College and Research Libraries I E. J. JOSEY Community Use of Junior College Libraries-A Symposium* IN THE FALL OF 1965, the Committee on Community Use of Academic Libraries of the ACRL. surveyed the extent to which library service is given to com- munity users. More than 1,000 college and university libraries were queried. After the results had been tabulated, it was discovered that very few junior col- leges or two-year colleges were includ- ed in the survey. 1 In order to obtain a comprehensive picture of library service to community users by all types of aca- demic libraries, the committee decided that it was necessary to survey the two- year college libraries. 2 In order to determine the extent of the community use of junior college li- braries, it was the committee's opinion that the questionnaire used in the first survey should be revised. The revised questionnaire, while designed like its predecessor to pro be various facets of community use of junior college li- braries, also included questions which would give in-depth information on the junior colleges. Possible conclusions or assumptions could not be reached with- out relevant institutional data. Thus the participants in this survey were asked questions relative to the size of the li- brary collections, the number of persons on the library staff, student enrollment, size of the faculty, and population data of the geographical area in which the particular junior college was located. In March 1968 a questionnaire was sent to 689 junior college libraries in the 0 The results of a survey of junior col- lege libraries conduoted in March 1968. nation; 308 or 45 percent of the libraries responded. The findings are presented in sympo- sium format utilizing the expertise and assistance of all members of the commit- tee. Barbara LaMont, librarian, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York, as- sumed the responsibility for machine tabulating the responses to the ques- tionnaires. John E. Scott, librarian, West Virginia State College, discusses ques- tions 3 and 4. Questions 5 through 7 are analyzed by John B. Smith, assistant di- rector of libraries, Texas A. & M. Uni- versity. Richard C. Quick, director of li- braries, State University of New York College at Geneseo, reviews questions 8 through 11 as well as institutional data. Questions 12 and 13 are discussed by Edward C. Heintz, librarian, Kenyon College. George C. Elser, librarian, Chaffey College, analyzes questions 14, 15, and 17. A consideration of the sig- nificance of the findings to two-year col- leges and an analysis of questions 1, 2, and 16 are the province of this writer who serves as chairman of the commit- tee. Use of Library Materials by Outsiders The first question attempted to dis- cover if junior college libraries permit in-building use of library materials by persons other than students, faculty, staff, and their immediate families. Most of the respondents replied affirmatively, 282 or 91 percent marked yes, nineteen or 6 percent answered no. Seven or 2 percent failed to answer. I 185 1861 College & Research Libraries • May 1970 If the respondent answered yes to the first question, in the second question part a, he was asked if he permitted quick reference only, and in part b, if he permitted unrestricted use of study space. The largest number of respon- dents, 139 or 45 percent, gave no an- swer; the next largest group, 122 or 39 percent, marked no, and forty-seven or 15 percent indicated that they offered quick reference only. One can deduce from these responses that the over- whelming number rejected the provision of reference service only, if we may be presumptuous enough to combine the number of those who failed to answer with those who rejected the offering of only quick reference service. Turning to the unrestricted use of study space, most of those reporting, 259 or 84 percent, allowed unrestricted use of study space in their libraries. Only nineteen or 6 percent did not permit un- restricted use of study space. Thirty or 10 percent elected not to answer. An analysis of the responses to parts a and b of question 2 leads us to conclude that by and large the community user is giv- en more than just quick reference ser- vice in these junior college libraries. The truth of the matter is that the ccoutsider" is welcomed and is given, for the most part, use of study space in the libraries of these institutions. Circulation of Library Materials to Outside Borrowers JOHN E. SCOTT While 91 percent of the responding junior college libraries permit use of li- brary materials inside the building by persons other than students, faculty, staff, and their immediate families, the story is somewhat different when the li- braries are asked, "Do you circulate li- brary materials to persons other than students, faculty, staff, and their imme- diate families?" Two hundred and sev- enteen respondents said yes, but this amounts to only 70 percent of the li- braries which allow library materials to be taken out of the building by outside borrowers as compared with 91 percent which permit inside use of materials. Eighty-eight respondents or 28 percent replied no, they do not circulate library materials to others; three respondents did not answer. Question 4 was directed to the institu- tions that indicated they did not circu- late library materials to persons other than students, faculty, staff, and their immediate families. It asked, "If the an- swer to question number 3 is negative, what is the reason for this decision?" Respondents were given a choice of six reasons. Results are given in parenthe- ses. a. Insufficient library materials for other than college personnel? ( 75 yes, 6 no) b. Inadequate staff to administer extra service? (55 yes, 16 no) c. Basic belief that materials should be used only by college personnel, even though the college program would not suffer through