020.715 I 
 
 A434 
 no. 15 
 cop. 3 
 
 COOPERATION BETWEEN TYPES OF LIBRARIES: 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF A STATE PLAN 
 
 FOR 
 
 LIBRARY SERVICES IN ILLINOIS 
 
 Allerton Park Institute 
 
OF 
 
 U N I V E R. S 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 
 020.715 
 A434 
 
 no .15 
 cop. 3 
 
The person charging this material is re- 
 sponsible for its return on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 
 are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
 result in dismissal from the University. 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 APff 1 
 APR 2-5 1< 
 
 L161 O-1096 
 
a 
 
 ALLERTON PARK INSTITUTE 
 
 Number 15 
 
Papers presented at an Institute 
 
 conducted by the 
 
 University of Illinois 
 
 Graduate School of Library Science 
 
 November 3-6, 1968 
 
COOPERATION BETWEEN TYPES OF LIBRARIES: 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF A STATE PLAN 
 
 FOR 
 LIBRARY SERVICES IN ILLINOIS 
 
 Edited by 
 CORA E. THOMASSEN 
 
 University of Illinois 
 
 Graduate school of Library Science 
 
 Urbana, Illinois 
 
Copyright 1969 
 
 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 
 LC Card Number: 72-625423 
 
 VOLUMES IN THIS SERIES 
 
 The School Library Supervisor (Allerton Park Institute No. 1), 1956. $2 paper. 
 The Nature and Development of the Library Collection (No. 3), 1957. $2 paper. 
 Collecting Science Literature for General Reading (No. 7), 1960. $2 paper/$3 
 
 cloth. 
 The Impact of the Library Services Act: Progress and Potential (No. 8), 1961 . $2 
 
 paper. 
 Selection and Acquistion Procedures in Medium-Sized and Large Libraries (No. 
 
 9), 1963. $2 paper/$3 cloth. 
 The School Library Materials Center: Its Resources and Their Utilization (No. 
 
 10), 1964. $3 cloth. 
 
 University Archives (No. 1 1), 1965. $2 paper/$3 cloth. 
 The Changing Environment for Library Services in the Metropolitan Area (No. 
 
 12), 1966. $2 paper/$3 cloth. 
 
 Federal Legislation for Libraries (No. 13), 1967. $2 paper/ $3 cloth. 
 Trends in American Publishing (No. 14), 1968. $4 cloth. 
 Cooperation Between Types of Libraries: The Beginnings of a State Plan for 
 
 Library Services in Illinois (No. 15), 1969. 
 
 IV 
 

 ft 
 
 FOREWORD 
 
 CO/ 3 
 
 The Fifteenth Allerton Park Institute sponsored by the faculty of the 
 Graduate School of Library Science of the University of Illinois was conducted 
 from Sunday, November 3 to Wednesday, November 6, 1968, at Allerton Park, 
 the university-owned estate near Monticello, Illinois. 
 
 The Institute theme focused on "Cooperation Between Types of 
 Libraries." The conference was supported by the Illinois State Library through 
 funds made available under Title III of the Library Services and Construction 
 Act, as amended in 1966. Illinois librarians representing various types and sizes 
 of libraries were invited to the conference. An attempt was made by the 
 planning committee to have the various regions within the state represented by 
 librarians from the various kinds of libraries located within the several regions. 
 The committee was most interested in creating an environment for interaction 
 among these librarians in order to stimulate greater local cooperative efforts 
 among types of libraries. A related objective was the desire that the beginnings 
 of a state plan for library services in Illinois would emerge. 
 
 Speakers of state and national reputation and representing a variety of 
 experiences in different types of libraries were invited to survey past efforts of 
 interlibrary cooperation involving the many facets of library services and to 
 suggest directions in which interlibrary cooperative activities might more 
 effectively be brought into being. The atmosphere of the Institute was one of 
 congenial discussion and interaction among participants and speakers. 
 
 The keynote speaker for the conference was Lowell Martin. His paper 
 discusses trends in interlibrary cooperation and traces the history of such efforts 
 nationally, and in Illinois. The kinds of cooperation which have existed among 
 and within types of libraries are discussed, as well as the changing structures of 
 libraries which may lead to greater interlibrary cooperation. Martin projects the 
 possibilities of cooperative efforts through technological innovations which may 
 serve as stimulants to increasing such activities. 
 
 Committed to surveying the extent and nature of cooperation between 
 types of libraries in technical service areas, Sarah Vann also directs attention to 
 the ingredients essential to such efforts. Not to be overlooked, Vann maintains, 
 is the element of human resource involvement in cooperative library programs. 
 Vann presents some questions for the self-appraisal of librarians. Librarians' 
 responses to these queries may result in the first steps toward the formulation of 
 a state plan for library services in Illinois. 
 
 To determine the extent of interlibrary cooperation among Illinois 
 libraries, Donald Wright conducted a literature search and also used a 
 questionnaire which he submitted to some 500 librarians in the state. The 
 literature search revealed little, but the two hundred and ninety-six respondents 
 to the questionnaire reported some positive experiences as well as some negative 
 attempts at interlibrary cooperation. Wright describes in detail some examples of 
 interlibrary activities which are representative of cooperative efforts within the 
 state. 
 
 Drawing from her experience as the Director of School Libraries and 
 Instructional Materials for the state of Hawaii, Carolyn Crawford describes the 
 unique organizational structure affecting library services in that state. The 
 
> 
 
 cooperative efforts among public and school libraries in various other states are 
 noted. Crawford admonishes public and school librarians to develop cooperative 
 programs and at the same time to define their separate as well as their mutual 
 responsibilities. 
 
 Another paper in this volume is devoted to exploring cooperation between 
 special libraries and other types of libraries. Russell Shank limits his discussion 
 to those special libraries which exist in business, industry, government, 
 museums, societies, and non-profit research agencies. Recognizing the 
 constraints placed on this type of library, Shank goes on to note the 
 relationships that affect special and other types of libraries in systems 
 development. He describes various activities of a cooperative nature but notes 
 that the greatest interaction comes about through "informal or non-systematized 
 contacts." Shank contends that one of the greatest limitations affecting the full 
 utilization of the resources of special libraries is our inability to evaluate 
 collections and then to interfile the subject analyses of the many libraries. 
 Organizing regional agencies must be undertaken but not before we have 
 sufficient understanding and knowledge of local communities, so as "to find the 
 best configuration of elements to make serviceable systems." 
 
 Craig Lovitt, representing the Lieutenant Governor's office in the state of 
 Illinois and assigned to the Office of Intergovernmental Cooperation, describes 
 the work of his office and notes the hierarchy of governmental agencies as they 
 are affected by federal, state, and local governments. He expresses the belief that 
 cooperative action must originate at the local level, that communications must 
 be easy between libraries and other publicly supported organizations, and that 
 recommendations for cooperative efforts should be the joint concern of the 
 professional library associations and state officials and other interested agencies. 
 Lovitt hypothesizes that, "cooperation between people and institutions can 
 contribute much toward creating a community awareness that libraries are 
 essential ... to our way of life." 
 
 Throughout the conference, participants representing different kinds of 
 libraries within a particular region of the state met together in discussion sessions 
 to explore ways in which they might cooperate to provide library services more 
 effectively and efficiently. The edited summaries of those group reports are 
 included at the end of this publication along with the reactions to the reports. A 
 panel of speakers and participants served as reactors. Hopefully the 
 recommendations made by the participants in this conferences do represent the 
 beginnings of a state plan for library services in Illinois. 
 
 Program planning was directed by Guy Garrison and Herbert Goldhor, 
 Frances B. Jenkins and Cora E. Thomassen of the Graduate School of Library 
 Science faculty. Timothy Sineath, in the Division of University Extension, was 
 responsible for other conference arrangements. 
 
 Cora E. Thomassen 
 
 VI 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 FOREWORD 
 
 Cora E. Thomassen v 
 
 EMERGING TRENDS IN INTERLIBRARY COOPERATION 
 
 Lowell A. Martin 1 
 
 COOPERATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF LIBRARIES 
 IN TECHNICAL SERVICES 
 Sarah K. Vann 12 
 
 COOPERATION BETWEEN TYPES OF LIBRARIES IN ILLINOIS 
 TODAY 
 
 Donald E. Wright 36 
 
 COOPERATION BETWEEN SCHOOL LIBRARIES AND OTHER 
 TYPES OF LIBRARIES 
 Carolyn Crawford 47 
 
 COOPERATION BETWEEN SPECIAL LIBRARIES AND OTHER 
 TYPES OF LIBRARIES 
 Russell Shank 60 
 
 GETTING PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS TO COOPERATE IN 
 THE LOCAL COMMUNITY 
 Craig E. Lovitt 73 
 
 DISCUSSION . 85 
 
 vn 
 
Lowell A. Martin 
 
 Educational Director, 
 
 Grolier, Inc., and 
 
 Director, 
 
 Chicago Public Library Survey 
 
 EMERGING TRENDS IN 
 INTERLIBRARY COOPERATION 
 
 Cooperation among libraries is by no means a fresh and new idea. I need 
 only mention interlibrary loan, centralized cataloging, personal use of reference, 
 bibliographic records of holdings among groups of libraries, and agreements on 
 planned joint acquisition of resources, including one among three large libraries 
 in Chicago that is dated 1895. 1 do not know when the first book was exchanged 
 between libraries in the United States, but I do know that the February 1913 
 issue of Library Journal carries an article on interlibrary loan that asks how long 
 larger libraries can continue to carry the load of requests from smaller libraries 
 without some compensating return. 1 Illinois began to answer the question half a 
 century later by passing state legislation providing payments to designated 
 reference and research centers. 
 
 The early literature does not use the word cooperation as much as we do 
 now, but the term may well apply in its purest meaning to the spontaneous, 
 informal sharing of resources that was fairly common by the turn of the century. 
 For a considerable period, libraries in cities, towns, schools, colleges, and 
 universities were hard pressed to keep up with immediate and mounting local 
 demands, Following this came a considerable lull in concrete cooperative 
 projects among libraries. A man trying to keep his own boat afloat does not have 
 much time to engage in squadron maneuvers with others, but a man who realizes 
 he is destined in time to sink alone, does look around for help. 
 
 Librarians began looking around for help in earnest after World War II. 
 The 1944 Post-War Standards for Public Libraries^ incorporated the concept of 
 systems. Research libraries jointly sought to catch up on acquisitions delayed by 
 
 1 
 
the war, and finding that they did not come to blows in dividing up accumulated 
 materials, applied the same principle to future acquisitions in the Farmington 
 Plan. 
 
 If we apply the word cooperation, in the sense of working together, to the 
 earlier interlibrary activities, then the recent effort might be characterized more 
 as "structured coordination." Actually current plans do not introduce many new 
 kinds of cooperative endeavor or service. What is new are the structures for 
 coordinated action. 
 
 This is implied in our dependence on the word "systems." We are seeking 
 to institutionalize cooperation. New York, which has led the way in many 
 respects, now has two congeries of systems: the public library structures and the 
 reference and research agencies, the latter with new boards of directors and new 
 staffs. The bulk of their work to date can be fitted under the same five essentials 
 of planned acquisition, interlibrary loan, interlibrary direct use, comprehensive 
 bibliographic records, and joint technical operations. If the New York reference 
 and research systems had existed fifty years ago, they might have developed 
 much the same programs as are emerging today. 
 
 There is a new element, and it might well have a greater impact than 
 structures for coordination. I refer to automation and electronic transmission. 
 Think what facsimile transmission, made practicable and economical, will mean 
 for interlibrary loan as we have known it we can see the image now rather than 
 getting the book itself two weeks from now. There is a chain effect here: if 
 direct access at a distance can be provided, we must also take a fresh look at 
 planned joint acquisition it will be more efficient to have a transmission center 
 in one large library than to seek to orchestrate the separate holdings of various 
 libraries. Interesting in this regard is the RAND Corporation report entitled A 
 Billion Books for Education in America and the World,^ with its conjecture 
 about serving specialized America with 100 libraries of 10,000,000 volumes 
 each. Machine-readable bibliographic and cataloging information which will not 
 only affect localized cataloging combines, but will also permit various forms of 
 joint records of holdings must also be considered. 
 
 How soon will the mechanized library appear? I would not venture a guess, 
 and it may not come at all in the form now envisioned. I recall that when I 
 shifted to publishing ten years ago and found myself caught up in endless 
 publishers' luncheons, one could bring down the group at the table in derisive 
 glee by telling the newest story on how the computer had loused up a recent 
 publishing venture. Today practically every one of these publishers works with 
 machine-readable tape for setting type, justifying margins, hyphenating words, 
 laying out pages, and assigning page numbers. 
 
 Publishers' luncheon tables are not amused by computer stories today. 
 They have returned to talking as publishers, about what books are needed and 
 how they can be created. The automated library will no more eliminate 
 librarians than automated printing has eliminated publishers. It will simply 
 permit them to concentrate on practicing librarianship, which has to do with 
 what resources people need and how to provide them. 
 
LIBRARY COOPERATION TODAY 
 
 In the last decade or two, some librarians have moved beyond mere talk 
 about cooperation to genuine concern about the limitations of their own 
 resources; efforts and growing interest in what might be accomplished jointly are 
 prevalent. This is an intangible move, occuring in the minds of library officials, 
 but it is a first requirement if service is to get off dead center. Where this psychic 
 step has not been taken, and there are many places where it has not, precisely 
 there is where joint action among libraries is absent or lagging. 
 
 I believe that concern exists to a degree on the part of the serveral types of 
 librarians public, academic, school, and special. Up to this point we are dealing 
 with an outlook that is not confined to one or another type of library. 
 
 The second step of contact and consultation has taken place in many 
 localities, states and regions. The plant of cooperation grows under the glow of 
 direct human exchange. It is a source of comfort to find that others are in the 
 same fix as you are, and is further reassuring to hear that by holding hands 
 members of a group may more effectively meet their common problems. 
 Meetings at this stage are likely to have considerable warmth but few tangible 
 results. 
 
 It is here at the early stage of contact and consultation that the libraries of 
 the several types part company. Each group has its own problems and hopes, 
 separate from those of other types of libraries. Small wonder that in the 
 succeeding steps making plans, getting money, establishing structures of 
 cooperation the types of libraries have for the most part gone their own ways. 
 
 The concerned and consulting group is likely to make plans, big or small. 
 That stage is marked here in Illinois by the Rohlf Report, 4 and I suspect that 
 one could find less formal plans among groups of college and school libraries in 
 the state. It follows from the parting of the ways at the preceding step of 
 consultation that most such plans are for one type of library. 
 
 The fanciest plans have been for public libraries. The published standards 
 for this kind of library assume joint endeavor. Federal funds have been used for 
 cooperative public library planning. The state library agencies which for the 
 most part are really public library agencies have either sponsored planning or 
 engaged in it themselves. 
 
 To this point librarians have been mostly talking to each other. Now with 
 a plan in hand they must talk to the holders of the purse strings. The reason why 
 money has been essential is that the plans really do not propose cooperation 
 among libraries. What they propose is new agencies in one form or 
 another usually called systems to which libraries can go to get the advantages 
 of a larger unit. I think the distinction is more than semantic or technical, as we 
 will see shortly in analyzing existing public library systems. 
 
 The response from government sources of money has been encouraging. 
 Illinois librarians have found that it is possible to present the cause of libraries to 
 state officials and get a positive response. Other states have also had a degree of 
 success, even when their plans were not made as carefully as those of Illinois. If 
 nothing else could be claimed for the cooperative systems concept, it has proven 
 to be a means to focus attention on library needs and to open added channels of 
 
support. If you are inclined to be cynical, you might push this a step further and 
 wonder whether these systems programs in some states were really designed to 
 promote cooperation or to tap state money. 
 
 My theme at the moment is that there has been a discernible advance 
 through the several steps of the cooperative sequence among libraries. We are in 
 a mood for joint action. 
 
 PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEMS 
 
 While public library systems are by no means the only form of current 
 library cooperation, they are at present the most active spot and preempt much 
 of our attention. They deserve review here both as a trend in themselves and as 
 an indication of the direction in which we are moving. While they do not 
 formally involve various types of libraries, we may be able to learn from them. 
 
 The cooperative library system is the modern version of the larger unit 
 library. The earlier form was the county or multi-county library, to which we 
 gave a generation of effort, only to realize after building a thousand county 
 libraries that this was really not what was meant by modern library service. We 
 had to learn the hard way that the combination of weak agencies into a unit 
 serving a larger piece of territory did not make for effective service. It took 
 twenty-five years to learn this lesson. The experience should make us less than 
 confident that we have since found revealed truth. 
 
 Now, rather than building up county or multi-county libraries, the 
 approach is through the system meaning by this a coordinating structure of 
 some kind, retention of local autonomy, voluntary participation, flexibility of 
 territory, and selectivity of projects. The individual library needs to do very little 
 to become a member of a system, and must continue to partake of very little in 
 order to remain in the fold. The present-day library system is most permissive. 
 This is at once its strength and its weakness. 
 
 A rich variety of state plans have grown up within this framework. New 
 York broke though by creating separate library centers within regions, around 
 which individual libraries could gather to share resources and services provided 
 for them. Pennsylvania is betting its money on existing larger libraries spread 
 throughout the state, thus avoiding an added bureaucracy. California does not 
 have a uniform state-wide pattern but sponsors decentralized cooperative 
 ventures, with the result that the North Bay group is quite different from the 
 Black Gold cooperative centered on Santa Barbara, and this in turn is different 
 from the regional reference program based in Fresno. Maryland starts from its 
 foundation of county libraries covering the state and instead of multi-purpose 
 cooperative units adds interlibrary agencies for distinct functions new 
 processing centers, interlibrary loan and, shortly, interlibrary reference centered 
 on the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore. The variety among state plans for 
 library systems is one of the most encouraging signs in the picture. 
 
 The Illinois plan has elements of several of these, and it remains to be seen 
 whether it is the best eclectic combination for the circumstances. The systems 
 design is taken from the New York model and the reference and research design 
 from Pennsylvania. Given these sources, I would like to make an obvious 
 
suggestion; New York has just completed one of the very few evaluations we 
 have of systems programs in any depth. 5 The prime effort in that evaluation was 
 not to analyze structure as such, but to assess its effect on service, down in the 
 local library. In over-simplified summary, in many smaller libraries there were 
 discernibly more books available to the reader, in some libraries use of 
 interiibrary loan doubled, and in a few libraries there was demonstrable 
 improvement in staff service in the form of reference and advisory performance. 
 You may have noted that progression of terms from many for better resources, 
 to some for opening a wider world through interiibrary loan, to a/ew for effect 
 on staff performance. The toughest job in a systems program is to improve 
 service in the front lines, the quality of performance of staff in local libraries. 
 Note also in the New York evaluation report the mounting strain that was found 
 on the systems structures at the point of the central or headquarters libraries. 
 You will also find in that report a reaching for a regional base for both service 
 and financial purposes that is larger than the natural contiguous local systems. 
 
 As to the Pennsylvania reference and research program, there has been no 
 detailed evaluation of this except in the recent re-survey in that state 6 , but you 
 will find benefit in going through the minutes of meetings and noting the 
 program developed by the council of the four regional resource libraries. 
 
 Let me now return to a closer look at common elements and possible 
 problems in public library systems as they have developed. Their most frequent 
 services are interiibrary loan, building up of reserve resources, and advice and 
 consultation for local staff. Does this have a familiar ring? Of course it is the 
 standard program of state library agencies, as set forth in considerable variety in 
 the 1963 Standards for Library Functions at the State Level.' 1 Rather than being 
 billed as cooperation in the sense of several units sharing strength and each 
 helping the other, the usual library system might better be described as a 
 localized state library service agency, financed by state funds, providing various 
 services of particular value to smaller libraries, and used by local units alert 
 enough to take advantage of them. 
 
 This characterization is not intended to diminish systems but to place 
 them within the spectrum of library cooperation. I am disturbed when existing 
 local systems are somehow assumed to be the sum and apex of interiibrary 
 cooperation; they are, on the contrary, only a start, and indeed are simply a 
 more localized way of doing what we have done in the past. 
 
 Seen in this light, we can more objectively consider questions about these 
 new systems. They call for relatively little commitment on the part of local 
 libraries. Library systems only slowly develop a sense of widespread 
 identification that would hold them together in time of stress. Until then they 
 are more like dispensers of aid to underdeveloped countries, and those who 
 receive are not always as grateful as the giver would wish. The first test comes 
 two or three years after systems are formed, when promise has become reality, 
 and some libraries feel disappointed. Another test comes when the largest and 
 strongest units in the enterprise assess what they get out of the system program 
 as compared with what they could get on their own with their share of the 
 system funds. We are dealing with a tenuous structure, held together not so 
 much by mutual benefit and common sacrifice as by persuasion, gifts and a call 
 
to remote professional standards. Under the circumstances the systems directors 
 would do well not to be too concerned about job security. 
 
 I would like to see more required of local libraries for participation in 
 cooperative ventures. The sustaining power of a joint project that I enter with 
 you is that we each put something in, thus feeling that the enterprise is our own, 
 and we each get something out, thus feeling that it is worth the effort. I cannot 
 rightly call this an emerging trend because system directors, like their forebears 
 in the state capitol, tend to hold up the prospect of rich rewards for little 
 sacrifice, and hesitate to mobilize a genuine mutual aid society where each 
 member has to contribute. One hard contribution could be in the form of 
 money to support expanded system programs decided upon jointly by the 
 members themselves, the money not to be deducted from already limited local 
 funds, but coming perhaps from the county level which also has an 
 inter-jurisdictional library interest, or from new region-wide library districts. 
 
 Some localities do not participate in systems programs right from the 
 beginning. Others a larger number are technically part of the system but 
 participate as little as professional and public opinion will allow. Do not make 
 the mistake of equating the theoretical opportunity for system benefits with the 
 actuality of better service for all the people. Many Americans are getting better 
 library service through agencies participating in organized cooperative programs 
 in their areas, but many more in and out of the system, not holdouts and 
 dropouts alone are exactly where they were before. I anticipate increasing 
 concern about the non-participants, more direct pressure through granting or 
 withholding of state funds to get them in, and in time clearer state criteria and 
 regulations defining participation. 
 
 Most of the public library ststems exist as the result of a transfusion of 
 state money. Interestingly this is not the case in California, which is far behind 
 others in state aid to libraries. Yet in some areas of that state there is more local 
 action in interlibrary cooperation than in some of the states making substantial 
 grants. California lacks state funds but has local commitment. I am uneasy about 
 other states that have money from the state capital but minimum local interest 
 and concern. I hope this type of involvement is not one of the emerging trends 
 in joint library organization. Passing the buck, shifting the problem to the 
 systems area or region or state, getting outside money, setting up a separate 
 center so that we can each go back to our own office and let someone else worry 
 about interlibrary development would be disastrous for library cooperation. 
 From this little excursion into public library systems, we can extract some fairly 
 tangible trends that are likely to appear also in cooperation among types of 
 libraries: building of new structures, assignment of separate personnel to the job, 
 infusion of fresh funds from the outside, dependence on voluntary participation, 
 flexibility in both the territorial and the governmental bases, and a search for 
 equity to compensate larger libraries which give more than they receive in joint 
 action. 
 
 ARE WE PREPARING FOR 1970 OR 1950? 
 
 For all the present activity, library systems have been slow to get moving. 
 The concept in its present form is at least twenty -five years old. The same 
 
comment of slow development applies to other forms of cooperation, whether 
 within or among types of libraries. 
 
 This could be dismissed as the subjective judgment of an impatient man, 
 except that it leads to a further and more disturbing question. Our present 
 modes of cooperation were conceived a generation ago. They were designed to 
 meet the needs of the immediate postwar world. Now twenty years later we are 
 just beginning to move on a wide scale. Could it be that using the concepts of 
 the past we will get library service suitable only for the past? I am trying to say 
 that a well-developed library service in the present systems pattern might have 
 been equal to the demands of 1950 but may not be equal to 1970. 
 
 Why equal to 1950 but not to 1970? What really has changed in the 
 interval? This is not the place to go into a detailed statement of the trends of the 
 times, but let me simply remind you of a few factors that have profoundly 
 changed in twenty years and which will almost surely continue to do so in the 
 next two decades. As a society we came out of the depression and the war with 
 the narrow purpose of getting our economic system back to normal 
 productivity. What it took us longer to see was that in the process the very 
 nature of that system had changed, from a base of energy to a base of 
 knowledge. In making stock market investments today, for example, it is wise 
 not to select the company with the greatest productivity but the firm with the 
 most active research program and the greatest reservoir of human brainpower. It 
 is no accident that we have many more students and that their numbers are 
 increasing most rapidly at the higher levels of education. 
 
 One could pick up various social trends and develop them in many 
 directions to show the likely differences between library requirements twenty 
 years hence and twenty years in the past. Let me develop just one trend, growing 
 out of my reference to a society of specialists. (By specialists I refer not solely to 
 researchers within universities and laboratories but to individuals throughout our 
 society who work, read and get information within defined and particularized 
 areas.) My point is that each of these individuals function less in a limited spatial 
 community and more in a far-flung special-interest community. Of course they 
 operate locally as parent or grocery shopper or church goer. But in their 
 specialties, for which they seek library resources, they are part of a wide 
 fraternity and communication network, and they have more contacts, read 
 about and exchange ideas more extensively within this far-flung network than 
 they do with the neighbor three doors away. 
 
 Yet the public library, for one, is a space-oriented institution, a delivery 
 system defined by territory. It is for this city, that town, the other county. It 
 has branches in local neighborhoods. The concept behind it is how far a person 
 will go to get a physical book. If he will not go beyond the crossroads, we will 
 send a bookmobile there. But if we take the increasing number of individuals 
 who are also specialists as our users, and bring in emerging communication 
 devices as means to get resources to them, we have a new ball game. 
 
 The question shifts from how far the user will go to get the book, to how 
 far we will shortly be able to send the book to him. Instead of asking how many 
 blocks or floors the reader will walk or how many miles he will drive his car, we 
 might better ask what is the practical working radius of Telestar. We are an 
 
8 
 
 earth-boud institution. As and if spatial limitations are removed, the implications 
 for the structure of library service are profound, and also the implications for 
 relating ourselves directly and selectively to the motives of readers. This leads me 
 to one trend that I sincerely hope emerges the building of evaluation into any 
 cooperative library endeavor. Illinois is spending substantial sums to improve 
 interlibrary loan. But is information on who is using this service, for what 
 purpose, with what results, at what speed, and at what cost being gathered? 
 Interlibrary cooperation will be a winding path of disillusionment unless we 
 stand off and judge ourselves as we go along. 
 
 The recent national study of public library systems by the Nelson 
 Associates organization was an attempt to evaluate an important cooperative 
 trend, but it fell short of its mark. To begin with, they had $50,000 to judge 
 1 ,000 agencies, which works out to $50 a shot. Even then, significant returns 
 might have been achieved if libraries had adequate before-and-after data on what 
 they are doing, but this was not the case. I advise that Illinois should not venture 
 too far on a systems program, or on any other cooperative venture, before taking 
 stock. 
 
 COOPERATION AMONG TYPES OF LIBRARIES 
 
 Shifting the base of cooperative planning to the various types of libraries 
 might provide a means not only to get more riders on the present bandwagon 
 but also to jointly plan new vehicles. This starts with the very framework within 
 which we think about the totality of library service. Our taxonomy has an 
 institutional base. We speak of the four kinds of libraries actually they could be 
 grouped into three kinds, or five, or more- which are defined by the type 
 of organization that foots the bill: government, school, university or business- 
 industry. Thus, when we refer to cooperation among types of libraries, we 
 mean in part not solely cooperation among libraries but between this city 
 and that school and the college at the edge of town and the large industry 
 out in the industrial park. We have not only the separateness of libraries 
 to bridge but also the separateness of these discrete parts of our govern- 
 mental-educational-economic fabric. It is one thing to get the several libraries 
 to agree, but another to get the city council and the board of education and 
 the trustees of the university and the manager of the aerospace company to 
 sign a contractual agreement. But by accomplishing this, libraries may find that 
 their programs get much more attention from officials. 
 
 In the process of achieving cooperation planners may have to re-think 
 their roles and functions. For example, we very much need an agreed upon 
 division of responsibilities between public and school libraries. But this in turn 
 rests upon clarification of just what the school conceives to be 1) its proper 
 scope and limits and 2) its achievable performance in providing the resources 
 needed by its students, and equally upon clarification of 1) just what part the 
 public library should properly play and 2) how far it can responsibly commit 
 itself in the light of its other publics and objectives. These turn out to be 
 soul-wrenching questions; and, once again the relevant data are often lacking. I 
 find that when discussion starts between school and public librarians, there is no 
 
clear evidence of just what high-school students need or actually seek, or even of 
 what teachers ask them to seek; ask teachers and you get one answer, ask 
 librarians and you get another. In a research project now getting underway in 
 Philadelphia we are going directly to students themselves for the answer. 
 
 In the process of planning across the lines separating types of libraries, we 
 will need to drop our institutional provincialism and think more in terms of 
 library users and library functions. There is more than one way to cut the library 
 pie it does not necessarily have to be quartered into the four existing kinds of 
 libraries. 
 
 One alternative approach is in terms of groups of users. There are children, 
 students, the individuals as specialists I have mentioned, and other groups, and 
 each seeks different materials and uses them in a different way. It is interesting 
 that when one mentally starts from scratch and imagines the proper and ideal 
 facilities for each of these groups, that the results vary widely for each. Yet as 
 most libraries are now organized we often combine facilities for several types in 
 one agency. This is particularly true of the public library but it also applies 
 elsewhere in the prevailing structure; for example, every university librarian is 
 conscious of the push and pull between provision for students and provision for 
 researchers. There are also very different library needs required for the people in 
 the city ghetto and for the people in the remodeled brownstones and in the 
 high-rise apartments not far away. The former presents a challenge that is raising 
 questions as to the very role of the public library. The latter constitute our most 
 cosmopolitan public, those who conceivably may be an inner force that can help 
 rebuild the city. Rather than a more-or-less standard branch seeking to serve 
 both and not right for either, and a more or less standard school library, serving 
 both, planners could consider the possibilities of a new kind of group library for 
 each, which could serve the total range of needs and interests of its own public, 
 students and adults alike. 
 
 Another alternative is by function to be served. Let your imagination go 
 on a library specifically designed to provide information England and France 
 have both gone in this direction or to meet the growing cultural interest (the 
 library cultural center) or the mounting concern with technological development 
 (the library technological center). 
 
