College and Research Libraries LYNN C. DENNISON The Organization of Library and Media Services in Community Colleges The learning resources programs of selected community colleges were· studied to determine if differences in the organization of library and media services are accompanied by variations in the level of services provided. The institutions' organizational patterns for materials, catalogs, and staff were analyzed (md compared. The patterns were then evaluated against the in- stitutions' efforts to promote their services, their restrictions on use of ser- vices and materials, and their efforts to evaluate their learning resources programs. AccORDING TO STANDARDS promul- gated by three national associations, com- munity colleges, as a class, are characterized by "the widely diversified purposes and sizes of the institutions-private and publ~c, the high proportion of commuting students, the comprehensiveness of the curricula, the willingness of administrators and faculty to experiment unhampered by tradition, and the heterogeneity of background among those enrolled. " 1 These characteristics have led, in tum, to innovation and experimenta- tion in the organization of learning re- sources materials and staff in order to serve the informational and instructional needs of the two-year college com.munity. Recent published literature on the com- munity college library provides numerous examples of the variations in organizational structures . Especially noteworthy are the descriptive treatises of Fritz Veit, Sarah Katharine Thomson, and Doris Cruger Dale. 2 -4 Prescriptive patterns of organiza- tion are also presented in the literature, al- though much less frequently. 5 Despite the wealth of descriptive informa- Lynn C. Dennison is program officer of the As- sociation of College and Research Libraries, a di- vision of the American Library Association. The study reported here was supported in part by a grant from the Council on Library Resources and a leave of absence from the association. tion, the literature seldom contains informa- tion analyzing or evaluating specific patterns of organization for their effectiveness in meeting the informational and instruction~ needs of the community. In their compre- hensive examination of community college libraries, Harriett Genung and James 0. Wallace identify the choice of organizational patterns as one of the current problems fac- ing such institutions. 6 The "Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning Resources Pro- grams" emphasizes the need for research in this area. 7 Connie R. Dunlap's review of or- ganizational patterns in academic libraries underscores the importance of using a care- ful analysis of users' needs and the library's goals as a basis for determining organiza- tional configurations. 8 The purposes of this study, conducted during the 1975-76 academic year, were to gather general information on library and media services ·in community colleges throughout the United States; to examine specifically the multiformity of organiza- tional patterns that have resulted from ef- forts to bring information, particularly in a nonprint format, to the attention of the user; and to determine whether differences in organizational patterns are acCompanied by variations in the level of services pro- vided by the institutions' learning resources programs. Twenty institutions throughout the I 123 124 I College & Research Libraries • March 1978 United States were selected for the diver- sity of organizational patterns represented among them (see appendix). Each institu- tion furnished numerous documents, includ- ing the college catalog, statements of phi- losophy for the learning resources program, organization charts for learning resources staff, budgets, maps and floor plans, and learning resources handbooks and guides. Each institution was visited for from one to two full days, between October 15, 1975, and January 15, 1976. During each visit, in- formal interviews were conducted, when possible, with the head of the learning re- sources program, with the heads of major units within the learning resources program, and with other learning resources staff as time and their availability permitted. In some cases, persons responsible for major units of the learning resources program were not able to schedule interviews during the visits. In such instances, the author has relied on the information given in the fur- nished documents and on information pro- vided by others on the staff. The findings of this study are based upon information concerning the status of each institution's organization as it was at the time of the visit. Analyses of the institu- tions' organizational structures revealed common patterns for the organization of ma- terials, catalogs, and staff. In tables 1, 2, and 3 the institutions have been grouped according to these common patterns into categories that are identified below. 0RGANIZATlON OF MATERIALS The manner in which a community col- lege organizes, stores, and uses its collec- . tions, particularly with respect to print and nonprint materials, comprises one facet of the organization of its learning resources program. In the twenty institutions studied, the patterns observed for the organization of materials form a series ranging from integra- tion through various stages of separation (table 1). In the three institutions in category A, print and nonprint materials, with few ex- ceptions, were integrated physically, admin- istratively, and by service staffing. The ma- terials were cataloged similarly and were in- tershelved, and the collection was serviced by all "reference" staff collectively. In the four institutions in category B, print and nonprint materials were inte- grated administratively and by service staf- fing but were separated physically. Print and nonprint materials were shelved in