ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


278

local statistical data, and for promotion and 
augmentation of other types of library ser­
vice. This responsibility is shared with other 
local libraries and needs to be coordinated 
with them. Charges for extensive community 
services may sometimes be appropriate when 
these demands impinge on institutional needs.
9. The center functions as an archive for his­

torical information and documents concern­
ing the college itself.
An effort should be made to locate, or­

ganize, and house institutional archives to the 
extent defined b y the alministration.

IX. C o o p e r a t i v e  A c t iv it ie s
1. Cooperative arrangements for sharing of re­

sources are developed with other institu­
tions in the community and region.
In order to provide the best possible ser­

vice to the students and faculty in the two- 
year college, close relationships with other 
local institutions and with institutions of higher

education in the area are essential. Through 
consortia, media cooperatives, and loan ar­
rangements institutions can share resources. 
When there are large libraries or resource cen­
ters nearby to which the two-year college stu­
dent may go for materials, the college may 
need to make arrangements, including financial 
subsidy when appropriate, so that an undue 
burden is not placed on the neighboring in­
stitution. By cooperative planning much ex­
pense and wasteful duplication can he avoided 
in the community and region.
2. The institution is willing to consider partici­

pation in cooperative projects, such as shared 
cataloging, computer use, and other ser­
vices which may he mutually beneficial to 
all participants.
Center personnel and institutional adminis­

trators need to be alert to cooperative activities 
of all kinds and to be willing to explore the 
possibilities of participation for their own in­
stitution. ■ ■

From Inside the DLP
By D r . K a t h a r in e  M. Sto k e s

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

As you can probably guess, a barrage of let­
ters is coming to Congressmen, Senators, O.E. 
Commissioner Marland, and even to HEW 
Secretary Richardson about the inability of 
many libraries to receive college library re­
sources grants this year under Title II-A of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965. It was a sur­
prise to us to receive 2,165 applications for 
basic and supplemental grants because we 
thought it was pretty plain in the instructions 
attached to the applications that only those 
institutions with very small library collections 
and very large numbers of disadvantaged stu­
dents could score high enough to compete suc­
cessfully for grants from such a limited ap­
propriation as $9,900,000. W e had anticipated 
that an eighteen-point score might be the cut­
off level for funding, but the money was all 
used at the twenty-one-point level.

More letters are coming in from presidents 
than from librarians, so we know that- most of 
you did read the Title II-A Instructions and 
understood what might happen. Evidently 
your presidents were surprised, however, and 
are feeling that a basic grant is a statutory 
mandate. The cut in the basic grant from

$5,000 to $2,500 in 1970 seemed to go un­
noticed, probably because the small supple­
mental amounts brought some of the totals 
close to $5,000.

In order to give those small 1970 grants to 
2,201 institutions, special purpose grants were 
eliminated. Consequently, there were no spe­
cial projects to enable us to support special 
needs and on which to make interesting re­
ports to Congress and the Administration. Ba­
sic and supplemental grants have always more 
or less gone into your regular budgets and 
that doesn’t make very glamorous reading to 
compete for scarce federal money. The amounts 
that went to 231 community colleges and sixty- 
four technical institutes among the 532 re­
cipients of basics and supplem ental this year 
will really make a difference in their library 
resources which are generally very inadequate. 
It’s in these institutions that most economically 
disadvantaged students enroll, and perhaps 
their libraries will now get a boost toward 
something approaching the good libraries in 
four-year colleges, many of which have been 
built up since 1966 with annual Title II-A 
awards to supplement their regular budgets 
and keep their administrators striving to meet 
the maintenance of effort requirement for a 
grant. It should also be noted that, for the 
first time since the inception of Title II-A, the 
Office of Education has been able to provide a 
larger than usual measure of support to a great 
many struggling and needy black institutions.

■ ■