 I, of course, am not advocating that we tear down our public and school 
 and university and other libraries and build new agencies explicitly for children 
 or students or researchers or information seekers or culture vultures, but I do 
 think it is a growing concern for meeting better the needs of the various groups 
 that pushes us toward cooperation among types of libraries. The same 
 individuals come into your institution as into mine, and we find when we sit 
 down that they are coming to both of us for the same purpose, and we may even 
 go further and admit that neither of us is doing very well by them. Here is the 
 beginning of wisdom. We may be stuck with the institutional division into types 
 of libraries, but we have an opportunity to develop joint programs to overcome 
 some of the disadvantages of this arrangement, seeking out the groups of readers 
 and the functions of reading now not well served. 
 
 Another emerging trend, which may well be abetted by planning between 
 types of libraries, is to take a fresh look at the geography or territorial base of 
 
10 
 
 library cooperation. How large should a cooperating group of libraries be the 
 school and public library within a small town, the libraries within an existing 
 system, all the libraries in a large region or whole state, or even beyond the state 
 boundaries? There is of course no one answer. One kind of program may be built 
 on how far librarians can conveniently go to meet periodically, another on how 
 far the user will go to get resources, another on how far one can make a 
 telephone call without paying a toll, on up to the distance and cost factors in 
 rapid electronic transmission. 
 
 We should beware of accepting without question the geographic limits of 
 any existing cooperative programs. It could be that the recently-created 
 public library systems in Illinois are transitional structures, to be replaced in 
 time by more appropriate units. As the systems mature, and their directors have 
 time to look ahead, they will be thinking of inter-system possibilities maybe 
 inter-system necessities. One such necessity could be a far broader tax base, the 
 comprehensive library district, larger than present conceptions, because a good 
 system is not going to rest with what it can accomplish with forty cents per 
 capita, or fifty cents or even one dollar. 
 
 Special geographical factors enter into the picture in metropolitan areas 
 and along state boundaries. I doubt whether wholesale annexation of smaller 
 places will occur on any wide scale around big cities, but I do anticipate new 
 special-purpose functional agencies to deal with matters that cut across arbitrary 
 governmental lines. This need has been easiest to see in matters of transportation 
 and water supply and sanitation. It has been less clear in education, and as a 
 result some of the best and some of the worst schooling in the country is 
 available within metropolitan centers. Libraries have started to cross these lines. 
 In some form I anticipate the metropolitan library agency, perhaps growing from 
 the present systems certainly I hope that the one step of systems will not be 
 interpreted as perfection and prevent further needed structural development. Or 
 the process of enlargement may take the form of systems for systems, for special 
 purposes, such as automated cataloging, or a bibliographical communication 
 center, or an information bank. 
 
 State boundaries are a parallel problem. I have yet to be involved in a 
 state-wide study that did not to some extent involve adjacent states. In 
 Pennsylvania there is a whole northern tier that is oriented to cities above the 
 New York border, in New Jersey one of the severe problem areas is directly 
 across the Delaware River from Philadephia. Even in California, people living 
 east of the Sierra Nevada go much more frequently to Reno than they do over 
 the mountains to Sacramento. 
 
 Larger structures, greater territories, the far-flung interest group but what 
 about decentralization and local control? This applies to libraries as well as to 
 schools. We may fortunately have the ingredients to keep the scales in balance in 
 our field. The individual local library on the one side, the interlibrary 
 cooperative structure on the other. As you build higher, do not neglect the 
 foundation. Indeed, the purpose in the end is not a fancy super-structure but 
 greater strength where resources and people meet. 
 
11 
 References 
 
 1. Hicks, Frederick C. "Inter-Library Loans," Library Journal, 38:72, 
 Feb. 1913. 
 
 2. American Library Association. Post-War Standards for Public Libraries. 
 Chicago, ALA Committee on Post-War Planning, 1943. 
 
 3. Hays, David G. A Billion Books for Education in America and the 
 World. Santa Monica, Calif., The Rand Corporation, 1968. 
 
 4. Rohlf, Robert H. A Plan for Public Library Development in Illinois. 
 Aurora, 111., Illinois Library Association, 1963. 
 
 5. New York (State) Division of Evaluation. Emerging Library Systems; 
 the 1963-66 Evaluation of the New York State Library Systems. Albany, 
 University of the State of New York, 1967. 
 
 6. Martin, Lowell A., et al. Progress and Problems of Pennsylvania 
 Libraries; a Re-Survey. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania State Library, 1967. 
 
 7. American Assocation of State Librarians. Standards for Library 
 Functions at the State Level. Chicago, ALA, 1963. 
 
Sarah K. Vann 
 
 Professor, School of Information and 
 
 Library Studies 
 
 State University of New York 
 
 at Buffalo 
 
 COOPERATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF 
 LIBRARIES IN TECHNICAL SERVICES 
 
 The potency of the melding of the terms cooperation, between types of 
 libraries, and technical services requires some awareness of the ingredients before 
 a comment can be made concerning the effect of such a melding. It seems 
 appropriate, therefore, first to formulate some definitions, and then to survey 
 statewide centralized processing services and state library involvement in action 
 and as anticipated through some of the recommendations and plans being made. 
 
 Definition of Terms 
 
 Cooperation in technical services has tended to be identified with cen- 
 tralized processing which is essentially a coined phrase combining two quite 
 distinct concepts, processing and centralization, the latter of which is generally 
 dependent on cooperation. The words to be defined are: processing, centraliza- 
 tion, cooperation, and human resource involvement. 
 
 Processing designates services relating to acquisition and analyses of 
 resources and the recording of data for the use of a library's public. It may 
 encompass one or more of the following phases of service: a) selection (in an 
 advisory or almost compulsory plan); b) acquisition/ordering (of all or certain 
 kinds of materials); c) analyses of content, descriptive and subject (whatever the 
 format); d) recording of data (whatever the technology employed); and e) 
 finishing details (pocketing, pasting, etc.). 
 
 When processing services are limited to analyses of content, descriptive and 
 subject, and the recording of and dispersal of appropriate data, a more precise 
 definition is information flow or information data services. 
 
 12 
 
13 
 
 Centralization implies unification of variants of some kind for the 
 anticipated achievement of a common goal and in the present definition a goal 
 of processing centrally within the limitations of one or more of the phases of 
 services earlier identified. 
 
 The recipients of such processing services may include one or more types 
 of libraries such as public, school, academic, special, and/or information centers 
 and/or also may be: 
 
 a) Part of one autonomous library and its array of branches, units, special 
 departments, etc. 
 
 b) One of a cluster of autonomous libraries of uni- or multi- type which 
 share a common product. 
 
 c) A library within a system/district/county/regional structuring of public 
 libraries as in California, New York, and Pennsylvania. 
 
 d) A library, local or regional, wherein the state has assumed a respon- 
 sibility for technical services as in Georgia and Hawaii. 
 
 e) A library in one state reaching across state boundaries and barriers to 
 participate in a centralized processing program in another state, as in Delaware. 
 
 Cooperation, according to The Random House Dictionary, is defined as: 
 
 "1 . an act or instance of working together for a common purpose or bene- 
 fit; joint action. 2. more or less active assistance from a person, association, 
 etc 3. willingness to cooperate." 1 
 
 Also it is inevitable, because of its elusiveness, that personalized definitions 
 will continue to be given for cooperation. With less ambiguity than that illus- 
 trated in the dictionary, an experienced director of more than one centralized 
 processing program has offered the following view: "I have found that the word 
 'cooperation' is one with which all librarians profess to agree, but to which, in 
 reality, they render only 'lip service.' Cooperation is fine for the other fellow but 
 'in my library it just can't be done that way.' ' 
 
 Equally difficult to define is the spirit of cooperation with which the 
 search for and acceptance of centralization are imbued both the responsibility 
 assumed by an agency offering centralized services and the responsibility 
 accepted by the recipient of the services. This may be called the human resource 
 aspect in contrast to the technical resource aspect. It is, in the end, far more 
 pervasive, far more deterministic than any other factor involved, however 
 sophisticated the technology. 
 
 The human resource involvement in centralized processing and response to 
 that involvement have been reported in a 1967 study of the view of seventy-five 
 member/recipient libraries. 2 Of the total, sixty-two or 82.7 percent, indicated 
 that upon joining the center with which each was associated, each had agreed to 
 accept the centralized services as defined in agreements, manuals, and the like, 
 prepared by the center. In twelve instances the agreement had been principle 
 only while one indicated that no agreement had been made. 
 
 Yet, of the sixty-two libraries, thirty-seven, or 60 percent, reported that 
 they accepted the data on catalog cards without change. The multiplicity of 
 reasons given for the necessity for making changes were divided into those 
 relating to local adaptations and to criticisms of cataloging by centers. With such 
 evidence, it seems timely to inquire if there has not been a bit of self-delusion in 
 identifying a library's association with a processing center as truly cooperative. 
 
14 
 
 SURVEY OF STATEWIDE CENTRALIZED PROCESSING 
 SERVICES AND STATE LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT 
 
 Centralized Processing Services in States 
 
 Because of the need for the latest information on activities within states, a 
 letter was sent in the summer of 1968 to forty-nine of the fifty state libraries. 
 The fiftieth state, Illinois, was represented at this Institute by Margaret Shreve, 
 administrator of the Book Processing Center, Oak Park, who offered some 
 pentrating and practical observations. The extraordinary response to the inquiry 
 by forty-two of the states, or 87 percent, implies a nationwide interest in the 
 program of this Institute and in the decisions yet to be made by the librarians of 
 Illinois. 
 
 The Profile. The profile of centralized activities within the technical services 
 area is limited to thirty-four states since eight indicated that they offered 
 no centralized processing services. The centralized activities of the thirty-four 
 states are as follows: 
 
 Centralized activities Number of states 
 
 Centralized processing services for: 
 
 College libraries only 1 
 
 School libraries only 2 
 
 Public libraries only 12 
 
 Regional libraries only 3 
 
 Centralized processing services for 
 
 more than one type of library 16 
 
 Total 34 
 
 The profile, if further delineated, would reveal variations among the cen- 
 tralized processing programs. For such information, Illinois librarians are invited 
 to make a thorough and critical study of the data included in the Southeastern 
 Pennsylvania Processing Center Feasibility Study, published by the Pennsylvania 
 State Library in 1967. 3 It is an appraisal, accurate as of 1966, of the then 
 known existing programs and/or centers and includes data relating to character- 
 istics such as: 1) legal and financial, 2) internal organization and activity, 3) 
 membership, 4) physical environment, and 5) internal activities within a center. 
 
 Multi-type Library Membership 
 
 The sixteen states which noted in their responses that centralized pro- 
 cessing centers in their states have multi-type library membership can be identi- 
 fied readily but without comment on the extent or quality of the services as 
 follows: California, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, 
 Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wash- 
 ington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 
 
 This represents a significant increase when compared to the four which 
 included public and school libraries in their membership in 1965. In that year 
 
15 
 
 the Missouri State Library made a "Survey of Processing Centers" to which 
 twenty-five centers responded. Of that number, thirteen centers identified their 
 membership as public library only while four, as earlier stated, included public 
 and school libraries. 4 Membership in the twenty-three centers as of the date of 
 the Missouri survey follow: 
 
 Type of library membership Number of centers (as of 1965) 
 
 Public (including city, county, 1 3 
 and regional) 
 
 Public and school 4 
 
 Public and state agencies 2 
 
 Public and college/university 2 
 
 Public, school, and academic 1 
 
 Public and some institutions 1 
 
 Total 23 
 
 Thus, while the majority of those responding included only one type, the 
 reality of multi-type library involvement is evident. The responses support the 
 view of Mary Lee Bundy 's 1 962 study on Public Library Processing Centers: a 
 Report of a Nationwide Survey wherein fourteen centers "commented on the 
 desirability of keeping membership limited to similar types of libraries." 5 
 
 Among centers which have included public and school libraries as 
 recipients of their services are: the Pinal County Free Library of Arizona, the 
 State Catalog Service of Georgia, the State Library of Hawaii, the Wayne County 
 Library System of Michigan, and the Library Services Center of Eastern Ohio. 
 
 There has been some objection to such an extension of service, for 
 example, one member library expressed resentment to "non-member" participa- 
 tion by school libraries because: 
 
 non-member schools receive custom cataloging in that their children's 
 books are cataloged more according to Wilson headings and 
 numbers .... I believe that members' orders should take precedence 
 over non-members. 6 
 
 Although a few college libraries have contracted for processing services, 
 they have for the most part thus far expressed little enthusiasm for such 
 projects. Examples of college libraries which are or have been participants may 
 be found in Ohio, where the State Library reported that its processing services 
 had been extended to the Dayton Branch of the Ohio State University and 
 Miami University; in California, where the Monterey Peninsula College Library 
 participates in the Monterey County Library program and, as of 1968, the Black 
 Gold Cooperative Library System of Ventura which welcomed one college 
 library; and in New York, where the Nioga Library System contracted with two 
 local academic institutions and found itself compelled to implement policies 
 which differed from those for its public library membership. As of 1968 the 
 future of the Nioga relationship was reported as uncertain. 
 
16 
 
 Of the centers which include multi-type library membership, two, Georgia 
 and Hawaii, represent statewide programs. Brief extracts from their recent 
 annual reports suggest the contributions each is making. In Georgia, the scope of 
 services, while not so identified, is information flow in that catalog data sets of 
 catalog cards only have been furnished for library books purchased through the 
 State Department of Education if the titles are requested on current purchase 
 orders from school or public libraries. In the annual report of 1967/68 of the 
 Georgia State Catalog Service, the statewide service was 
 
 Distribution by type of library Number of sets of catalog 
 
 cards distributed, 1967/68 
 
 To public libraries 71 ,292 
 
 To school libraries 298, 1 3 1 
 
 Total sets distributed 369,423 
 
 Of the total sets distributed, 6,432 were for titles cataloged during the year of 
 the report. 7 
 
 In Hawaii, the Hawaii State Library, under the direction of James R. Hunt, 
 formerly of the Wayne County Library System, has introduced a statewide 
 program which includes all the book requests from forty-five public libraries and 
 about 250 school libraries. In the annual report for 1966/67, the Centrab'zed 
 Processing Center reported that 49,132 titles were processed for the two types 
 of libraries with the following distribution: 
 
 Type of library New titles processed Added titles processed 
 
 Public 11,186 15,658 
 
 School 5,372 16,916 
 
 Both musical scores and phonorecords were included as new and added titles. 
 Because of duplication of titles acquired by both types of libraries, the total of 
 new and added titles was actually 34,059. Of that total, 9,338 were identified as 
 new adult and juvenile titles. 8 
 
 The State Librarian has made the following evaluation of his program: 
 
 We believe our Centralized Processing Center is the largest in the 
 country. We also believe that we are the most efficient. ... We do 
 anticipate that for the current fiscal year the Centralized Processing 
 Center will handle over 400,000 volumes. We had hoped to reach that 
 figure last year, however, we had many setbacks the most critical being 
 a flooding of the entire Center which destroyed approximately $85,000 
 worth of material. Therefore, our production only reached 318,000 
 volumes. 9 
 
 State Library Involvement 
 
 While the profile as sketched has noted the multi-type library member- 
 ship of two state programs, little reference has been made to the rapid 
 
17 
 
 involvement of state libraries with centralized processing programs. Yet, so 
 extensive is its participation, that the time is seemingly near for the inevitable 
 demise of the autonomously structured or the neo-departmentally structured 
 center unless such a program can become a part of a statewide systems program 
 being financed in part or in whole by state and federal funds. While state 
 libraries have not sought the responsibility indeed many have had such "great- 
 ness" thrust upon them the position of strength has resulted from the routing 
 of federal monies for library services through state libraries. 
 
 The Southeastern Pennsylvania Processing Center Feasibility Study noted 
 that the range of participation of state libraries in centralized processing ex- 
 tended, "From the nothingness of some states to the recently launched 
 ambitious program of the Texas State Library which as of July 1, 1965, in- 
 augurated an automatic data processing program as a pilot project of the State 
 Library under the Libraries Services and Construction Act." 1 " Brief references to 
 the activities of fourteen additional state libraries in the states of California, 
 Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, 
 New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wyoming are made in the 
 Study. Of these, only the State Library of Idaho reported the dissolution, as of 
 1965, of its centralized book processing because the service, according to the 
 state plan, would be dispersed among the proposed six regional library systems. 1 1 
 
 Such assignment to the proposed system libraries was, at the time, 
 imitative of the existing systems program in New York State. Even at that time, 
 however, New York State was seeking a solution to the excessive fragmentation 
 of duplicative processing activities among its systems by the possible creation of 
 one cataloging and acquisition center for all its public libraries. 
 
 Though the Texas State Library soon after the completion of the Study 
 phased out its centralized processing center, the observation in the Study that 
 "the State Library towers currently ... as a centrifugal force in coordinating a 
 processing program" continues to characterize statewide planning. That some 
 concern about the future was being expressed can be found in the slightly 
 prescient warning that accompanied that observation: "Even as State Libraries 
 assume more active roles, one State Library staff member has cautioned about 
 and questioned the wisdom of centering the program in a State Library because 
 of the political structure and budgetary pressures which generally affect 
 processing before [it affects] public service functions." 12 As of 1968 similar 
 warning signals have emanated from two additional states wherein the state 
 library has been offering some form of centralized processing services. 
 
 That state libraries have become involved has thus been demonstarted. Of 
 historical importance may be the factors which have invited or compelled such 
 action and, of current import, whither the multi-type library membership 
 commitment. 
 
 Origins of State Library Involvement 
 
 Originally centralized and widely varied processing centers and/or 
 programs emerged as valiant, determined efforts to achieve what has been called 
 a "calculated interdependence." 13 In many of these, survival was made possible 
 
18 
 
 by the timely assistance of the federal government which routed monies through 
 an intermediary the state library rather than directly to the indigent. 
 
 Activated by such pressures and incentives as instant affluence, broadened 
 but ill-defined responsibilities for planning, and by personnel crises, state 
 librarians requested the Library Services Branch of the U.S. Office of Education 
 to sponsor a conference on statewide planning. Such a conference was held in 
 1965, the papers and discussion of which may be found in Statewide Long- 
 Range Planning for Libraries. 1 ^ 
 
 An obvious corollary to the concept of statewide planning is the extension 
 of that planning to all types of libraries. This would be particularly reflected in 
 planning, which is always futuristic in contrast to implementing, which is always 
 present, and sometimes perfect, although occasionally imperfect. Thus, in 
 Lowell Martin's paper on "Principles of Statewide Planning," the librarian 
 advised that "A statewide library plan by definition and by necessity should 
 look forward to an interrelated program among all types of libraries." 15 Such an 
 omni-principle might have sounded somewhat ominous had the word coopera- 
 tive been used rather than interrelated, though the latter clearly implies a 
 reciprocal relationship. While it has been shown earlier that some centralized 
 processing centers/programs had extended their services to more than one type 
 of library, the reasons for so doing had rarely been accompanied, other than at 
 the state library level, by meditations on statewide responsibilities, interrelated 
 programs among the types of libraries, or, indeed, on cooperative goals. Never- 
 theless, whether recent emphasis on statewide planning has been a casual or a 
 concomitant factor, recommendations are being made for statewide centraliza- 
 tion of aspects of technical services for multi-type library membership. 
 
 Statewide Recommendations 
 
 The contents of Statewide Library Surveys and Development Plans: An 
 Annotated Bibliography, 1 95 6-1 96 7 16 attest to the continuing search by state 
 libraries and other agencies for solutions to the problems inherent in statewide 
 planning. The bibliography was designed purposefully for the following two 
 reasons: (1) to indicate the present status of statewide library planning, and (2) 
 to serve as a guide for those who are involved in statewide planning or who 
 might wish to see examples of what has been done. 1 7 
 
 While the studies vary in scope, perception, and recommendations, the 
 commonality both of the problems identified and of the surveyors used is 
 readily apparent. There is at least one study cited for forty -four of the fifty 
 states and for New York State, twenty -eight studies are cited. The six states not 
 represented are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi, and New 
 Mexico. Since the bibliography was compiled, a study on Centralized Processing 
 for the State of Florida 18 has appeared. Therefore, as of November 1968, only 
 five of the fifty states had not made available their recommendations, if any, for 
 statewide development. 
 
 The availability of the comprehensive, annotated bibliography on State- 
 wide Library Surveys and Development Plans eliminated the need for adding to 
 this paper an inventory of the studies pertaining specifically to centralized 
 
19 
 
 processing. Instead, recommendations as found in officially sponsored studies 
 are to be used as illustrative of the current syndrome. The recommendations, 
 with additional data and observations, have been extracted from studies made 
 for the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Florida, 
 all of which were published between 1966 and 1968. 
 
 Recommendations for New York State. Studies for New York State, the first 
 major ones to be published following the 1965 conference on statewide, long- 
 range planning, were made by Nelson Associates, Inc., in 1966, when that firm 
 was presumably at its apogee of influence within the state. Among the many 
 Nelson studies are the following three concerned specifically with technical 
 services: Feasibility of School and College Library Processing Through Library 
 Systems in New York State; The Feasibility of Further Centralizing the Tech- 
 nical Processing Operations of the Public Libraries of New York City; and 
 Centralized Processing for the Public Libraries of New York State. 
 
 While there was an original hypothesis concerning multi-type library 
 involvement in a common centralized processing program, the findings of the 
 Feasibility of School and College Library Processing were less than supportive of 
 such an hypothesis or of the encompassing recommendation finally made in 
 Centralized Processing for Public Libraries for the creation of one center. The 
 findings and/or recommendations of the three studies are listed below: 
 
 1) In the Feasibility of School and College Library Processing, of the 
 forty-three systems expressing a preference as to type of processing facility, 
 thirty -three, or 77 percent, chose one which would serve school libraries alone. 
 Forty-seven public school systems responded to the question concerning an 
 advantage in centralization on a statewide basis as follows: 
 
 Response l 9 Public School Systems Responding 
 
 Number Percent 
 
 Saw an advantage in centralization of 
 
 acquisition and processing on a 34 72% 
 
 statewide basis 
 
 Saw no advantage 1 2 26% 
 
 Said any advantage would depend on 
 
 the way in which such an operation 1 2% 
 
 was organized 
 
 Similarly, of the forty college libraries indicating a preference for the scope of 
 membership for a centralized processing program, thkty-three, or 82.5 percent, 
 preferred a center for college libraries only. Of the eighty-nine colleges to which 
 the Nelson inquiry was sent, forty-nine, or 60 percent, responded to the ques- 
 tion concerning an advantage in centralization on a statewide basis. The response 
 was as follows: 
 
20 
 
 Response 20 College Libraries Responding 
 
 Number Percent 
 
 Saw an advantage in centralization 
 
 of acquisition and processing on 28 72% 
 
 a statewide basis 
 
 Saw no advantage 21 43% 
 
 On the basis of these preferences, it can only be concluded that neither school 
 nor college libraries were seeking an alignment or an interrelationship with a 
 multi-type library centralized processing program in New York State. 
 
 2) In the Feasibility study relating to the three vast public libraries of 
 New York City, the major recommendation was that "a single cataloging center 
 is proposed to meet the needs of the three public libraries of New York City." 21 
 
 3) Meanwhile, almost simultaneously, the third Nelson study appeared on 
 Centralized Processing for the Public Libraries of New York State which 
 recommended that, "For cataloging and acquisitions, one center is proposed to 
 meet all the public library needs of the state, including those of New York 
 City." 22 
 
 The confusion which the apparently contradictory recommendations 
 could have generated was lessened by the addition of a final recommendation in 
 the New York City study that, "The proposals contained in this report should 
 not be construed as a recommendation that the three libraries of New York City 
 exclude themselves from plans for further centralization of processing among the 
 22 public library systems of New York State." 23 
 
 There was lacking, then, in the first major recommendation for one center 
 in New York State that it serve multi-type libraries. Despite the preferences 
 indicated both by school and college libraries, however, Nelson Associates 
 recommended without reference to its own findings that, "The reorganized 
 processing and cataloging arrangements should at first serve only the public 
 libraries of the state. Only after the system is operating smoothly should 
 consideration be given to accepting the added volume and other complications 
 implicit in serving other constituencies such as the school libraries." 24 
 
 Since 1966 the systems and State Library have moved quickly toward 
 exploring the formation of one center through the creation of the Association of 
 New York State Libraries for Technical Services, for which a director was 
 appointed in 1968. Deliberate speed seemingly will characterize the 
 implementation of the recommendation that one center be established to meet 
 all the needs of the public libraries in the state. 
 
 Currently Arthur D. Little, Inc., looms large in making New York State 
 Library studies, one of which, A Plan for a Library Processing Center for the 
 State University of New York, appeared in 1967. While at least one review 
 advised rejecting the plan because of its superficial qualities, the future of the 
 recommendations remains speculative. 25 
 
 A second Arthur D. Little study also appeared in 1967 and was again 
 limited to a uni-type library. The study, A Centralized Processing System for 
 School Libraries in New York State, endorsed the findings of the Nelson study 
 
21 
 
 that school libraries should be involved in a centralized program involving more 
 than one type of library. The recommendation made, however, was that "admin- 
 istrative responsibility for a School Ordering, Cataloging, and Processing 
 (SLOCAP) System" be assigned to the Bureau of School Libraries, New York 
 State Department of Education. 26 The study outlined alternative methods of 
 implementation which could relate the school programs with those either of the 
 public libraries (Association of New York State Libraries for Technical Libraries) 
 or the as yet indeterminate program for the State University of New York. 
 
 Amid a bewildering array of such studies and recommendations, to which 
 others could be added, the New York Library Systems structure continues to be 
 remarkably vital, flexible, self-critical, and adventurous, but not yet ready for a 
 commitment to a statewide centralized processing center serving multi-type 
 libraries. 
 
 Recommendations for Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, at the same time the 
 Nelson studies were being made for New York State, the Free Library of 
 Philadephia had requested that a feasibility study be made, the main purpose of 
 which was, "To consider acquisition and centralized processing specifically in 
 terms of service to the Philadelphia Library District, and the potentials for 
 service on a larger service area basis. 27 
 
 The study, which was adopted as a project under the approved 
 Pennsylvania State Plan for the use of Federal Library Services and Construction 
 Act funds, and completed in 1966, includes as a major part an appraisal of some 
 existing programs and/or centers, the findings of which influenced directly the 
 conclusions, the recommendations made to the Philadephia District Library, and 
 the supplementary recommendations made for a statewide program. 
 
 The conclusion was that the Philadelphia Library District should not 
 create a centralized processing center for its district alone but rather "That a 
 coordinated plan for a state-wide centralized cataloging and classification 
 program for public libraries should be initiated." 28 
 
 The major recommendation, implying that progress toward such a 
 coordinated plan could be made rather promptly, suggested that the Philadelphia 
 District Library propose that the Pennsylvania State Library: "(A.) Create and 
 subsidize two centralized cataloging and classification centers for public libraries 
 in specified geographic areas. . . . (and,) (B.) Designate each District choosing to 
 contract for the service, as an arterial unit of the cataloging and classification 
 center." 28 Among the duties delineated for each district was the completion of 
 the physical processing of all materials cataloged and classified for the libraries in 
 each district. 
 
 While it was beyond the scope of the study to make recommendations to 
 the State Library, two supplementary recommendations proposed that 
 centralized cataloging and classification service or a full processing program be 
 created for academic libraries throughout the state and that a similar centralized 
 processing program be created for school libraries. Since it would have been 
 premature to proceed further with the supplementary recommendations, no 
 procedures for their implementation and no patterns of interrelationships among 
 the programs were proposed in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Processing Center 
 Feasibility Study. From the recommendations themselves, however, it can be 
 
22 
 
 concluded that the creation of one center serving multi-type libraries was not 
 envisioned as an immediate panacea for the state. 
 
 Responses to the recommendation concerning centralized processing for 
 the districts of Pennsylvania have been guarded. Meanwhile, even as a special 
 committee within the state has been considering the recommendations, some of 
 the district libraries, far less prepared than the Philadelphia District Library (the 
 Free Library of Philadelphia) as to resources, staff, and services, have proceeded 
 to offer centralized processing to their member libraries. 
 
 In contrast, then, to the developments in New York State where the 
 original plan which fostered centralized processing programs for nineteen of the 
 twenty-two systems has been appraised and found wanting, in Pennsylvania the 
 opposite view has emerged. While the major recommendation for the creation of 
 at least two information flow centers with arterial outlets for the completion of 
 processing details was made to avoid the duplicative programs found in New 
 York State by serving as a deterrent to unilateral district decisions, a preference 
 for district structuring of processing centers has tended to flourish. As of 1968, 
 however, according to the Pennsylvania State Library, the question was not if 
 the recommendations were to be implemented but how best. 
 Recommendations for Louisiana. A comprehensive evaluation of the total 
 program of library service and library education made for the Louisiana Library 
 Association by John A. Humphry and James Humphry III, appeared in 1968. 
 Specific recommendations in the technical services area can be extracted for the 
 three types of libraries: parish and public, school, and academic. 29 
 
 For parish and public libraries the consultants endorsed a feasibility study 
 made earlier by Marvin W. Mounce that a centralizing processing service for 
 parish and public libraries be established by the State Library. They presented, 
 however, an alternative plan differing from that of Mounce who had 
 recommended a center performing complete processing in that they envisioned 
 decentralization of final processing operations to the library centers of the seven 
 systems which they had recommended for the state. 30 
 
 For school libraries the consultants recommended that: "There be 
 established a state-wide cataloging center for the school libraries under the 
 supervision and administration of the State Supervisor of School Libraries." 31 
 
 For academic libraries the recommendation for college and university 
 libraries including the special libraries of the state was similar to that for school 
 libraries in that it proposed the establishment of a statewide cataloging center. 
 In addition, the consultants anticipated that the "Materials processing centers 
 recommended for each of the seven Library Systems could be utilized by 
 academic libraries as well as by parish libraries." 32 
 
 Like the Pennsylvania recommendations, these for Louisiana envision at 
 least three centers for cataloging and classification by type of library and 
 specifically recommend decentralization of actual processing services to the 
 seven systems when established. The Louisiana recommendation for a 
 coordination of processing services for both academic and parish libraries 
 represents a minimal level of multi-type library service not identified in the 
 Pennsylvania study. 
 
23 
 
 As of late 1968, the Louisiana State Library had assumed the initiative in 
 seeking to implement the recommendation for a centralized processing program 
 for a few parish libraries on an experimental basis. 
 
 Recommendations for Massachusetts. A recommendation for a total library 
 network challenged the Bureau of Library Extension of the Commonwealth of 
 Massachusetts with the appearance in 1967 of a report entitled Library Planning 
 Study More encompassingly, the report concluded with a projection into the 
 future for the establishment of a New England Regional Library Center. Among 
 the recommendations was that the proposed network: "Create a State Library 
 Service Center, responsible for centralized ordering, cataloging, and processing 
 and the maintenance of a union catalog and union list of serials, which would 
 serve all libraries in the state." 34 It was further recommended that three regional 
 headquarters be created for cataloging and processing services "under the direct 
 supervision of the Bureau of Library Extension and coordinated with the State 
 Library Serivce Center" the latter of which would centralize all ordering. 
 