separate places but were considered part of one collection and were the responsibility of all "reference" staff collectively. In the three institutions in category C, print and nonprint materials were inte- grated administratively but were separated physically and by service staffing. Print and nonprint materials were considered part of one collection but were shelved separately and were serviced by separate units of "ref- erence" staff. In the six institutions in category D, print and nonprint materials were separated ad- ministratively, physically, and by service staffing. Nonprint materials were the re- sponsibility of a unit or units administered separately from that which was responsible for print materials. In many cases, nonprint materials were serviced by persons for whom training in librarianship was not re- quired. In the four institutions in category E, most nonprint materials belonging to the in- stitution were not kept together as a collec- tion and were found in various locations, in- TABLE 1 THE ORGANIZATION OF MATERIALS Nonprint Materials Materials Materials Handled~ Materials Number of Part of Integrated Integrate Integrated Category Institutions Collections Administratively Service Staff Physically A 3 yes yes yes yes B 4 yes yes yes no c 3 yes yes no no D 6 yes no no no E 4 no no no no Organization of Services I 125 TABLE 2 THE ORGANIZATION OF CATALOGS Category A B c Number of Institutions 8 8 4 Non~rint Materials Print and Nonprint Bib iographically Accessible through Accessible One Catalog yes yes yes no no no TABLE 3 THE ORGANIZATION OF STAFF Number of Division by Category Institutions Function A 9 yes B 1 no c 3 no D 1 yes E 5 yes F 1 no eluding faculty and departmental offices. ORGANIZATION OF CATALOGS The catalogs through which print and nonprint materials are made biblio- graphically accessible to users exhibit another aspect of the organization of a community college's learning resources pro- gram (table 2). The eight institutions in category A pro- vided access to all learning resources mate- rials, print and nonprint, through one inte- grated catalog. In some of these colleges, additional catalogs were also maintained for distinct portions of the collection. The eight institutions in category B pro- vided access to all learning resources mate- rials through two or more separate catalogs of print and nonprint materials. The four institutions in category C pro- vided bibliographic access primarily for print materials only. Most of the nonprint materials belonging to the institutions were not cataloged. ORGANIZATION OF STAFF Examining the organization of staff in- volved in the provision of learning resources services presents numerous problems. In many institutions, learning resources services are not viewed as parts of a unified learning resources program, thereby making Division by Division by Division by Geography Clientele Fonn no no no no no no yes no no no yes yes no no yes no no yes difficult any organizational comparisons with institutions that do hold such a view. Learning resources staff may be organized using a number of different factors, includ- ing form, function, subject, language, geog- raphy, and clientele. 9 Although a single fac- tor may be used as the primary one upon 'which the organization of staff is based, other factors appear as the bases for the secondary and tertiary levels of organiza- tion. The terminology used to identify a spe- cific unit of a learning resources program frequently does not appropriately reflect the actual functions or responsibilities of that unit. The term "audiovisual services," for example, may refer to . a collection of no~­ print materials, to an equipment distribu- tion center, to a production unit, to an in- structional development function, or to a combination of these. This report presents an analysis of the fac- tors which were used to organize staff and services at the primary level only (table 3). It was assumed that the institution's basic philosophy concerning its resources services would best be reflected at this level. Each institution's organizational design was analyzed by the functions and respon- sibilities delegated to each of its units and not by the terminology used to identify those units. 126 I College & Research Libraries • March 1978 Nine of the institutions visited used func- tion as the sole basis of division at the pri- mary level of organization (category A). The following functions were identified by these institutions: utilization, processing, circula- tion and distribution, production, skills de- velopment, tutoring, instructional develop- ment and curriculum design, and adminis- tration. The one institution in category B or- ganized its learning resources staff as a fac- ulty. Although certain staff members were responsible for supervising specific functions and forms, each staff member at the pri- mary level was assigned responsibilities that cut across the lines delineating factors such as subject, form, and function. In three institutions, geography was used as the sole determining factor in organizing staff at the primary level (category C). Each of these institutions belongs to a multicam- pus district. Certain -learning resources ser- vices were organized on the district level and performed at a district headquarters; others were organized on a campus level and per- formed by the specific campuses. In one institution, function and form and clientele we.re all used as factors in organiz- ing the learning resources staff (category D). The primary-level units included those con- cerned with the functions of production and skills development ; those concerned with the forms of print, nonprint, and computer; and those concerned with the clientele of students and faculty. The five institutions comprising category E used both function and form to organize their learning