circulation to oth- ers? ( 14 yes, 46 no) d. Belief that service to the general public ·would be a disservice to the community in view of the fact that public and/ or school library develop- ment may be curtailed? ( 21 yes, 36 no) e. Difficulties relating to control: getting books back, collecting fines. ( 72 yes) f. Other? (Only twenty-two libraries listed other reasons, such as "there has been no demand for it," and "community has such an excellent public library that service from col- lege library is unnecessary." One jun- ior college in Florida noted, "Private institution, community support is not requested or expected; therefore, community use cannot be encour- aged." The longest and probably the harshest comment on this question came from a junior college librarian in Texas who wrote: "If we librarians continue to blur our true functions- each type of library has its own 'pub- lic' that supports it and for which it shall supply resources-how can we blame the public and our budget au- thorities for the confusion on which libraries are supposed to do what, with which, for whom? We have sabotaged ourselves by all of this talk of 'free library service.' ") Policy Statement and Extent of Service to the Community JOHN B. SMITH The junior college, more than any other type of institution of higher edu- cation, stands in close relationship to its surrounding community. It seems rea- sonable, therefore, that the junior col- lege library should have a particular in- terest in community service and that li- brary resources should be made freely available to the community. This does, in fact, seem to be generally the case as analysis of questions 5 through 7 shows. Question number 5 was designed to find out how many libraries actually have a firm written policy statement re- garding community use. It reads as fol- lows: "Do you have a written policy concerning library use by persons not connected with the college?" Tabula- tions show 29 percent answered yes, 69 percent answered no, and 2 percent did not answer. At first glance, one might interpret this response as lack of inter- est. But after studying some of the un- solicited comments appended to the question, it seems more likely that li- braries have not felt the need to pre- pare a written statement. Some ~ypical comments are: A Symposium I 187 "We have never felt the need of a written policy ... the few requests that are made are usually from alumni or friends." "An excellent Carnegie Library makes these requests very infrequent.'' "We have very few requests.'' Several comments also indicated that a written policy was under consideration but had not yet been formulated. From this we might speculate that more insti- tutions feel the need of a written state- ment and that we will see more of these in the future. Although we did not specifically ask for copies of the written policy state- ment, several libraries did send them. A typical one is from Clatsop Community College, Astoria, Oregon, which reads in part: ~ In the belief that Clatsop Community Col- lege should also contribute to the commu- nity's education, borrowing privileges are extended to any resident of Clatsop Coun- ty. Student needs will come first and the library reserves the right to call in any book for which there is an immediate stu- dent need .... Question number 6 sought to learn how many libraries permit relatively free use of their facilities by members of the general public. It reads as follows: "Do you extend the borrowing or in- building use privilege to all members of the general public?" Of the total, 60 percent answered yes, 38 percent answered no, and 2 percent did not answer. This shows that well over half of all junior college libraries answering the questionnaire permit rel- atively free access, at least for in-build- ing use, by all members of the general public. There were, however, a few comments indicating that the meaning of the term "general public" was limited in that case to residents of the local community and that persons from other towns or counties were not served. Question number 7 included six sub- 1881 College & Research Libraries • May 1970 questions, and was intended to find out to what extent six critical groups are served by those libraries that do not of- fer service to all members of the general public (those answering question num- ber 6 negatively). Because of the length and complexity of this question, results are shown in the following table: ExTENT OF SERVICE TO SIX CRITICAL CATEGORIES OF OuTSIDE UsERS Of Libraries Of Libraries Serving Serving This Percent of Percent of This Group, Group, Per- Libraries Libraries Percent cent That Serving This Not Serving That Permit Permit In- Group A. High School Students B. Students from Other Colleges C. Teachers and Clergy D. Other Professional People E. Residents of the College District F. Alumni In considering question 7, it is signifi- cant to note that very nearly all of the libraries surveyed offer some sort of ser- vice, at least to some segment of the community (see also question number 1). Groups such as teachers, clergy, oth- er professional people, and alumni fare extremely well, while others, such as high school students and residents of the college district, are sometimes exclud- ed, but do receive some sort of service in the vast majority of junior college li- braries. Analysis of all three questions can be summarized briefly as follows: relatively few junior college libraries now possess written statements concerning library use by members of the community. This does not seem to be an indication of lack of concern, however, but simply an in- dication that, in many cases, no problem is caused by community use of these li- braries. There is some evidence that more junior college libraries will be for- mulating written policies on community use in the future. A large percentage permit relatively