel to foreign areas and cost of travel for foreign visiting scholars."3 Most of the funds from these two titles are being spent by the faculty departments involved, and do not add directly to the general library activities of the campuses. T h e survey uncovered almost two hundred seventy-four thou- sand dollars of NDEA money, however, being used for personnel ($87,000) and library materials ($187,000) by univer- sity libraries. T h e librarians had little to do with deciding program content or size; this was left to faculties and uni- versity administrators. In many in- stances, the librarians were not even aware such money was available until it turned up in their appropriation ledgers. An attempt was made to add aid to academic libraries to the National De- fense Education Act renewal legislation in 1961, but, along with a number of other riders, this was stripped from the proposal and the Act was refueled for two years at its then-attained level. T h e provisions of this rider have been taken over into the omnibus legislation to be mentioned shortly. T h e National Science Foundation is a source of a limited but growing amount of money to support academic library activities. It is not National Sci- ence Foundation policy to finance li- brary operations directly. National Sci- ence Foundation facilities-modernization 2 Report on the National Defense Education Act: Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1960 ( W a s h i n g t o n : U . S . Department of Health, Education, and W e l f a r e , Office of Education, 1 9 6 1 ) , p. 14. 3 Ibid., p. 24. grants may be used to refurbish research plants which might include library space. "Library space should compete on its merits with the other space involved in the proposal and a final decision made on the basis of what is most essen- tial to facilitate the research being con- ducted or envisaged at the facility." 4 Proposals totaling over two and two- tenths million dollars to support library facilities were submitted in fiscal year 1962. Grants have been made of ap- proximately three hundred and eighty- three thousand dollars for departmental library and reading room renovations to fifteen institutions. More is coming from this source, how- ever. T h e Department of Commerce's Office of Technical Services recently es- tablished twelve regional technical re- port centers, eleven of them in academic libraries. T h e National Science Founda- tion has guaranteed to finance the op- eration of these centers, at least in their initial stages of development. T h e foun- dation may supply as much as one hun- dred and fifty thousand dollars a year for this activity. T h e foundation has given a subsidy of ten thousand dollars to another institution for a photocopying service in support of scientific activities. T h e National Science Foundation could directly affect the use of funds in aca- demic libraries by assisting in the es- tablishment of research units in indi- vidual libraries or through an association to study problems of library operations. T h e federal government is also in- volved in supplying cash directly to its own institutions of higher learning or those for which it has accepted an ad- ministrative obligation. These are the military service schools and a university located in Washington, D. C. which are being supported in the amount of about one and three-tenths million dollars per year. * L e t t e r to author dated 3 M a y 1962 from H . E . Page, head. Office of Institutional P r o g r a m s , National S c i e n c e Foundation. N O V E M B E R 1 9 6 2 515 T h e federal government's involvement in securing library materials for aca- demic institutions must be counted as a major source of support. Of the 592 depository libraries in existence, 352 are in academic institutions. Most of them take more than half of the material of- fered on deposit. In fiscal year 1962 the federal government budgeted $573,000 for the deposit of six million documents. Assuming that academic and other de- pository libraries have similar selecting policies, the documents deposits are worth $338,000 in book money to aca- demic libraries. T h e cost to the libraries varies from eight to one hundred ninety- three dollars per library for postage. T h e new depository law, among other things, (1) provides for the designation of new depository libraries, most of which will probably be in academic in- stitutions; (2) makes available with some exceptions all government publications including the non-GPO printed docu- ments; and (3) permits the establishment of regional depository libraries. T h e total value of the documents added to libraries will be over five hundred thou- sand dollars more than at present, or about two thousand dollars per deposi- tory. Public Law 48 activities produced In- dian government documents for three academic institutions in the United States (including the Midwest Inter- library Center) for a period of five years. T h e cost to the government was seventy- five thousand dollars. T h e Dingell Amendment to Public Law 480 (Agricultural Trade Develop- ment and Assistance Act) among other things makes it possible for the Library of Congress to acquire foreign