 Clarification of the responsibilities of the State Library Center and 
 regional headquarters was made in relation to public libraries through a recom- 
 mendation outlining the procedures in the following manner: 
 
 libraries send book orders to the State Library Service Center, which, in 
 turn, will send orders to the vendors. Because of geographical considera- 
 tions, vendors will be asked to deliver to the three regional service 
 centers. While the regional service centers are waiting for the books, the 
 state center will prepare catalog cards (using MARC tapes when they 
 become available) according to acceptable library standards. . . . These 
 cards will then be either sent to the regional service center or, more 
 likely, printed out on small supporting units at the regional service 
 centers. When the books arive, they will be processed by the regional 
 service center, matched with the appropriate cards, and sent to the 
 ordering libraries. 35 
 
 With an extension of the services to "all libraries," a commitment to a 
 multi-type library technical service program was thus proposed for the state. 
 Beyond the initial proclamation, however, the report is vague about the attain- 
 ment of such a service. The following generalized comments from the report 
 concerning college and university libraries, school libraries, and special libraries 
 suggest instead an aura of futurity with such phrases as "will probably want to 
 be encouraged," and "may take part." 
 
 Regarding college and university libraries the report states: "Small colleges 
 with limited staff and funds will probably want to take part in this aspect 
 (centralized ordering, cataloging, and processing) of the state library network. 
 Participation would be coordinated through regional offices of the State Library 
 Service Center." 36 
 
 Concerning school libraries the report states: "In school libraries, use of 
 time for book processing is a critical factor, since the library staff often consists 
 of one librarian and, perhaps, one or two student aids." Consequently, a recom- 
 mendation was made that, "School libraries be encouraged to use the State 
 Library Service Center. The three regional processing centers for all types of 
 
24 
 
 libraries will serve the schools. Orders again would be sent to the state center; 
 books would be received, cataloged, processed, and sent out from the appro- 
 priate regional office." 3 ^ It was advised that the service be limited to book 
 materials only until the procedures had been tested; later non-book materials 
 were to be added. 
 
 The report states that, "Special libraries may take part in the processing 
 activities of the State Service Center, but this would probably be only for 
 standard publications." 38 The report noted, however, that "in its later stages, 
 the center may be able to handle government publications and other specialized 
 material, which would be of value to special libaries." 38 
 
 Other Types of Libraries 
 
 Recommendations for involvement of other types of libraries in the cen- 
 tralized processing program, specifically libraries for the institutionalized and the 
 handicapped were less readily made because the need was less evident when 
 balanced against other internal difficulties and limitations. Since the report sur- 
 veyed the services of these libraries, however, the following extracts indicate the 
 attention given to technical services and the recommendations that appeared 
 realistic. 
 
 Library Services to the Institutionalized. While problems of definitions of func- 
 tion; administrative authority; budgets; staff; collections and continuing acquisi- 
 tional programs; non-written materials and special equipment; and reference 
 services and bibliotheraphy required extensive analysis, technical service 
 problems were minor because many of the collections consisted of donations 
 and discards from other institutions for which minimal cataloging must have 
 been done. Moreover, the thousands of paperbacks which characterize many 
 institutional collections were not cataloged. 
 
 Because of the reality of the situation, it was recommended that profes- 
 sional guidance be offered at the state level. The report specifically recom- 
 mended that two staff positions be created for specialists in institutional libraries 
 within the Bureau of Library Extension. Among the duties delineated for the 
 specialists was: "Maintain liaison with the State Library Service Center to make 
 available to institutional libraries the materials available through the ILL net- 
 work and reference program." 39 
 
 Library Services to the Handicapped. While many organizations serve the 
 handicapped, there are in Massachusetts only two involved with library services: 
 the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind, and Perkins Institute, Watertown. 
 The report concentrated, therefore, on a survey of the handicapped in Massachu- 
 setts and of their unique needs for materials and resources. Again, as for the 
 institutional library, technical services were of minor consequence; instead, the 
 following recommendations were made: 
 
 That all special materials, other than Braille, be located at the three 
 regional resource centers in the state, which now serve public libraries 
 but will eventually serve all types of libraries. . . . 
 The Bureau of Library Extension should maintain a catalog of all 
 library resources for the handicapped which are held in the state. . . . 
 
25 
 
 This catalog should be reproduced and distributed to all local 
 librarians. 40 
 
 The Massachusetts study recommended in a somewhat more cavalier 
 fashion than did the New York State study that a centralized processing program 
 be created for multi-type library service. There was throughout the report, how- 
 ever, a lessening of emphasis on such a scope and, finally, in the suggested time 
 schedule proposed, centralized processing would begin on a limited basis in the 
 third year after the initial implementation, if any, of the report. Such planning 
 would permit the state to "build staff at Bureau of Library Extension and newly 
 created State Library Center" and to "build system design and program for 
 computer operations." 4 1 
 
 Recommendations for Florida. Unlike the situation in the states previously 
 described, Florida has had a Book Processing Center administered by the 
 Director of the Albertson Public Library of Orlando under a contract between 
 the Orlando Public Library Board and the State Library Board dated November 
 30, 1961, and amended July 1, 1965. The Center, as of 1968, was serving 
 seventeen library systems in thirty-two of Florida's sixty-seven counties. While 
 the State Library has subsidized processing costs on a decreasing scale for new 
 county and regional libraries, many libraries were not using the services of the 
 Center. The Florida State Library, therefore, financed a study to explore these 
 questions: 
 
 Is the present center efficient? 
 
 What are the needs present and future in regard to centralized processing 
 
 in the state? 
 
 How many centers should there be? If more than one appears necessary, 
 
 what relationships should exist between or among the centers? 
 
 What relationships will the State Library have to whatever processing 
 
 complex is adopted? 42 
 
 While the conclusion was that "the present Center is operating about as 
 efficiently as can be expected of it," 4 * the following recommendations were 
 made that: 
 
 1) The Center should be administered by the State Library or be 
 incorporated as a separate agency from the Orlando Public Library with 
 the State Library acting in an advisory position. 
 
 2) There is need for a much larger centralized processing effort to be 
 mounted in the State of Florida. 
 
 3) The Center should offer the following services: 
 
 cataloging only 
 
 full processing 
 
 ordering but no processing. 44 
 
 As in the Massachusetts study, a recommendation for multi-type library pro- 
 cessing services was added: "Processing should be offered to all public libraries 
 and after an initial growth period has elapsed, school libraries and community 
 colleges as well." 44 While no further reference is made in the study to the 
 
26 
 
 possible length of "an initial growth period" or to the actual involvement of 
 school and community college libraries, the consultant firm estimated that with 
 the administrative system proposed, the Center would be able "to cope with 
 500,000 volumes per year ordered, cataloged, and processed." 45 
 
 As of December 1968, the State Librarian chose between the two obvious 
 and commonly known alternatives concerning the future administration of the 
 Center and endorsed the recommendation that the Center "be administered by 
 the State Library." 46 In so doing, the State Librarian reversed a decision made 
 by one of his predecessors which had predestined the structuring of the Center 
 in Orlando as it had existed. 47 
 
 THE FUTURE AS VIEWED BY STATE LIBRARIES 
 
 The responses being made in the five states to the recommendations and 
 the recommendations themselves, briefly summarized in the preceding section, 
 imply that the trend is indeed toward statewide centralization of technical 
 services. Of the forty-two state libraries which provided data on centralized 
 processing developments within their states, thirty-one, or 74 percent indicated 
 that they were concerned with planning for the future. Twelve of the state 
 libraries noted that they had had some kind of feasibility study made or were 
 currently involved with such a study. 
 
 The following developments, reported by six state libraries, typify the 
 variant approaches being made to the rapidly solidifying concept of statewide 
 centralized processing. The innovative and personalized adaptations which 
 characterize the approaches offer assurance that, despite the conformal and 
 repetitive recommendations found in many of the surveys and feasibility studies, 
 the state libraries assert individualized and viable leadership in planning both as 
 to scope of technical service programs and to type of library or libraries for 
 which the service is to be available. 
 
 While the California State Library Processing Center now serves public 
 libraries only, plans are being made for the establishment of an automated center 
 for cooperative cataloging and for serials control. The services of the center are 
 to be available to any type of library. A pilot project is scheduled to begin in 
 1970. 
 
 The Connecticut State Library is planning the establishment of a 
 centralized processing center initially for public libraries only. Ultimately, the 
 services of the center are to be available "to any in-state library." 48 
 
 The Hawaii State Library, in part because of unique environmental factors, 
 has been more successful than any state in its near instant implementation of its 
 plans for centralization of complete processing of materials, book and nonbook, 
 for public and school libraries. Aware of the success, the State Librarian, having 
 concluded that "cooperation is at its maximum" within his state boundaries, 
 seeks to extend his program beyond Hawaii's shores, for, according to him, he 
 has been actively 
 
 negotiating with the Territory of Guam, the American Trust Territory, 
 and with American Samoa to see if we cannot cooperate with them, or 
 they with us, in the purchasing and processing of books. . . .Hopefully, 
 
27 
 
 in fiscal 1969, we will have a Pan Pacific processing center in oper- 
 ation. 48 
 
 Should the plan become operative, Hawaii will be able to demonstarte to the 
 mainland states the potential of planning within flexible geographical perim- 
 etersbeyond inflexible state boundaries. 
 
 The Minnesota State Library is contemplating the development of state- 
 wide cooperative activities between types of libraries, especially through the use 
 of a union catalog and book catalogs. 
 
 The Nevada State Library now has as one of its divisions in operation the 
 Nevada Center for Cooperative Library Services. The Center encourages multi- 
 type library participation through its services to public, school, and institutional 
 libraries. The services are available to any library to the extent that facilities 
 permit. 
 
 The Washington State Library plans to produce book catalogs of member 
 libraries within designated geographical areas. Acceptance of centralized cata- 
 loging services is, however, to be optional. 
 
 While it would be possible, though perhaps presumptive, to make recom- 
 mendations to the state of Illinois on the basis of the evidence presented, it is 
 necessary that the self-appraisal be made by Illinois librarians themselves. It 
 seems appropriate, therefore, to conclude with questions which, it is hoped, will 
 generate answers and further probing by a state exploring its commitment to a 
 multi-type library membership in a centralized technical services program. 
 
 The following questions relate to: 1) establishing an inquiry concerning 
 statewide centralization of technical services, 2) characteristics of centralized 
 technical service programs, 3) the member library in a statewide network, 4) the 
 center/centers in a statewide network, 5) membership, 6) human resource 
 adaptability /technological feasibility, and 7) beyond statewide involvement. 
 
 QUESTIONS 
 
 1. Toward an inquiry concerning statewide centralization of technical 
 services 
 
 a. What can be learned from a study of statewide library surveys and 
 recommendations that have already been made? 
 
 b. What has been the repetitive pattern both in selection of the surveyors 
 and of the recommendations made thus far? 
 
 c. Has the time come for librarians in a state to challenge the traditional 
 acclamation for the objectivity represented by impersonalism? Is it better 
 to be biased for sound reasons than purposefully vacuous? 
 
 d. Should a self-analysis not just for technical services but for a compre- 
 hensive statewide program be made by librarians within a state, by 
 consultants within the profession, or by commercial firms? 
 
 2. Characteristics of centralized technical service programs 
 
 a. Scope What should be the scope of services to be offered? 
 1) Acquisition 
 
28 
 
 2) Acquisition and cataloging data (information data) 
 
 3) Acquisition, cataloging data, processing, and delivery 
 
 4) Cataloging data (information data) 
 
 5) Cataloging data, processing, and delivery 
 
 6) Other 
 
 b. Kinds of materials 
 
 1) Should the center assume responsibility for all materials 
 whatever the format? 
 
 2) Should the center limit its services to book format? 
 
 3) Should there be a progressive extension of services to 
 include all formats? 
 
 4) What is the consequence if the center does not assume 
 responsibility for all formats? 
 
 5) If a local library must or does retain a catalog depart- 
 ment, what should be its relationship with the center? 
 
 6) What kinds of materials could be acquired by member 
 libraries without the necessity of maintaining a separate 
 catalog department? 
 
 c. Selection of library resources 
 
 1) To what extent should the center become involved with 
 selection? 
 
 2) Is there any advantage of simultaneous ordering of the 
 same title by member libraries? Does the advantage out- 
 weigh the possible disadvantages? 
 
 d. Analysis 
 
 1) Should a new level of analysis of content be considered 
 or is the present level satisfactory? 
 
 2) Does the computer make possible for the first time the 
 reality of more detailed analysis of the content of 
 resources for multi-type use? 
 
 3) If member libraries are not willing to accept a common 
 policy for descriptive analysis, subject headings, and 
 classification, should further self-appraisal be made by 
 such a member library before participating? 
 
 e. Catalog data 
 
 1) Enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of book 
 and card catalog formats. 
 
 2) Should a book catalog format be preferred as a psy- 
 chological deterrent to the compulsion to tinker with 
 data on a 3" x 5" catalog card? 
 
 3) What new formats for recording and making data 
 available are emerging which may make obsolete both 
 the book and card catalog formats? 
 
29 
 
 4) Should emphasis in member libraries be first on the data 
 and secondly on the techniques for recording? 
 
 f . Responsibility for resource availability 
 
 1) Does the center or the member library assume respon- 
 sibility for maintaining the card catalog, the book 
 catalog, or the inventory of local resources? 
 
 2) Does statewide planning assume statewide availability of 
 resources? 
 
 3) What liaison relationships can be established between/ 
 among member libraries and the center? 
 
 3. The member library in a statewide network 
 
 a. What are the advantages and disadvantages inherent in the 
 acceptance of centralized technical services by an autonomous local 
 library? By a local library as a member of a system? 
 
 b. If abandonment of certain local policies is considered a dis- 
 advantage, to what extent is adhering to such policies a fetish rather 
 than reasonable? 
 
 c. What responsibilities could be transferred readily to a center 
 and what must the member library retain? 
 
 d. What relations would involvement in a statewide network 
 foster between a local library and the State Library? 
 
 e. What would be the new administrative structuring and new 
 positions created within a library which could abandon completely 
 or re-design its technical services department? 
 
 f. What new or expanded services are to be offered by a local 
 library which can allocate time formerly devoted to technical 
 services to such new services? If none have been anticipated, is a 
 library ready for participation? 
 
 g. What are the philosophical and pragmatic reasons which would 
 prompt or deter a library's participation in a centralized processing 
 program? 
 
 4. The center / centers in a statewide network 
 
 a. What effect will the decision concerning the scope of cen- 
 tralized services have on the organization and administration of a 
 center or centers? 
 
30 
 
 b. Does technological expertise make passe the necessity of total 
 processing within a center? 
 
 c. Would one center performing complete processing be pre- 
 ferable to one concerned with acquisition and information flow? 
 
 d. If processing outlets/depots are scattered throughout a state, 
 what should be the administrative relations to the center and to each 
 member library? 
 
 e. In a state with a developed library systems structure, what 
 problems emerge if each system which originally offered centralized 
 processing to its members seeks to implement a recommendation for 
 fewer perhaps one center in a. state? 
 
 f. What problems, administrative, organizational, financial, staff- 
 ing, are to be encountered in statewide planning for one or more 
 centers? 
 
 g. What are to be the responsibility and involvement of the state 
 library in statewide planning such as for centralization of technical 
 services? 
 
 5. Membership 
 
 a. What factors contributed to the original planning of centers 
 for uni-type libraries? 
 
 b. Does statewide planning invite/compel consideration of multi- 
 type library membership? Why? 
 
 c. Have the problems thus far encountered in centralized pro- 
 cessing programs limited to urn-type library membership been 
 solved? 
 
 d. Would they have been more readily solved with a multi-type 
 library membership? 
 
 e. Should multi-type library membership be sought simul- 
 taneously or as the services are proved effective through an exten- 
 sion beyond one type? 
 
 f. Should MW-type library membership centers be created 
 simultaneously but so designed and administered that unification 
 could be attained through progressive phases of interaction? 
 
31 
 
 g. Could there be centralized administration within a center 
 having divisions for ww-type membership sharing common re- 
 sources, such as bibliographies, MARC tape, computers, etc.? 
 
 6 . Human resource adaptability /technological feasibility 
 
 a. Is technological feasibility enough? 
 
 b. Should not technological feasibility, however sophisticated the 
 technology, be accompanied by the conventional wisdom that the 
 staffs of member libraries not only be receptive to changes en- 
 gendered by technology but also creative in exploring new dimen- 
 sions of reader/user services? 
 
 c. Should there be a preliminary period for the breaking of 
 barriers, often encrusted with compliance and complacency, which 
 could impede the most brilliantly conceived statewide program? 
 
 d. If such barriers prove invulnerable, if there is no receptivity, 
 no readiness for a new concept of library services emanating from a 
 local library, can a centralized program really succeed? 
 
 7. Beyond statewide involvement. . . 
 
 a. Identify the existing subject information network services in 
 the United States. 
 
 b. Should there be continuing recognition of the potential 
 nationwide Unking of information data sources in any current state- 
 wide planning? 
 
 Some contribution to the "beginnings of a state plan for library services in 
 Illinois" may result from the responses to these and other questions. Whatever 
 the plan, those librarians of Illinois who encounter impediments to its 
 development or are impediments themselves will recognize the enduringly 
 perceptive and pragmatic appraisal of the librarian's readiness for involvement 
 made long ago by Melvil Dewey: 
 
 The simpl explanation is that many librarians hav not yet wakened to 
 understand how great a movement is going on and how rapidly old 
 conditions and standards ar giving way to new. They ar carried forward 
 by the tide, but not without kicking and splashing; and yet curiously 
 sum of these very pepl ar most self-satisfied to find themselves so far 
 advanst and quite oblivious that every step was takn not from pressure 
 within impelling them to go forward and help the workers but from 
 pressure without. Their hands wer tied to the car of progress but other 
 hands gav it its momentum and they insted of dragging it hav been 
 
32 
 
 dragged by it. Every great movement is handicap! in this way and we ar 
 happy abuv the average in having only opposition that like a brake on 
 a hevy down grade simply insures that our car runs more stedily, safely, 
 and surely to its goal. We ar stong enuf now to signal "brakes off or, 
 like the baloonist, to throw out sand bags when we no longer need their 
 ballast. 49 
 
 References 
 
 1 . "Cooperation." In Random House Dictionary of the English Language. 
 New York, Random House. Vol. 3, 1967, p. 321. 
 
 2. Vann, Sarah K. "Evaluation of Centers: the Views of Members," Library 
 Trends, 16:23^5, July 1967. 
 
 3. Southeastern Pennsylvania Processing Center Feasibility Study. Final 
 Report (Pennsylvania State Library Monograph No. 4). By Sarah K. Vann. 
 Sponsored by the Philadelphia District Library Center (Free Library of Phila- 
 delphia. Harrisburg, Department of Public Instruction. Pennsylvania State 
 Library, 1967. 
 
 4. For a copy of the questionnarie for the "Survey of Processing Centers in 
 the United States," see Ibid, pp. 156-159. For data on membership as noted, see 
 Ibid., p. 57. 
 
 5. Bundy, Mary Lee. Public Library Processing Centers: a Report of a 
 Nationwide Survey. Troy, N.Y., 1962, p. 40. 
 
 6. Quoted in Southeastern Pennsylvania Processing Center Feasibility Study, 
 op. cit., p. 58. 
 
 7. Georgia. State Catalog Service. Annual Report, 1 96 7-68. Atlanta, 1968. 
 (Typed copy.) 
 
 8. Data from James R. Hunt, State Librarian, Honolulu, Hawaii. 
 
 9. Letter of August 12, 1968, from James R. Hunt, State Librarian, 
 Honolulu, Hawaii. 
 
 10. Southeastern Pennsylvania Processing Center Feasibility Study, op. cit., 
 p. 35. 
 
 11. Ibid., p. 37. 
 
 12. Ibid.,p.3&. 
 
33 
 
 13. U.S. Office of Education. Statewide Long-Range Planning for Libraries. 
 Report of Conference (September 19-22, 1965) Chicago, Illinois. Sponsored by 
 Library Services Branch. Edited by Herbert A. Carl. Washington, U.S.G.P.O., 
 1966, p. 50. 
 
 14. Ibid. 
 
 15. Ibid., p. 12. 
 
 16. Rike, Galen E. Statewide Library Surveys and Development Plans: an 
 Annotated Bibliography. Springfield, Illinois State Library, 1968. 
 
 17. Ibid., p. v. 
 
 18. Florida. State Library. Centralized Processing for the State of Florida. 
 Boston, Arthur D. Little, 1968. 
 
 19. New York. State Library. Feasibility of School and College Library 
 Processing Through Public Library Systems in New York State. A Report for the 
 New York State Library. New York, Nelson Associates, 1966, p. 3. 
 
 20. Ibid., pp. 3-4. 
 
 21. The Feasibility of Further Centralizing the Technical Processing 
 Operations of the Public Libraries of New York City. A survey conducted for 
 the Brooklyn Public Library, the New York Public Library and the Queens 
 Borough Public Library. New York, Nelson Associations in collaboration with 
 the Theodore Stein Company, 1966, p. 1. 
 
 22. New York. State Library. Centralized Processing for the Public Libraries 
 of New York State. A survey conducted for the New York State Library. New 
 York, Nelson Associates in collaboration with the Theodore Stein Company, 
 1966, p. 1. 
 
 23. The Feasibility of Further Centralizing the Technical Processing 
 Operations of the Public Libraries of New York City, op. cit., p. ii. 
 
 24. New York. State Library. Centralized Processing for the Public Libraries 
 of New York State, op. cit., p. 2. 
 
 25. Critical appraisal made by Sarah K. Vann, November 26, 1967. 
 (Unpublished.) 
 
 26. New York. Education Department. Bureau of School Libraries. A 
 Centralized Processing System for School Libraries in New York State. Report 
 to Bureau of School Libraries, New York State Education Department. Boston, 
 Arthur D. Little, 1967, p. 2. 
 
34 
 
 27. Southeastern Pennsylvania Processing Center Feasibility Study, op cit., 
 p. ix. 
 
 28. Ibid., p. 1. 
 
 29. Louisiana Library Association. Library Service in Louisiana; Keeping Pace 
 with Progress in the State. A Report prepared for the Louisiana Library 
 Association, by John A. Humphry and James Humphry HI. New York, 1968. 
 For background information on the development of parish libraries, see Chapter 
 iii, "Parish and Public Library Service." 
 
 30. Ibid., p. 59. 
 
 31. Ibid., p. 99. 
 
 32. Ibid., p. 103. 
 
 33. Massachusetts. Bureau of Library Extension. Library Planning Study. 
 Report to the Bureau of Library Extension, Department of Education, 
 Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston, Arthur D. Little, 1967. 
 
 34. Ibid., p. 2. 
 
 35. Ibid., pp. 24-25. 
 
 36. Ibid., p. 26. 
 
 37. Ibid., pp. 28-29. 
 
 38. Ibid., p. 31. 
 
 39. Ibid., p. 52. 
 
 40. Ibid., p. 69. 
 
 41. Ibid., p. 6. 
 
 42. Florida State Library. Centralized Processing in the State of Florida. 
 Boston, Arthur D. Little, 1968, p. 1 . 
 
 43. Ibid., p. 32. 
 
 44. Ibid., p. 3. 
 
 45. Ibid., p. 48. 
 
 46. Telephone conversation with F. William Summers, December 5, 1968. 
 
35 
 
 47. Southeastern Pennsylvania Processing Center Feasibility Study, op cit., 
 p. 35. 
 
 48. Responses, slightly paraphrased, to a letter of July 15, 1968. 
 
 49. Dewey, Melvil Library Notes, 2:288, March 1888. 
 
Donald E. Wright 
 
 Librarian, Evanston Public Library 
 
 Evanston Illinois 
 
 COOPERATION BETWEEN TYPES OF 
 LIBRARIES IN ILLINOIS TODAY 
 
 My responsibility at this conference is "to review all known main instances 
 of such cooperation (between libraries of different types) in the past and in the 
 present, with a critical evaluation of their results, to present a projection of what 
 you think might be the next steps to take in this direction." Taken literally, 
 then, my role has become one of historian, critic, and prophet. I will not 
 attempt to fill these roles, for to do so would presume an exhaustive study on 
 my part and assure an exhaustive afternoon on your part. 
 
 I will, however, attempt to fulfill this assignment in some degree. Let me 
 begin by telling you what I have done in preparation for this meeting. Through 
 Illinois Libraries, I have reviewed library literature for references to Illinois 
 library cooperation. A questionnaire was mailed to over 500 librarians in the 
 state and personal conversations were held with several librarians. With the above 
 as a basis I shall report on the literature search and the questionnaire, report in 
 some detail on certain cooperative programs as defined by this program, and 
 offer some comments. 
 
 A review of periodical indexes was made in an attempt to identify 
 activities between various types of libraries which could be classified as inter- 
 library cooperation in Illinois. None were found which truly cut across library 
 lines. This is, of course, not conclusive evidence that nothing has been done it is 
 only an indication that nothing has been written which was then indexed. Often, 
 however, library literature does not adequately represent projects or activities 
 which are truly working and innovative. 
 
 In a second attempt to identify projects within Illinois, a search through 
 Illinois Libraries was made. It was both an interesting and frightening task to 
 
 36 
 
37 
 
 review the past forty or so years in Illinois libraries frightening in that it raises 
 many questions as to what has been accomplished in this state and in the 
 profession. This review of literature then did not produce tangible leads to 
 projects which cut across library lines in the interest of better library service. 
 There were, to be sure, several articles on school and public libraries working 
 together, but these were the familiar song and dance routines which go some- 
 thing like the following: teachers come to tea at public library; children's 
 librarian speaks to teachers; public library has story hour and summer reading 
 program; and teachers do not tell anyone (school librarians or public librarians) 
 about assignments. Thus in perusal of the periodical which should reflect Illinois 
 librarianship and library development, no good clues were found which would 
 direct one to interlibrary activities. 
 
 The second step to gain information was a questionnaire. In early August 
 1968, a questionnaire was sent to over 500 libraries in Illinois. It was sent to all 
 public libraries, selected school libraries, all university and college libraries, and 
 selected special librarians. Two hundred and ninety-six returns were received. 
 The questionnaire was very brief and was designed only to lead me to inter- 
 library experiences. Five questions were asked and followed a brief cover letter 
 which stated the purpose of the questionnaire. The five questions were: 
 
 1 . Check the type of library you represent. (Various types were listed 
 with a space to check the one applicable.) 
 
 2. Has your library participated in any joint acitivity with another library 
 during the past ten years? 
 
 Yes or No 
 
 3. If yes, identify the other type(s) of library(ies) involved: 
 
 Public College University 
 
 School Special Other 
 
 4. Characterize briefly the key action involved. (For example, "shared 
 staff," "joint reference selection," "joint periodical pool," etc.) 
 
 5. Have you made any efforts to discuss or to plan cooperative activities 
 with other librarians without success? Yes or No. If yes, what types of 
 activities were being proposed? 
 
 One hundred and seventy-five of the questionnaires returned answered 
 "no" to questions two and five. No activity between their library and another 
 library was in force and none had been tried the past ten years. This was a flat 
 "no" to both questions. 
 
 Several of the respondents indicated cooperation between their library and 
 an agency of the same type. This is especially true in relationship to the new 
 public library systems. Many public librarians checked the questionnaire to 
 indicate that they, a public library, cooperated with another type of library and 
 identified that as a library system. This is an interesting situation in which the 
 members of an organization indicate their gratefulness for the cooperation the 
 
38 
 
 system was established to generate and hold up their cooperative spirit as an 
 emblem of achievement when the other party on the line is, in fact, their 
 creature. This fact may well indicate a barrier to interlibrary activity if our basic 
 structure lines are not clear and understood by librarians. 
 
 Examples of cooperation with other libraries of the same type are what 
 could be generally expected. Some examples of cooperation between public 
 libraries follow: host to library laboratory; host to district meeting for State 
 Library; book exhibits; loans from the Illinois State Library; exchange of 
 mysteries, science fiction, westerns, etc.; amnesty days; courtesy cards; shared 
 lists of periodicals; essay and general literature index responsibility; exchange of 
 gifts and duplicates; exchange of ideas; and periodical meetings of librarians. 
 
 There were two activities noted as having been discussed or tried between 
 public libraries without success: a community card program between six neigh- 
 boring libraries (three libraries are doing it) and reciprocal cards between four 
 suburban libraries. 
 
 From the questionnaire, college libraries in Illinois appear to be coopera- 
 ting the most with one another. A sampling of their activities follow: union list 
 of serials for twenty-eight college libraries; equal access to resources of another 
 college; joint periodical list; regular delivery schedule between two campuses; 
 teletype network; supplying of photocopies for mutilated periodicals; exchange 
 new accessions lists; cooperative purchasing; and shared staff and materials. No 
 school librarians responded to this question with examples. However, it is known 
 that some school systems have cooperative programs with other school libraries 
 of the nature noted. 
 
 Let us turn our attention to the examples of interlibrary cooperation 
 revealed on the questionnaire. 
 
 1) Public library and school library cooperation. There are no startling 
 revelations or challenging stimulators among the actions identified. Here is a 
 sampling of responses: 
 
 reserve shelf at public library for school assignments 
 
 public library visits by schools 
 
 library instruction to classes 
 
 classroom collections to schools 
 
 joint amnesty day 
 
 cooperative book return 
 
 joint periodical pool 
 
 shared cataloging tools 
 
 provide junior high with paperbound Reader's Guide 
 
 help high school students with research 
 
 shared staff 
 
 shared administration and operation 
 
 joint book selection meetings 
 
 regular exchange of lists of periodical holdings and new book 
 acquisitions 
 
 attend library meetings together 
 
 borrow reference books from one another 
 
 informal discussion group of librarians within area 
 
39 
 
 joint facilities 
 
 (This only in one instance and in that it is one of common admin- 
 istration with more than one administrative board.) 
 an Articulation Committee composed of "administrations of public 
 library and local schools (public and parochial); key library people 
 (public and school); representatives of teaching staff 
 exchange of bibliographies 
 bookmobile to schools 
 participate in career day 
 publication of local library directory 
 school librarian helped to catalog our books 
 joint National Library Week program 
 joint use of film collections 
 joint radio program 
 
 2) Public libraries and colleges and universities. Again the following is a 
 quick identification: 
 
 interlibrary loans 
 
 National Library Week cooperation 
 
 cooperative exhibits 
 
 honor university library cards 
 
 share staff small college and small public library 
 
 joint reference selection 
 
 joint use of quarters (new junior colleges) 
 
 microfilm pool of local newspapers 
 
 joint use of LTP reports 
 
 joint purchases of certain collections 
 
 (such as essay and general literature indexed items) 
 cheaper non-resident cards for college students 
 
 It is interesting to note that one public library indicated extensive cooperation 
 with its neighboring university library but that university listed none. 
 