free use of their facilities by all members of the public, although the word "pub- lic" is sometimes defined as residents of the local community. Of those libraries that do not offer service to the entire public, service is offered to various spe- Group This Group Borrowing Building Use 65 35 41 92 85 15 51 84 93 7 66 56 88 12 56 59 77 23 43 68 89 11 51 61 cial groups under varying restrictions. Only in a very few cases was there an indication that community use was ac- tively discouraged. High school students, students from other colleges, teachers, clergy, profes- sional people, residents of the college district, and alumni are given some sort of service in the majority of libraries that do not offer service to the public at large. Of these groups, high school stu- dents and residents of the college dis- trict seem to be the most likely to be ex- cluded. The Outside Borrower- What Limits? RICHARD C. QUICK Questions 8 through 11 were designed to determine the conditions under which qualified outsiders are permitted partial or total use of the community college li- brary. The response pattern, especially as shown in answers to the subparts of question 9 concerning specific restric- tions, is surprisingly similar to that which developed when the same question was asked of 783 college and university li- braries in the committee's survey of 1965.3 In question number 8, respondents were asked to indicate whether a fee or deposit is charged to outsiders for the privilege of borrowing, and if so, to in- dicate the amount of the deposit or fee. Among 308 respondents, nineteen or 6 percent indicated a fee or deposit. Two of these noted both a fee and a deposit. More than 80 percent of those respond- ing indicated no fee or deposit. In thirty- nine instances, the question did not ap- ply. In eight instances where a fee is charged, these range from a low of fifty cents in a Texas college to a high of $15.00 in an Alaskan institution. The average fee reported was $3.80. The average fee charged by institutions re- porting amounts between the minimum and maximum is $2.50. In thirteen institutions where a depos- it is required, the amounts ranged from a low of $1.00 in one Missouri college to a high of $25.00 at an Alaskan institu- tion. The average deposit required among thirteen libraries is $6.40. The av- erage deposit among eleven libraries re- porting amounts between the minimum and maximum is $5.27. One respondent in Texas reported that a deposit of $5.00 is required for each two books borrowed. Another Tex- as community college requires a $5.00 deposit, but specified that it does not apply to high school students and public school teachers. It seems probable that those libraries requiring fees or deposits do so in an at- tempt to discourage use by outsiders which would add to an already heavy work load being borne by a very few people. The average fee or deposit, however, presents only a token obstacle and should not constitute a real deter- rent to the determined outside user. As the committee found in its 1965 survey of college and university libraries, the number of libraries requiring fees or de- posits is so few that the practice cannot be viewed as evidence of widespread denial of access. A Symposium I 189 Question 9 asked, "What modification, if any, is placed upon borrowing priv- ileges extended to qualified outsiders?" This question included eight subparts, permitting respondents to answer None, or to indicate any of seven common li- brary restrictions. Among the respondents to the ques- tionnaire, sixty-seven or 21 percent indi- cated that no restriction was placed up- on the borrowing privilege for outsiders. Subpart b asked whether outsiders could "check out reserve materials." One hundred and fifty respondents or 48 per- cent indicated that outsiders were not permitted to check out reserve materi- als. One library permitted overnight use of reserved books by outsiders, and one permitted borrowing of reserve books by high school students. But these were the only exceptions. Subpart c asked if "high school stu- dents must have a slip from their school librarian each time they wish to check out materials." Of the total respondents to the questionnaire, thirty-seven or 11 percent indicated that this restriction applied. One respondent noted that a high school student "must have a slip from his school librarian or teacher the first time . . . then we issue them a card for one year." Another responding library indicated that the high school student "must have a slip from his principal to take out a library card." Another accepts "verbal permission from their school li- brarian," still another issues a library card good for one semester. Other re- spondents noted such variations as "or an accompanying parent must sign," "student must present student activity card," "ALA interlibrary loan form is re- quired," or "for overnight use only." Subpart d of question 9 asked if a shorter loan period applied for outside borrowers. Nineteen or 6 percent indi- cated that qualified outsiders were giv- en a shorter loan period. Of the com- 1901 College & Research Libraries • May 1970 munity college library respondents re- porting a shorter loan period, one com- mented that this restriction applied to high school students only. Subpart e asked if outside borrowers were granted a renewal privilege. Twen- ty-four or 7 percent indicated that out- side borrowers had no renewal privilege. Subpart f asked if outsiders were per- mitted to check out journals. Ninety- nine or 32 percent reported that outside borrowers could not check out journals. One community college library re- sponding to subpart f added "This de- pends upon the imperative need, re- gardless of the person," while another indicated that journals could be checked out if they were bound. Subpart g of question 9 asked if the library required "in-library