ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


150

From Inside the DLP
By Dr. Katharine M. Stokes

College and University Library Specialist, 
Training and Resources Branch, Division of Li­
brary Programs, Bureau of Libraries and Edu­
cational Technology, U.S. Office of Education, 
Washington, D.C. 20202.

With far less staff assistance than last year, 
we are working (as this is being written in 
mid-April) on the Fiscal Year 1972 College 
Library Resources Program (Title II-A of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965). It is evident, 
as a result of last year’s program redirection 
which concentrated Title II-A grant funds on 
neediest institutions to the exclusion of others, 
that many colleges and universities have 
chosen not to submit an application this year. 
While a final tally has not yet been determined, 
a preliminary review indicates that approxi­
mately 1,500 Basic/Supplemental applications 
have been received, as opposed to 2,165 in 
fiscal year 1971.

In the special purpose grant categories, 350 
Type A applications have been received as op­
posed to 500 in 1971; 44 Type B applications 
as opposed to 50 in 1971; and 40 Type C ap­

plications as opposed to 60 in 1971. The re­
duced number of applications in these grant 
categories can also be attributed to the tighten­
ing of the criteria to concentrate on special 
needs.

The emphasis on graduate enrollment from 
minority groups that was added to the cri­
teria for Special Purpose Types A and B ap­
plications this year was apparently overlooked 
by the grants writers in many undergraduate 
institutions. They repeated the figures for un­
dergraduate enrollment from minority groups 
in Part III, Item D when they filled out Part IV 
where the “Number of Minority Group Grad­
uate Students Enrolled” was requested.

In the applications for supplemental grants 
there seemed to be a lot of confusion about 
Item 3, Part III which asked:

In Fiscal Years 1971-72 (July 1, 1970-
June 30, 1972) did the applicant partici­
pate in the Special Services for Disad­
vantaged Students Program ( Title IV, 
Section 408, as amended by Title I, Part 
A, Section 105 of the Higher Education 
Amendments of 1968 (P.L. 90-575)?

We had included that question in 1971 be­
cause we wanted some check on the number 
of disadvantaged students reported and we 
could estimate the number being assisted in 
the institutions by the size of its Special Ser­
vices grant. We discovered in our checking 
last year that both the Talent Search and Up­
ward Bound Programs came under Title IV, 
so we used the grants list for those two pro­
grams as well as the one for Special Services 
in our scoring. In many cases we went to the 
agencies administering the grants (fortunately 
they are on the floor below our offices) to check 
both the Title III (Developing Institutions) 
and Title IV answers that did not match our 
lists, but almost always our lists were correct. 
The inclusion of questions as to participation 
in Titles HI and IV of the Higher Education 
Acts relates to the necessity to determine the 
extent of critical needs for a given institution, 
and also to encourage the coordination of Title 
II-A grant funds with those programs.

By the time you read this, grant awards for 
Title II-A probably will have been announced. 
If your institution was not among the grant 
recipients for 1972, we hope that, despite the 
obvious disappointment, you will appreciate 
the educational and economic necessity of con­
centrating the limited funds available on in­
stitutions in greater need than your own, rather 
than the “spreading thin” of grant funds to the 
point where little or no impact would prevail.

■ ■