 3) Public libraries and special libraries: 
 
 interlibrary loans 
 
 sends specialized material to special library receives general materials 
 
 This is not a long list of activities but it does represent the activities re- 
 ported. You can see that there is some interlibrary activity in practice. There is 
 probably more which did not come into evidence during the survey but what was 
 given is representative enough to show clearly the present patterns. 
 
 Answers to the last question provided indications of activities which were 
 tried but failed. Only a dozen replies indicated that overtures had been made in a 
 certain direction to no avail. They included: 
 
 reciprocal use of a school film collection by a public library (which 
 loaned theirs to the school) 
 
40 
 
 schools wanted to use our films but policy did not permit 
 
 improved conversation with schools on assignments 
 
 extension of borrowing privileges to junior college students via an 
 
 area common library card 
 
 complete cataloging of public library books in the school library 
 and vice versa, cataloging of school library collection by the public 
 
 library 
 
 joint acquisition and service policy statement between libraries of 
 
 several types (failed because of suspicion on part of schools and 
 
 special libraries) 
 
 shared use of reference materials 
 
 tried to arrange a liberal interloan with a special library but to no 
 
 avail 
 
 tried college library to exchange shelflists with the public library but 
 
 insufficient funds 
 
 And these final three frustrated plans of a junior college librarian: 
 
 tried to get a joint book catalog between several junior colleges but 
 staffs didn't want it 
 
 tried (junior college library) to join the processing center but they 
 couldn't cope with a college only small public libraries 
 
 tried to work with LIBRA, but they, naturally, wish to cooperate 
 with institutions like themselves small four-year liberal arts colleges 
 
 Two activities which have cut across library lines and are representative of 
 what activity has been taken included the establishment of an association or 
 organization for discussion and action and a cooperative effort between a school 
 and a public library. An Articulation Committee has been formed in one 
 city with the following purpose: to establish communication channels and 
 lines for action between public and school and special library programs. The 
 committee includes the following representation: the director of the public 
 library, superintendent of public schools, chief administrator for parochial 
 schools, a representative of the school principals' council, school reading 
 specialists, two special librarians, and department heads from the public library. 
 This group meets twice a year and committees, when needed, are formed to 
 achieve certain action. Although the public librarian feels discouraged at times, 
 he believes that it is a worthwhile project and one which is productive. It has 
 opened up communication with school officials and three top school admin- 
 istrators have become library conscious. 
 
 The public librarian would like to see a coordinated selection policy for all 
 publicly supported library units within the community. This has not been 
 achieved to date because of suspicion or uncertainty on the part of the school 
 officials. While the school board could impose such, the public librarian hopes it 
 will come about through mutual trust and understanding. 
 
 Another example of interlibrary cooperation referred to above has been 
 used for many years as an example of public and school cooperation I refer to 
 
41 
 
 the relationship between the Evanston Public Library and the Evanston elemen- 
 tary schools. I am reporting on it in some detail because it offers, I believe, some 
 interesting lessons in cooperation. The boards of the Evanston Public Library 
 and of the elementary school district have had a long, interesting relationship- 
 referred to quite often as a cooperative system. 
 
 Although this cooperative system was formally organized in 1921, class- 
 room collections had been provided by the Public Library as early as 1896. Each 
 classroom was allotted three-month loans of twenty books which school boys 
 transported between the Public Library and the schools in small carts. Teachers 
 were enthusiastic about this opportunity for encouraging good reading habits. At 
 this time, the schools were providing only general reference books. Marian 
 Lindsay, the librarian of the Public Library , believed that school libraries should be 
 maintained by the Public Library to provide greater book strength through inter- 
 change of books. Public demand for more library service for adults, as well as 
 children, resulted in the establishment of deposit stations in two schools. These 
 stations, which were open one afternoon and evening each week, provided books 
 for children and adults. 
 
 In 1918, the Mother's Clubs established special memorial library rooms in 
 honor of school principals in two elementary schools. These libraries stimulated 
 interest and desire for a separate library in every elementary school. In 1921, the 
 Juul law, a state law which reduced the Public Library budget by one third, 
 made it impossible to continue library service to the schools. The board of 
 education was fully aware of the value of school libraries and was ready to 
 accept the library board's program for cooperative financing and service to the 
 schools. 
 
 As the first step in this cooperative plan, the two boards jointly employed 
 a trained and experienced children's librarian who was to devote half time to 
 supervising children's services at the Public Library and half time to supervising 
 school libraries. As a member of the Public Library staff, she administered the 
 children's department and selected and purchased all children's books. As an 
 employee of the school board, she was given the right of a supervisor to enter 
 classrooms to talk about books and give instruction on the use of the library. 
 
 An outstanding development of Public Library and school cooperation was 
 the establishment of centralized cataloging. A specialist was employed to 
 catalog, classify, and maintain a master shelflist of all books acquired by the 
 schools or the children's department of the Public Library. This method of 
 cooperative cataloging provided a uniform system of cataloging. With the 
 exception of two schools, library books were placed in classrooms and serviced 
 by the classroom teacher. The supervisor visited each class once a month. 
 
 When the Boltwood Intermediate School opened in 1924, the first full 
 time school librarian was employed jointly by the two boards. The school board 
 paid two-thirds of her salary, while the library board paid one-third. This 
 librarian, who had both teacher and library science background, assigned classes 
 to a weekly period in the library for instruction in the use of books and catalogs 
 and book appreciation. This experimental step in cooperation between school 
 and library boards was highly successful. 
 
 Several new school libraries were established within the next few years. In 
 1926, the Foster School garage was turned into a library. The new Haven 
 
42 
 
 Intermediate School, built in 1927, had a special library room with a full time 
 librarian. In 1928, Willard School established a separate library room. In 1929, 
 an itinerant librarian was employed to assist the supervisor. This same year 
 school library cards were replaced by juvenile public library cards which could 
 be used in the school library, the main library, or a branch library. 
 
 This same year, the two school boards (prior to the present District 65, 
 there were two elementary school districts) agreed that the school library rooms 
 which could be used as community libraries would be provided in each new 
 school. By 1933 this plan had been carried out, and thirteen of the fourteen 
 elementary schools had a separate library room. Each class was assigned to at 
 least one library period each week. Six librarians, with education and library 
 science degrees, served these schools. 
 
 By 1939, the staff included nine librarians, the number increasing as new 
 schools were built. The Public Library paid one-third of the salary of most of the 
 school librarians, as well as one-half of the salary of the supervisor. In May, 1945, 
 the library board revised the policy concerning the relationship between the 
 library and the two school boards. Through the growth of traveling branch 
 service and the opening of a separate north branch (a south branch had been 
 established many years earlier), the schools no longer served as branches, and 
 school librarians devoted their entire time to school library service. Therefore, 
 the two boards agreed that the schools would pay the full salary of the school 
 librarians. The following quotation, from a statement by the library board at 
 that time, indicates the philosophy of service to school children: 
 
 We do not, in any way, wish to alter the fine spirit of cooperation and 
 mutual agreement that has so long been enjoyed by the library and the 
 schools and which has worked to produce so many benefits and advantages. 
 Because of the mutual understanding of the School Boards and the Library 
 Board on the necessity for and value of our past cooperative venture in the 
 joint operation of the libraries concerned, we feel, in adopting this 
 permanent policy, that the School Boards of Districts 75 and 76 and the 
 Library Board should go on record in expressing their wish and desire that 
 no action be taken in the future that might endanger or lead to its dis- 
 solution. 
 
 Since 1945, there have been many areas of continued cooperation between 
 the Public Library and the schools; i.e., book selection and purchasing, cata- 
 loging and a union shelflist, processing, interlibrary loan, registration of all 
 children providing a common borrower's card, and delivery service which makes 
 it possible for children to return library books at any agency. The coordinator or 
 supervisor, whose salary was until this year shared equally by the school board 
 and the Public Library, supervises the librarians in the twenty -one school 
 libraries and the materials center as well as the children's department of the 
 Public Library. 
 
 Greatly increased enrollment in the schools and changes in policies of 
 school administration have affected the Public Library's role in the cooperative 
 plan. Prior to the employment of a special school personnel director, the 
 director of the public library, together with the supervisor (or coordinator) of 
 
43 
 
 school libraries, initiated contact with and interviewed all applicants for school 
 library positions. The school business manager has assumed responsibility for 
 budget planning and purchase of equipment, etc. With increasing school library 
 development and expanded material purchasing assisted by the various federal 
 programs, there was a gradual shift from a coordinated operation to separate but 
 physically adjacent operations. 
 
 Today Evanston has a cooperative system although very different from 
 that envisioned by Marian Lindsay in the 1920's. Was separation of the technical 
 process and the shared staff necessary? It appears that the separation of certain 
 operations of technical processing came about because of the inability of the Pub- 
 lic Library unit to respond to the increased load of school materials, In part, there 
 was a non-acceptance by the Public Library of the plan to shorten catalog entries 
 for certain children's material. 
 
 The last of the shared staff was the coordinator. The nature of this posi- 
 tion has changed and I feel it is an important change since a full time, high level 
 coordinator of children's services is needed, just as the schools need the un- 
 divided attention of their supervisor. Cooperation still is done on some fronts- 
 such as the technical processing of school materials is done at the Public Library 
 by a school staff with shared resources; there is a single charging system through- 
 out the Public Library and elementary schools giving the child fewer routines 
 and rules with which to become familiar; delivery service between all units 
 permits free interchange of books; and our children's librarian attends all school 
 library staff meetings and vice versa. Evanston is increasing its effectiveness 
 through a true cooperative program which is still developing as the old 
 dependency and not too clearly defined program is retired. 
 
 There seem to me to be certain problems possibly inherent in the pro- 
 fession which can stifle us. There were clear and distinct indications that "size of 
 library" and "distance" will still serve as an argument or excuse for lack of 
 action or inaction. This is an age-old problem which apparently logic and 
 positive and constructive examples cannot solve. These excuses were used time 
 after time as a reason for "no" replies but, perhaps, it is encouraging that 
 persons felt compelled to excuse their negative reply. Perhaps cooperation has 
 become a mode, if not a manner, and with it, at least in the vocabulary, we have 
 hope. 
 
 Other barriers which could be enumerated can be summed up in one 
 word and that same word notes our greatest resource "people." This means 
 that we are either in great shape or we really have problems. So many of the 
 problems enumerated come back to the people involved: the school librarians 
 who would not cooperate ; the board which vetoed the idea; the public librarians 
 who did not want to serve students. If we are to utilize our greatest resource, we 
 are going to need to achieve an orientation to total library service. All types of 
 librarians, library school faculty, library trustees all who are concerned with the 
 library universe must be oriented to service and to each type of library's 
 primary purpose. 
 
 If we are deterred by such things as "distance," "size," "reciprocal bor- 
 rowing" and so forth, perhaps our basic problem is people. Only one person 
 mentioned this in his reply and his complaint was "lack of help keeps us from 
 
44 
 
 doing things like this." I suspect he was referring to cooperative activities but the 
 meaning is unclear, as are many of our arguments or protests against inaction or 
 ignorance. 
 
 There are, I think, some commendable and profitable activities going on in 
 Illinois. We seem unable, though, to make relatively simple relationships. Many 
 of us fight reciprocal borrowing today and hope to dip into those troubled 
 waters with someone else's toe we will start with a pilot program and build 
 gradually. We are unable to accept the testimony and experiences of others in 
 our own state and region or even experts from New York. Just as we are unable 
 to accept and apply the experience factor of others in this regard, we are unable 
 to accept the usefulness across types of library lines of such things as union lists 
 of serials, interlibrary loan, centralized periodical pool, and so on. 
 
 We seem not only to lack imagination but to lack a certain enthusiasm or 
 initiative. The single activity which was noted with the most frequency as an 
 interlibrary activity was interlibrary loan. The interesting fact in this regard is 
 that in over 70 percent of those replies noting public library-system cooperation 
 it was interlibrary loan which was held up as the example of service. As a 
 profession we have had the mechanics of interlibrary loan for some time. Why 
 have we not noticed it? Did we lack the imagination to tap the source or, did we 
 need a simpler method? My library certainly did not engage in interlibrary 
 lending until pushed to the brink by a patron but now we are the tenth busiest 
 user out of a field of twenty-eight in our system's interloan business. 
 
 Finally, there was a definite categorizing of libraries and library users in 
 the replies to the questionnaire. Libraries were thought of as a certain type and 
 any service given was given to a type of patron. In enough instances that it could 
 be considered a pattern, there was evidence that a student belonged in a school 
 library or a university or college library. When he came to the public library he 
 came to alien ground and there was philanthropy involved in the service, if any 
 was given. 
 
 Are we unable to think in broad service patterns? I realize the facts of life 
 and the necessity for a certain definition in relationship to our source of funds 
 but, do we not need to define our roles also in terms of broad service patterns 
 rather than in a limiting way? Somewhere, somehow, we must achieve an 
 orientation to service. 
 
 If librarians tend to categorize they also tend to shy from responsibility. 
 And this is, it seems to me, a barrier. Several persons noted specific examples in 
 which a project was not started or failed because someone did not accept 
 responsibility including, evidently, the person making the charge. It appears 
 that we are either on such tenuous ground or made of such weak material that 
 we are unable to exercise a leadership or coordinating role. I seriously question 
 the life expectancy of a state plan which is dependent upon a group so oriented 
 to leadership or commitment roles. 
 
 I was asked to comment upon possible next steps toward a state plan, and 
 I will make only two comments in this regard. The first refers to the legal 
 structure for library service within Illinois and the second refers to our positive 
 resources in Illinois. I am confident that attention must be given to the legal 
 structure of library responsibility in Illinois. I am not referring alone to the place 
 
45 
 
 of the Illinois State Library in the state structure. I have always maintained that 
 the structure of library service in a state need not be a determining factor in the 
 character of that service. However, I would list the legal structure as a barrier to 
 the development of a state plan for two reasons, the number of groups-official 
 and otherwise which serve in various capacities the official state organization 
 and the lack of comprehensive or total responsibility within one agency or 
 compatible agencies. Let us look at the public library pattern. We have a legally 
 constituted Advisory Committee to the Illinois State Library. In addition to the 
 official Advisory Committee, we have an Advisory Council with several sub- 
 committees, each concerned with a part of the federal Library Services and 
 Construction Act. Indeed, the Title III subcommittee was formed expressly to 
 be concerned with the type of library cooperation I have discussed. We also have 
 the Illinois Library Association's Library Development Committee which has 
 served a variety of functions, and served them admirably. With the library 
 systems we begin a new series of committees or groups working in various 
 advisory capacities to the state agency. 
 
 Is it impossible for the state agency to communicate effectively and to act 
 responsively to so many groups and is it necessary? The existence of so many 
 groups when not adequately informed or directed can create misunderstanding 
 and misadventures; and it has done so. 
 
 It seems to me that as a corps of professionals we librarians should not 
 need to seek such unions or multiply with such indiscretion the number of 
 groups which purport to represent special interests or serve special purposes. I 
 feel that instead of creating or building a strong central unit through our legal 
 advisory committee, we are merely constructing temporary supports. There is 
 also the fact that responsibility for library service for schools, public libraries, 
 junior colleges, and universities is lodged either in separate agencies and 
 coordination is at best tenuous, or statutory responsibility is lacking or hazy. 
 
 I would encourage the State Library Advisory Committee to assume an 
 aggressive leadership role in state development. This unit is the only group with 
 legal implication and is the group with authority over the Title III funds. This 
 Advisory Committee could coordinate activities within the state; it could con- 
 solidate the activities and work of its own state library agency ; it could begin to 
 build that agency to the point where the staff and the services command the 
 respect not only of the library community but of the entire state. I believe this is 
 the group that needs our support and our active help this is the group that 
 could make a difference in Illinois library service. 
 
 We have a great deal going for us in Illinois which should prove of help 
 in our attempt to develop a comprehensive library plan. We have: 
 
 three accredited library schools 
 
 a fairly substantial professional membership association 
 
 active special library associations and a fairly complete series of local 
 or regional library groups 
 
 a developing public library system which could provide a key to 
 coordination and encouragement (But a word of caution here. We the 
 profession have organized the state into public library systems and, for 
 
46 
 
 the most part, we are pleased at our performance. It appears that this 
 will offer a convenient channel for communication and for action. It 
 could, however, also be a barrier to development. While we recognize 
 and admire the abilities of those who have been attracted to our system 
 staffs, the official groups in the state must remember that these are not 
 the only librarians in the state and efforts must be made to work with 
 the public and school librarians on the local level. This is where repre- 
 sentative librarianship is and this is where support for future state 
 programs rests.) 
 
 excellent library resources among our universities, special libraries, 
 school libraries, etc. 
 
 a group of concerned librarians who are willing to help and have the 
 abilities which could make a difference in state dvelopment 
 
 a library climate which was able to accomplish legislation and aid for 
 public libraries in a remarkably short time 
 
 Certainly we need a comprehensive plan for library development in 
 Illinois. From my observation and study we have not taken advantage of the 
 opportunities we have had, and we need not be either overly impressed or 
 depressed by our past. We need to have prime concern for the future. 
 
Carolyn Crawford 
 
 Director, School Libraries 
 
 and Instructional Materials 
 
 Department of Education 
 
 Hawaii 
 
 COOPERATION BETWEEN SCHOOL LIBRARIES 
 AND OTHER TYPES OF LIBRARIES 
 
 Since I come from a Hawaii, a state with a unique centralized system, 
 perhaps I should begin by taking a look at its organizational pattern of school 
 and other types of libraries. 1 In Hawaii, public libraries were placed in the 
 reorganized State Department of Education following statehood. While this is 
 not unusual at the municipal level its uniqueness lies in the fact that Hawaii has a 
 true statewide system. It includes the State Library, all public libraries, all public 
 school libraries and the Central Processing Center. Each of these branches is 
 under a director who is responsible to the state librarian whose rank is that of an 
 assistant superintendent. 
 
 There is one board of education in Hawaii, but there are no local boards; 
 the state board members are elected from geographical regions. This is the policy 
 making and governing body of the library system with two members serving as a 
 Library Committee. For each of the seven school districts, there is an Education 
 Advisory Council, appointed by the governor. There are four Library Advisory 
 Commissions, also appointive, which are an inheritance from the pre-statehood 
 autonomous county library system. Both Council and Commission members 
 serve in an advisory capacity only, but they do play an important role in the 
 planning of educational and library programs. 
 
 Since all funds come from taxes, the state legislature acts as a governing 
 body to the degree that it controls the budget. For example, in the 
 appropriation bill which established central processing it was stipulated that the 
 center would serve both school and public libraries. 
 
 47 
 
48 
 
 As joint operations developed, there has been on the one hand a consistent 
 effort to define our diverse roles, to cut down on duplication of effort and to 
 provide for joint long range planning and, on the other hand, emphasis on the use 
 of all types of "carriers of knowledge" regardless of type of library. Objectives in 
 serving the total population are to provide exciting experiences in learning, to 
 make available our entire cultural heritage, to provide a rich collection of 
 materials and to make use of modern technological aids. It is true that this 
 system represents an intra-departmental structure for school and public libraries; 
 however, working from such a base, Hawaii has made progress in terms of 
 interlibrary cooperation. 
 
 Two general observations should be made at this point: first, cooperation 
 as a term implies give and take when the giving is entirely on one side it is not 
 cooperation; second, when talking about cooperation between types of libraries, 
 we should remember that in many cases the different types are competing for 
 the same tax dollar. 
 
 Turning to the national scene, we could examine cooperative ventures in 
 which schools are involved through several approaches: the historical, the geo- 
 graphical or by type. While it is not my purpose to give a re-hash of historical 
 development, certain landmarks need to be mentioned. A good bibliography on 
 the very early period may be found in the January 1953 issue of Library 
 Trends.* As early as 1901 there appeared an article in Library Journal entitled 
 "Co-operation between Libraries and Schools: An Historical Sketch," by 
 Josephine Rathbone. 3 No doubt most of the "cooperation" during that early 
 period was one directional. By the 1920's there was considerable school library 
 development in various sections of the country. The depression days of the 
 1930's impeded progress although the bookmobile or other means of service 
 were offered schools by the public libraries: this continued in many areas 
 through the war years and into the second half of the century. 
 
 With Sputnik and the consequent knowledge explosion, there came an 
 invasion of public, college and university libraries by students. Valiant efforts 
 were made to find cooperative ways to meet this challenge; many such programs 
 are described in the September 1965 issue of the ALA Bulletin* However, the 
 situation reached a national crisis stage in the early 1960's. Alarm over this 
 "student problem" brought some 4,000 librarians together to discuss possible 
 "cures" at the 1963 ALA Conference-within-a-Conference (CWC) in Chicago. 5 
 
 Certainly that conference serves as a landmark which influenced many 
 participants to follow a variety of action patterns. For example, committees 
 were established at local and/or state levels for considering ways to meet the 
 needs of both the students and the total population. From such committees 
 came statements defining the roles of the various types of libraries, setting policy 
 for action, or giving direction to teachers and students concerning use of the 
 various library facilities. 
 
 Since the 1963 CWC, other ALA meetings have directly or indirectly 
 attempted to move forward in this area. The ALA Young Adult Services Divi- 
 sion's 1966 Pre-Conference in Library Programs for Disadvantaged Youth gave 
 evidence of successful action programs; examples included the one in Nassau 
 where the public library made yearly loans of "study kits" to disadvantaged 
 
49 
 
 students and "Detroit Adventure," where young adult librarians gave leadership 
 for book discussions in classrooms in conjunction with high school English 
 departments. 6 Again, in Kansas City in the summer of 1968, a day's program 
 was jointly sponsored by CSD, American Association of School Librarians, 
 Public Librarians Association and Young Adult Service Division in order to 
 consider how they could best cooperate. 
 
 It is too soon to cite examples of possible effects from the latter delibera- 
 tions. It is true that we tend to feel impatient with the amount of talking we do 
 about these questions and perhaps think that nothing much happens. However, 
 in checking the literature in preparation for this meeting I found a substantial 
 amount of activity in the five years since the 1963 conference. Some of it 
 relating to the meetings held at that conference. 
 
 Perhaps less directly affecting interlibrary cooperation where schools are 
 involved is the Knapp School Library Project. The final report 7 on this indicates 
 that at least in some of the situations the program had a yeasty effect in making 
 the community aware of needs and of involvement of the cooperating teacher 
 education institution with the question of supply and use of materials as well as 
 preparation of teachers for effective use of libraries. 
 
 Finally, but not least important, has been the impact made by federal 
 funds. First, the Library Services and Construction Act and the State Library 
 Development Committees provided much statewide planning. The amount of 
 concern about the school age user has varied from state to state. Presently, with 
 Library Services and Construction Act Titles III and IV being implemented, 
 there is more direct involvement. The National Defence Education Act Title III, 
 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title II funds have helped 
 build school library collections and this very fact has promoted a healthy climate 
 for cooperation. If nothing else, in a few cases the availability of the federal 
 funds has brought together people from separate fields to do some joint plan- 
 ning. 
 
 James Cass observed in the Saturday Review that, "Education reporting 
 today is very much like snapping a photo of a moving object by the time the 
 shutter has clicked, the picture has changed." 8 In a sense, this is also true of the 
 library situation. It is especially difficult to find good reports on what has 
 actually happened; often there are references to studies in progress, but it is 
 sometimes impossible to locate final results. Before or by the tenth anniversary 
 of the Conference-within-a-Conference it would be desirable to have reached 
 another landmark, some type of nation-wide evaluation of the various coopera- 
 tive ventures in which we are now engaged. Returning to the subject of state- 
 level policy statements, three might be cited as being especially helpful; they 
 come from Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. The concluding paragraph of the 
 Wisconsin statement summarizes the major emphasis of most such statements: 
 "While every avenue will be explored to promote cooperation and coordination 
 of school and public libraries, their functions are clearly distinct, and neither 
 library is capable of providing or should attempt to provide the services of the 
 other." 9 
 
 To expand the concepts on which such a statement is based, I would like 
 to quote at length from a source other than a policy statement devised in any 
 
50 
 
 one state. It is by Violet Wagener of the Boulder Valley School District in 
 Colorado. It seems the best description of what we all need to understand and 
 appreciate about the functions of school and public libraries. 
 
 School and public libraries are educational institutions which 
 have been serving as learning motivators and independent learning 
 centers. The much younger/school library was formed to provide a 
 readily accessible and diversified collection of books and periodicals 
 to supplement textbooks and enrich curricula. Audio-visual materials 
 were added when there was recognition of the importance of sensory 
 stimuli for learning, that certain content is learned more readily in 
 nonprint form, and when it was suspected that students have 
 individual learning styles. 
 
 The school library then became an instructional materials center, 
 remaining materials oriented instead of program or learner oriented, 
 and providing a balanced instead of a specialized collection. Now the 
 school library is evolving into an information and communication 
 center, a learning center, resource center, or an entire self-contained 
 school, program oriented with materials collection for curricular 
 concepts, behavioral objectives and instructional modes, and 
 specially coded for teacher access to individualize instruction/ 
 
 The differences between the school library and public library as 
 institutions for motivating learning and providing materials for 
 independent learning are becoming more pronounced j 1 The school is 
 the developer and guide of the inquiry process for learning. It 
 motivates and manipulates the learning environment so that, hope- 
 fully, each student will learn how to learn and be inspired to con- 
 tinue to learn the remainder of his life. He should acquire from his 
 school experience fundamental knowledge, concepts, and basic 
 physical, psycho-motor and intellectual skills to enable him to func- 
 tion as an independent learner j The public library is the storehouse 
 and resource for this independent learner, young or old/ The school 
 library must provide resources for professional needs of educators 
 and a wide variety of resources to meet the prescribed instructional 
 needs of students with intellectual, experimental and psychological 
 differences/ The school library must also serve as an information and 
 communication link with the public library and other community 
 agencies for the independent school age learner. 
 
 The public library is particularly effective as a learning motivator 
 for the preschool age child, as a resource for the school age child 
 who is an independent learner, for parent-child initiated learning, for 
 adults who are independent learners, and as a generalized infor- 
 mation center. It should be able to refer to the school library 
 requests for education information and be able to utilize school 
 developed prescribed learning programs requested by adult patrons. 
 The school library should be able to refer students on independent 
 learning projects to the public library, or obtain generalized 
 
51 
 
 reference information assistance from it for teachers and students. 
 These dynamic evolving relationships of the school library within the 
 school and the school library with the public library require flexible 
 people developing flexible plans for flexible institutions. Proper 
 selection of materials and analysis of proper location of materials for 
 economy and efficiency of learning and funds must be worked out 
 within each local community but within the context of the educa- 
 tion role of both school and public libraries. An allowance must also 
 be made for the larger community of needs and resources brought 
 closer daily through systems development and electronic devices. 10 
 To summarize, the development of any service or system should accom- 
 modate concurrently developing systems and should be compatible with larger 
 networks. 
 
 Because so many places have used a specific basic document in formulating 
 policy, it is appropriate to quote from the most pertinent section of the 1961 
 publication of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Responsibilities of 
 State Departments of Education for School Library Services: 
 
 a. The school library serves the school, and the public library serves the 
 community. Teachers and pupils are members of both the school and the 
 community. 
 
 b. Public library service including service from state, regional, county, 
 and community libraries may supplement but never supplant the school 
 library. Service which replaces the school library impedes the development 
 of school libraries to the detriment of service to teachers and pupils and 
 tends to separate library materials from instructional programs. 
 
 c. The school has the primary responsibility for instruction and guidance 
 of children and youth in the community in the use of libraries. The 
 program of library instruction, directed by the school librarians, has the 
 broad purposes of teaching library skills adaptable to all types of libraries 
 and for encouraging pupils to use libraries for continuing self-education. 
 School librarians, teachers, and public librarians should cooperate in 
 planning instructional programs in the use of libraries for educational 
 programs in the use of libraries for educational and recreational purposes. 
 
 d. Cooperative planning in the selection and utilization of materials for 
 children and young people is the responsibility of school administrators, 
 teachers, school librarians, public librarians, and other community leaders 
 concerned with youth. 
 
 These principles apply in urban and rural communities and to both 
 elementary and secondary schools. In urban and other nonrural 
 communities the recent tremendous increase in the number of students 
 using the resources of community libraries has pointed to the need for 
 cooperative planning by school, college, and public library admin- 
 istrators concerning library services to students within the same 
 geographic areas. In rural communities some school boards and admin- 
 istrators are moving toward the development of strong reorganized 
 school districts able to provide good school libraries, while others are 
 beginning to provide school library service from intermediate units. 
 
52 
 
 State library extension agencies, primarily concerned with public 
 libraries, have gradually withdrawn direct service to schools as their 
 programs have matured and as boards of education have become able to 
 support and administer school libraries. In some states with un- 
 developed school library programs direct service from State library 
 extension agencies to schools still exists. However, in these states the 
 principles of school and public library relations should be applied as 
 soon as possible, and the full responsibility for State-level services to 
 school libraries should be assumed by State departments of educa- 
 tion. 1 1 
 
 In addition to the landmarks of LSCA, ESEA, the Conference-within- 
 a-Conference, and so forth, we would be remiss if we did not mention the 
 importance to cooperative planning of the new standards published for both 
 public and school libraries at a time when such basic tools were most important. 
 While it is important to know of the over-all national trends and develop- 
 ments, it may be more helpful to have specific examples from some of the states. 
 Of the ones whose cooperative activities I was able to study, perhaps New Jersey 
 is most interesting and relevant. This state's developmental program dates back 
 ten years when major emphasis was on public libraries. And, of course, New 
 Jersey is not alone in discovering that it does not work to upgrade only the one 
 type of library. Thus a survey was begun in 1962-63, which focused on the needs 
 of readers, not on the libraries as institutions. Equally important was the broad 
 base of involvement of librarians who served as members of many subcom- 
 mitties working with the Library Development Committee on the survey. The 
 Committee was composed of representatives of public, school, special, college, 
 and university librarians, as well as trustees and people from other lay interests. 
 Focusing on the reader, New Jersey found that library categories and 
 political jurisdictions mean nothing to the person who wants to use the most 
 convenient or the best source. The Committee working with the survey results 
 developed a plan with several phases: minimum standards were set first for: local 
 public libraries, elementary libraries (K-6), secondary libraries (7-12), and four- 
 year college libraries. 
 