use only" by outsiders. Seventy-two or 23 percent permitted in-library use only for outsid- ers. One library indicated that this re- striction applied only to students from other colleges and not to other outsid- ers. Another said this restriction did not apply "to students of other colleges who live in bordering towns and have identi- fication." One community college ex- cepted alumni from this restriction; an- other excepted professional people. The last subpart to question 9 pro- vided space for respondents to indicate restrictions other than those specified. Responses here varied as follows: "May not check out more than three books at one time"; "Only material not needed by students may be borrowed"; "No books borrowed on ILL for outsiders"; "Cannot use phone/tape collection"; "Special personal application to head li- brarian needed in most cases"; ccM ust sign address and phone number"; "Ma- terial must not be available from other sources, i.e., public library, high school, university"; "Depends on who, why, what"; "Must be resident of college ser- vice area"; and "May limit number of items to people under 18 or not gradu- ated from high school." Question 10 asked: ccDo you require qualified outsiders to complete an appli- cation or registration form?" Of the total respondents to the questionnaire, nine- ty-four or 30 percent answered yes, and 183 or 59 percent answered no. Thirty respondents or 9 percent indicated that this did not apply. One respondent indicated that outsid- ers seeking the borrowing privilege ccmust be introduced by college person- nel." Another that students from two neighboring universities did not need to apply or register. Still another indicated that the application had to come "via the business office." Question 11 asked: "Is the qualified outsider provided with a copy of the reg- ulations by which he is expected to a bide?" To this, ninety respondents or 29 percent said yes, 168 or 54 percent said no, and for forty-eight the question did not apply. Some of those respond- ing in the negative indicated that the applicant was given verbal instruction. Community college libraries attempt, as do their college and university coun- terparts, first to satisfy the needs and requirements of their own academic cli- entele. And rightly so. In the few in- stances where fees or deposits are levied on outside borrowers, charges are, for the most part, negligible. As might be anticipated, many community college li- braries do not permit borrowing of re- serve books or journals by outsiders. These strictures are understandable, " ... in view of the academic library's primary responsibility to students, facul- ty, and staff, who need some assurance that reserve materials will be available to support class assignments and that scholarly journals will be on the shelves for study and research purposes."4 Where other restrictions exist they seem to de- rive from an honest consideration of lim- ited staffing and extraordinary work load. Findings from responses to questions 8 through 11 suggest a variety of lend- ing services are provided the noncollege user among the 308 community college libraries which participated. A climate of permissiveness prevails and, if the outsider is not always accorded full-use privileges, neither is he fully denied. Controls and Interlibrary Loans EDWARD C. HEINTZ Of the 217 junior college libraries which noted that they circulate books to the community at large, the survey does not reveal that recovery of the books is a problem of any magnitude. Although eight respondents or 3 percent checked legal action as a method of recovery, none specified the kind of legal action. Possibly because many are community colleges, some might be protected in this respect by municipal, county, or even state statutes. In contrast, only one of the 783 respondents to the college and university survey of 1965 on nonacadem- ic use indicated legal action as a last re- sort. Other methods of recovery reported hardly reveal more than might have been expected. Telephone calls are used most widely, with 191 or 62. percent sug- gesting that the telephone is an effective instrument for recovering material. Post- al cards are also used extensively: 133 or 43 percent of the libraries use them, though one uses letters only, and anoth- er states "letter if outside local call range." As for sending a messenger, twenty-two or 7 percent said yes, which is about half the percentage of college and university libraries who indicated use of messengers. In neither case do we know whether the delinquent bor- rower is charged for this relatively ex- pensive measure. Other measures to retrieve delinquent materials are used by twenty-four or 8 A Symposium I 191 percent of the responding libraries. Only ten of these specified the nature of «oth- er" and some of these reveal the small- ness of the community served, such as "word of mouth," "request when I see the person," "personal contact-commu- nity." Blacklisting, expressed as "with- drawal of loan privileges," is employed by only two libraries, and only two un- dertake to notify school authorities. One can only conclude that nascence is the state of one library whose comment is, "Haven't had to use any device so far." At this point it may be of some inter- est to refer back to question · 4, where seventy-eight libraries or 25 percent in- dicated that they did not lend to per- sons not in some way associated with the institution because of difficulties re- lating to control, i.e., book recovery and collecting fines. Will this percentage be- come larger as library collections grow and as the population increases, or will it of necessity decline as state and fed- eral aid expands? It is unlikely that li- brarians alone will determine the an- swer to this question. Twelve respondents did not answer the question, "Do you check out materi- als indirectly