books, periodicals, and other materials and to deposit them in libraries and research centers in the United States. A portion of the funds held in foreign countries from the sale of commodities under the terms of the law are available for this program. These funds, however, are not automatically available; the U. S. Treas- ury must declare the funds to be surplus to the normal needs of the United States, and Congress must appropriate them for various purposes just as they do other funds. Late last year the librarian of Congress was appropriated four-hundred thousand dollars for a program for col- lecting publications overseas. Although several score countries are involved in Public Law 480 activities, sufficient cred- its have accumulated in only nine of them to the extent that the Treasury can declare that surplus funds exist. T h e librarian of Congress chose to run a trial program in three of these countries: India, Pakistan and the United Arab Republic. T e n libraries, nine of them academic, are receiving materials from the United Arab Republic. Eleven aca- demic libraries are receiving materials from India and Pakistan. Each of the participating libraries is volunteering five hundred dollars to help pay for the program; all are sharing the salary costs of catalogers to process the material. T h e fiscal year 1962/63 appropria- tion bill for the legislative branch of government, including the Library of Congress, was approved by the House of Representatives on April 11, 1962. Six hundred seventy-eight thousand dollars was provided for the Public Law 480 program. T h e House Appropriations Committee thought the contribution by the benefactor or research libraries "com- mendable" but wants them to work out a more reasonable, sustained plan for financial participation. T h e Senate may recommend the appropriation of addi- tional soft currency when the bill is reported. T h e Library of Congress has decided to restrict its operations for the immediate future to the three nations al- ready involved, and to obtain data on which to base budget requests in future years in other countries where surplus funds are available. Since the selection of libraries to in- clude in the survey of this study does not 516 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 have a valid basis, an examination of the details of the survey can only give a sense of the availability of federal govern- ment funds for academic libraries. Briefly these are the results of the survey. About one hundred seventy-three thousand dol- lars were given directly to academic libra- ries by federal government agencies. T h r e e hundred twenty-two thousand dol- lars came to the libraries directly via other university departments. T h e National Defense Education Act provided 58 per cent of the funds. T h e National Science Foundation provided 12 per cent. T h e remaining 30 per cent came from a vari- ety of agencies, including the Depart- ment of State and the Public Health Service. Twenty-eight per cent of the funds were used for personnel, 60 per cent were used for library materials, 7 per cent for binding, 1 per cent for equip- ment and 4 per cent for unspecified pur- poses. Most of the funds provided by the National Defense Education Act and the National Science Foundation were used for library materials. T h e Department of State provided $81,650 for the operation of the East-West Center library at the University of Hawaii. T h e Public Health Service provided $25,300 for activities not including internships in medical librarianship. T h e National Fund for Medical Education gave one library sixteen thousand dollars and a variety of other agencies contributed $24,670. T h i s prospecting suggests that approxi- mately three million dollars was con- tributed in the past twelve to eighteen months by the federal government to the operation of academic libraries. All of this is evidence, primarily, of politics and ingenuity. Nothing yet discussed can be taken as evidence of a federal policy for academic libraries. Institutional ingenuity might be able to track down other sources of federal funds. T h e standby public works bill (S 2965 and H R 10113) would provide seven hundred fifty million dollars to be used immediately for matching grants for public works in sections designated as redevelopment areas and an additional seven hundred fifty million dollars for "standby" use to be expended after J u n e 30, 1963 if economic conditions warrant it. In the definitions in the bill, libraries are listed among the eligible pub- lic works. T h i s of course means libraries in public academic institutions. T h e fall- out shelters legislation ( H R 10262) would authorize payment towards the construc- tion or modification of approved public shelter space to any nonprofit institution engaged in health, education or welfare activities. Payment would not exceed the cost of providing, by initial construction or modification, shelter or protective fea- tures in accordance with regulations pre- scribed under provisions of the act. Pending government legislation indi- cates, however, a closer relationship be- tween federal policy and academic library activity. We have now to contemplate the