 Their second level activity, for which JJSCA Title I funds were used, was to 
 begin establishing area libraries to serve as back-up collections for all types of 
 libraries. Area libraries are open to all residents of the area with reference and 
 reading guidance services available to them; area libraries also provide to public, 
 school and college libraries interlibrary information and reference services. This 
 phase of the plan is only partially in operation while third level goals are still to 
 be implemented. 
 
 I believe this plan is worthy of detailed study ; for one thing, New Jersey 
 and Illinois have certain similarities in having the extremes of urbanization and 
 rural conditions existing side by side. In the second place, development has 
 progressed to the point where it is easy to see where difficulties will arise. The 
 survey report written by Martin, Gaver and Monroe 12 and material on the status 
 of the plan's implementation as of 1967 are also of interest. 
 
 As Bryan noted at the tenth annual Syracuse Symposium: 
 
53 
 
 To summarize how the plan works, it is now expected that any 
 individual with a serious intention and need can have his require- 
 ments met through a chain of library opportunity that starts at the 
 school, passes through the local public library and the area reference 
 library to any or all four research libraries and the reference referral 
 office of the State Library, which will search outside of the state for 
 needed information or materials should circumstances require. In 
 addition, however, the very fact that each area reference library is 
 required by regulation of the state agency to have a coordinating 
 committee of librarians. . .means that there is not only overview of 
 the operation of the system but also regular evaluation and report. 13 
 
 He emphasizes in addition, that since the area libraries and the research libraries 
 accept funds for these services they are now obliged to provide them. While the 
 New Jersey plan is not fully implemented it would so far seem that advantages 
 outweigh disadvantages and that "the public" is generally in favor of it. Before 
 returning to the discussion of some of the activities in Hawaii, I will mention 
 some other typical programs. In Oklahoma, for instance, a committee appointed 
 by the governor was made up of five librarians and four lay people. It conducted 
 a survey and planned a governor's conference on libraries; two state school 
 library supervisors were secured for the Department of Education. In the survey, 
 it was found that many resources are available in academic libraries but little 
 thought has been given to using them for service to students in the state as a 
 whole. Such a large state as New York has a person who works out of the 
 Library Development Division as a liaison with the Bureau of School Library 
 Service. They still lack an over-all development program to meet the needs of 
 elementary, high school and early college level students. Recent studies by 
 Nelson Associates recommend experimentation with joint facilities for school 
 and public libraries in small localities a recommendation of interest to us in 
 Hawaii since we also are experimenting in this area. The studies also recommend 
 that school libraries be placed as a third bureau under the Library Development 
 Division (now consisting of public libraries, and academic and research 
 libraries). 14 
 
 One other type of involvement, developing informational publications at 
 the state level is represented by South Carolina's publication, "Tips for 
 Teachers." This is specifically on the assignment problem and was produced by 
 the State Library Board. 
 
 Wisconsin's policy summary statement was quoted earlier. Wisconsin 
 carries on a program which is found in some other states also; their Cooperative 
 Children's Book Center is located in the State Capital, is under the direction of 
 the children's consultant on the State Library staff, is co-sponsored by the 
 Department of Public Instruction and the University of Wisconsin, and paid for 
 from LSCA funds. This is a special non-circulating collection of children's books 
 and selected audio-visual materials for examination, reading, evaluation, study 
 and use by on-the-job librarians, students and can be evaluated by the teachers 
 and ordered for their school libraries. 
 
 One of the most ambitious projects involved the states of Utah, Colorado 
 
54 
 
 and Wyoming and involved 30,000 children from 120 schools and public 
 libraries in a reading program. 
 
 These then are a few examples of some of the activities going on in certain 
 representative states. Since Hawaii represents as close an administrative tie as 
 would be possible for school and public and state library services, I will discuss 
 some of the things which have been done there. Some of the programs were well 
 underway before there was an actual organizational bond. Some grew directly 
 from recommendations made by Robert Leigh in 1960, when he made the first 
 of various studies which followed statehood; he indicated it would be better for 
 the library system to be within the Department of Education, providing the state 
 librarian would have the status of an assistant superintendent. 
 
 First then, let us look at his recommendations made almost ten years ago, 
 on the relation of public and school libraries: 
 
 Recommended that as general policy and plan, school libraries 
 and public library branches be built and maintained in separate 
 quarters under separate management, but with close working rela- 
 tions through joint planning and acquisitions committees in each of 
 the counties. 15 
 
 Of some forty school libraries and a dozen or more public libraries built 
 since that time only three have not followed this recommendation. We have just 
 started a two-year depth study of the services being given by these three joint 
 operations, all of which are in small, rural communities. 
 
 Recommended that the Public Libraries Division and the Director of 
 (School) Library Services, in the Department of Education, plan 
 jointly for, and schedule the transfer of public library bookmobile 
 and other emergency public library services to the schools without 
 libraries, to the school libraries as they are developed. 15 
 New standards for bookmobile services were adopted; stops at schools are 
 after-school stops, serving as community stops, unless there is an emergency 
 situation. This situation compares favorably to the former bookmobile program 
 built around school stops. 
 
 Recommended that the Public Libraries Division and the Director 
 of (School) Libraries establish in each of the four counties under the 
 joint leadership of the County Librarian and District School Superin- 
 tendent a permanent, working committee on book acquisition for 
 school and public libraries, to work out formulas for book acquisi- 
 tion for the school ages in the two types of libraries, also to deal 
 with the problem of relating teaching assignments to readily 
 available library resources. 15 
 
 Joint committees for school-public library relations were set up in each 
 county, based on this recommendation. One of these committees continues to 
 meet feeling that it is a helpful activity. However, the major objective is fulfilled 
 by the establishment of a book evaluation group on a statewide basis. From 
 each geographical district one elementary and one secondary school librarian is 
 brought to Honolulu for a monthly meeting. All children and young adult 
 librarians attend the all-day sessions when work is done on the lists from which 
 all libraries order current titles. A total of fifty to seventy school librarians 
 participate in reviewing new titles. In addition, others work on a continuing 
 
55 
 
 evaluation of our so-called replacement lists. While this particular cooperative 
 activity was well underway before the state library system absorbed the School 
 Libraries and Instructional Materials Branch, having the joint administrative 
 set-up does make the program easier to operate. The district superintendents 
 select the school librarins who will be involved and we try to keep a balance 
 between those who have been on the committee and those who are new. 
 
 Suggested that if an accidentally favorable geographical situation 
 presents itself in a Honolulu urban area or in a sparsely populated 
 rural area, or in both areas, at the time of planning a new school 
 building and a public library branch, (a) the Department of Educa- 
 tion experiment with the combination of a public library branch 
 with a specially trained school and children's and young peoples' 
 librarian in charge of a school library section, the branch to be 
 contiguous to, or attached to, the school building, (b) that an out- 
 side, objective agency be engaged at the outset to conduct a field 
 study to determine the comparative advantages and disadvantages of 
 the combined library in service to the adults in the area, to students 
 and faculty in the school, and to students coming from other schools 
 to use the combined library, the results of the study to help deter- 
 mine in what other situations, if any, a combined library might be 
 practicable. 15 
 
 As noted earlier there have been community-school libraries opened in 
 three locations since 1962. Just now the first one really designed for full service 
 is being opened with a staff of ten to take care of the diverse needs of the two 
 types of users. This library provides a local production center for the school and 
 community and its humanities room will serve as a small auditorium, for closed 
 circuit television, art displays, and so on. 
 
 Recommended: (a) that each of the four county public libraries 
 develop fully and maintain a special collection of professional books 
 and other materials for reading and reference by teachers, by school 
 officers as well as by interested parents and citizens; these col- 
 lections to be in addition to reports, manuals and curricular pro- 
 grams being used currently in the schools which are properly located 
 in each of the school libraries; (b) that the Public Libraries Division 
 assign to the Library of Hawaii or another cooperating library the 
 task of preparing and distributing periodically to the other interested 
 libraries an annotated list and buying guide for new educational 
 publications. 15 
 
 Since 1965 special allotments have been made so that each district office is 
 building up a professional collection. The concept of the district office has 
 changed somewhat since Leigh's report was made and the location of the collec- 
 tions in those offices is preferred. The buying guide for professional materials is 
 prepared by the School Libraries Section annually in cooperation with the 
 librarian for the education collection at the State Library and the subject 
 specialists in the state department of education. This list is used by schools also 
 and each school receives some special funds to use for professional materials. 
 This particular project received special legislature appropriation and took care of 
 a great need. 
 
56 
 
 Suggested that the Oahu School District film collection or the 
 Library of Hawaii Film Service be made available to the schools of 
 all the Islands on equal terms, or that the two collections be 
 combined and operated as a school and adult film service by the 
 Library of Hawaii. 15 
 The two film collections continue to be administered separately, primarily 
 
 due to a legal question relating to service to private schools. Following an U.S. 
 
 Office of Education survey of audio-visual services in Hawaii soon after Leigh's 
 
 study was made, these steps were taken: 
 
 1) Distribution of 16 m.m. films was extended to all districts rather than 
 to only those on Oahu; 
 
 2) Other types of services were discontinued such as filmstrips, recordings 
 and study prints; 
 
 3) Consultative service was stepped up ; 
 
 4) A position was added and both school libraries and audio-visual services 
 were placed under the same director; 
 
 5) Small collections of most frequently used films were placed in the 
 district offices on each of the three neighbor islands; 
 
 6) A major expansion has been in the area of audio tape duplication 
 during the past two years. From several thousand master tapes, with high speed 
 equipment both public and school library needs are being met; and 
 
 7) Films are sent by mail (air lifted) to the other islands while another 
 joint program takes care of Oahu deliveries; once a week films are delivered to 
 Oahu public library branches where they picked up by school personnel. 
 
 Suggested that a continuing intra-departmental committee or other 
 method of regular communication, be established in the Department 
 of Education, representing the Adult Education Unit and the Public 
 Libraries Division, with the purpose of joint planning and of securing 
 full cooperation of the public libraries, their facilities and collec- 
 tions, in programs of adult education developed by the Adult Edu- 
 cation Unit. 15 
 
 A librarian serves on the Adult Education Advisory Committee. While 
 efforts in this area are not as structured as Leigh envisioned, a great deal is done 
 as various opportunities arise in specific agencies. For example, the Basic Educa- 
 tion for Adult Illiterates Programs have used the branch libraries extensively for 
 study. 
 
 There are a number of on-going programs which require cooperation of 
 several agencies above and beyond those described above as related to Leigh's 
 recommendations. One of the most stimulating, the Nene award, involves the 
 two branches within our library system and also private schools and the pro- 
 fessional associations. The Nene, or native goose, is the state bird and was 
 selected as a symbol for reading promotion. Initiated some years ago, the award 
 is designed to be of interest to children in upper elementary grandes. Selection is 
 for a work of a living author and nominations are made in the spring. During the 
 summer, schools loan their copies of Nene "nominees" to neighbor public 
 libraries when needed and children are urged to read them so they know as many 
 as possible. Some counties have had additional cooperative summer reading 
 programs. This has been an effective device for getting librarians together on an 
 
57 
 
 interesting project as well as in getting children to read. Authors who have won 
 the award include Scott O'Dell, Pamela Travers and Beverly Cleary. O'Dell is 
 the only one who has been able to visit Hawaii after receiving it. The school 
 making the original "nomination" has possession for a year of the large wooden 
 plaque depicting the Nene} 
 
 On the secondary level we have an equally stimulating project which 
 involves over 3,500 students in public and private schools, a number of social 
 studies teachers, school and public librarians as well as the consultant staff in the 
 state library system. Each year the Pacific and Asian Affairs Council (PAAC) 
 sponsors a discussion program for students and we (Young Adult Section and 
 School Libraries Section) do the bibliographies for them as well as supplying 
 copies of the materials to public libraries. This year the theme is "Man's Search 
 for a World Without War" while last year's was "Winds of Change-World in 
 Revolution." The lists are very important since in a certain sense they both 
 reflect and guide the development of the topics. There is an added tie-in with the 
 East-West Center at the University of Hawaii. 
 
 Spanning all levels, we have for a number of years been involved with the 
 University preparation of the quarterly "Current Hawaiian," a list, which then 
 goes to all school libraries. 
 
 A number of interesting joint ventures started last year and among other 
 things involved the testing of various pieces of equipment in schools under the 
 auspices of the State Library. In one case, for example, we were concerned with 
 teaching functionally illiterate children who have high learning potential. From 
 the school comes diagnostic procedures, personnel and equipment which are 
 available in any secondary school; while the State Library provides some addi- 
 tional equipment, in this case a modification of language laboratory equipment. 
 The office of School Libraries and Instructional Materials provided duplication 
 of tapes after the Library for the Blind volunteers did master tapes. Large print 
 books were supplied from a special collection administered by the State Library 
 Branch. This basically accompb'shed the adoption of methods used for individual 
 instruction to group instruction. The equipment was located in the school 
 library. The project proposal charged the Office of Library Services with 
 evaluating for both public and school libraries the result and implications that 
 this program could have for other programs. 
 
 Following this evaluation the plan is to extend the program to the students 
 of the correctional institution; these students are in many cases functional 
 illiterates and can now be certified to use the materials from the Library for the 
 Blind. 
 
 We have initiated the use of materials for adults which have long been 
 associated with the classroom; these include flash cards and labels, the 
 tachistoscope, transparencies and audio-tapes. At the present time plans made 
 last year are in the implementation stage; these include development of a joint 
 program under LSCA for two of our state schools for handicapped children. 
 
 Probably of greatest interest is the question of how Hawaii's Central 
 Processing Center provides service for state, school and public libraries. While 
 this is our newest "branch," the recent feasibility study made by Boaz, Allen 
 
58 
 
 and Hamilton would place the operation in a new administrative and technical 
 services branch. Other changes are recommended in this weighty document but 
 those which relate to areas affecting cooperative activities are not in operation as 
 yet nor are we sure of schedules for implementation. 
 
 Looking forward to further changes because of this latest study, I can 
 appreciate hesitancy any librarians may feel as they attempt to build a state 
 plan. However, in looking back over the tremendous changes already made in 
 Hawaii, I can close with some specific suggestions: as a school person most 
 recently, but with experience in public libraries with both children and young 
 people, I believe that the greatest need in "division of labors" is for the public 
 libraries to put great emphasis on the pre-school program and on programs for 
 teenagers which will somehow speak to their needs and interests. I would recom- 
 mend highly the article in American Education 16 on the liaison librarians because 
 it gives guidance in the way one may move at both state and local levels in work 
 with young adults and teenagers. 
 
 As you develop plans and then programs, do accentuate the positive. Try 
 to think of individuals who should be involved at the planning stage and see that 
 they are included. Plans should not be too grandiose; plan a series of steps 
 toward a final goal so that the small successes will be apparent and encouraging. 
 
 References 
 
 1. Hawaii. Department of Education. Office of Library Services. Planning 
 for Libraries in Hawaii, a Comprehensive Statewide Planning and Feasibility 
 Study for Public Libraries and Joint School and Public Library Facilities. 1968, 
 p. 23. 
 
 2. Batchelder, Mildred L. "Public Library Influence on School Libraries," 
 Library Trends, 1:271-285, Jan. 1953. 
 
 3. Rathbone, Josephine A. "Cooperation between Libraries and Schools: 
 An Historical Sketch," Library Journal, 26: 187-191 , Apr. 1901 . 
 
 4. Yungmeyer, Elinor, ed. "Cooperation in Action," ALA Bulletin, 
 59: 733-744, Sept. 1965. 
 
 5. American Library Association. Student Use of Libraries, An Inquiry 
 into the Needs of Students, Libraries, and the Educational Process. Chicago, 
 ALA, 1964. 
 
 6. American Library Association. Young Adult Services Division. Precon- 
 ference: Two Blocks Apart. July 8-10, 1965. (Kit for participants.) 
 
 7. Sullivan, Peggy, ed. Realization: the Final Report of the Knapp School 
 Libraries Project. Chicago, ALA, 1968. 
 
 8. Cass, James. "Where the Action is," Saturday Review, 49:69, Oct. 15, 
 1966. 
 
 9. Wisconsin. Department of Public Instruction. "Public Library and 
 School Library: Organizational Relationships; a Policy Statement," Wisconsin 
 Library Bulletin, 63:94, Mar .-Apr. 1967. 
 
59 
 
 10. Wagener, Violet. "Title III Resources Center Begins Operation," The 
 Capitol Hill Library Crier (Colorado State Library), 9:16-17, May 1968. 
 
 1 1 . Council of Chief State School Officers. Responsibilities of State 
 Departments of Education for School Library Services. Washington, D.C., The 
 Council, 1961, pp. 14-16. 
 
 12. New Jersey Library Association Library Development Committee. 
 Libraries for the People of New Jersey, or Knowledge for all. New Brunswick, 
 N.J., The Committee, 1964. 
 
 13. Bryan, James E. "Cooperation in New Jersey." In Dorothy A. 
 McGinniss, ed., Libraries and Youth: Cooperation to give Service to Children 
 and Young People. School of Library Science, Syracuse University, 1968, pp. 
 27-28. 
 
 14. New York (State) Division of Evaluation. Emerging Library Systems. 
 Albany, University of the State of New York, 1967, pp. 84-85. 
 
 15. Leigh, Robert D. Governor's Study of Public and School Libraries in 
 the State of Hawaii. Vol. 1. Honolulu, Hawaii Dept. of Public Instruction, 1960, 
 pp. 77-78. 
 
 16. Winnick, Pauline and Horn, W. A. "The Liaison Librarian, "American 
 Education, 4:26-27, Dec. 1967-Jan. 1968. 
 
Russell Shank 
 
 Director of Libraries 
 
 Smithsonian Institution 
 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 COOPERATION BETWEEN SPECIAL LIBRARIES 
 AND OTHER TYPES OF LIBRARIES 
 
 The student of special libraries struggles first with defining them. Special 
 libraries exist in every environment, hence if I define them too broadly, there is 
 no group other than themselves with which they may interact. However, it is 
 obvious that for systems planning purposes, whatever we do about academic and 
 public libraries benefits branches within them that are considered under some 
 definitions to be special libraries. Therefore, I have set these on the "other" side, 
 and have defined the special libraries on which this essay will focus to be those 
 that exist in business, industry, government, museums, societies, and non-profit 
 research agencies. It is in this group that we find several types which are con- 
 strained by their parent organizations from responding to normal techniques of 
 promoting cooperative activities, and for examination their isolation should 
 prove useful. 
 
 Special libraries form two subsets when analyzed in terms of interagency 
 cooperation, particularly with academic and public libraries. The special libraries 
 in government, museums, societies and non-profit agencies form one subset, 
 those in business and industry another. While none of these libraries has a public 
 responsibility as its primary mission, the former are more frequently considered, 
 and behave more like quasi-public libraries. The latter do not, and can easily 
 draw away from any association with or contribution to the public sector of 
 library service. In other words, the former group may well be considered for 
 planning purposes to be the open sector of special libraries, the latter should be 
 dealt with as the closed sector. The libraries of the industrial and business group 
 are generally categorized as users by the open sector and not generally as 
 partners in public systems. 
 
 This situation need not necessarily be perpetuated. The special, closed 
 characteristic of the corporate library has meaning, nevertheless, in terms of 
 
 60 
 
61 
 
 what must be done to capitalize on any semblance of accessibility that the 
 special library in the profit-making sector displays. As many as half of the 
 non-academic and non-public special libraries are in business and industry. This 
 group constitutes a number too large to bypass in systems planning. 
 
 In essaying the field of special libraries we are hampered by an annoying 
 dearth of good, sound, research information, including statistical data, relating 
 to almost every aspect of work with these libraries. It is indeed strange that a 
 field of librarianship so prominent, and with both serious problems and 
 examples of excellent solutions to these problems, has itself been so little 
 studied. Most of the literature about special librarianship is descriptive of tech- 
 niques or argumentative about philosophy. Three theses dealing with various 
 aspects of business and industrial special libraries, and their inter-relationships, a 
 score of state and regional planning documents, the documentation concerning 
 fewer than half-a-dozen on-going service systems, and many articles on the 
 problems and operations of special libraries and services that feed them provided 
 input for this essay. My own work over two decades in special research libraries, 
 and particularly my work for the New York City 3-R's agency in its efforts to 
 increase access to scientific and technical information, strongly influenced my 
 analysis of the relationships between special and other libraries. 
 
 In many respects what I have seen and have to say may not be unique to 
 the relationships between special and other types of libraries. Many of the 
 problems that affect system development in libraries are universal. This was one 
 of the outstanding characteristics of my findings in a New York City study that 
 pointedly and intensely concentrated on a type of library considered "special." 
 We must consider this fortunate, since many of our proposed solutions to 
 problems of extending library service in general will easily encompass and bene- 
 fit special libraries. Nevertheless, the special library environment does harbor 
 some peculiarities that are unique, or at least different enough from the norm of 
 public and academic libraries to require exceptional features in systems designed 
 to enhance the power of libraries through cooperation or formalized interaction. 
 
 Quite naturally the largest part of the interaction among special libraries 
 and between special and other types of libraries still comes about through 
 informal or non-systematized contacts, with the libraries operating quite 
 independently and under no obligation to participate in the transactions. The 
 chief output of interaction is the sharing of resources through interlibrary 
 lending. Interlibrary cooperation in reference services, except for the normal 
 interchange of courtesies in answering quick reference questions by phone and 
 mail, is minimal. 
 
 Only the scantiest of recent evidence can be presented to demonstrate the 
 patterns and the dimensions of the interlibrary lending activity. In a New York 
 State study, corporate special libraries reported that they sought publications 
 from various sources in the following order of preference: other special libraries, 
 federal government agency libraries, college and public libraries (showing no 
 difference in order of preference), research centers, other out-of-state libraries, 
 experts, and the New York State Library. 1 
 
 One fourth of the special libraries used other special libraries most fre- 
 quently; between 15 and 18 percent used federal government, public and the 
 
62 
 
 state libraries most frequently ; and about 1 1 percent used college libraries most 
 frequently. The median number of items received on interlibrary transactions 
 was 100. Books comprised 30 percent of the total items borrowed, 27 percent 
 were photocopies in lieu of interlibrary loan, and 22 percent were serials. Dan 
 Bedsole found that on a nationwide basis, the average number of volumes bor- 
 rowed by industrial corporation libraries was about 335 per year, with a high of 
 10,000 reported by one library. This same group of special libraries contributed 
 about fifty-seven volumes a year to the interlibrary lending operation and 
 although the point is not made, we may presume from other experience that 
 most of those volumes were lent to other special libraries. The remainder of the 
 volumes in the interlibrary loan pipeline studied by Bedsole represent a load 
 factor of about 650,000 volumes a year flowing from various sources other than 
 special libraries to the nation's 2,400 industrial libraries. 2 
 
 The New York City survey of science library facilities and services cal- 
 culated that four of the largest public science collections in the city were being 
 tapped for 30,000 photocopy requests a year for journal articles, or about 200 
 text pages per hour, with as much as 90 percent of the load coming from 
 industry. 3 All three of these pieces of evidence indicate that the workload in 
 interlibrary activity is large enough to invite planned accommodation. Although 
 this is skimpy evidence with which to encourage widespread planning, the fact 
 that three studies with different purposes found interlibrary sharing of 
 resources to be big business is not coincidental. The need for planning is real. 
 
 The tendency for special libraries to cooperate with libraries of similar 
 kinds is strong. 4 This is particularly true of medical and law libraries, un- 
 doubtedly because of the special features and contents of their literature bases 
 that are used by no one outside of these disciplines. To the extent that libraries 
 in these subject areas exist within organizations of different types (e.g., 
 academic, hospital, county, association and industrial corporations), cooperation 
 among the libraries is a demonstration of how agencies with disparate goals and 
 support can interface in a system. Medical libraries are being even more closely 
 bound into a stratified cooperative structure by the policies and practices of the 
 National Library of Medicine (NLM) in disseminating literature and citations to 
 doctors through libraries, and the strengthening of the structure through the 
 provisions of the Medical Library Assistance Act which places a premium on 
 cooperation. 5 NLM itself is purposefully planning a hierarchy of libraries and 
 information centers in the extension of MEDLARS. 6 
 
 Museum libraries and academic libraries appear to have a natural affinity, 
 chiefly because the museum curator conducts research much in the same fashion 
 as a professor, and indeed in a number of fields, such as systematic biology and 
 art history, professors and curators are peers, sharing research resources, joint 
 appointments and professional society affiliations. Except for an attempt to 
 create an automated inventory of some parts of a number of museums' artifacts 
 through the aegis of the Museum Computer Network in New York City, nothing 
 is yet developing that would tie together museum libraries with those of 
 academies of science, universities, societies and foundations, all of which share 
 many other characteristics in common with museums. 7 This situation might 
 change if the National Museum Act can be extended and funded. 8 
 
63 
 
 Few societies maintain libraries in the United States, but those that do 
 have, in the main, superb research facilities. Although they exist primarily to 
 serve members, they are most often open for public use on the premises. The 
 Chemists' Club Library in New York City is entirely non-circulating even to 
 members, hence any interaction that takes place is through the medium of the 
 users from various kinds of agencies who come to the library. On the other hand, 
 the Engineering Societies Library (ESL) does lend books to members, and has 
 established a class of membership for corporate libraries which then are entitled 
 to borrow materials just as the members of the societies that support ESL. 
 
 Unsystematic interlibrary activity is not sufficient to the task of supplying 
 information and publications in the breadth of subjects and depth of analysis 
 that is demanded by our highly developed intellectual communities of users. The 
 "unsystem" can respond neither quickly nor cheaply enough, even though 
 several recent studies seem to indicate otherwise. Several studies note that 
 special libraries are filling nearly 100 percent of all requests made of them with 
 considerable reliance on other libraries. 9 This is taken by some to indicate a lack 
 of need to improve services. Yet this evidence of satisfaction obscures difficulties 
 that demand attention. 
 
 In the unstructured system of libraries with which he operates, the special 
 librarian must often hunt through a sequence of many libraries before finding 
 material he needs and to which he can have access. This is costly and time- 
 consuming communication. Furthermore, even though public and academic 
 libraries may rank third or fourth on the list of most frequently used sources by 
 special libraries, the burden on these libraries has reached the cirsis point in most 
 places. Special library users are demanding. After making the rounds of other 
 kinds of libraries all that may remain of their needs when they come to the 
 pbulic sector are the items most difficult to identify and locate, the obscure, or 
 the heavily used material that no one else can find or will lend them. Regardless 
 of the number of libraries in a region, the biggest part of the burden of inter- 
 library lending usually falls on one or a few large libraries. Thus, among science 
 libraries in the New York City area, four libraries (New York Public Library, 
 ESL, Columbia University and the Chemists' Club) are the most frequently 
 visited, the most frequently called, the most frequently tapped for photocopies, 
 and the most frequently criticized libraries of the scores of units in the public 
 sector. 
 
 These are the forces that have influenced the building of systems and 
 networks among libraries. The goal is always the same: to expand the vista of the 
 libraries and their users to take into account more of the region's resources, to 
 increase the probability of success in searching for material, or to decrease the 
 probability of following false leads, and to simplify and speed up communica- 
 tion of information and publications. In a few instances, the goals are expanded 
 to include the increase of the region's resources in a response patterned after 
 need, and the establishment of new public services. 
 
 Organizational structures, services, and system facilities vary among the 
 regions in which cooperation has been formalized as would be expected given 
 the variation in influences in various regions and metropolitan areas. The pub- 
 lication by local libraries of lists with their collections specialties, accessibility to 
 
64 
 
 the public and service offerings is a minimum, and frequently invoked, technique 
 of systematization. A list of special libraries of all kinds has been available in 
 New York City for decades. 10 A similar but smaller list is the only real product 
 of the Associated Science Libraries of San Diego, a group of industrial, academic, 
 government, and museum libraries. 1 1 
 
 Stronger links usually involving positive commitments by several libraries 
 to serve as the core of a system and as some kind of dedicated communication 
 circuit have been created or are being recommended by planners who hope 
 these links will be innovative and instrumental in initiating continued develop- 
 ments and refinements. Again patterns of operation vary, and we have no 
 analysis of the reasons for, or the comparative success of, the various patterns. In 
 Dallas the pool of resources of the Industrial Information Service, established to 
 serve business and industry, has been created by the holdings of a number of 
 academic libraries backed up by the holdings of Southern Methodist University 
 where the service is located. 1 * The same is true in Houston for the Regional 
 Information and Communication Exchange headquartered at Rice University. 13 
 Users in Dallas including corporate libraries tap the system through the head- 
 quarters office of the Industrial Information Service. In the Gulf area, members 
 of RICE, and others in business and industry, tap the system wherever a core 
 library is located. The core libraries in both systems are linked by teletype. A 
 proposed plan for Connecticut would link pre-identified libraries together with 
 teletype, but would tie the network to a statewide library research center where 
 an automated union catalog would be maintained. 14 Participating libraries, 
 among which are eighteen corporate and many academic libraries, would insert 
 cataloging copy in machine-readable form as their collections grew. Presumably 
 other libraries could query the system, perhaps for a fee. 
 
 In New York City, the establishment of a system of core libraries to serve 
 as a public resource in science and technology, including public, government, 
 society, academic, association, and museum libraries where strong collections in 
 various subjects are already maintained has been proposed. 15 The subjects 
 covered by the collections are complementary, with some redundancy. Users 
 would access the system in normal ways, and through network communication 
 facilities yet to be developed, would be given a number of physical access points 
 to the entire system. 
 
 But of even greater importance, the core libraries would be subsidized so 
 that the growth of the collections in specified subject areas which serve the 
 public interest would be guaranteed and not left to the unilateral decisions of 
 libraries operating independently. Furthermore, the subsidy would compensate 
 the libraries for the adoption of a public function that might lie somewhere 
 beyond its normal responsibility, thereby protecting its own resources which are 
 to be directed to its basic missions and clientele. 
 
 I have already mentioned the hierarchies of libraries being developed into 
 an inter-agency system by the National Library of Medicine. The mixture of 
 medical libraries one finds in various regions have been the most active in 
 creating a new environment for library service. In New York City most of the 
 hospital, academic, research and institutional medical libraries operate a 
 cooperative storage and delivery system and maintain a union list of serials. 16 
 
65 
 
 Several regional groupings of libraries based on units of the State University of 
 New York are demonstrating network capabilities for locating and sharing 
 resources. 1 ^ In Detroit a group of nine academic and institutional medical 
 libraries have formed a strong federation with their technical services being 
 performed by Wayne State University. 18 Wayne State has long been the chief 
 contributor to interlibrary loans among medical libraries, and continues to be 
 the depth resource. This system operates within a larger, but more loosely knit, 
 group of nearly thirty medical libraries, including academic, institutional and 
 industrial libraries, that have for years been researching problems of mutual 
 concern in medical library operation, and have contributed to a union list of 
 serials that Wayne State produces for the group. 
 