through interlibrary loan to other libraries in your area ( instead of directly to an outside borrower)?" Of the remainder, 157 or 51 percent said yes, and 123 or 40 percent said no. Six- teen or 5 percent wrote both, pres urn- ably as a result of choice on the part of the borrower. The Number of Outsiders and the Materials Borrowed GEORGE C. ELSER Question 14 requested respondents to estimate the number of outside users that might be expected on a typical day. Nearly one-third replied that they had no outside users or not more than one on a typical day. Another third estimated that their libraries were visited daily by 192 1 College & Research Libraries • May 1970 one to four persons not connected with their institution, while 14 percent re- plied that between five and nine out- siders used their libraries. Only 10 per- cent said that their libraries were visited by more than ten outsiders on a typical day. Another 10 percent did not answer the question. It would appear that the typical junior college library is not flood- ed by outsiders. Question 15 related to the number of books borrowed by outsiders or the num- ber of books used in the library by out- side users on a typical day. Answers to this question indicate that few books are borrowed by outsiders. Forty-eight percent of the libraries did not check out any books, or not more than one book, on a typical day. Twenty-two per- cent checked out one to four books, 13 percent five to nine books, and only 10 percent of the libraries checked out more than ten books to outsiders on a typical day. Outsiders made their great- est use of junior college libraries by using books in the library. Twenty-seven percent indicated that outsiders used no books or not more than one book on a typical day, 11 percent said that only one to four books were used, 18 percent responded that their in-library use amounted to only five to nine books, 12 percent reported an in-building circula- tion of ten to nineteen books, and 10 percent indicated that on a typical day outsider use approximated twenty to twenty-eight books. It seems likely, con- sidering the statistics above, that even the smallest junior college library could support the limited use of its facilities made by outsiders. A large majority of the respondents, 85 percent, replied in the negative to question 17, which asked if there were any legal strictures, such as the Educa- tion Code or institutional regulations which would prevent them from serving persons not connected with their institu- tion. Only 5 percent said that they could not legally serve outsiders. Nine percent did not reply. Since so many junior colleges feel that there are no legal restrictions to prevent them from serving outsiders and since 70 percent stated that they circulated materials to persons other than students, faculty, and staff (Question no. 3), it seems strange that so little outside use is being made of community college li- braries by outsiders. There may be fac- tors which militate against community use (such as the location of the college in relation to population centers), but it would seem that the community college could serve a great many more persons not connected with their institutions than they are now serving, thus raising the level of library service in their com- munities. Publicly and Privately Supported Institutions E. J. JOSEY Since there is a growing number of publicly supported community colleges being established in the country, it was decided that information on financial support should be included in the sur- vey. Of the 308 institutions participating in the survey, 194 or 62 percent are pub- licly supported institutions while 105 or 33 percent are private institutions. Five or 1 percent of the reporting institutions indicated that they enjoyed both private and public support. Only three respon- dents did not answer this question. In examining the extent to which li- brary service is offered by both the pub- licly and privately supported institu- tions, no real discernible pattern emerged which would indicate a trend or indicate anything statistically signifi- cant which would show a greater re- sponse to sharing library resou~ces with the community by either the publicly or the privately supported two-year col- leges. On some questions the privately supported institutions were more com- munity oriented than the publicly sup- ported institutions. On others the reverse was true. An illustration of this fact may be seen in question 3 relative to the circu- lation of materials to persons other than students, faculty, staff, and their imme- diate families. Surprisingly about one- half of the respondents who answered affirmatively were equally divided be- tween the public and private institu- tions. Those who answered negatively were almost equally divided. An examination of the question of charging user fees revealed that in more than 249 or 80 percent of the re- plies, no fee is required for using library collections. Of the nineteen that require a borrower fee, most are private. From this . small sample it may be reasonable to assume that the public institutions are cognizant that their funds come from the public and are not likely to charge the local citizen for extramural service. In a close scrutiny of a third question in this random selection of three q ues- tions to compare the publicly supported institutions' policies with those of pri- vately supported institutions (question 17, which considers legal strictures as embodied in Educational Codes or in- stitutional regulations), it is interesting to note that an overwhelming number, 263 or 85 percent, stated that no legal re- strictions existed. On the other hand, upon a careful study of the small num- ber, seventeen, that indicated that legal restrictions existed, more than one-half were private two-year colleges. If this sample truly represents the