academic facilities construction bill ( H R 8900) which in several versions has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, albeit in still irreconcila- ble versions. T h e House version of the bill would provide one hundred eighty million dollars for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963 and for each four succeed- ing years, for construction of academic facilities. Funds are to be granted only for construction to be undertaken within a reasonable time which will re- sult in an urgently-needed substantial expansion of the institution's student en- rollment capacity or, in case of a new in- stitution of higher education, in creating urgently needed enrollment capacity. T h e federal share of such construction is not to exceed one third of the cost of de- velopment of the project. T h e Senate ver- sion calls for loans for construction of academic facilities in institutions of higher education, grants for constructing facilities in two-year community colleges, and scholarships for undergraduate stu- dents. T h e r e is a possibility that a bill will ultimately result which will provide N O V E M B E R 1 9 6 2 517 for categorical grants, with libraries defi- nitely included as one of the categories to be so supported. Omnibus legislation was introduced recently and is due for hearings in late J u n e for an amended Library Services Act ( H R 11823) which seeks to authorize ten million dollars annually for match- ing grants to institutions of higher edu- cation to assist and encourage such insti- tutions in the acquisition for library purposes of books not including text- books, periodicals, documents, and audio- visual and other library materials. Dis- tribution is to be made to the colleges and universities in an amount not ex- ceeding 25 per cent of the sum expended for library materials by such institutions during the fiscal year ending J u n e 30, 1962. In the year for which a request is made, an institution would not be al- lowed to reduce below the correspond- ing figures for fiscal 1962 the amounts to be spent for all library purposes, and for books and related library materials. T h e institution would have to match the grant, with at least 50 per cent of such expenditure going for books and related library materials.5 T h e future, then, is encouraging. T h e purists among the librarians will be hor- rified, no doubt, to find idealistic pro- posals faced with noneducation influ- ences when federal educational policy is at stake. W h a t seem to some to be reasonable and perhaps irresistible pro- posals must bear up under arguments relating to the separation of church and state, segregation, and federal control over curricula, management, and other aspects of local responsibility. T h e r e seems little doubt, however, that with the increasing importance of higher educa- tion to the attainment of skills essential to the future of the United States, fed- eral aid to the nation's higher education program will be forthcoming in larger amounts and with greater library partic- ipation than has been the experience of the past. 5 An Amended Library Services Act for a Com- prehensive Library Development Program ( W a s h i n g - t o n : A L A , J u n e 11, 1 9 6 2 ) , p. 2 ( p r o c e s s e d ) . F O U N D A T I O N S U P P O R T F O R U N I V E R S I T Y L I B R A R I E S B Y G . A . H A R R F . R I N S O F A R as the subject can be dealt with in literature, there appears to be much background reading one can do concerning foundation support of libra- ries. One of the major writers is F. Emerson Andrews who is an editor of The Foundation Directory a n d t h e a u t h o r o f Philanthropic Foundations, both primary sources of information. Books on fund-raising are numerous and contain further material. Sev- eral small periodicals are published, among them the Philanthropic Digest, the Bulletin of the American Association of Fund Raising Counsel, and a news- M r . Harrer is Director of Libraries, Bos- ton University. letter from the National Council on Community Foundations, Inc. In addi- tion, annual reports prepared by many of the foundations are good sources of detailed information. In approaching the subject from the librarian's standpoint, however, several questions propose them- selves. First, what are foundations? Andrews says: " A foundation may be defined as a non-governmental, non-profit organiza- 518 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 tion having a principal fund of its own, managed by its own trustees or directors, and established to maintain or aid social, educational, charitable, religious, or other activities serving the common wel- fare."1 T h i s definition excludes organi- zations which make a general appeal to the public for funds or are set up, though under the name "foundation", within or strictly limited to other special purpose groups or organizations. How many foundations are there? T h e Foundation Library Center in New York, the primary function of which is documenting foundation activity, has rec- ords on approximately twelve thousand, a l s o t h e Foundation Directory Edition I, which is based on the records of the center, lists 5,202 which have assets of