resources services and staff. At the primary level of organization, units were established to deal separately with print and nonprint forms and with functions such as processing, production, and skills development. The one institution in category F or- ganized its learning resources staff on the basis of form. Its two basic units dealt sepa- - rately with print and nonprint materials. COMPARISON OF ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNS FOR MATERIALS, CATALOGS, AND STAFF Comparisons were made of the institu- tions categorized in tables 1, 2, and 3 with respect to their treatment of materials, catalogs, and staff (table 4). As might be expected, those institutions that provided a greater degree ofintegration of materials (categories A and B on table 1) also provided a greater degree of integration of catalogs (category A on table 2) and did not divide their staffs by form, clientele, or geography (category A on table 3). Those institutions that provided a greater degree of separation of materials (categories D and E on table 1) also provided a greater degree of separation of catalogs (category C on table 2) and introduced the factors of form, clientele, and geography into the or- ganization of their staffs (categories C, D, E, and F on table 3). PROMOTION OF SERVICES One of the most important documents a community college can provide to notify the community of its services is the college catalog. Information about a college's learn- ing resources program, contained in the catalog, may provide a clue to the philoso- phy that the institution holds regarding its learning resources program and may serve as an indication of the institution's commit- ment to user accessibility and service. A scale developed by Marl Ellen Lever- eilce and revised by Doris Cruger Dale10 was used to rate the information on learning resources services that was provided in the 1975-76 college catalog of each of the twenty institutions visited for this study: for each institution, one point was assigned if the learning resources program is listed in TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF TABLES 1, 2, AND 3 Number of Rank on Rank on Rank on Insti- Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 tutions A A A 3 B A A 2 B B A 2 c A A 2 c B B 1 D A c 1 D B c 1 D B D 1 D B E 3 E c c 1 E c E 2 E c F 1 the table of contents; one point if it is listed in the index; one point if the description is under 225 words; two points if the descrip- tion is over 225 words; and two points if the description includes information on services, philosophy, and/or staff (table 5). The number of points assigned to an in- stitution appears to correlate fairly well with the amount of integration observed in the institution's organizational design (table 6). In general, those institutions that provided a greater degree of integration of materials and catalogs and that organized their staffs on the basis of function earned higher _scores (four to six points) in the rating of in- formation contained in the catalog. In gen- eral, those institutions that provided a greater degree of separation of materials and catalogs and that organized their staffs on the basis of form, clientele, or geography earned lower scores (zero to three points) in the rating of college catalog information. A study of table 6 reveals that there are several exceptions to the generalizations stated above. Two institutions ranked "AAA" received zero and two points respec- tively; an institution ranked "DAC" re- ceived five points; two institutions ranked "DBE" received four and five points respec- tively; and an institution ranked "ECE" re- ceived six points . No explanation for these exceptions has been suggested by the in- formation provided in other college docu- ments or during the campus visits. It may be, as Dale has suggested, 11 that the college catalog is not used to its best advantage in many instances. It may also be that the college catalog is not, as currently utilized, a good indicator of the level of services provided by the institution's learn- ing resources program. It should be noted that all of the institutions visited furnished other types of materials for promoting their learning resources services, and many of- fered formalized orientation and instruction programs in conjunction with ;egularly held class sessions. RESTRIC1'10NS ON USE OF LEARNING RESOURCES SERVICES AND MATERIALS According to the "Guidelines for Two- Year College Learning Resources Pro- grams," "users of learning resources have the right to expect that facilities, materials, Organization of Services I 127 TABLE 5 RATING OF INFORMATION IN COLLEGE CATALOG Points Number of Earned Institutions 6 4 5 4 4 4 3 1 2 5 1 0 0 2 TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF INSTITUTIONAL RANKINGS AND CATALOG RATINGS Institutional Ranking on Table 4 AAA AAA AAA BAA BAA BBA BBA CAA CAA CBB DAC DBC DBD DBE DBE DBE ECC ECE ECE ECF Points for Catalog Information 6 2 0 5 4 6 4 5 4 6 5 2 2 5 4 3 2 6 0 2 and services are available to meet demon- strated instructional needs for their use. " 12 One of the basic roles of a learning re- sources program as envisaged in the "Guidelines" is the provision of "an or- ganized and readily accessible collection of materials and supportive equipment needed to meet institutional, instructional, and in- dividual needs of students and faculty. " 13 Despite the indicati.on of these guidelines, many community colleges placed restrictions on the use of their learning re- sources, which limit the accessibility of cer- tain types of materials and services. It has already been noted that four of the institu- tions visited did not maintain organized, bibliographically accessible collections of 128 I College & Research Libraries • March 1978 their nonprint materials (table 1, category E). These institutions, in effect, have