 At this point let me turn away from the cataloging of cooperative ven- 
 tures, for obviously there are many. In many instances they are the reverse 
 images of some of the cooperative programs that have already been mentioned. 
 Let us now examine some of the factors which influence the planning improve- 
 ments in the quality of experiences in contacts between special and other kinds 
 of libraries. 
 
 The aspect of "specialness" of these libraries that ultimately brings to bear 
 the strongest influences on making plans for their incorporation into viable 
 systems and networks derives from the mission of their parent agencies. Subject 
 content and kind of materials in the collections of special libraries are important 
 considerations in systems planning, as are the geographical location of special 
 libraries and their information and service orientation. Nevertheless in the final 
 analysis it is not these elements but those that are determined by whether the 
 agency that pays for the special library is profit or non-profit, is in research, 
 manufacturing, education or business, that determines what alternatives we must 
 select in building a conglomerate system of libraries of varying types. System 
 design is severely constrained, therefore, by influences determined by the nature 
 of the agency and not necessarily by its information and library needs and its 
 resources. 
 
 One of the most difficult administrative problems of providing for 
 interaction between special and other types of libraries is the financing of 
 such operations. Corporate libraries as a category are frequently excluded 
 from programs that are funded by the state since it is not usually state 
 policy to subsidize, at least directly, industrial corporations for what are con- 
 sidered normal operations. In New York State, funds distributed by the State 
 Library to the 3-R's regional agencies may go only to incorporated non-profit 
 cultural or educatonal institutions (including public libraries) which provide 
 reference and research library service. Funds cannot be further distributed to 
 profit-making agencies. 19 It is not even clear yet whether corporate libraries can 
 participate in special programs to aid libraries that are funded with 3-R's money. 
 A "corporate" library membership category has recently been established by the 
 New York City 3-R's agency (METRO). These libraries will receive at least their 
 pro-rata share of service upon the payment of dues, if not the full services from 
 METRO. 
 
 Special libraries benefit from government-subsidized programs that tend to 
 improve public and academic libraries, and indeed, a number of programs of this 
 
66 
 
 type have been funded that have been of immediate importance to corporate 
 libraries. For several years, the National Science Foundation and the Department 
 of Commerce joined forces to finance a dozen regional technical report centers, 
 mostly in universities throughout the country (except in Illinois where the John 
 Crerar Library was the depository). 20 The Department of Commerce provided 
 microfilm copies of technical reports from its Clearinghouse for Federal 
 Scientific and Technical Information and the National Science Foundation paid 
 for staff and equipment to manage the centers' operations. The idea, of course, 
 was to improve access to technical reports, a service of vital importance to many 
 industrial libraries among others. State Technical Services Act funds have pro- 
 vided seed money for the Regional Information and Communication Exchange 
 in Houston, the Industrial Information Service in Dallas, and a program in 
 California that links the State Library, UCLA, and public libraries in the Fresno 
 County area all to serve industry. 21 
 
 Surprisingly, in spite of much talk among academic and public libraries, 
 few of them charge corporate users for their services. Stanford and M.I.T. have 
 established technical information service divisions or departments to which local 
 corporate agencies pay fees for service, and some libraries such as the University 
 of California at Berkeley have user's or borrower's fees, although these are 
 usually quite nominal 22 -as are the services offered. There is still a strong feeling 
 among many such libraries that corporations are entitled to access to publicly 
 supported libraries (including those in academic institutions) as their right for 
 having paid their taxes. Robert Muller has rather succinctly disposed of this 
 argument and other basic premises under which free services are offered to 
 industry. Basically, his point is that corporate libraries and their users are en- 
 titled to, and do receive, whatever level of library service can be offered for the 
 funds appropriated for public and academic libraries. Corporate libraries need 
 more specialized services, however than can be justified for the public good. On 
 this point Muller says: 
 
 If the public interest requires that service be given to all those needing 
 it, a governmental agency is likely to be set up, and subsidization can be 
 justified. On the other hand, where service does not clearly relate to the 
 public interest, justification is needed if service is supplied below cost 
 or free. A publicly supported institution is even more subject to 
 criticism than a privately supported one when it gives things away. The 
 "thing" given away by a university library is often not conspicuously 
 visible, but is just as real: It is staff time paid for by appropriated funds 
 that might have been better spent on service to students and faculty. 23 
 The Engineering Societies Library and the John Crerar Library both offer 
 special services such as compilation of bibliographies and the provision of trans- 
 lations, priced at cost. Perhaps all libraries with attractive resources such as these 
 should be more mercenary in dealing with those who need exceptional services. 
 The federal government very pointedly recognizes the value of information in its 
 various technology transfer programs. According to one recent analysis by 
 NASA: 
 
 Technical information is a marketable commodity. True transfer pro- 
 grams add value to that information by abstracting, categorizing, 
 
67 
 
 separating out the significant, dividing the relevant from the non- 
 relevant, and by interpretation, analysis, repackaging, and provision of 
 local access. The user of a system should therefore be expected to share 
 in the cost of its operation/ 4 
 
 Lest you get too optimistic that we have found the key to the coffers, let 
 me warn you that there are some limits. For example, the experience of those 
 libraries and information centers that sell bibliographic search services indicates 
 that users, including corporations, are willing under normal circumstances to buy 
 searches for which the cost is not more than a few hundred dollars. The average 
 cost of a search at the Engineering Societies Library in a recent year was $124. 
 On the other hand, at least one corporation pays up to $1,000 a month for a 
 special service from one of these libraries for which it receives filmed copies of 
 articles and punched cards for processing and announcement services within the 
 company. 25 Furthermore, services for sale must be pertinent, of high quality, 
 and vigorously promoted. 
 
 There are other dysfunctional aspects of special libraries in public systems. 
 Competitiveness among business firms, the proprietary value of information, and 
 industrial security prevent any large-scale agreements among corporation 
 libraries for cooperation. As a matter of fact, these factors may preclude even 
 small-scale formal programs of interaction. Even when corporate librarians seek 
 the open literaturejournal articles and monographs they must at times be 
 somewhat circumspect, lest they reveal information of value about their work to 
 their competitors through the chance association of ideas. It is not unknown for 
 a corporate library to spread its requests for interlibrary loan and information 
 among many libraries in order to conceal potentially useful correlations, even 
 though all their material might well be available in one or a few libraries. Special 
 libraries might well benefit from the services of more third-party agents who can 
 help them use each other and the rest of the public sector, to map out search 
 strategies, and to front for them in gathering sensitive information. These 
 agencies might also be most effective mechanisms for tapping special libraries for 
 the public, by extracting materials from busy industrial and corporate offices 
 which cannot accommodate direct public access. 
 
 I am not at all certain that any regions with access to strong library 
 resources in what I call the open sector would gain much by arranging to include 
 corporate libraries in systems for cooperative sharing of resources on behalf of 
 the public. Most corporate libraries are small and though they may develop 
 subject collections in great depth, they are in essence duplicates of parts of the 
 university and many public libraries that form the backup for public service in 
 cooperative programs already. Perhaps some regions could obtain value from 
 using material in these collections as added copies in case of great demand. But 
 the geographical dispersion of the many corporate libraries that exist in various 
 regions suggests that the logistics of getting these materials to the public would 
 be most costly and difficult. This may be a situation where facsimile transfer of 
 text would have significant application, but I am not too optimistic about the 
 prospects of being able to design a facsimile communication system, given the 
 almost complete lack of files of material in libraries in a format ready to be 
 scanned by facsimile transmitters. 
 
68 
 
 As a matter of fact, though, I would say we would be remiss if plans to 
 improve the quality of library resources and services on a regional basis did not 
 make every possible attempt to encompass the unique and the exceptional hold- 
 ings of special libraries and the information retrieval capabilities of special 
 librarians at least for reasonable use by qualified people. Let me remind you, 
 however, that collections of special libraries are very carefully tailored to suit 
 highly specific goals for usually well-defined and delimited kinds or groups of 
 people. To a large extent special libraries contain what would best be termed 
 research materials. In size and content these collections are not suited to serve 
 general public use by any and all comers. Thoughtful planners should be able to 
 find ways of feeding certain kinds of data and information from special libraries 
 into public reference service networks. 
 
 One of our greatest needs, if we are to learn how to use small, special 
 libraries, is a better technique than is now used to describe and evaluate collec- 
 tions of library materials. We do not have universally understood and easy-to- 
 apply standards or even criteria for grading depths of collections. It is difficult 
 for compilers of collections inventories to interfile subject analyses of the many 
 libraries involved because of the variations in subject terminology and depth of 
 analysis; it is too costly for the libraries to redescribe their collections according 
 to one standard subject classification. Proponents of centralized processing 
 involving computers pose the automatic creation of a union catalog as an advan- 
 tage. While union catalogs allow us to locate specific titles, they do not lead us 
 to subject strengths in response to generalized requests for such guidance. 
 
 Systems planners are reluctant, also, to incorporate too much reliance on 
 these special libraries because their viability cannot be guaranteed. Whereas 
 academic and public libraries seldom, if ever, shut down, scale-down their level 
 of effort, move out of the area, or change drastically the scope of their col- 
 lections, this is not unusual in industry. Even the largest and most stable 
 corporations have made such major changes as a result of administrative 
 decisions that cannot be made to accommodate the influences of the public need 
 for social resources such as libraries. 
 
 The efficiency of interlibrary cooperation is reduced by incompatabilities 
 in operational characteristics attributable to conflicts in missions of the libraries 
 of various types. Different kinds and sizes of collections and staffs, and different 
 basic assumptions about the kinds of services that should be offered occur 
 among academic, institutional, research, corporate and public libraries. The 
 industrial library is oriented towards information and the librarian towards 
 extracting the information, while the academic library is oriented towards the 
 literature and the guidance of users who must extract the information in it for 
 themselves. 
 
 A large research library serves its purpose best when materials do not 
 circulate and can thus be readily available for use: the small industrial library 
 serves best when it puts documentation in the hands of users in their offices and 
 laboratories. Thus, when the industrial librarian calls or contacts a large research 
 library for loans of copies of material, or assistance in tracking down difficult 
 bits of information, he is invited to come to the library to look at literature that 
 does not circulate and to extract the information he needs himself. Whether or 
 
69 
 
 not he can do this is a function of travel time to the large collection. Some 
 special libraries maintain staff at nearby large research libraries (e.g., Shell 
 Development Corporation at the University of California and the Smithsonian 
 Institution at the Library of Congress) but this practice is severely restrained by 
 the lack of space in large libraries to accommodate extra staff. There are other 
 conflicts due to variation in missions but these suffice to illustrate the point. The 
 existence of different missions is seldom denied, but there is considerable mis- 
 understanding when librarians and users meet at the interface between libraries 
 of different types. 
 
 A number of generalized solutions suggest themselves. One is to provide a 
 buffer a third-party service between libraries of different types to do the work 
 that neither the corporate or the public and academic librarian has the time to 
 do. Another is to increase the public resource by building an independent, public 
 research library facility strictly for the purpose of interfacing specialized users. 
 Still another is to build an overlay on the existing system that is, to recognize 
 that certain large public or quasi-public libraries are attractive to people who 
 wish to make special use of them and to add sufficient people and resources to 
 these libraries to allow them to take on an additional mission. This is cheaper 
 than building the same kind of attractive library in duplicate from the ground 
 up. It is the technique recommended for New York City in science. 26 
 
 Management in corporate and institutional agencies has been largely 
 passive in the midst of their agencies' information problems. The impetus, the 
 work, and even the struggle to arrange financing for cooperative systems and 
 networks serving the interests of special libraries has come from the librarian 
 group. As with academic institutions, management in industry and business 
 apparently views libraries as increasingly costly. As long as librarians cooperate 
 voluntarily, serving each other for nothing, management feels little pressure to 
 seek actively an even more expensive extension of library service, regardless of 
 the potentially greater return for its money through expanded access to useful 
 information. 
 
 There are exceptions, and they are worth noting. Several industrial 
 agencies in the Dallas area have been active in leading efforts to improve the 
 quality of graduate educational facilities in the area. Library service is prominent 
 among these facilities, hence when the notion of the Industrial Information 
 Service (IIS) arose, it was actively pursued. Subsequently, the enthusiasm and 
 the ingenuity of the manager of the service has extended its popularity in indus- 
 try to the point where at least thirty-six firms now support IIS, paying member- 
 ship fees of up to $9,600 per year. In Houston, the Chamber of Commerce, Rice 
 University, and several industrial organizations likewise actively sought solutions 
 to the problems of gaining access to technical and business information. It was 
 this effort that led finally to the formation of the Regional Information and 
 Communication Exchange. Now fifteen business and industrial leaders serve on 
 its advisory board. Nevertheless, there is a wide variation in "information 
 mindedness" among the managements of firms. Library systems planners should 
 place high priority on the tasks of gaining active support from corporate man- 
 agers, and of involving them in the management of the systems. 
 
70 
 
 The impetus given to the joining of several kinds of libraries into coopera- 
 tive systems by the policies and programs of federal agencies is likely to grow 
 stronger. The National Agricultural Library is setting the foundations of a plan 
 for a network of agricultural libraries and information services that will involve a 
 mixture of academic, government, public and industrial organizations. 27 A 
 national information and document handling system for ecology has been pro- 
 posed in Congress, and although insufficient support was marshalled to create it 
 in the recent session, the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
 continues to gather arguments and ideas to support the idea. 28 The National 
 Science Foundation is actively encouraging societies to develop national infor- 
 mation programs in the disciplines they encompass. Nearly 15 percent of 
 Chemical Abstracts Service's budget this year is derived from government 
 sources. Information programs that will in essence produce all-encompassing 
 discipline-based knowledge networks are under consideration and development 
 in biology, the earth sciences, botany, engineering, mathematics, psychology and 
 the social sciences. The articulation of libraries as operators in these networks 
 designed to serve researchers in various settings, is an endemic characteristic of 
 the premises under which these national information systems are being formed. 
 
 In any event, reference and research libraries will inevitably be drawn into 
 joint use of resources and facilities by knowledge networks. These networks will 
 involve the use of highly expensive and sophisticated data bases and communica- 
 tion equipment. This will drive up the total costs of acquisition of information 
 and data to a point higher than many individual libraries will be able to afford. 
 Cooperation for access, or at least joint ownership of data bases and communica- 
 tion and searching facilities will be required. 
 
 The grid of communication systems that is developing is not a simple one. 
 It involves reference sources on magnetic tapes, national and somewhat closed- 
 circuit communication systems, and the ability to talk in highly technical terms 
 with information analysis centers. Reference services of the highest quality in 
 the future will require far more than shelves of books to which one can reach for 
 answers. The experience of the Industrial Information Service is clear evidence 
 of a new configuration of reference networks. Through its office, local libraries 
 may tie into a number of networks and information centers, such as the NASA 
 Technology Center at the University of New Mexico; the TEXT AN Network 
 funded by the State Technical Services Act in Texas; COSMIC the Computer 
 Software Management and Information Center of NASA at the University of 
 Georgia; and the Regional Information and Communication Exchange at Rice 
 University in Houston. 2 ^ We can predict indeed we must plan for more of 
 this. 
 
 It is obvious that a plurality of library agencies and libraries are going to 
 exist in the United States, and that a number of organizational patterns for 
 library systems, frequently with several kinds in one region, will have to exist in 
 order to gain full power from the contribution that can be made by both special 
 and the more public libraries. Because of the complexities and peculiarities of 
 any viable consumers' region, we are bound to have different solutions to 
 problems of library organization, operation and use. Our chief concern now 
 should be that we have insufficient understanding and knowledge of each local 
 
71 
 
 community so as to find the best configuration of elements to make serviceable 
 systems. 
 
 Fortunately after many years of quiescence, state library agencies are 
 awakening to the problems and prospects of their helping improve reference and 
 research library facilities and services, particularly in metropolitan areas. In the 
 past, state libraries have all too readily acquiesced in situations where large city 
 libraries ignore them, and have put their efforts into other territory. They derive 
 support from these non-city areas, hence serve them. This "pattern of state 
 library policy-making prevents the development of conditions necessary for 
 consideration of intergovernmental metropolitan problems." 30 Monypenny 
 recommended that the states should "take steps to provide greatly enriched 
 reference and research services in the entire state. . . .linking. . .strong collec- 
 tions by interlibrary loan and reference systems." 31 This, it appears, is what we 
 are up to. 
 
 References 
 
 1 . The 3-R 's Program: Meeting Industry 's Information Needs. Report to 
 the Division of Library Development, New York State Library. Cambridge, 
 Massachusetts, Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1967, p. 13. 
 
 2. Bedsole, Dan T. "A Library Survey of 117 Corporations," Special 
 Libraries, 54:615-622, Dec. 1963. 
 
 3. Shank, Russell. Regional Access to Scientific and Technical Informa- 
 tion: A Program for Action in the New York Metropolitan Area. New York, 
 New York Metropolitan Reference and Research Library Agency, 1968, p. 72. 
 
 4. Budington, William S. "Interrelations Among Special Libraries," Paper 
 presented at the Thirty-Third Annual Conference, Graduate Library School, 
 University of Chicago, July 30, 1968. 
 
 5. Act to Amend Public Health Service Act to Provide for Program of 
 Grants to Assist in Meeting Need for Adequate Medical Library Services and 
 Facilities. Public Law 89-291, approved October 22, 1965. 
 
 6. "MEDLARS to Expand," Medical Library Association Bulletin, 
 55:105, Jan. 1967. 
 
 7. Ellin, Everett. Report of the Museum Computer Network Project. New 
 York, Museum Computer Network, 1968. 
 
 8. Act Relating to the National Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. 
 Public Law 89-674, Approved October 15, 1966. 
 
 9. Mason, Harold J. "Industrial Research and the Academic Library in the 
 United States." Unpublished doctoral thesis, Columbia University, School of 
 Library Service, 1966; The 3-R's Program: Meeting Industry's Information 
 Needs, op. cit., p. 12. 
 
 10. Special Libraries of Greater New York, llth ed. New York, Special 
 Libraries Association, New York Chapter, 1967. 
 
 11. Associated Science Libraries of San Diego. n.p.,n.pub., 1966. 
 
 12. Industrial Information Services: a Technical Information Center for 
 North Texas. Dallas, Industrial Information Services, n.d. 
 
72 
 
 13. Regional Information and Communication Exchange. Houston, 
 Fondren Library, Rice University, n.d. 
 
 14. Initial Report on a Study to Plan Development and Implementation 
 of a Connecticut Library Research Center. Farmington, Connecticut, United 
 Aircraft Corporate Systems Center, 1966. 
 
 15. Shank, Russell, op. cit., pp. 91-94. 
 
 16. Meyerhoff, Erich. "Medical Library Center of New York: an Experi- 
 ment in Cooperative Acquisition and Storage of Medical Library Materials," 
 Medical Library Association Bulletin, 5 1 , Part 1 :501-506, October, 1963. 
 
 17. Pizer, Irwin H. "The State University of New York Computerized 
 Biomedical Information Resource." Anglo-American Conference on the 
 Mechanization of Library Services, 1966, Oxford. Brasenose Conference on the 
 Automation of Libraries Proceedings, edited by John Harrison and Pete Laslett. 
 London, Mansell, 1967. pp. 151-162. 
 
 18. Cruzat, Gwendolyn S. "Metropolitan Detroit's Network: Detroit 
 Medical Library Group: Five Year. Progress Report," Medical Library Associa- 
 tion Bulletin, 56:285-291, July, 1968. 
 
 19. "Bylaws: The New York Metropolitan Reference and Research 
 Library Agency," New York, New York Metropolitan Reference and Research 
 Library Agency, n.d., p. 1. 
 
 20. "Regional Technical Report Center Established," Scientific Informa- 
 tion Notes, 4: 1-2, April-May, 1962. 
 
 21. United States Office of State Technical Services. Annual Report, 
 Fiscal Year 1967. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1968, p. F-3. 
 
 22. Nicholson, Natalie N. "Service to Business and Industry," Library 
 Trends, 10:488-502, April, 1962. 
 
 23. Muller, Robert. "Meeting the Library Needs of Industry " Minutes of 
 the 62nd Meeting, Association of Research Libraries, July 13, 1963. Chicago, 
 Association of Research Libraries, 1963. Appendix B, p. 14. 
 
 24. Lesher, Richard L. and Howick, George J. Assessing Technology 
 Transfer. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1966, p. 8 (NASA 
 SP-5067). 
 
 25. Shank, Russell, op. cit., p. 80. 
 
 26. Ibid., pp. 91-94. 
 
 27. Mohrhardt, Foster and Oliveri, Blanche. "A National Network of 
 Biological-Agricultural Libraries," Colleges Research Libraries, 28:9-16, January, 
 1967. 
 
 28. Joint House-Senate Colloquium to Discuss a National Policy for the 
 Environment. Hearing before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of 
 the United States Senate. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1968, 
 pp. 110-111. 
 
 29. "Industrial Information Services," Newsletter: Technology for Texas, 
 1:5-7, July, 1968. 
 
 30. Monypenny, Phillip. The Library Functions of the States: Commen- 
 tary on the Survey of Library Functions of the States. Chicago, ALA, 1966, p. 
 162. 
 
 31. Ibid., p. 153. 
 
Craig E. Lovitt 
 
 Lt. Governor's Office 
 
 Springfield, Illinois 
 
 GETTING PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS TO 
 COOPERATE IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY 
 
 My task is to discuss briefly intergovernmental relations as they relate to 
 libraries in Illinois. My job assignment is in the Illinois Office of Intergovern- 
 mental Cooperation. This agency is a relatively new venture for the state of 
 Illinois and was originally established by Governor Kerner in 1965 and sub- 
 sequently strengthened by Governor Shapiro. 
 
 Several other states have similar offices dealing with problems relating to 
 intergovernmental relations; among them New Jersey, which has had an office of 
 local government under varying titles since 1917; New York where the Office for 
 Local Government was authorized by legislative act in 1959 as a staff function 
 of the governor's office, and Rhode Island which in 1961 created the Division of 
 Local and Metropolitan Government as a part of the state's Department of 
 Administration. According to a recent report, forty-seven of the fifty states of 
 the Union have established agencies for local or urban affairs. These states, along 
 with some of the major cities of the country, are wading around in what is a 
 rather swampy area, but until recent months most of the states had not even 
 entered the swamp. 
 
 These new enterprises in the government field have come into being 
 because of the growing complexity of government, and also in part by the 
 emergence of direct dealings between the federal government and local govern- 
 ments, with the states being by-passed. Efforts at all levels to simplify and 
 streamline the structure of federal, state, and local relations are the current 
 vogue in government circles. The problems we face are dramatically demon- 
 strated by the statistics of these relations: more than 400 authorities exist for 
 federal grant programs, and at least 160 federal programs have been added since 
 1960. 
 
 73 
 
74 
 
 More than 1 ,000 new federal development districts, areas and regions have 
 been funded. Here in Illinois, with our relatively dense population and high 
 production capacity, we live and work with about 160 separate federal grant 
 programs administered by about twenty-one separate federal departments and 
 agencies. These programs involve more than $700 million and represent the 
 potential for thousands of projects in our counties and cities. They are related to 
 the different levels of citizens' needs existing in our society. 
 
 The problems encountered in the proliferation of these programs are not 
 entirely related to their content, value, or impact. The difficulty has been that 
 they came too suddenly and in such numbers that it is virtually impossible 
 merely to keep track of them. 
 
 A recent listing of informational sources on federal and state aid 1 included 
 thirteen catalogs put out by the federal agencies, four published by organizations 
 of public officials, nineteen compiled by states, and six issued by other groups or 
 special service units. The federal catalogs total 1 ,127 pages, the state sources 973 
 pages, and all others 567 pages, for a grand (or should I say, grant) total of 2,767 
 pages. For 1967 the Maryland State Planning Department published a Manual of 
 Federal Aid Programs^ containing 332 pages with details on 223 individual grant 
 and loan programs. This catalog was hardly out before a supplement of 176 
 pages had to be issued to outline information on eighty-three more programs 
 passed by Congress. 2 
 
 There is a great deal of duplication in these catalogs and handbooks, of 
 course, and finding a program in a catalog is just a prelude of things to come. 
 The next step is keeping track of the guidelines established for eligibility in 
 connection with a given program or project. Anyone who has filled out an 
 application for a federal project knows what I am talking about. 
 
 Illinois has recently gotten into the catalog business. We have not dupli- 
 cated the information available on federal programs. Ours, which was produced 
 by the Department of Business and Economic Development, is rather modest it 
 is only 442 pages long-and is designed to provide information on state programs 
 to help individuals and communities meet their own goals for economic and 
 social development. 
 
 It would be a hopeless task to try to summarize all of these state and 
 federal programs, but we have two suggestions to make. The first is that some- 
 one on a library staffer library board be designated as coordinator for federal and 
 state programs. A few libraries have already done this. 
 
 The second suggestion is that the coordinator become familiar with three 
 of the catalogs mentioned. One is published by the Office of Economic Oppor- 
 tunity and is entited Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs^ The second is a 
 relatively new catalog published by the University of Illinois and called A Guide 
 to Federal Programs for Illinois Communities* The third one is the catalog of 
 state programs published by the Illinois Department of Business and Economic 
 Development: Illinois Catalog of Programs for Individual and Community 
 Development.^ If it is not possible for you to have a coordinator for federal and 
 state programs, then these three catalogs should be on the desk of the library's 
 designated coordinator for federal and state programs. 
 
75 
 
 Intergovernmental relationships in Illinois are complicated by the number 
 of governmental bodies in our state. All of us are familiar with the long-standing 
 complaints about the overlapping of taxing bodies in .llinois cities, counties, 
 school districts, sanitary districts, library districts, mosquito abatement 
 districts 6,453 in all; Illinois has more units of government than any other state. 
 Intergovernmental cooperation, therefore, holds special significance for us here 
 in Illinois. Illinois, with 1,256, has more municipalities than any other state. 
 With a total of 2,313, it has more special districts than any other state. Cook 
 County, the second most populous county in the nation has 466 units of govern- 
 mentmore than any other county in the United States. The Chicago Standard 
 Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) with 1,113, embraces more units of 
 government than any other SMSA in the United States. Is it any wonder, then, 
 that we in Illinois government are determined to make this cumbersome machine 
 of government work more effectively and efficiently? 
 
 Since federal funds account for more than 25 percent of Illinois revenue, 
 and because officials of state agencies receiving federal grants tend to deal 
 directly with their federal counterparts, the Governor and his staff run the risk 
 of being by-passed and of losing effective control of large sectors of state admin- 
 istration. With such a situation, the principle of executive budgeting may be 
 impaired unless provisions are made for coordination by the Governor's office. 
 His office is the only spot in state government where the over-all impact of 
 federal aid on the structure and functioning of state and local government can be 
 assessed and directed into proper channels. 
 
 The principal objective of the Office of which I am a part is to improve 
 intergovernmental relations at all levels in Illinois. This includes federal, state, 
 and local operations. Miracles are not in the making, because our office is only a 
 three-man operation within the Governor's office. Thus far the operation of our 
 office has followed general guidelines offered by the Governor and a pattern of 
 programs resulting from our own creation. 
 
 There are several other organizations in Illinois which also deal with inter- 
 governmental relations. The Illinois Municipal League is, of course, one of the 
 most active in this field. The counties and townships also have their own state- 
 wide organizations. Our office cooperates with these groups and does not try to 
 replace them or compete with them. 
 
 There are also several legislative commissions working in this area. These 
 include the County Problems Commission, the Municipal Problems Commission, 
 and the Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation. These commissions 
 carry on research and make recommendations for legislative and other actions 
 designed to improve government performance. 
 
 Too often, I think, we assume that more dollars will solve all problems. 
 There are many ways a state government can improve local governments and 
 these are not confined to broadening the authority for local governments to raise 
 the revenue necessary to meet the problems of growth. Please let me make it 
 clear that our office does not exist to duplicate services already adequately 
 performed by existing agencies. 
 
 At this point in the development of our office, I can offer the following 
 categories as being descriptive of our operations: 
 
76 
 
 First, we try to keep the Governor informed of the feelings and thinking 
 of local governmental officials. We do this by attending meetings of various 
 organizations at the regional, state and national levels. We advise the Governor 
 on proposed legislation which may emerge from these meetings and consulta- 
 tions. 
 
 Second, we have a dual role as an advocate of the state in formal and 
 informal meetings with local governmental officials and as an advocate of local 
 governments in dealing with state officials. We sit in on cabinet meetings in 
 Springfield, and this means essentially that local government has a spokesman at 
 the highest level in state government. 
 
 Third, we serve as a liaison with colleges and universities throughout the 
 state which have units or individuals studying intergovernmental relations and 
 the problems of local government. 
 
 Fourth, we serve as a clearinghouse of information concerning common 
 problems of local government. This function includes making available infor- 
 mation concerning both state and federal programs and projects. 
 
 Fifth, we can try to mediate disputes between local government and a 
 state department or agency. 
 
 Sixth and most important from the standpoint of librarians we assist 
 local governments in their relationships with state and federal departments and 
 agencies. 
 
 From this brief outline it should be clear that our office at present is 
 basically a service operation. As time allows, we engage in other activities which 
 would be more extensive if we had additional staff. 
 
 One such project is the collection of pertinent information about local 
 governments. One of our staff members recently conducted a survey of com- 
 munities of 5,000 or less. He asked the mayors of these communities to describe 
 their problems. He plans to use this material in a series of "think" conferences 
 designed to produce recommendations for improving small towns. We are also 
 hoping to develop a program for training local government officials. 
 
 Now, we come to the question, what does all of this have to do with 
 libraries and librarians? A great deal because if we are to bring Illinois libraries 
 farther along the road of progress, then intergovernmental relations become a 
 matter of critical importance. Significantly enough, a report issued earlier this 
 year by the Division of Local and Regional Planning of the Department of 
 Business and Economic Development was entitled Public Library Development: 
 An Overlooked Aspect of Community Development.^ This report pointedly 
 mentions that although public libraries "represent an important asset to any 
 community, . . .they are often overlooked in community planning and develop- 
 ment programs or given only cursory attention." 
 
 Under the Illinois Constitution, the independent officers in the elected 
 branch are relatively free of the Governor's control in many respects, par- 
 ticularly in relation to the state's central system of budgeting and accounting. 
 Federal funds for education, for example, are channeled through an independent 
 elected office, that of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Federal 
 grants for libraries are routed through the Secretary of State's office. And, of 
 course, the Secretary of State wields the primary responsibility at the state level 
 
77 
 
 for our libraries. This division of labor and responsibility, however, neither belies 
 the need nor the opportunity for intergovernmental cooperation. Indeed, with- 
 out it progress will probably be out of the question. 
 