over fifty thousand dollars and have made grants of over ten thousand dol- lars in recent years (one which was ex- cluded reported total assets of 26 cents).2 How big are foundations? T o t a l assets of these five thousand large foundations approximate eleven and one-half billion dollars. T h e seven thousand excluded have about ninety-five million dollars which is less than any one of the eleven largest. T h e largest is the Ford Founda- tion with assets of three and three-tenths billion dollars. T h e Rockefeller Founda- tion is next with assets of six hun- dred forty eight million dollars. Grants from the five thousand are annually in the neighborhood of six hundred twenty-six million dollars or approxi- mately 5.4 per cent of their assets, though this varies naturally with the foundation. An interesting fact is that foundation philanthropy, according to estimates in 1954, accounted for only 4.5 per cent of all philanthropic funds, while individ- ual giving (including, of course, to churches, etc.) amounted to 72 per cent. Where does foundation money go? A 1 F . Emerson Andrews, philanthropic Foundations. ( N e w Y o r k : Russell S a g e Foundation, 1 9 5 6 ) , p. 11. 2 Statistical data presented in the next several para- graphs is taken from the Introduction to Foundation Directory Edition I. tabulation by the Foundation Library Center of sampled 1957 figures produced the following general distribution: Education 47 per cent H e a l t h 14 per cent Scientific research IB per cent Social welfare 9 per cent I n t e r n a t i o n a l affairs 8 per cent H u m a n i t i e s 4 per cent R e l i g i o n 3 per cent Government 2 per cent Of the amount for education, 51 per cent went in aid to teachers, 4 per cent (fourth highest) went to buildings and equipment, and 1 per cent to libraries. It is noted, however, that almost one-fourth of the foundations sampled contributed to libraries in some way. Having discovered that there is little information in the literature concerning gifts to libraries, this author searched the records of the Foundation Library Center in New York to gather specific data from which to develop statistics— statistics always being, at least, impres- sive. T h e activities of two organizations, however, were excluded from considera- tion: namely, the Council on Library Re- sources Inc., and the A C R L Grants Com- mittee. These, of course, represent foundation support for libraries and both have made excellent contributions to the library world, but they are excluded be- cause of the uniqueness of their opera- tions and the fact that their funds are directed primarily by librarians. From the records of the Foundation Library Center then, and with the gra- cious help of its charming librarians, a list was compiled of fifty-nine grants of more than ten thousand dollars each given during approximately the last four years, for specific library purposes, to institutions involved in education at the university level. T h e grants totalled $13,446,625. T h e first analysis made was of the distribution to public or privately-sup- ported institutions. A tally of the fifty- N O V E M B E R 1 9 6 2 519 nine grants show that forty-two (or 71 per cent) went to private institutions and seventeen to public institutions. One grant, however, amounted to three mil- lion dollars and if this single grant were excluded we would find that about seven million dollars went to private institu- tions while three and one-half million went to public, or roughly a 70/80 split. Another, and perhaps a more interest- ing approach, is consideration of the sources. W h o gives to libraries? Inspec- tion reveals that thirty-one grants were from one-time donors, that is, donors who, as far as could be determined, had favored libraries once, although a num- ber had given also to other nonlibrary causes. Twenty-eight grants were by seven repeaters, one having given to libraries seven times; two—five times; one—four times; one—three times; and two—twice. T h e repeaters were without exception large, well-known foundations. T h e one- time donors were all smaller ones, usually of local reputation. T h e amount of these grants ranged from ten thousand dollars (the lowest amount recorded by the records of the Foundation Library Center) to three mil- lion dollars. Within this range there were several amounts that seemed to be popu- lar—sort of "magic numbers"—which may indicate something. Twenty-five thousand dollars seems a good figure; there were eleven at this level. Eight grants were for fifty thousand dollars. T h e r e were four at two hundred thou- sand dollars—another nice round num- ber—and three more between there and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. T h e r e were a couple each at one million, and one and a half million, and one at three million dollars, which again is a nice round figure. T h e seven repeaters responsible for al- most a numerical half of the grants gave an amount equal to only 25 per cent of the total money in grants ranging from eighteen thousand dollars (somewhat above the minimum of ten thousand) to six hundred thousand (well below the top of three million dollars—in fact sixth from the top!) T h e