national pic- ture and if conjecture is permitted, an evolving hypothesis may very well be that the minute number of two-year col- lege libraries that have restrictions are the private institutions. For the most part, the data do not emphasize conclusions which are statis- A Symposium I 193 tically significant. Nevertheless, the an- swers to two of the three questions ran- domly selected and discussed above pos- sibly show that the average publicly supported institution is less restrictive in its service to the community than pri- vately supported institutions. Institutional Characteristics of Junior Colleges Participating in the Survey RICHARD C. QUICK In addition to questions concerning services and privileges accorded by jun- ior college libraries to persons not con- nected with the college, the committee's survey questionnaire also requested cer- tain institutional data which might indi- cate the libraries' state of preparedness for service beyond the prior needs of the academic community. Specifically, the questionnaire asked the number of volumes in the library, the number of full-time students and fslCulty ( FTE), and the numbers of pro- fessional and clerical staff. The ques- tionnaire also asked the population of the community in which the college is located. Three hundred and seven libraries re- sponded to the questionnaire's Institu- tional Data section. In terms of num- bers of students and faculty served, size of staffs, and size of book collections, these responses indicate that a majority of the junior college libraries surveyed are not sufficiently prepared to satisfy the service obligations to their own aca- demic communities. It would appear that where services and privileges are offered to outside users, such accommo- dations represent an expenditure of staff time and dispersal of book resources that may not be justified. Where library ser- vices and privileges are not extended to the outsider, it is probably because there are not adequate personnel or material 194 I College & Research Libraries • May 1970 resources to support such an accommo- dation. Collections and Enrollment Da.ta The Standards for Junior College Li- braries, developed by the ACRL Com- mittee on Standards ( 1960) , recom- mend that a junior college library of up to 1,000 students should have a book collection of at least 20,000 volumes. The Standards suggest that the collec- tion should be increased by 5,000 vol- umes for every 500 students ( FTE ) be- yond 1,000.5 Of the respondents supplying infor- mation on the number of volumes in the library, 50 percent reported collections of less than the ACRL's recommended 20,000 volume minimum. Of those li- braries supplying data on the number of students enrolled, 54 percent reported student bodies in the range of 1- 999. In an institution-by-institution comparison of book-stocks and enrollments, it was found that 119 libraries reported serving student enrollments of up to 1,000 stu- dents with less than the recommended minimum 20,000 volumes. Thirty-four other libraries were found to be serving student enrollments of more than 1,000 students with collections below the rec- ommended minimum 20,000 volumes. In addition, roughly three-quarters of the libraries with subminimal collections were also called upon to satisfy study and research needs and services to fac- ulties numbering from thirty to fifty. Staff Da.ta The ACRL Standards recommend two professional librarians as the mini- mum number required for effective ser- vice in a junior college with an enroll- ment up to 500 students ( FTE), and that there should be at least one non- professional staff member. Three hundred and five junior college libraries responding to the questionnaire reported professional staffs ranging from one to nine members. Of the respon- dents, 117 or 38 percent indicated one professional staff member: sixty-four re- ported serving student bodies ranging from 500- 999; and eight reported serv- ing student bodies ranging from 1,500-- 2,000 students. Two libraries reported one professional librarian serving student bodies numbering in excess of 3,000 stu- dents. Eighty-five responding junior college libraries reported two professional staff members. In this group an institution- by-institution comparison of numbers of staff and numbers of students enrolled revealed: eighteen professional pairs serving student bodies ranging to 499 students; twenty-eight professional pairs serving student bodies ranging from 500--999 students; sixteen professional pairs serving student bodies ranging from 1,000- 1,499 students; twenty pro- fessional pairs serving student bodies ranging from 1,500-2,999 students; and three pairs serving student populations in excess of 3,000 students. Three li- braries specified no professional staff. Two hundred and seventy-nine li- braries reported clerical staffs ranging to fifteen members. Of these, seventy- four indicated one; sixty-seven indicated two; forty-five indicated three; fifty- eight indicated four-five; and thirty-five indicated more than six clerical staff members. Twenty-five libraries reported no clerical assistance. Of the 117 libraries reporting only one professional staff member, 14 percent indicated no clerical assistance, 33 per- cent indicated one clerical assistant, 26 percent indicated two clerical assistants, and 14 percent reported clerical staffs ranging from four or more. Of the eighty-five libraries reporting two professional staff members, 8 per- cent indicated no clerical assistance, 22 percent indicated one clerical assistant, 31 percent indicated two clerical assist- ants, and 16 percent indicated three clerical assistants. The remaining eight- een libraries reported clerical staffs rang- ing from four or more. Population Data Two hundred and ninety-nine junior college libraries supplied population to- tals for the communities in which they