 What form will the intergovernmental relations take in the library field? 
 We all know the excellent start made in connection with the cooperation 
 between Secretary of State Paul Powell and library associations, special study 
 groups, and individual libraries. 
 
 We have come a long way in recent years from the statement made by the 
 Chairman of the Illinois Library Development Committee in 1965 when he said, 
 "Illinois is one of the most backward states in the union in public library 
 development." 7 This is far from true today because of what has already been 
 accomplished, and Powell has demonstrated his concern and support for con- 
 tinued improvement. 
 
 Beyond this cooperation at the highest level, however, I would like to 
 make these suggestions as a minimum approach in this field: 
 
 1) Not the least important is continued good relations with the Illinois 
 General Assembly. I assume that the hard work of the Joint Legislative Com- 
 mittee of the Illinois Library Association and the Illinois State Library will 
 continue to be an important factor in further improving what are already excel- 
 lent relations with the legislature. Personal visits by librarians, library trustees, 
 and library staff to their local senator and state representatives could prove to be 
 of great value. By taking advantage of the months when the legislature is ad- 
 journed those associated with the library can call them up, go to see them, or 
 invite them over for a brief tour of their library. 
 
 2) Do not overlook your local congressman and the state's two senators. 
 Federal funds for libraries in Illinois amounted to $8,197,694 in fiscal 1966, and 
 we should encourage our legislators in Washington to continue to do all they can 
 toward increasing federal assistance for our libraries. I particularly like Ruth 
 Poison's admonition in the January 1967 issue of Illinois Libraries* to "think 
 big" in connection with finances. There is no better place to think big in regard to 
 money than in Washington, because the federal income tax is the best means yet 
 devised for garnering tax dollars. 
 
 Thus far, federal projects for libraries have been quite modest in relation 
 to national needs. It is relatively easy to obtain agreement that library services 
 and facilities are essential for the educational, scientific, cultural, and even 
 economic growth and well-being of our people, yet glaring deficiencies exist in 
 this most important and vital resource. 
 
 In fiscal 1966, about $530 million was spent nation-wide for public library 
 services and construction. But even the most conservative estimates conclude 
 that about $1 billion in additional funds is needed for books, records, personnel, 
 and other services just to meet minimum standards. Assistance is needed for 
 state library institutional services. It has been pointed out repeatedly that library 
 services for the handicapped falls short of any standard measure. Interlibrary 
 cooperation cries out for financial help if we are to make the best use of our 
 library capabilities. The United States Office of Education estimates provided to 
 the National Advisory Commission on Libraries (NACL) indicated that $4.7 
 billion for a variety of library resources would begin to catch up the backlog of 
 needs. 
 
78 
 
 These needs have led to federal activity. First came the Library Services 
 Act of 1956 to extend and develop library services in rural areas. The statute was 
 broadened in 1964 to include all parts of the country, and a provision covering 
 construction was added. Library components (Titles III and XI) also crept into 
 the National Defense Education Act. 
 
 Since 1965, Congress has expressed a willingness to expand considerably 
 the federal contribution to libraries under terms of the Elementary and Secon- 
 dary Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Act of 1965. Congress 
 has added support for interlibrary cooperation for the handicapped, specialized 
 state library services, and library services in general. Refinements in the legislation 
 were contained in the Library Services and Construction Act Amendments of 
 1967. These latest amendments corrected several inconsistencies in the 
 statute: extended 100 percent federal funding through fiscal 1968 of the 
 provision for interlibrary cooperation and specialized state library services 
 and added authorization for acquisition as well as construction of library 
 facilities. The Higher Education Amendments of 1968 will continue federal 
 assistance for another three years toward library resources, training and 
 research in librarianship, and cooperative cataloging by the Library of 
 Congress. In the closing days of the 90th Congress, Congressman Fred 
 Rooney of Pennsylvania introduced a bill to amend the Library Services and 
 Construction Act to extend the benefits of the state institutional library services 
 program to the staffs of state institutions. 
 
 All of this means, of course, that an increasing number of congressmen and 
 senators are interested in libraries and that more and more federal involvement 
 in financial support of libraries is likely, although not at a pace comparable to 
 federal participation in other fields. It is sad to contemplate that we are 
 probably spending about three times as many federal dollars on oceanography as 
 we are on our libraries. Whose fault is this but ours? We can start to rectify this 
 inequity by urging our congressmen and senators to support libraries by legisla- 
 tion. The National Advisory Commission on Libraries has, after all, recom- 
 mended "that it be declared National Policy, enunicated by the President and 
 enacted into law by the Congress, that the American people should be provided 
 with library and informational services adequate to their needs, and that the 
 federal government, in collaboration with state and local governments and 
 private agencies, should exercise leadership in assuring the provision of such 
 services." 9 This leadership will not very likely be forthcoming, however, with- 
 out leadership being exerted at the local level. 
 
 3) Libraries must compete effectively with other local taxing bodies for 
 sufficient money to do an outstanding job. This means librarians must go 
 beyond preparing careful budgets and making skillful presentations to appro- 
 priating bodies. They must go beyond what is usually thought of as eliciting 
 local support for library services. They must cultivate the other taxing bodies in 
 their areas. If this is done correctly and well, librarians may end up with some of 
 these taxing bodies quietly lobbying on behalf of libraries even though they are 
 in competition with them for the taxpayer's dollar. 
 
 Librarians and others responsible to the library must talk to the chairman 
 of the board of supervisors, the mayor or city manager, the chairman of the 
 sanitary district, or even the chairman and members of the mosquito abatement 
 
79 
 
 district. They must be aware that libraries are aware of their problems that 
 librarians are sympathetic to their problems and they must become familiar with 
 the libraries' needs, hopes, dreams, and plans. 
 
 4) You may well learn from these other taxing bodies ways and means of 
 "making your pitch" successful in approaching taxing units. There are no real 
 secrets in this matter of wheedling tax money. It is simply that there may be 
 approaches you have not thought of. 
 
 5) Money alone, however, is not the only approach to intergovernmental 
 cooperation. Innovative ideas can go a long way toward making up for lack of 
 money. I saw a brochure published recently by the National League of Cities 
 with the title 101 Winning Ways to Better Municipal Public Relations. The ideas 
 relate basically to municipal affairs, but they make interesting and worthwhile 
 reading in terms of alternate approaches to problems. One practical problem 
 facing central libraires, I should think, is how to expand reasonably and con- 
 tinuously the services necessary to meet the needs of suburbia. Perhaps it is time 
 for someone to compile "101 Winning Ways to Better Libraries Though 
 Cooperation in the Local Community." 
 
 I would like to suggest that there is a great need for getting people and 
 institutions to cooperate in the local community. Cooperation is essential. It has 
 not failed; it has not really been tried. I can predict that a plan for public library 
 development in Illinois will find rough going unless such cooperation is forth- 
 coming. 
 
 A glaring example came to my attention recently. There should be, it 
 seems to me, a line of communication between the local library and such organ- 
 izations as the Illinois Agricultural Association (better known as the Farm 
 Bureau). The IAA recently issued a study committee report on local government 
 that makes no significant recommendations regarding libraries. If the library is 
 to assume its proper place not only in the community, but also in the thinking 
 of the residents of a community, then such oversights must be recognized and 
 rectified. Every report issued that neglects or overlooks the importance of our 
 library system in the scheme of things is a step backward. 
 
 Illinois is slowly arriving at a recognition that the time has come for the 
 library to assume its proper place as an important educational and cultural 
 center for the community. But the leaders in this field must accept the respon- 
 sibility for moving libraries up the scale of priorities in our system of public 
 services and needs. 
 
 Libraries and librarians have an excellent image. It is an image of service, 
 of learning, of dedication. But it is not an image of activism. Action and move- 
 ment, it seems to me, are necessary if libraries are to be improved. This will 
 mean the addition of a new dimension to the traditional view of the librarian, 
 particularly in smaller communities. It means, in the words of the NACL, that 
 "our libraries can strive to become a vital positive force in the social and intel- 
 lectual reconstruction of a broadening and changing society." 9 
 
 The NACL has made several salient observations, not the least of 
 which is that "libraries badly need support in establishing new means of 
 intercommunication and cooperation."* As they move toward improvement, 
 public, school, and academic libraries will, according to the NACL, "all be 
 
80 
 
 obligated to change many of their methods of work, their interrelationships, and 
 some of their roles and objectives in the years ahead." 10 
 
 In his Executive Order creating the NACL, President Johnson requested an 
 appraisal of "the policies, programs, and practices of public agencies and private 
 institutions and organizations, together with other factors, which have a bearing 
 on the role and effective utilization of libraries." 11 The NACL responded by 
 commenting that "many different kinds of information systems and working 
 relationships among a variety of institutions [will be necessary] if we are to 
 provide effective access to relevant information for our society." 1 ^ 
 
 How, then, can we achieve the degree of cooperation required to assure a 
 high level of library development in Illinois? I have the following suggestions: 
 
 1) The Illinois Library Association, in conjunction with the appropriate 
 state officials and other interested agencies, should explore the possibility of 
 establishing a Committee on Intergovernmental Cooperation at the state level. 
 This committee could explore all avenues of inter-governmental relations in 
 connection with libraries and make appropriate recommendations. If this is 
 done, the ILA will be in the forefront among statewide organizations taking this 
 step. 
 
 2) Too often community institutions and governmental units work 
 separately, through separate channels. This independent action sometimes 
 complicates matters for everybody. 
 
 In non-metropolitan areas, problems resulting from the multitudinous 
 existence of many organizations arise because of the difficulty of linking 
 community agencies together. The lack of capacity in small communities is an 
 additional complicating factor. 
 
 There is no ready answer to any of these problems because it is difficult to 
 design machinery suitable for all types of organizations. Different things will 
 work in different areas. But it is not impossible to establish a loosely-knit 
 mechanism which can attempt to cope with some of the difficulties. I would like 
 to recommend the creation of a Community Executive Board. This would follow 
 the pattern developing since 1962 at a much higher and more sophisticated level 
 through the creation by President Kennedy of Federal Executive Boards in most 
 of the major cities of our country. 
 
 The Boards composed of federal executives in the major cities, were 
 initially charged with the responsibilities for, 1) considering management 
 problems and interdepartmental cooperation and, 2) seeking closer working 
 relationships with state and local government officials with the objective of 
 strengthening coordination on programs of mutual interest. The Boards have 
 proven very successful in their own local metropolitan areas, and they hold great 
 promise for the future. A summary of their operations is contained in a report 
 published earlier this year by the U.S. Civil Service Commission under the title 
 Federal Executive Board: An Instrument of Progress. 1 3 
 
 My idea is that the community executive board should be established at 
 the local level, either on a county or regional basis, with the membership made 
 up of elected and appointed governmental officials, including librarians, who 
 would meet regularly preferably monthly to discuss matters of common 
 concern. As the group begins to generate a course of direction, members could 
 
81 
 
 also be recruited from important organizations in the county or region if they 
 have a bearing upon the achievement of successful cooperation in the local 
 community. 
 
 If I may paraphrase the mission of the federal government's Executive 
 Board, the assignment for the community executive board should include the 
 following: 1) to link local officials to new priorities of public policy (especially 
 libraries); 2) to coordinate related programs at the local level; 3) to facilitate 
 intergovernmental and community cooperation on programs of mutual interest; 
 4) to improve communications between local and state government and local 
 and federal government, and among local governments. It seems to me that 
 librarians and libraries should not shrink from being represented on any com- 
 munity executive board. Indeed, perhaps they should take the initiative in organ- 
 izing such a group as an intial step at the local level toward creating support for a 
 state plan for library services. 
 
 3) In major metropolitan areas or in locations where several different 
 types of libraries are represented (university or institutional, as well as public 
 and private), it might be worth while to explore the creation of a library execu- 
 tive board. This group should have a membership consisting of representatives 
 from all school, public, private, institutional, university, and specialized libraries 
 in a given city or region. 
 
 The principal objective of a library executive board should be coordina- 
 tion. Very practical problems would probably emerge as the item of initial 
 concern. In areas, for example, where public libraries have been overburdened 
 through demands placed upon them by high school, junior college, and college 
 or university students, there is a crying need for coordination among public 
 librarians, teachers, schools, principals, and college administrators-not to men- 
 tion parents of students. Overloading will obviously continue unless coordina- 
 tion and joint problem-solving are forthcoming in the near future, whether 
 through a library executive board or some other mechanism. 
 
 The same sort of approach to coordination would be helpful in alleviating 
 the demands upon public libraries in metropolitan areas that do not correspond 
 strictly to the jurisdictional area supposedly served by the library. Exceedingly 
 complex are the complications arising in metropolitan areas which extend across 
 state lines. I can foresee that once practical problems are considered and prove 
 surmountable, then library executive boards would be tempted to branch out 
 into other fields of concern, notably in the realm of library improvement. 
 
 4) A more specialized approach at the local level might employ the tech- 
 nique of creating a permanent task force on libraries. This undertaking should 
 embrace all local organizations, individuals, and governmental officials who 
 conceivably have any bearing at all on the well-being and future development of 
 libraries. The task force would soon discover more than enough to do in con- 
 nection with implementing a program for library improvement and innovation. 
 
 5) Citizen support is usually considered to be a key element in the success 
 of any public undertaking. A series of "citizen conferences" might hold promise 
 for promoting citizen support of local libraries on a broader base than that 
 provided by the governing board. In Minnesota, the city of Austin and Mower 
 County have recently engaged in a joint project of promoting citizen involve- 
 
82 
 
 ment by holding meetings including citizens in discussions of three coordinated 
 planning programs, as well as planning proposals for all of the villages in the 
 county. The conferences are designed around ten discussion groups which are 
 assigned the task of formulating proposals for making communities better places 
 for living, working, and enjoying leisure. This citizens' approach has been 
 described by the Minnesota Office of Local and Urban Affiars as "a unique 
 effort to obtain citizen involvement in problem solving and goal development" 
 and as "a new method to solve the local problem at the local level." 14 
 
 John W. Macy, Jr., chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, ade- 
 quately summed up the magnitude of future involvement of local governments, 
 institutions, and citizens in intergovernmental relationships. He also suggested an 
 approach to problem solving. "We have little more than glimpsed the beginnings 
 of the revolution in intergovernmental relationships that is ahead of us," he said. 
 "Although grant-in-aid and other forms of intergovernmental dependency have 
 become well established, . . .new programs. . .call even more for direct participa- 
 tion in national programs by local governments, and in some cases by local 
 nongovernmental organizations. An equally, if not more striking difference is 
 one of focus: the problem is the target, and all agencies that have something 
 material to contribute to its solution must converge upon it." 15 
 
 John W. Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
 earlier this year underscored our nation's deep-felt need for cooperation and 
 leadership. Our government, "with all its wealth and strength," he said, "cannot 
 be fully effective without the help of vital local leadership, in and out of govern- 
 ment." 16 The organization which he heads was created in response to these 
 needs. 
 
 "I would emphasize the importance of the Coalition principle," Gardner 
 said. "Some people think of the Coalition as just another organization tackling 
 the tough urban problems of the day. But it isn't 'just another organization.' It is 
 unique, and its uniqueness lies in the way it goes about tackling the problems. 
 Our distinction is that we bring together leadership elements that do not 
 normally collaborate in the solution of public problems in fact, we bring 
 together segments of American life that have often been utterly out of touch 
 with one another and, in many cities, are still out of touch." 16 
 
 Gardner emphasized that "no one leadership segment can solve the 
 problem alone. City Hall can't go it alone. The Business Community can't solve 
 the city's problems singlehandedly. There must be collaboration among all 
 significant elements that hold power or veto power within the community." 16 
 Gardner has summed up the magnitude of our problems at any level of coopera- 
 tion by pointing out that "new forms of collaboration need to be devised even as 
 existing relationships are re-examined." He has also made abundantly clear the 
 necessity for involvement by all of us in seeking solutions. "Our society has 
 become so complex, change so swift, and the social forces impinging on us so 
 tumultuous that it's pretty close to being more than we can manage," he said. 
 "If we are to retain any command at all over our own future, the ablest people 
 we have in every field must give thought to the largest problems of the 
 nation. . . . They don't have to be in government to do so. But they do have to 
 come out of the trenches of their own specialty and look at the whole battle- 
 field." 17 
 
83 
 
 If there is a hypothesis to my own suggestions here, it is that cooperation 
 between people and institutions can contribute much toward creating a com- 
 munity awareness that libraries are essential, rather than marginal, to our way of 
 life. Once this recognition is accomplished, the library will take its rightful place 
 in the ranks of other community institutions. And the corollary to my hypothe- 
 sis is that a policy of "creative librarianship" at all levels will point the way 
 toward accomplishment of this long sought and long overdue objective. 
 
 We have a motto in our office which describes both our role and our 
 function. We start on the assumption that "We do not want to know why 
 something cannot be done because, but rather how it can be done if. " Our 
 emphasis is on what can be accomplished if we follow the right procedures and 
 work with the right people. We feel this is really what government is all about. 
 And we feel this approach will assure success in the development of a state plan 
 for library services in Illinois. 
 
 References 
 
 1. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Catalogs and 
 Other Information Sources on Federal and State Aid Programs; A Selected 
 Bibliography. Washington, D.C., 1968. 
 
 2. Maryland State Planning Department. Manual of Federal A id Programs. 
 Baltimore, Maryland, 1967; and Maryland State Planning Department. Manual of 
 Federal Aid Programs. Supplement 1, Baltimore, Maryland, 1967. 
 
 3. Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs. Office of Economic Oppor- 
 tunity, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C., June 1967. 
 
 4. Keyes, Scott. A Guide to Federal Programs for Illinois Communities. 
 Bureau of Community Planning, Urbana, University of Illinois, 1967. 
 
 5. Illinois Catalog of State Programs for Individual and Community 
 Development. Dept. of Business and Economic Development, Springfield, 111., 
 1967. 
 
 6. Spear, Charles. Public Library Development: An Overlooked Aspect of 
 Community Development. Division of Local and Regional Planning, Dept. of 
 Business and Economic Development, State of Illinois, Springfield, Jan. 1968. 
 
 7. Trezza, Alphonse. "ILA Plan for Library Progress," Illinois Libraries, 
 47: 155, Feb. 1965. 
 
 8. Poison, Ruth E. "When Your Library Joins a System, What Can You 
 Expect?" Illinois Libraries, 49:36, Jan. 1967. 
 
 9. National Advisory Commission on Libraries. Library Services for the 
 Nation 's Needs: Toward Fulfillment of a National Policy. Reprinted in Con- 
 gressional Record, Vol. 1 14, no. 173, p. E 9365, Oct. 21 , 1968. 
 
 10. Ibid, p. E 9357. 
 
 11. Johnson, Lyndon B. Executive Order No. 11301, Washington, D.C., 
 Sept. 2, 1966. In Congressional Record, Vol. 114, no. 173, p. E 9366, Oct. 21, 
 1968. 
 
84 
 
 12. National Advisory Commission on Libraries, op. cit., p. E 9358. 
 
 13. Federal Executive Board: An Instrument of Progress. United States 
 Civil Service Commission, Washington, D.C., 1968. 
 
 14. News report in Local and Urban Newsletter, 1 :3, Nov. 1968. St. Paul, 
 Minn., Minnesota Office of Local and Urban Affairs. 
 
 15. Macy, John W., Jr. "Intergovernmental Relationships in a Changing 
 Society That Durable and Delicate Balance." In Congressional Record, Vol. 
 1 14, no. 64, p. E 3063, April 18, 1968. 
 
 16. Gardner, John W. Remarks given at America's Democratic Legacy 
 Award Dinner, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, New York, May 5, 
 1968. In Congressional Record, Vol. 1 14, no. 84, p. H 3903, May 16, 1968. 
 
 17. Gardner, John W. Remarks at Silver Quill Award Dinner, Washington, 
 D.C., Feb. 8, 1968. In Congressional Record, Vol. 1 14, no. 84, May 16, 1968. 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
 James Andrews (Argonne National Laboratory): Each group discussion 
 leader is going to present the viewpoint of his group as a whole and we then 
 want to let any one contribute in any way they wish, either by giving reasons for 
 supporting one or more suggestions from the group leaders or by offering any 
 type of account or suggestion, argument or rebuttal. The topics break down into 
 three general groups. First, discussion of the organization that might be devel- 
 oped as the beginning of an increased program for cooperation among libraries 
 within the state; second, the possible ways of funding; and third, special pro- 
 jects, some of which might logically come before an organization is decided 
 upon and others after the organization is set up and part of the actual work is 
 done. 
 
 In regard to funding, Miss McDonald has indicated that there could be as 
 much as $40,000 in federal money available which would come, however, only 
 to match money provided within the state. This matching money could be 
 provided by any one of a number of means, but any money available is probably 
 going to have to be competed for and the competition would be against other 
 projects that might be just as worthy. The money could be spent in various 
 ways: for meetings; to pay the salary of a coordinator, a director, or consultant; 
 or it could be used to pay for a means of communication or publication. We will 
 now hear from the groups in numerical order. 
 
 Mary McDonald (Illinois State Library): Group one included librarians in 
 Jacksonville, Lincoln, Springfield, Decatur, Champaign and Charleston the strip 
 across the middle of the state. Our discussion adhered quite closely to the 
 general pattern that Mr. Andrews outlined. As for organization, the initial com- 
 ment when we brought up this matter was "Deliver us from more organizations; 
 let us use what we have." There was also general agreement that two concurrent 
 approaches should be taken the local cooperative efforts and the statewide 
 over-all approach. 
 
 Three statewide organizational points of view were expressed: a) Build 
 from the local level on the public library system structure already in existence, 
 and expand the research and reference top-level structure for planning and for 
 service purposes; b) the Illinois Library Association (ILA) and the Illinois Chap- 
 ter of Special Libraries Association (SLA) represent, or can represent, most 
 Illinois libraries; therefore, these two groups should establish a joint committee 
 which would include a representative of the State Library, and which would 
 plan, direct and coordinate the cooperative programs for Illinois, c) The State 
 Library should assume the responsibility for developing and implementing state- 
 wide cooperative programs for Illinois. The State Library Advisory Committee 
 should recommend expansion of the present State Library orientation from the 
 public library to include other sectors of the Illinois library community. If 
 necessary, the Advisory Committee should recommend statutory changes to 
 make this change in orientation possible. 
 
 As for budget, our group recommended that the 1969 fiscal year funds be 
 used for further planning meetings and to hire a full-time, carefully chosen 
 coordinator this appointment, of course, would require continuing expenditure 
 
 85 
 
86 
 
 beyond fiscal 1969. Any remaining funds after these first two kinds of expendi- 
 ture should be applied to some portion of the following projects. The group 
 recognized that priorities on projects would have to be set by the governing 
 body and that by their nature some of the projects would run beyond fiscal 
 1969. Some of these suggested projects are strictly on the local level and 
 probably could be developed without extensive expenditures of Title III funds. 
 As for the locally oriented projects, they might include the following: 
 
 1) Area-wide and eventually some sort of state-wide consolidation of film 
 collections and services, eliminating by consolidation the small uneconomic col- 
 lections that seem to be proliferating around the state. 
 
 2) Workshops for in-service training and development of further ideas, for 
 small area cooperative projects. 
 
 3) Area book selection meetings, especially for the evaluation of juvenile 
 books and then proceeding from there to more of a state-wide point of view. 
 
 4) A directory of the library resources of Illinois with location and the 
 kind of materials held. 
 
 5) Adequate exchange of ideas and information; a newsletter on coopera- 
 tive programs and projects should be issued as an insert to Illinois Libraries. 
 
 6) An accurate and complete mailing list of all libraries in Illinois, to be 
 kept up-to-date. 
 
 7) For the information of systems considering the problem of unserved 
 areas, a study to find out who uses the State Library, where these users are, for 
 what they use it and how frequently. 
 
 8) Expanded high quality consultant services for all kinds of libraries. 
 
 9) Greater participation of the State Library Advisory Committee in the 
 state's broad library picture. 
 
 10) Providing the coordinator with a plane and a pilot via contract with 
 some company offering small plane service; a great deal of valuable staff time 
 can be wasted in driving from one place to another. 
 
 11) Work through the Governor's office to encourage appreciation and 
 implementation of the role of library service given by the code departments to 
 institutions under their jurisdiction. This goes into the Title IV-A aspects of 
 LSCA, and requires liaison with the Governor's commission on intergovern- 
 mental relations to develop its assistance in coordinating library programs at the 
 local level. 
 
 12) Development of standards for librarianship, e.g., certification, salaries, 
 and fringe benefits. 
 
 1 3) Consideration of library service to groups such as those under Title 
 IV-A and B: the handicapped, and the inmates, patients, and residents of state 
 institutions. 
 
 1 4) Cooperation in technical services such as pooling requests for MARC 
 cards in developing centralized processing. 
 
 William Bryan (Peoria Public Library): Our group covered the general 
 area stretching from the quad-cities through Monmouth, Galesburg, Peoria and 
 Bloomington. We began our discussion by talking about existing cooperative 
 projects between types of libraries, and then quickly went into this same type of 
 local cooperative project. Our recommendation is that local groups of librarians 
 
87 
 
 should start regular discussion on their own as soon as possible. They should 
 involve their governing boards when they have something to tell them, and they 
 should start cooperative programs as soon as they can. We observed the instruc- 
 tion to consider only next steps, and therefore, we did not draw up any details. 
 In regard to the state-wide program approach, we felt that we do not need 
 another survey but we still kept using the words "study," "survey," and so on. I 
 think we meant that we wanted a plan for cooperation between types of libraries 
 and we wanted supporting evidence to back the need for such a plan, but not 
 just a regular thorough survey of everything in the state. 
 
 Our approach was to follow the program generally of the ILA Library 
 Development Committee. We thought that the start should be made through a 
 special committee of ILA, not the present Library Development Committee, but 
 a special one that might even be a joint committee of ILA, SLA, CollegeLA and 
 any other LA's that might want to take part. We did not believe it should be 
 within the State Library at this point. Of course, we believed that the committee 
 should apply for a Title III grant, through a contract with the State Library, as 
 did the Library Development Committee, and that a one-year program for the 
 development of a plan will be needed. There should be an outside paid director 
 or coordinator, but here again we did not go beyond the first steps. We drew up 
 a minimum budget of about $50,000. This was before I knew that more money 
 than that might possibly be tapped. We believed that a salary for the coordinator 
 should be such that it would attract an able person, one who could take a leave 
 of absence from a permanent job perhaps, who would be paid enough to support 
 two establishments for a year if he was not able to return to his home every 
 night; if he was not from Illinois, he would have to be able to go home with 
 some frequency and should be paid enough to do so. He would have to have a 
 secretary and an office that would be at a convenient location for him, and 
 therefore this means a paid office and not one provided free by some generous 
 library or system. Our budget came out something like this: coordinator, 
 $21,000; secretary, $7,000; office, $5,000; supplies, $2,000; travel, $10,000; 
 telephone, $6,000. We did not attach a figure to meetings nor to printing a 
 report and if those costs were added, the total would probably run over 
 $50,000. 
 
 Charles DeYoung (Bur Oak Regional Library): Group three takes in the 
 suburban western edge of Chicago, the southern suburban area to Kankakee, 
 Joliet, Kankakee County, Will County, Grundy County, DuPage County, and 
 parts of Cook County. We feel that as far as organization is concerned, some 
 type of central director is definitely needed whether he be a coordinator or a 
 consultant. It is also very important that a fair share of push come from the grass 
 roots level, that the local approach is needed, and that not everything should be 
 handed down from the top. We did not attempt to draw up a budget, but we 
 definitely felt there would be need for planning, organizing, staffing, rent, secre- 
 tarial help, expenses for group meetings, printing, publications and the like. 
 
 We had a fair amount of discussion about who or what group should get 
 everything started; for example, if a meeting were held of representatives from 
 various organizations, who would send out invitations? The feeling was that the 
 State Library would possibly be the logical source, but it is swamped at the 
 
88 
 
 moment. We discussed various other sources, such as ILA and other state organ- 
 izations, but we finally decided that the University of Illinois Graduate School 
 of Library Science might be the best central source to start formation of an ad 
 hoc group, inviting various existing groups to come to the initial meeting, by 
 asking the president or head of each to appoint representatives. 
 
 Thus we propose that a meeting of this sort be sponsored by the Univer- 
 sity of Illinois, with invitations to go to the active state library organizations, 
 including accredited library schools and any other agency or individual in the 
 state who could make a contribution to the group, e.g., the Office of Public 
 Instruction, the State Library, of course, the Illinois Audio-Visual Association 
 and any other interested associations, and to ask the groups to identify the next 
 steps needed to foster a state plan in library cooperation. We did not tie it down 
 in any way; we left it quite broad in regard to possible activities or projects. We 
 had the feeling that this should be left up to the thinking and discretion of this 
 ad hoc group when it meets. 
 
 Mary Howe (Lewis and Clark Library System): We had in our group the 
 directors of the Kaskaskia Library System, the Great River Library System, and 
 the Lewis and Clark Library System, a private college librarian, two librarians 
 from a public university, and a school librarian. We discussed how we could 
 develop this plan with which we were charged, and we agreed that we should 
 first align our services to the user and find out how we could orient these 
 services to the user and that further, we should teach the user, that is, adults, 
 youth, children, librarians, administrators, and so forth, where to get his services. 
 There should be meetings with administrators and librarians of different types of 
 libraries to iron out common problems, and other personnel should be brought 
 in according to the problem to be solved. 
 
 By using the existing framework, that is, the already established eighteen 
 library systems in Illinois, these meetings could be initiated by them and could 
 be held either at system headquarters or the central public library within the 
 system. Some of the areas of cooperation suggested by the group are: 
 
 1) National library week. 
 
 2) Career days or recruitment programs. 
 
 3) Resources, with specific descriptions of the subject areas available. 
 
 4) Making periodical holdings a part of the union list of serials of the 
 twenty -nine Illinois colleges, as a continuing project. 
 
 5) Restudy and evaluation of the present network of public library sys- 
 tems. 
 
 6) A coordinator of interlibrary cooperation to be named to work from or 
 with an ILA committee or the State Library. 
 
 7) Development of communications between different types of libraries; 
 as a part of this point there should be an equipment inventory, a description of 
 projects in progress could probably be a part of Illinois Libraries on a regular 
 schedule, TWX should be established in the eighteen systems as well as the four 
 research and reference centers, and a network of distribution of materials to 
 libraries should be developed. This last point involves delivery of materials, and 
 there is already a good start in this direction, including daily service between 
 Champaign and Chicago, Edwardsville and Carbondale, and several other cities. 
 
89 
 
 A directory of the libraries within the different systems is needed, showing the 
 personnel, services, resources, and hours open (similar to the American Library 
 Directory). 
 
 8) A study of the legal relationships between public and private schools 
 and the public library. 
 
