College and Research Libraries NORMAN E. TANIS and MILTON POWERS Profiles of Practice in the Public Junior College Library In an effort to delineate an experimental set of quantitative standards for evaluating funior college library service, the authors ranged man- agement data from eighty-six selected funior college libraries on a graded percentile chart. They then plotted the experience of seven «benchmark" institutions on the chart in order to portray their char- acteristics graphically and comparably. It is their intention to con- tinue developing data on these seven institutions in hope of generating quantitative norms that can be used for evaluative purposes. IT IS DIFFICULT to formulate specific qualitative criteria by which the ade- quacy of a public junior college library can be measured. Not quite as difficult, however, is the measuring of quantita- tive supportive characteristics which form the necessary basis for quality serv- ice. It is possible for example, to com- pare the management data of different libraries with each other, provided the institutions they serve are similar. What is more, it is possible to portray this sup- portive data graphically so that a given library can see how it compares with certain benchmarks or how it compares with other libraries serving similar in- stitutions. Henry Ford Community College want- ed to make a comparison of its sup-por- tive library characteristics with the char- acteristics of other libraries serving sim- ilar colleges. The study that emerged ranges management data taken from Li- brary Statistics of Colleges and Univer- sities, 1963-64 in percentile rank, sug- gests benchmarks which change with the years; and demonstrates a technique Mr. Tanis is Di1·ector of the Library at Kansas State College, Pittsburg, and Mr. Powers is Head of Institutional Research at Henry Ford Community College, Dearborn, Michigan . whereby libraries can graphically com- pare each other's supportive characteris- tics such as number of volumes, number of periodicals, number of professional personnel, expenditures per FTE stu- dent, and number of square feet of as- signable space in the library. 1 This study finally emerges with the profiles of practice in six libraries. The data of these libraries becomes, in effect, six hypotheses illustrating what the sup- portive characteristics of a public junior college library ought to be. The following criteria were used to select the junior colleges to be studied from all the libraries in Library Statis- tics: 1. Only public institutions were chosen. 2. Only two-year institutions were cho- sen. 3. Only institutions which had been es- tablished for at least seven years or more were included. 4. Only institutions with 1,000 full-time ( FTE ) students or more were select- ed. 5. Only accredited institutions were in- cluded. 1 U.S. Office of Education. Library Statistics of Colleges and Universities, 1963-64. Institutional Data. Washington: 1965. Student and faculty data supple- mented by American Association of Junior Colleges, Junior College Directory, 1965. Washington: 1965. I 331 TABLE 1 I F.T.E. I Vols. P er. F.T.E. Non- Per- F.T.E. F.T.E. Total Vols. With- b eing Hrs. of Prof. Prof. Total centile Students F aculty Vols. Added drawn r ec'd Stud. Asst. Pers. Pers. Expenditure Salaries Wages 99 9,219 335 71,109 8,167 1,880 736 100,000 8.0 9.5 $202,267 $101,361 $18,000 90 6,668 279 I 42,294 5,036 830 465 6,552 5.0 6.9 104,241 71,426 7,213 80 4,696 226 I 33,976 4,537 621 382 4,376 4.0 4.5 99,211 54,846 5,663 75 4,535 210 I 32,285 4,132 576 372 4,197 4.0 4.3 86,097 46,488 5,120 75th PERCENTILE =iH 4,133 193 27,800 3,925 I 465 350 3,800 3.5 Wo= 70,809 40,672 4,501 3,031 145 25,306 3,208 350 315 3,316 3.0 61 ,325 37,565 3,600 2,393 125 22,500 2,437 I 250 287 2,668 3.0 55,200 34,819 3,262 MEDIAN 40 2,098 106 20,736 2,120 160 258 2,156 I 2.5 ~ 46,998 I 30,142 2,520 30 1,891 96 17,000 1,879 111 230 1,596 I 2.0 41,307 I 24,010 1,892 25 1,772 90 15,946 1,800 100 215 1,450 2.0 2.0 37,825 I 20,600 1,581 20 1,717 ' 85 15,084 1,679 75 200 1,240 2.0 1.5 33,050 I 18,200 1,400 10 1,441 66 13,038 1,355 40 164 600 1.0 1.0 24,229 I 13,255 700 1 1,092 51 I 8,877 600 1 45 196 1.0 1.0 16,423 I 7,647 225 TABLE 2 Other I I I Exp. Per Per- Books and Exp. Library Total Stack Seating Staff Other F.T.E. E xp. P er Exp. centile Materials Binding E xc. C.O. Hours/ wk. Area Area Area Area Areas Stu. F.T.E. Fac. Index 99 $61,472 $3,500 $14,800 78 80,000 23,762 I 30,000 10,000 I 2o,ooo 1 $124 $1 ,322 9.1 90 36,300 2,290 7,587 68 32,750 16,236 I 14,750 5,474 I 8,415 1 45 904 5.3 80 24,225 1,323 1 5,299 68 21 ,900 5,166 I 9,856 2,720 I 5,356 1 28 729 '4:5 75 22,472 1,231 1 4,678 66 20,400 4,800 9,000 2,320 I 5,119 \ 26 703 4.2 75thPERCENTILE------------------------------------------ 70 21,224 1,144 I 4,135 Hi=6 l 1s,s5o 4,5oo 1 s,219 2,25o 4,61o I 24 652 4.1 60 17,970 --'1,'-::-01-,--:2-l--2-=-,90_ 0 1 65 1 1 _1___:_5.:....:,,5....,...oo __ 1 __ 4~,o_oo_~l-_7!...,-,o-..,.oo_l-_1,:....,6_88_1_..,...:2,~56-=-=3,--111 __ 2-=--=2=_+--=5;"798~1 3.9 so 14,453 - s13 1,941 64 13,084 2,5oo .1. 