repeaters' average was one hundred and twenty-one thou- sand dollars compared to the one-time foundations' average of three hundred and twenty-five thousand, though the formers' median was fifty thousand com- pared to twenty-five thousand dollars for the one-shot ones. An obvious deduction seems to be that chances are better among large national foundations known to be interested in libraries, for medium- sized grants—from fifty thousand dol- lars up through several hundred thou- sand—while for the smaller and the larger grants, the nonlibrary enthusiasts seem more generous. For what purposes are grants made? Here also there are differences, but there are really too few examples to provide a valid population. T h e repeaters gave 84 per cent of their money for buildings, while the one-time foundations gave 94 per cent for this purpose. But, although the repeaters seemed to favor noncapital gifts, the amount they gave (around five hundred and fifty thousand dollars is about the same as the one-time donors, and their preference within that for ac- quisitions was just that of the other group (a bit over one half). Perhaps, however, noncapital gifts are better sought from the larger foundations. One other observation should be made. Foundations normally have a published statement of purpose or restriction indi- cating the type of endeavor or geographi- cal location they prefer. In most of the cases these statements are quite broad. But advice is given by many fund raisers that one should carefully study such statements and, as well, the foundation's record of giving, to determine the sort of project it might be interested in. In proving this advice against the present study, the author found that almost one third were from what might be called " i m p r o b a b l e s o u r c e s " — s o u r c e s t h a t either by geography or philosophy had 520 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 seemed to disqualify themselves from interest. T h i s fact perhaps permits the disconcerting observation that, indeed, money may be forthcoming for any source that has money. No report of this sort should close without a prediction for the future. T h e question of continued development of available funds is all "ifs": if the econ- omy remains sound, if the stock market is stable, if tax incentives continue to encourage some form of major philan- thropy, (we are part of the educational picture, hence:) if education continues to be a favored recipient, if foundations and corporations continue to feel their debt to the educational system, if society continues to feel that education is essen- tial for democratic survival, (and for us particularly) if educational admintra- tors continue to believe more and more —as they have recently—in the words that they have mouthed for decades, that the library is in fact the heart of the institution, then, all told, the prospect looks good. Rut these are many "ifs." One trend can no doubt be observed, and in some ways it is disquieting. It would appear that more and more foun- dations are subscribing to the theory that the justification for their existence is in their ability to provide "seed money" or " t o supply initiative and funds for ac- complishing the unusual, the untried, and even the debatable." 3 If this is so, we may expect—as already appears to be the case—that relative to the amount of 3 A l f r e d P . Sloan Foundation, I n c . Annual Report for 1949-50, quoted in J o h n A. Pollard, Fund Raising For Higher Education (New Y o r k : H a r p e r s , 1 9 5 8 ) , p. 167. money available, an increasing number of small grants will be forthcoming as the foundations attempt to spur activity in more and more areas. Secondly, this means more grants to experimental or venturesome projects. It may be that too great a development of the support for the unproven or exotic projects in pref- erence to the proven, and hence mun- dane, may have its faults, particularly for private educational institutions. Pri- vate fortunes are seemingly more and more being channeled off through foun- dations. Private fortunes formerly sup- ported major building programs. If these funds now go through foundations which are controlled by directors who subscribe to the aforesaid policy, the institutions which formerly benefited from private fortunes will suffer. These are primarily the private institutions, which are al- ready at a serious financial disadvantage as compared to publicly-supported ones. It would seem then, that this philosophy could be damaging, if indeed private in- stitutions are worth saving as a strong element in American education. But, for all institutions, increased giv- ing on the part of foundations is essen- tial and, fortunately, hopeful. Librarians must relentlessly impress upon the pub- lic that only since man has been able to record and store knowledge has he been able to make the great cultural strides which undergird today's civiliza- tion. An active, ingenious, and persistent presentation of the problem of the stor- age and retrieval of knowledge in quan- tities too great for the collective mind is the key to foundation support and to the furtherance of our culture. N O V E M B E R 1 9 6 2 521