are located. Of these, ninety-three or 30 percent reported populations of less than 10,000; ninety-three or 30 percent reported populations of 10,000--50,000; thirty-six or 11 percent reported popula- tions of 50,000-100,000; sixty or 19 per- cent reported populations ranging from 100,000-1,000,000; and seventeen or 5 percent were located in communities in excess of one million. Responses to the questionnaire indi- cate that more than sixty-two of the jun- ior college libraries surveyed are located in communities of less than 50,000 per- sons. In the case of ninety-three libraries reporting populations of less than 10,- 000, theirs may well comprise the only significant book collections within easy reach of the community at large, and there may be unusual pressures upon these to assist with community library services. It should be noted that thirty- seven of the libraries shown to be un- derstaffed and understocked, in terms of the ACRL Standards, are located in communities of less than 50,000 persons. Both groups, while not fully prepared to supply the library needs of the academic community, do render community ser- vices in varying degree, either as a sub- stitute for nonexistent public library re- sources, or to supplement a limited pub- lic library resource. Responses to the questionnaire's In- stitutional Data section showed that a significant number of the junior college libraries surveyed are disadvantaged in terms of staff and collection sizes as compared to numbers of students and faculty serviced. Where full or partial access is granted to outsiders, it would A Symposium I 195 seem that this accommodation could im- pose a further strain on the library's al- ready inadequate personnel and materi- al resources. Significance of the Findings to Junior College Libraries E. J. JOSEY When it was reported that the State Agricultural and Technical College at Farmingdale, New York, would become the first college on Long Island to open its library to general public circulation, some community-minded citizens felt that this new policy was just a natural extension of community service by a two-year college. Residents had always been allowed to use library facilities, but they had not enjoyed the privilege of borrowing library materials. Generally, community colleges or junior colleges in recent years have become anxious to ex- tend services to the wider communi- ty. Naiman and Konneim support this view when they declare that "with the growth of the community college there may be more and more opportunity for such extension of the college beyond its campus at little cost to itself and at con- siderable benefit to the larger communi- ty for which it can be a valuable source of information."6 There can be no quar- rel with such objectives; however, in terms of extending library service to the larger community, while most institu- tions offer some kind of service, a varied and multicolored picture emerges. Scott's analysis of the question on the circulation of materials disclosed that al- though 91 percent of the respondents allow in-building use of materials, only 70 percent permit borrowing privileges. Various reasons were cited for not grant- ing circulation privileges; the largest group responding indicated that their li- braries possessed insufficient material. The most acrimonious comment came from a Texas librarian, who declared 196 1 College & Research Libraries • May 1970 " ... we have sabotaged ourselves by all of this talk of 'free library service.' " Ob- viously he has not moved far from the concept of each little library working in isolation attempting to serve its public without any desire to join the emerging cooperatives and networks intended to strengthen library service to all types of libraries and library users. One wonders what his reaction is to the heavy burden that college students place on the public library. The National Advisory Commis- sion on Libraries in its report has strong- ly recommended that libraries join net- works. Hence, it is essential for libraries of all types, and especially two-year col- lege libraries to join cooperatives in or- der to strengthen total library service in their region. 7 By and large, most of the two-year in- stitutions have not formulated policy statements which govern the use of their libraries by outsiders. Smith found that some evidently do not feel the need for a written statement, and more than half of the reporting libraries permit free ac- cess by the general public. Of the vari- ous categories of users, it appears that high school students are not welcomed at junior college libraries, and this find- ing coincides with the survey of com- munity users of college and university libraries mentioned earlier. In his investigation of the conditions under which unaffiliated users may use junior college libraries, Quick reported that more than 80 percent do not charge a fee for the use of library materials. This fact may mirror the parent insti- tution's philosophy to extend itself into the greater community beyond the col- lege. It can be assumed that the small number that charge fees do not do so in order to deny library service, for the fee is too small. If one would assume that the fee is to be a deterrent to outsiders, ambitious researchers-faculty and/ or students-will pay to acquire the highly desired materials for study or research, thus, the fee will never constitute an in- surmountable barrier. This discourse could very well close with a quote from two authors who are considering another important service to the community and seems quite appli- cable to libraries. "Here, it would seem, is an example of one of the real chal- lenges to the community college: name- ly, relating to its neighbors not only by offering formal education to the young but also by providing a resource to the adult and professional populations in need."8 The