6,35o 1,413 2,3oo 1. 19 549 ~ MEDIAN 40 12,688 575 1,514 62 11,000 2,165 I 4,800 1,200 I 1,840 18 481 3.4 30 11,500 464 1,008 59 8,944 1,728 I 3,280 816 1 1,444 16 465 3.0 25 10,000 354 903 58 6,912 1,555 I 2,888 679 ~ 15 446 2.8 20 9,300 293 790 57 5,300 1,398 I 2,610 528 0 14 417 2.6 10 6,350 225 500 52 3,409 960 I 1,840 304 I 500 12 235 2.3 1 4,823 100 255 40 1,900 237 900 149 100 5 12 1.6 •----------------------------------------------------- ----- Profiles of Practice in the Public Junior College Library I 333 6. Only institutions listed in Colleges and Universities, 1963-64 were used. The application of these criteria re- sulted in the selection of eighty-six in- stitutions from a total population of 281 public junior college libraries. All of the raw management data for the eighty-six libraries in this study were converted to percentile ranking. The management categories were ranged across the top of the chart. Percentile gradations were ranged along the left hand column. From this comprehensive chart, the final graphic presentation was derived. Each management data item which fell on the 1st, lOth, 20th, 25th, 30th and on through the 99th percentile was record- ed. The final result is portrayed in Tables 1 and 2. It is a simple matter to draw a line at the 50th percentile to obtain median benchmarks for institutions in this study. MEDIAN BENCHMARKS FOR 1963-64 Number of volumes at the end of year . N urn her of volumes added dur- ing the year Number of volumes withdrawn during year . N urn her of periodicals being received at end of year . Number of hours of student as- sistance . Number of professional person- nel (FTE) . Number of nonprofessional per- sonnel ( FTE ) . Total library expenditures (ex- cluding capital outlay) Salaries Wages Books and other library materi- als Binding Other expenditures Hours per week library was open 22,500 2,427 250 287 2,668 3.0 3.0 $55,200 $34,819 $ 3,262 $14,453 . $ 813 $ 1,941 64 Total square feet assigned to library Stack areas . Seating areas Staff and work areas Other areas . Expenditures for library per FTE Student Expenditures per FTE faculty 13,084 2,500 6,350 1,413 2,300 $ 19 member . $ 549 Expenditure ratio of total li- brary expenditures to total institutional expenditures (excluding capital outlay) Extrapolation revealed: 3.7 Books per FTE Student . 9.4 Books per FTE Faculty . 180 The authors propose that these median benchmarks, updated each year, could possibly form the minimum quantitative threshold standard for adequacy in pub- lic junior college libraries throughout the United States. Public junior college libraries falling below these benchmar~s, unless special circumstances in their lo- cal situation justify a temporary lower level of performance, would be in dan- ger of giving inadequate service to their students and faculty. As a result of this research, Henry Ford Community College library set as its goal the management data level of the 75th percentile and above. More broadly, it was felt that as a mature public junior college seeking to give good library service to its students and faculty, it would be well advised to use the threshold figures of the 75th per- centile or higher as its objective. SEVENTY-FIFTH PERCENTILE BENCHMARKS FOR 1963-64 . Number of volumes at th·e end of year . 32,285 Number of .volumes added dur- ing year . 4,132 Number of volumes withdrawn during year . 576 Number of . periodicals being received at end of year . 372 334 I College & Research Libraries • September, 1967 II I\ A I \ ~ lL_ I \ ll 1'. L.~ •. / __l_ _L ~ '· ~ ! 70 60 40 30 25 1----1- 20 t----1- 10 t----I- l . / \_ " ,, : ~~)( "' FOOTHILL COLLEGE----- HENRY FORD ------- MIAMI- DADE •• • • ••• •••• •••• • ••• PHOENIX COLLEGE-------- SAN ANTONIO~ COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO--- Mt. SAN ANTONIO-------- I I I I i . _j_ I I ~, _. , l !: ) I -. I I ' FIG. I-SELECTED MANAGEMENT DATA ON PuBLIC JuNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES NoTE : Median and 75th percentile ranking indications are for 86 libraries studied. Number of hours of student as- sistance . Number of professional person- nel (FTE) . Number of non-professional personnel ( FTE ) Total library expenditures (ex- cluding capital outlay) Salaries . Wages Books and other library materials Other expenditures Hours per week library was open 4,197 4.0 4.3 $86,087 $46,448 $ 5,120 $22,472 $ 4,678 66 Total square feet assigned to li- brary Stack areas . Seating areas Staff and work areas Other areas Expenditures for library per FTE student Expenditures per FTE faculty member. Expenditure ratio of total li- brary expenditures to total institutional expenditures (Excluding capital outlay) Extrapolation. revealed: 20,400 4,800 9,000 2,320 5,119 $ 26.00 $703.00 4.2 Profiles of Practice in the Public Junior College Library I 335 j(ArJJI.fiiftiii¥4fl ((, ~ .!J . ~~~ 'It 'It I') ~-..":' ~-.."