de- nied access to these materials to the general populations they serve. Only two-thirds of the twenty institutions studied permit the circulation of nonprint materials and equipment. Of the seven in- stitutions that limit such circulation, two are among the colleges that comprise the first ten institutions listed on table 6, and five are among the colleges that comprise the last ten institutions on the table. Half of the institutions visited did not offer production facilities and services to students. Of these ten, three are among those that comprise the first half of the list in table 6, and seven are among those that comprise the last half of the table. EVALUATION OF LEARNING RESOURCES SERVICES An attempt was made to correlate the re- sults of this study with the results of each institution's own efforts to evaluate its learn- ing resources services. It was disappointing but not surprising to learn that most of the institutions covered in this study had no formal procedures .for evaluating their learn- ing resources programs. Many relied primarily on informal feed- back: opinions expressed by students and faculty, the number of complaints directed to the head of the learning resources pro- gram, and the types of suggestions offered for improving services. Several institutions used questionnaires or surveys conducted either by learning resources staff or by per- sonnel from the institution's office for re- search. Many learning resources staff, how- ever, felt that the results of such efforts do not provide enough hard data with which to evaluate the quality of services provided. Other measures used to evaluate learning resources services included the use of statis- tics, a comparison with the "Guidelines," and self-studies conducted in conjunction with accreditation visits. CONCLUSIONS The most significant finding revealed by this study is that an institution's philosophy concerning its learning resources program was displayed in organizational patterns and levels of service that were internally consis- tent. Those institutions that exhibited a greater degree of integration of materials and catalogs organized their staffs solely on the basis of function; earned higher scores on the rating of information provided in the college catalog; and had fewer restrictions on the use of learning resources services and materials. Those institutions that ex- hibited a greater degree of separation of ma- terials and catalogs introduced the factors of form, clientele, and geography into their organizational structl}res; earned lower scores on the rating of/ information provided in the college catalog; and placed more re- strictions on the use of learning resources services and materials. Based upon these findings, one may well be led to conclude that the organizational pattern chosen by an institution for its learning resources program does have an ef- fect on the levels of service it provides. REFERENCES 1. "Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning Resources Programs," College & Research Libraries News 33:305 (Dec. 1972). De- veloped by the American Library Association (Association of College and Research Librar- ies), the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, and the Association for Educational Communications and Technol- ogy. 2. Fritz Veit, The Community College Library (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1975). 3 . Sarah Katharine Thomson, Learning Re- source Centers in Community Colleges (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1975). 4. Doris Cruger Dale, "The Community Col- lege Library in the Mid-1970s," College & Research Libraries 38:404-11 (Sept. 1977). 5. See, for example, Kenneth W. Allen and Loren Allen, Organization and Administra- tion of the Learning Resources Center in the Community College (Hamden, Conn.: Shoe String Press, 1973), p.12-22. 6. Harriett Genung and James 0. Wallace, "The Emergence of the Community College Library," Advances in Librarianship 3:7~75 (1972). 7. "Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning Resources Programs," p.306. 8. Connie R. Dunlap, "Organizational Patterns in Academic Libraries, 1876-1976," College & Research Libraries 37:395-407 (Sept. 1976). 9. These factors are identified and described in Edward A. Wight, "Research in Organization and Administration," Library Trends 6:141- 46 (Oct. 1957). 10. Reported in Doris Cruger Dale, "Questions Organization of Services I 129 of Concern: Library Services to Community College Students," journal of Acatkmic Li- brarianship 3:82 (May 1977). 11. Ibid., p.82. 12. "Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning Resources Programs," p.315. 13. Ibid., p.307. APPENDIX LIST OF INSTITUTIONS VISITED Moraine Valley Community College Palos Hills, Illinois College of DuPage Glen Ellyn, Illinois William Rainey Harper College Palatine, Illinois Johnson County Community College Overland Park, Kansas Penn Valley Community College Kansas City, Missouri Bergen Community College Paramus, New Jersey Brookdale Community College Lincroft, New Jersey Montgomery College Rockville Campus Rockville, Maryland Northern Virginia Community College Annandale Campus Ann~ndale, Virginia Northern Virginia Community College Alexandria Campus Alexandria, Virginia Miami-Dade Community College North Campus Miami, Florida El Paso Community College El Paso, Texas San Antonio College San Antonio, Texas El Centro College Dallas, Texas Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington College of San Mateo San Mateo, California College of the Canyons Valencia, California Los Angeles City College Los Angeles, California Mt. San Antonio College Walnut, California Golden West College Huntington Beach, California ,, •• • 4*'' tresslonallnformation Service, Inc. 101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 900E Washi·ngton, D.C. 20014