enforcement of adequate controls over materials loaned and correspond- ingly the sending of materials via inter- library loan in lieu of direct loan are matters that are in the hands of librari- ans. The telephone seems to be the most effective communications medium for recall of materials from local outside borrowers. With reference to interlibrary loan, Heintz reveals that 51 percent in- dicate that materials are sent on interli- brary loan rather than given directly to an outsider, and 40 percent disavowed using interlibrary loan in this manner. The results here do not correspond to question three in which it was found that 70 percent extend circulation priv- ileges to persons other than students, faculty, staff, and their immediate fam- ilies. There is the possibility that the re- spondents extend materials to outsiders via interlibrary loan under certain con- ditions. The results do not warrant as- sumptions. This dilemma points up the major weakness of the questionnaire method-the differing interpretations of questions by respondents. The opening of the floodgates and be- ing inundated by masses of outside users "syndrome" is, of course, played down by the respondents, for Elser points out that 32 percent replied that they served no outsiders or less than one on a typical day. Another 32 percent reported serv- ing from one to four outsiders and an examination of the amount of materials borrowed reveals that this is negligible. In terms of legal restrictions, only 5 per- cent reported having such regulations. From the foregoing facts it appears that the libraries of two-year colleges are not suffering from the demands of unaffili- ated users. When two-year colleges be- come part and parcel of a national in- formational system, their present outside clientele will not prevent other newcom- ers from tapping their resources as well. Library service from publicly support- ed two-year colleges versus library ser- vice from privately supported two-year colleges, as this writer stated earlier, is not statistically significant to report ex- cept in a couple of instances where it appears that publicly supported institu- tions may be a few degrees more pro- gressive in terms of community service. In his characterization of the junior colleges participating in the survey, Quick shows very tellingly and graph- ically that most of the institutions sur- veyed do not meet ALA standards in terms of collection and staff. The N a- tiona! Advisory Commission on Libraries corroborates his findings in these words: "As college enrollmentyhave increased since World W~e have witnessed an almost phenomenal increase in the number of junior and community col- leges . In no other type of institution serving higher education are library shortcomings so glaring. The great ma- jority of library collections of junior col- leges are considered substandard. . .. "9 The next question that should be posed is the following: why should junior col- A Symposium I 197 lege libraries attempt to serve the gen- eral public with such meager resources? One possible answer may very well be the revelation from the National Advi- sory Commission on Libraries that "more than two-thirds of all public libraries fail to meet American Library Association (ALA) standards as to the minimum adequate size of collections, and not one in thirty meets ALA standards for per capita support."10 Therefore, out of ne- cessity, townspeople flock to the libraries of two-year colleges hoping to find what they do not find in their public libraries. The problem is further compounded, be· cause a majority of the two-year col- leges surveyed are located in towns of less than 50,000 population and, in too many instances, access to the junior col- lege library is necessary for reference and research. Finally, without a doubt, this survey clearly shows that most two-year college libraries permit some degree of access to their library collections and resources. Even the concept of legal restriction in itself is not a barrier to outside users. Even the one librarian who contended that "each type of library has its own 'public' that supports it and for which it shall supply resources" constitutes an in- finitesimal minority. What does the future portend for community use of junior college li- braries? As library networks and infor- mational systems emerge, the dividing lines between library jurisdictions will . continue to erode, and the junior college library will play a vital role in provid- ing materials to all qualified users. REFERENCES 1. E. J. Josey et al., "Community Use of Academic Libraries: A Symposium," College & Research Libraries 28:198- 202 (May 1967). 2. In this symposium, the authors will re- fer to the junior college intermittently as junior college, community college, or two-year college; whatever term is used it refers to an institution provid- ing two years of college-level work 198 I College & Research Libraries • May 1970 equivalent to the freshman and sopho- more years of college. 3. E. J. Josey et al., "Community Use of Academic Libraries." 4. Ibid., p.199. 5. American Library Association, Associa- tion of College and Research Libraries, "Standards for Junior College Li- braries," College & Research Libraries 21:200-206 (May 1960). 6. Dorothy N. Naiman and Beatrice G. Konneim, "The College and the Ex- tra-Campus Community," Adult Lead- ership 118 (Oct. 1963). 7. U.S. National Advisory Commission on Libraries, Report of the National Ad- visory Commission on Libraries. Li- brary Services for the Nation's Needs; Toward Fulfillment of a National Pol- icy (Washington, D.C. 1968), p.3. 8. Moses S. Koch and Priscilla M. Wool- ley, "The Economic Opportunity Act: An Opportunity for Community Col- leges," Junior College Journal 36:28 (Oct. 1965). 9. U.S. National Advisory Commission on Libraries, Library Services for the N a- tion's Needs, p.22. 10. Ibid., p.24.