~' 'It~ ~. ~~ ~ ~'It ~ ~'It ~ (c.·~.. (c.•.J.. ¢ t'~ ~ 0 ~~ 'It ~ f!J'q" ~ ~ ~~ ~~... () ll l{%;~,_ .. ,. ... l l 1 / ~i /I'"//~~ /"\ ~ • .. _ [// \_ f ~ _, \ ·'" l I \ vgg ' 1 f ' : ', a L - ' A. . ~Q. f"WW:\ ~~-~- rt:.' ~ 1/V I 'i P.\""-. ' /' ~\~ g kQ:7'.~ A.'l ' I \ ~/ ~ i I~ i ' ,., \ /\ '- ~-7, I ' ; 'V ~~: -v 80 i\ I l~ ' 6 &r ....._.. "' \J I I f. \AI \ ..• ; ~- J~l ~ l I .... 60 \ I .I/ ~-- .___ /' .... 1' i ~ rl ~ ·~\ . ' ~ ~ ~~· ._ ~ \: ~ ~y ' ,_,r:J \ 40 "rP ~ ~ ~ ·~ ..... \ 30 6-o p .. _./ ~ ' II : . '1 t) ~ 25 FOOTHILL COLLEGE ; .... HENRY FORD b6 : .... 20 MIAMI-DADE••••••••••••••••••• PHOENIX COLLEGE-------- 10 SAN ANTONIO -o-o-o-<>-o--o COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO--- I Mt. SAN ANTONIO-------- I I I I Fig. !-Selected Management Data (Cont. ) NoTE : Median and 75th percentile ranking indications are for 86 libraries studied. Books per FTE student . 7 Books per FTE faculty . 106 PROFILES OF PRACTICE Because the data of all the institu- tions in this study are ranged on a chart by percentile ranking, it is possible to take the data of any given public junior college library meeting these criteria and graphically portray its profile. This was done with the data of the Henry Ford Community College library, and it was found to indicate a remarkably accurate picture of the practices of the library. Strengths and weaknesses emerged with startling clarity. Lack of adequate cler- ical personnel, as well as temporary ·lack of stack and seating space in 1964, were all dramatically evident as the graph line for those items moved far below the 75th percentile line. The large num- ber of gifts from local industry was shown in the peak at «number of vol- umes added." This graph line, in com- parison to the 75th percentile threshold line, presents a significant and useful picture of the management data of the library as we know it. The authors selected six public junior colleges which had similar enrollments 336 I College & Research Libraries • September~ 1967 and curricula and whose management data, for the most part, fell within the top quartile, that is, above the 75th per- centile. In addition, these six libraries had a national reputation for quality li- brary service, among librarians and edu- cators. These libraries were: Foothill, San Antonio College, Phoenix College, Mount San Antonio College, Miami- Dade, and the College of San Mateo. These six libraries and Henry Ford's are portrayed in Figures 1 and 2. FUTURE STUDY NEEDED In future years, the librarians and ad- ministrators. at Henry Ford Community College intend to watch developments at these six libraries. In effect, these li- braries will become the library standards for H·enry Ford. A possible future task for the authors of this study will be to construct a de- tailed questionnaire for these six insti- tutions together with Henry Ford, in an attempt to understand them better. An evaluation will be sought as to how the management data are affected by: 1. institutional financing 2. patterns of control 3. curriculum 4. number of fields taught 5. number sections of each course taught 6. number of extension offerings off- campus 7. number of experimental programs 8. number of special institutes held on campus 9. number of institutional research projects in process 10. audio-visual holdings 11. amount of inter-library cooperation 12. educational backgrounds of the pro- fessional library personnel 13. number of Ph.D.s on the faculty 14. teaching methods 15. intellectual climate of the campus 16. socio-economic characteristics of the community served 17. educational preparation of incoming students 18. ratio of vocational-terminal to col- lege transfer student 19. honors students 20. record of achievement of graduates As a final step and only if financial support can be found , the authors may consider visiting these six junior college campuses to survey the libraries and to study each institution in its own setting. It is doubtful that the benchmarks or the profiles of practice as described in this article can be equated with quality library service. They would appear to indicate, however, a library climate in which quality library service becomes possible. The measurement of quality must await the second and third stages of the stp.dy. Meanwhile, if one refrains from making qualitative inferences from the benchmarks and profiles of practice herein outlined, he can use these instru- ments to find out if a library is on the threshold of having the collection, staff, budget, and other characteristics which are important supporting elements. • •