 9) Development of materials examination centers of both nonprint and 
 print materials. 
 
 10) Processing of materials to be done by the most economical and best 
 organization, and commercial firms to be used, if this seems best. 
 
 11) The problem of mass assignments made by teachers; we have all 
 talked about this for many years, and there were some in our group who said 
 that this problem should definitely be tackled and a solution found. 
 
 12) Automation should be considered as a technique to implement the 
 interlibrary program. Every library, regardless of its type, should be encouraged 
 to have a telephone. 
 
 We decided upon an $80,000 budget, distributed as follows: $35,000 for a 
 coordinator plus a secretary and office help ; printing and distributing the union 
 list of serials, $5,000; meeting expenses, $5,000; and the teletype to encompass 
 all of the eighteen centers plus the four R and R centers, $25,000. Finally, we 
 felt that an editor should be hired for the continuence of the college list of 
 serials if we were going to add other libraries to it, and that added another 
 $10,000. 
 
 Joanne Aufdenkamp (Librarian, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago): Most 
 of the participants of group five were from Chicago, and I think we had a 
 representative from every type of library. We have four formal proposals. One is 
 that we need firmer knowledge than we now have of resouces in the state. We 
 suggest that the College and Research Section of the Illinois Library Association 
 and the University of Illinois Library Research Center jointly undertake a study 
 of the existing directories of resources such as Lee Ash's Subject Collections, the 
 American Library Directory, and the Directory of Special Libraries and 
 Information Centers, to determine if this present record of resources is adequate. 
 If it is not, they should make recommendations for obtaining the needed 
 information. Secondly, what are likely to be the informational and intellectual 
 resource needs of the people of Illinois for the next generation or two? Are the 
 present institutions appropriate for their needs; if not, what ought to be done to 
 satisfy them? The problem should be approached through a conference of 
 selected creative minds, including librarians, sociologists, educators, etc. It is 
 recommended that this be referred to the Illinois State Library Advisory Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Our third proposal is to bring all existing library facilities and resources 
 together in a unified state-wide information network. The present Illinois library 
 systems' structure should be considered as a logical base to which all other 
 elements of the library community can be added. This requires study of the 
 existing barriers to cooperation and the potential demands which such consolida- 
 tion will make on all units in such a state-wide plan. We recommend that the 
 Library Development Committee of the ILA bring together the appropriate 
 representatives of the library profession to begin this procedure. It is recom- 
 
90 
 
 mended that the present available Title HI funds be allocated to the Library 
 Development Committee for its use in implementing the development of the 
 plan. And fourthly, in order to stimulate and encourage action programs in 
 interlibrary cooperation as soon as possible, we recommend that the Library 
 Development Committee of the Illinois Library Association encourage the State 
 Library to create a position of coordinator or consultant for interlibrary 
 cooperation to monitor and encourage activities, plans, and potentialities of 
 interlibrary cooperation between all types of libraries. 
 
 John Abbott (Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville): I would like to 
 reemphasize a point that Mrs. Howe made because I do not think it was other- 
 wise brought out, and that is the need for a current reporting service. In most 
 respects I think Illinois Libraries is very good, but it does not include adequate 
 current information on projects throughout the state. For example, one project 
 now in progress, the union list of serials of twenty -nine libraries, is not nearly as 
 well known as it should be. Our discussion group was the only one to place any 
 emphasis on the union list of serials, and this was due in large part to the fact 
 that the other groups were not aware of the possibilities of this project. The 
 editing of the union list is now nearing completion, and in my thinking we have 
 the opportunity here for a broadly based list of serials. The University of Illinois 
 list of periodicals includes something like 60,000 non-periodical serials titles; 
 there is no national equivalent to this. New Serials Titles does not do the job in 
 the same way, and it is essential here not only for Illinois but for inter-state 
 progress. 
 
 Father Jovian Lang (Quincy College): Group three (Mr. DeYoung's 
 group) proposed the possiblity of having an ad hoc committee meet and even- 
 tually from this might come a coordinator, as so many of the others have 
 requested. During our sessions, my group discussed whether such a committee 
 should be formed first or whether the coordinator should be appointed first and 
 given the task of choosing from the various groups and associations the people 
 with whom he would like to work. The consensus of our group was exactly the 
 opposite to that of group three, because we felt that if a coordinator was 
 appointed and knew what he was to accomplish, it would be much better for 
 him to find those people with whom he could work. He could work more 
 successfully with the particular men that he had in mind, whereas by having the 
 committee appointed first, such an ad hoc group would get together, perhaps 
 make suggestions and then the coordinator might feel that he would have to 
 answer not only to that group but eventually, if he were appointed by some 
 agency or authority, as would almost have to occur, he would have respon- 
 sibilities in both directions. 
 
 Mr. De Young: If a coordinator is appointed first, who is going to select 
 him? My thinking is that we should start the ad hoc group and take it from here. 
 
 Father Lang: We felt that the State Library is the palce where the respon- 
 sibility would be, because the coordinator would somehow have to be respon- 
 sible to it and no matter how we eventually work it out, the person in this job 
 would have to answer to the state. Even if the ad hoc group were to decide on 
 some person eventually, it is not going to be able to pay his salary and probably 
 would not even be able to find him or to hire him. It would have to be an 
 
91 
 
 appointment by the state and this is the reason why we thought that working 
 from the bottom would be less advisable than to have the person appointed by 
 the State Librarian. The State Librarian would know what qualities this person 
 should have, he would be able to call upon various people to offer suggestions as 
 to who this person should be, and eventaully it would have to be his appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 James Smith (Cicero Public Schools): I do not think that we are at such 
 extremes as it appears. One of the main reasons we went to the idea of the ad 
 hoc group was that the State Library, as has been mentioned, is swamped, it is 
 short six librarians, and right now it does not know which way to turn. In this 
 case then we suggest that the ad hoc group be set up as a beginning or intro- 
 duction to eliminate the confusion that we would have otherwise. The coordi- 
 nator would probably go into the State Library, but the State Library at this 
 time to our understanding is not ready to handle this task because of staff 
 shortages. 
 
 Mr. Abbott: I take issue with that. I think the coordinator need not relate 
 himself especially to the regular organization of the State Library. His job would 
 be for a certain purpose, and he should not be called upon to do any other job. 
 That is the point; he would be a full-time person for this purpose, and this 
 purpose only. 
 
 Mr, Smith: Who would make the selection of the coordinator? We are 
 going to have to have some local group to begin looking for a capable person- 
 regardless of who his responsibility is to before a program can be developed. 
 
 Mr. Abbott: It was our feeling primarily that should be the responsibility 
 of the Deputy State Librarian, but we realize there is no Deputy State Librarian. 
 We are assuming that he will soon be appointed and that he will give a high 
 priority to filling this position. 
 
 Mr. Bryan: It seems to me we are talking about two different things and 
 intermixing them one, the drawing up or development of a project, and two, 
 things that should be carried out within the project. 
 
 Edward Strable (J. Walter Thompson and Company): On the basis of 
 the reports of the group discussion leaders, I think we probably would agree that 
 there seems to be a tremendous amount of unanimity. At the present time we 
 seem to be writing a job description, and it is not clear just where we are going at 
 this point. Is it our purpose here to develop a broad program which will be 
 passed along some way or other to many of the groups out there? Or are we in 
 the process of working out the details of some of the main points that have been 
 made? Are we supposed to have a consensus about the five points that we feel 
 are most important, possibly with priorities given to one as most important 
 followed by a second, by a third, etc.? 
 
 Herbert Goldhor (University of Illinois Graduate School of Library 
 Science): Clearly from what has been said the implication is that it is the broad 
 program we want. As one of the people who called this conference I can assure 
 you that we do not tell anybody what to do. It is not for us to tell the State 
 Library that it has to appoint a coordinator or to tell the I LA it has to appoint 
 an ad hoc committee. However, we will certify all of these recommendations to 
 all concerned parties. It occurs to me that there is no point in certifying to the 
 
92 
 
 State Library only the recommendations that you suggest be implemented by 
 the State Library. We will certify all the recommendations to the State Library 
 and all of the recommendations to ILA, and hope that one or both of them will 
 do something. I would agree with the implication that it is much more important 
 for us to agree on a five-point program of what we think would be desirable to 
 be done. It is not for us to decide who is going to do each thing and exactly 
 when or how, unless we want to make some such recommendations. 
 
 Robert McClarren (North Suburban Library System): I would like to 
 ask the five groups what attention they gave to the problem of definition of 
 interlibrary cooperation. I did not detect it in any of the reports. 
 
 Miss McDonald: Group one did not go into this. The assumption was that 
 it is any technique for working together among or between different kinds of 
 libraries. 
 
 Mr. Bryan: It was our thought that it was fairly well defined by the 
 speakers and that we did not further need to pick it up here in our discussion 
 groups. 
 
 Mr. McClarren: I think we will be just as far along the route of coopera- 
 tion ten years from now as we are right now, because if you look analytically at 
 the premises that the various speakers used in their speeches you will see that 
 there are three or four different interpretations of what interlibrary cooperation 
 is. On the other hand we had one approach which viewed it really as an 
 administrative problem. It was intralibrary cooperation and I refer specifically 
 here to the presentation on Hawaii. Hawaii is an integrated administrative unit 
 and the examples of the work being done there really represented internal 
 problems. This was called interlibrary cooperation, but I would call it intra- 
 library cooperation. In our discussion group there was some indication that 
 cooperation means that the smaller library gets the generosity of the larger, that 
 the larger library cooperates with it by giving something. Although we some- 
 times permissively call this "sharing" library resources, in essence it is giving. 
 There is a broader definition to which I would subscribe in which interlibrary 
 cooperation is concentrated action for a common purpose without unduly or 
 perceptibly interfering with the priorities of any one of the cooperating agencies. 
 As it is for the common good, let us put the common good on a quid pro quo 
 basis, but before we proceed with any planning we need to have some under- 
 standing, some agreement of what we mean by interlibrary cooperation; other- 
 wise we assume the same goal but we find among the different presumably 
 cooperating units that there is a considerable divergence or to what the goals are. 
 
 Mr. Grable: Group five spent about the first hour and fifteen minutes of 
 our discussion trying to agree on what we meant by interlibrary cooperation. We 
 decided to completely ignore the library aspect of interlibrary cooperation and 
 to concentrate on its user aspects. I believe that our definition was: to provide 
 complete intellectual and physical access to the library resources of the state for 
 every user in regard to his work-related, recreation-related, and education-related 
 needs. 
 
 Orin Nolting (International City Managers Association and Special Con- 
 sultant to American Library Association): Since this meeting was called by the 
 University of Illinois and not by an organization such as ILA, the University's 
 
93 
 
 Library School staff has some responsibility, I think, of putting together the 
 consensus of this meeting as reported by these five papers and by this discussion. 
 After this I suppose the next step would be to go to ILA and the State Library, 
 or maybe ILA first, and indicate to them that the consensus here is that 
 somebody should pick up the ball at this point. The Library Development 
 Committee is an ILA committee, and even though there is no Deputy State 
 Librarian and the Library is short of staff, this is no reason for any delay. Dr. 
 Goldhor can tell us what he plans to do after he puts together the whole story of 
 what was said and done here. 
 
 Mr. Goldhor: As I indicated in response to Mr. Strable, we plan to send a 
 summary of this last discussion period (rather than waiting a year for the pro- 
 ceedings to come out) to all of the appropriate agencies and certainly to any of 
 those named in the recommendations with an invitation to do what they think 
 they can to proceed. It seems to me that there are at least two main points that 
 were mentioned sufficiently often that I take it the groups would all agree on. 
 One is that there be some sort of a plan to involve potentially all types of 
 libraries and all types of functions in a master organization. Just who would do 
 it, how long it would take, and other specifics need to be spelled out. The 
 availability of Title III funds makes it possible that it can be done. The second 
 idea was that of coordinator to collect information on projects that are going 
 now and to disseminate that inforamation to other libraries in the state, to 
 encourage more such projects, to lead discussion groups or meetings on a local 
 basis to get projects started that might contribute in the long run toward the 
 state plan that will also be going forward possibly simultaneously. Is there any 
 third point that was mentioned sufficiently often to represent the general con- 
 sensus? 
 
 Father Lang: I do not know if this would be a subsumed point or not, but 
 most of the people I talked to during the conference felt that the single most 
 specific, good new idea that perhaps has not been sufficiently bandied about in 
 library circles is the fact that, as we deal with our public, we should think of the 
 library and its functions in terms of the user rather than by type of library. 
 Basically that would seem to be the primary objective of this conference, that 
 we are trying to break down the lines between types of libraries and that the 
 user-oriented approach was the single great idea that might in a sense revolu- 
 tionize the entire approach to our services. 
 
 Mr. McClarren: In the group three discussions there was a suggestion 
 which may be implicit in what has already been said about local activities: that 
 perhaps some readily-identified and high-priority pilot projects might be funded 
 and incorporated into this activity. 
 
 Kathryn Gesterfield (Champaign Public Library, and chairman of ISL Title 
 III Advisory Council): It seems to me that this discussion has particular impor- 
 tance to the Title III LSCA subcommittee. In one of the first meetings we had 
 we talked about the same sort of coordinator as has been suggested here but we 
 never came to a conclusion. We also suggested a study of cooperation that 
 already exists and the reasons why other cooperative ventures do not exist in 
 Illinois; perhaps Mr. Wright has done this sufficiently for us now. We did not 
 draw up guidelines but we did toss around the idea of possibly having some Title 
 
94 
 
 III studies. I do think that a great many things are coming out of this discussion 
 and the papers we heard here, and that the Title III subcommittee would now 
 consider a study very carefully and make grants and some recommendations. I 
 do not say that we should be the ad hoc committee that would suggest a 
 coordinator but I do think that all of the new ideas that have come from this 
 group need to be considered very carefully by this subcommittee. 
 
 Mrs. Howe: It does seem to me that what we have heard is that we do not 
 want another organization started and that we should utilize the organizations 
 that we already have. It has been suggested that the systems directors have been 
 leaning over backward to demonstrate a true spirit of cooperation among 
 libraries and in the light of what the users want. In our group, and now I am 
 speaking for our group, we thought to use these systems as they are already 
 organized, right down to calling meetings. Even if they could get only two or 
 three people together at first, by adding gradually to the number they could get 
 interlibrary cooperation off the ground. 
 
 Mr. Goldhor: It seems to me that if we are going to have cooperation 
 between libraries of the same type, let alone between different types at the local 
 level, we need to have some sort of structure, some sort of mechanism, some 
 way of doing it instead of by a chance occasion when they happen to get 
 together. I was pondering how this could be built in and whether money could 
 be offered. It can not be legislated, you can make people get together in the 
 same room but you can not make them cooperate. A possible solution may be to 
 have the regional public library directors charged with the responsibility for 
 bringing together the librarians of academic, special, school, and member and 
 non-member public libraries alike, because this sort of cooperation can go for- 
 ward independently of what goes on within the regional system. They might be 
 able at least to make a beginning. In this connection too, I would like to tell you 
 of an experiment we hope to start in the Lincoln Trails Regional System. The 
 State Library gave the Library School its Title III allotment last year for "plan- 
 ning services" which we agreed could cover almost anything. One of the things it 
 covers is this conference; we are paying for it out of the Title III allotment. A 
 second thing we are going to do with it is to offer the Lincoln Trails Regional 
 Library $10,000 to hire a librarian for a year and pay his travel expenses and 
 salary to serve as a coordinator of relations with all other types of libraries in 
 eight, typically rural counties. This sort of thing has been done in urban areas 
 such as New York, specifically to promote relations between schools and public 
 libraries; but this proposed project would be not only for schools but academic 
 and special as well as public libraries. As far as we are concerned we do not care 
 if this person gets the academic and special libraries working together, not even 
 involving the public library. The only thing we are asking for our $10,000 is 
 some hard data. We want some figures. We want the librarian to keep some 
 records for us as to what the situation was before the project began and what 
 happened as a result. It is only a one-year effort; if it works astonishingly well, 
 maybe the System can support it or they can apply for a grant to continue it. 
 
 Mr. McClarren: There needs to be an immediate examination of the legal 
 authority for systems to perform activities of this kind which are beyond the 
 plans of service of the individual systems and the authority behind the plans of 
 
95 
 
 service of the individual systems which have the force of law, that is the rules 
 and regulations of the state. I know in our particular case there are some 
 activities which are wholly within public library administrative sphere of respon- 
 sibilities, for which the North Suburban Library System has been censored by 
 the State Library because these activities were not in its specific plan of service, 
 even though the service was something which I consider an administrative 
 responsibility in discharging our obligation to our member libraries. Even though 
 it was very clearly in the public library area, it became a matter of determination 
 as to whether the responsibility rested at the state level or at the local level. Now 
 here we are outside the public library domain specifically, and in order to 
 protect the systems and to authorize them to proceed there needs to be concern 
 given and hopefully some assurance that this is at least mandated in the sense 
 that there is authority in law. 
 
 George Curtis (River Bend Library System): I want to second that point, 
 because mainly the things we are doing with other types of libraries is to simply 
 get the strength that is available in these other libraries; we had to do it, it took 
 no genius to figure it out. It was suggested to us not to ask questions or get legal 
 advice as to whether we could or not, which we proceeded not to do. We simply 
 are doing it. I suppose there are certain dangers in it, but we will worry about that 
 when the time comes. I do think there ought to be some kind of a broadening of 
 the legal permissiveness of the program to be undertaken by the system. 
 
 Miss McDonald: The third recommendation of group one was that the 
 State Library assume some new responsibilities, that the State Library Advisory 
 Committee should recommend expansion of the present State Library orienta- 
 tion from the public library to include other sectors of the library community. If 
 necessary, the Advisory Committee should recommend statutory changes to 
 make this possible. 
 
 Mr. Goldhor: I thought the thrust of that was to expand the State 
 Library's scope. 
 
 Miss McDonald: Yes, but this would be necessary because the systems are 
 children of the State Library. 
 
 Seymour Schneider (Northeastern Illinois State College): Speaking for an 
 academic area I think that we ought to find out what we are able to get ourselves 
 involved in, because in some cases we are not able to do things. I do not know 
 about the other schools but we have certain limitations we must observe. 
 
 Mrs. Howe: I can not see how there is going to be any legal restriction on 
 whether you meet with these people and simply talk. I do not think I empha- 
 sized enough that the administrator should be there, e.g., your superintendent of 
 schools, because there is going to be some decision making and maybe he knows 
 some of the answers that we do not know. 
 
 Mr. Goldhor: Yes, as I understand it, the idea is that the directors of the 
 regional public library systems should have the responsibility for calling these 
 people together, but it is not for them then to tell Northeastern Illinois State 
 College that it has to open its collections to any high school student. 
 
 Mr. Schneider: I am thinking of financial considerations. But certainly we 
 can meet and talk, there is no objection to that. 
 
96 
 
 Marie E. Woodruff (Jacksonville State Hospital): I would like to take one 
 exception with you; you said that cooperation can not be legislated. I think that 
 the spirit of cooperation cannot be legislated but legislation can be passed that 
 prevents cooperation, thus the school systems are prevented legally from sharing 
 their resources, such as a film collection. 
 
 Father Lang: Along this same line, in answer to Mr. McClarren, the 
 problem of getting all to work together is a big one. There might have to be a 
 special relationship for private colleges, if they were to come into a system of 
 this sort. I would think that the majority of private colleges, unless they are 
 extremely young, would have sufficient materials of their own that are different 
 which would enhance the collections of Illinois libraries, so that those who 
 would be needing to do research in certain areas would benefit by the fact that 
 the private library is also in the system. But if you are going to fix a very specific 
 quid pro quo, it might be that the small college library would receive more than 
 it would give. We have loaned books in English for instance to St. Louis Univer- 
 sity graduates because the St. Louis University Library does not have them. We 
 have special collections in three or four fields which I know do not exist else- 
 where in the state of Illinois, so that colleges as old as we are would have much 
 to contribute. If there would be any legal barriers, they could easily be broken 
 down because our administartion would certainly see that we have things to give 
 to the other people and that we would certainly be receiving help from the 
 systematized library service that would be given. 
 
 Alice E. McKinley (DuPage Library System): I think it has been implicit 
 in what several people have said about this need for the systems to take some 
 leadership and about the need for legislation for that, but I would like to 
 reemphasize also the need for proper funding of any kind of action which would 
 need to be taken because I am sure that the system budgets for the most part are 
 stretched as far as they can go. 
 
 Mr. Goldhor: I do not think there is any implication that the system 
 would necessarily pay for any of these things. It is just that the system director 
 is the one logical person who would have general responsibility for this sort of 
 thing. 
 
 Miss McKinley: He is limited as far as staff is concerned. It takes time and 
 staff to do this, and it is a matter of paying for cooperation in that sense. There 
 must be consideration, as in New York State, not only to the system but also 
 funding from the college library's point of view; this is a very large funding 
 program. 
 
 Robert Carter (Lincoln Trails Regional Library): I think there is no 
 question that the broad purposes of the present public library system program, 
 as stated in the law, include working toward the improvement of library service 
 for all types of users, quite ignoring the organizational setup. There is the 
 additional fact that the systems are the only existent regional type of library 
 organizations we have in the state now to work with. These two things might be 
 the justification for the systems taking any lead at all. I hope no one will get the 
 feeling that we do not recognize the importance and interest and needs of 
 academic and school librarians. On my own part I feel some hesitation at the 
 thought that I should take any particular responsibility over and above these 
 
97 
 
 other people; I think we have to be careful not to arouse feelings of jealousy or 
 sensitivity on the part of people from these other types of libraries. The legalistic 
 kind of problem, about plans of service of library systems, really is just a 
 symptom of the kind of basic problem we have in the present pattern of admin- 
 istration of the public library systems in Illinois. Hopefully this will eventaully 
 pass away, and I do not think it is a barrier that we cannot get around, if we 
 concentrate first of all on this broad responsibility of the systems provided in 
 the law to work toward improvement of all types of library service and for all 
 types of users. Within my own area, there has already been a kind of grass roots 
 suggestion that the librarians themselves (including all types of libraries in the 
 area) form an organization, and I am sure we will try to do it. 
 
 Carolyn Crawford (Hawaii State Department of Education): I would like 
 to add a postscript to my paper. In reference to Mr. McClarren's comment about 
 "intra" departmental cooperation rather than "inter." We were speaking of 
 school and public library cooperation, but in Hawaii we have many libraries 
 within the cooperative system which are not under the jurisdiction of the state 
 librarian. We are at the point now where we are evaluating our ideas after four or 
 five years, and we have discovered that it is our special libraries that are feeling 
 the pinch this is something you may want to think about. They work with a 
 very special group of patrons, and in many cases they have only materials of 
 certain kinds in the Islands. It makes a very heavy load for them, since often 
 they do not have as much staff as the public libraries in proportion to the load. 
 
 Let me give you some advice based on our experience: 1) do not make 
 plans which are too grandiose, and think of them step by step; 2) accentuate the 
 positive in any communications that may go out, because the negative gets 
 plenty of publicity anyway; and 3), when you start, try to find a common goal. 
 We have been talking about this in the conference, and to me it is the key point. 
 
 Mr. Goldhor: Let's go back to the group one's recommendation about 
 the expansion of the interest of the State Library to other types of libraries. I 
 see no barrier with regard to academic and special libraries, but I do not see how 
 we can ask the legislature to say that the State Library should have an interest in 
 school libraries when the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is 
 specifically charged with responsibility for school libraries. Did the group con- 
 sider that? 
 
 Miss McDonald: We did talk about it, yes. I think we should note that in 
 our present enabling act it says that the State Library is responsible for con- 
 sultant service to the schools. There is another law that puts this also in the 
 Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Because of the two laws we 
 have been phasing out our service to the schools on the assumption that since 
 the implementation of Title II (ESEA) is vested in Mr. Page's office, it is better 
 for the entire function to be there. We can probably take the responsibility for 
 school libraries out of our enabling act, but still word the enabling act so that we 
 can work with the office of another elected official. I do not think that that 
 should be too much of a barrier. I think that probably we would want to have 
 the State Library enabling act changed, and this was part of our group's recom- 
 mendation. Not that that State Library has not always been interested we have 
 always tried to keep up with what is going on in all these fields, but obviously 
 we have had to concentrate on the public library. 
 
98 
 
 Mr. Goldhor: One of your recommendations was for a study of who uses 
 the State Library. I do not understand the reason for that. 
 
 Miss McDonald: I was trying to interpret some of our lending policies as a 
 side aspect of our discussion, and some of the people in the group felt that this 
 matter of unserved areas has implications for interlibrary cooperation. Since the 
 system directors are turning their attention to this, someone suggested that it 
 might be useful for the system directors to know about these people from 
 unserved areas, what proportion of our work goes to serving unserved areas. 
 Probably the better we do our job in lending books to people who live in rural 
 areas, the less likely they are to be willing to tax themselves to provide their own 
 service locally and consequently go into a system. 
 
 Mr. Bryan: There is another point here that has just occured to me. Now 
 that the constitutional convention has been approved, I think we need to keep in 
 mind that the State Library exists only by law: there is no mention of it in the 
 present constitution. In view of the confusion resulting from the fact that there 
 is a responsibility for school library service in the Office of the Superintendent 
 of Public Instruction, and also by the law in the State Library, I think it 
 behooves us, if there is a new constitution to be written, to try and cover this 
 point. 
 
 Miss McDonald: The recommendation of the COSGI commission report 
 on state government in Illinois that the Superintendent of Public Instruction 
 should be an appointed official and that various functions including the State 
 Library and the State historical library should be transferred to his Office has 
 met with very mixed emotions. 
 
 Mr. Stoffel: One of the reasons for the mixed reactions to the proposal is 
 that the Commission wanted to carry out the transferal of functions before the 
 position of Superintendent of Public Instruction was made appointive. 
 
 Miss McDonald: The COSGI commission did not make this recommenda- 
 tion; a law was introduced in the past session to carry this out without making it 
 an appointed office. 
 
 Mr. Goldhor: I suggest that after we get interlibrary cooperation estab- 
 lished throughout Illinois we then tackle the question of the proper place of the 
 State Library in Illinois state government. 
 
 I would like to go on with a brief report on the rest of the Title III money 
 we are spending. I have mentioned two projects so far: the grant to the Lincoln 
 Trails Regional Library and this conference. There are two other projects. One is 
 a bibliography that Mr. Rike (from the Library Research Center) is preparing, on 
 recorded experience all through the country with regard to cooperation between 
 libraries of different types within the last twenty-five years. It is a very difficult 
 matter to locate these reports since not many instances are written up in the 
 literature or indexed. But we are getting some and perhaps we will put out a 
 preliminary edition to get other people to write us of projects we have missed. 
 Then we will put out supplements or a revised edition. This is the sort of thing 
 that needs be done only once for the country, since there is no point in anyone 
 else doing the same thing for the period of time we cover. It would be exhaus- 
 tively indexed by type of library and by type of function that is involved in the 
 cooperative process. We will just report what we find; if any two libraries of 
 
99 
 
 different types want to consider going together and sharing reference services for 
 example, they can identify who has tried it before and by reading the reports 
 find out whether it worked well or not and what the problems were. 
 
 The fourth project is a study in Decatur of library resources in four types 
 of libraries. They have some good special libraries, particularly the one at the 
 Staley Manufacturing Company. Then there is the Millikan University Library 
 and the Decatur Public Library and the high school libraries. We will study their 
 collections on a sampling basis, reference books probably, and periodicals and 
 maybe notable books and so on, to see to what extent these different libraries 
 have duplicated each other. Duplication is not bad necessarily, but if everybody 
 is binding Life and nobody is binding Look it may be a result of each library 
 going its separate way. We then plan to present to the librarians there a couple of 
 propositions. For example, one is that we will pay each library a set fee, maybe 
 $.50 or a $1.00 for each book loaned to the patrons of any other local library, 
 for six months or a year, on condition that they keep records for us. Our hope 
 would be that at the end of the year we would be able to show that they are 
 lending no more books to the patrons of other libraries than their own patrons 
 are getting from these other libraries. If we are wrong, if the Staley Man- 
 ufacturing Company library is lending many books to the college and nobody 
 from Staley ever borrows anything from the college library, then that is going to 
 tell them what to do, and probably they will do it. This would all be written up 
 in time good, bad, or indifferent, and reported so that others might know what 
 was found. 
 
 Father Lang: I was wondering why there was no specific mention of 
 automation in relation to cooperation. Does this seem to be something so far in 
 the future that there is no sense in considering it at this time; is it just that 
 difficult to see how information can be gotten back and forth to different 
 people as a phase of cooperation? 
 
 Mr. Andrews: I feel on that score that there might possibly have been a 
 separate paper on automation but there is hardly a topic that was brought up for 
 discussion here in which automation might not play a specific part however, 
 there is a lot of money involved in writing programs and getting them to operate. 
 At the present time cooperation in sharing programs is excessively difficult 
 because even though a program is written for an IBM 360 model 30, in many 
 cases it can not be run on another computer of the same type because of 
 different peripheral equipment that is available; one system may be set up for 
 tape drives and somebody else might have discs. 
 
 Mr. Goldhor: The State Board of Higher Education is specifically looking 
 into this with regard to the university libraries. A special committee on libraries 
 has now been announced. Mr. Nolting, I wonder if you have any over-all view? 
 Do you see any progress? 
 
 Mr. Nolting: I certainly do. Some of the material presented here has been 
 a surprise to me and to all of us, such as the project you are undertaking in the 
 study of resources in Decatur. I think these are all areas we need to study, and to 
 learn from what other people are doing what we can apply to Illinois. I hope 
 that Illinois will in less than three years come up with a state plan which can be 
 submitted to the legislature as needed, but in many cases legislation will not be 
 
100 
 
 needed if you have authority to contract informally or on a written basis 
 between libraries, as municipalities already do in Illinois, very extensively in the 
 Chicago area. There is one thing mentioned by group one which is very impor- 
 tant, and that is starting at the top. If you do not get cooperation from the 
 mayor and the council and city manager, you do not get much cooperation 
 between departments and agencies of the city government. It has to be struc- 
 tured to some extent, it has to have perhaps an ordinance, a contract or rules 
 and regulations, and these have to come from the top. It has then to be carried 
 out by the department heads and their staffs. We do not get anything done 
 unless we start at the top to get it going, and then push and check-up and get 
 feedback. And when you get on a state-wide basis in developing a state plan of 
 cooperation between different types of libraries, this is of course a difficult 
 thing; but once you get people together as you have here and you do not find 
 any opposition ; you may find difficulties but these can be overcome . You try to 
 do what you can, not to start on too broad a basis, not to do too many things at 
 once, as has been suggested, and perhaps to take the easiest first; if you get any 
 one thing done, it usually leads to a lot of other things. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA