University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

California Public Libraries And The Cooperative Systems Concept: A Study with Recommendations

(USC Thesis Other)

California Public Libraries And The Cooperative Systems Concept: A Study with Recommendations

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CALIFORNIA PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND THE COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS CONCEPT: A STUDY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS by Howard Marshall Rowe A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Library Science) June 1970 70-26,531 ROWE, Howard Marshall, 1908- CALIFORNIA PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND THE COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS CONCEPT: A STUDY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1970 Library Science University Microfilms. A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 0 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by Howard Marshall Rowe under the direction of Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Gradu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y Dean D ate.. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE C /Or Chairman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful acknowledgment is due to Carma Leigh, California State Librarian, for her willingness to share with me her knowledge of the development of cooperative library systems in the State of California. Appreciation is also expressed to Dean Boaz for her patience with me during the writing of this dissertation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . 1 Importance of the Study Limitations of the Study Definition of Cooperative Library^ Systems Methodology Review of the Literature Development of the Hypotheses II. HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS OF THE Larger Units of Service The County Library System Preliminary Activities Leading to the Adoption of the Systems Concept The Evolving State Legislation and Administrative Regulations The Role of the State Library Current Developments III. ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL AND STATE SYSTEMS CONCEPT 31 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 61 Introduction Federal Financial Aid iii Chapter Page California Federally Financed Projects Associated with the Development of Cooperative Library Systems California State Financial Aid State Financed Cooperative Library Systems Projects Analysis of Systems Operating Costs and Supporting Subventions IV. LIBRARY SYSTEMS; ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS........... 95 Multijurisdictional Systems Single Unit Library Systems V. RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SYSTEMS ............. 113 Analysis of Inputs and Outputs of Library Systems VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......... 152 Conclusions Recommendations APPENDIX... A ..................................... 174 APPENDIX... B ........................ 179 APPENDIX C . . . ................................ 181 APPENDIX...D ..................................... 184 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY............................ 205 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Areas Without Local Public Library Service 1956-57, by County....................... 37 2. Trends in Population and Book Stocks, by Decades 1920-21 to 1960-61 ............... 38 3. Processing Center Members and Books Processed Fiscal Years, 1958-59 to 1968-69 73 4. Systems Established, Population Served, Full and Actual Appropriations for the Fiscal Years 1963-69 ..................... 82 5. Local Financial Input for Multijurisdiction al Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive............ ....... . ... 122 6. Local Financial Input for Single Unit Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive............................... 123 7. Additional Financial Input for all Systems From Federal and State Grants, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive .... 125 8. Personnel Input for Multijurisdictional Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive........................ 127 9. Local Salary Input for Multijurisdictional Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive........................ 128 10. Personnel Input for Single Unit Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive. 129 v Table Page 11. 12. 13. " 14. 15. 16. 17. Local Salary Input for Single Unit Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive. Book Output for Multijurisdictional Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive. Book Output for Single Unit Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive .... Reference Questions, Circulation, and Inter library Loans Output for Multijurisdictional Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive .... Reference Questions, Circulation, and Interlibrary Loans Output for Single Unit Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive ....................... Other Non-Book Materials Output for all Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive ....................... Phonograph Records and Motional Picture Films Output for all Systems, Fiscal Years 1962-63 - 1967-68, Inclusive . . . . vi 131 132 134 135 137 138 140 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. A Diagram of a Library Network.............. 19 2. Geographic Plan for California Library Systems...................... 60 3. California Cooperative Library Systems by Counties, 1963-64 114 4. California Cooperative Library Systems by Counties, 1968-69 . 116 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The invention of printing from movable type in the fifteenth century revolutionized book production, and permitted a greater diffusion of knowledge throughout the civilized world. Improvements in printing technology, production techniques, and the introduction of different types of communication media have accelerated to an unprecedented height the recording of accumulated knowledge in a variety of forms. Traditionally, librarians are responsible to society for the acquisition, organization, housing, and interpretation of this knowledge. Certain problems arising in the last decade have made it more difficult for librarians to fulfill their role in an effective and efficient manner. Some of these problems include? (1) the increasing number of book and non-book materials being issued each year, (2) the increasing cost of these materials, (3) the increasing operational costs, (4) the increasing range and volume of demand and use of materials. 2 I For example, the number of trade book titles published in 1960 by the United States was 16,554? the number increased to over 30,000 in 1969, an 81 per cent rise in a nine year period.1 This increase does not include non-trade books and materials.3 The increase in production has been accompanied by rising costs. For example, the cost of hard-cover trade-technical books increased 49 per cent from 1962 through 1969. In the same period, the cost of periodicals increased 55.5 per cent; serials increased 67 per cent; and trade paperback books increased 47.2 per cent.4 One example leading to increases in operational costs can be found in salaries of librarians. Using the salary scale of the California State Library as a guide to starting salaries paid to professional librarians, there 1Carole Collins, ed., The Bowker Annual of Library and Book Trade Information, 1969 (New York: R. R. Bowker Company, 1969), p. 36. 9 , Non-trade materials include such items as: periodicals and other serials, state and local public docu ments, subscription books, certain unpublished materials such as university theses, phonograph records, maps, micro text, and reprints. 3Collins, The Bowker Annual, 1969, p. 52. 4Ibid., p. 47. was a 32 per cent increase during the fiscal years 1962-63 through 1968-69.^ Proportionate increases have taken place in other operational costs. A problem more difficult to describe quantitatively is the change in range and volume of demand and uses by library patrons. In addition to borrowing books and non book materials for home use, thousands of patrons use the public libraries to study, to do research, to listen to musical records, to view films, or to do a variety of reading within the library. The "knowledge explosion" which occurred shortly after the initial successful space venture by the Russians placed heavy demands on the public libraries for information of a technological nature. Changing characteristics of the population have made impressions on types of library service. In 1969, approxi mately 40 per cent of the total population of the United 2 States was under twenty-one years of age. All public libraries have experienced an unprecedented use of materials by students of all ages. ^■"Statistics and Directory Issue, " News Notes of California Libraries, XLIX (Winter, 1964), 75, and LXV (Winter, 1970), 81. 2 Collins, The Bowker Annual, 1969, p. 3. 4 It is clear that librarians are dealing with an increasingly complex world, and the internal and external problems currently facing public libraries must be solved if these institutions are to continue to fulfill their educational role in society. If librarians are to cope successfully with these problems, they must have sophisticated, well defined plans, and tools to do so. New organizational plans must be considered. The traditional forms of institutional autonomy are being displaced by emerging patterns which emphasize interdependence rather than independence in the expansion and improvement of library service. Libraries must respond to the needs and demands of a society in which recorded information and knowledge are growing in volume and complexity and appearing in many diverse forms, and in which more and more persons of all ages and occupations are becoming increasingly dependent upon efficient access to these materials.^ If social organisms are to continue to exist, they ; must be capable of adapting to environmental change. All organizations are assumed to be embedded in an environment that is continually changing and, thus continually influencing the organization. A major task1 of any organism is to adapt to its environment either •^Jean Key Gates, Introduction to Librarianship (New! York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968). 5 by changing its own internal arrangement and objectives or by striving to change the environment. ^ Although libraries as organizations may not be capable of making any noticeable change in the environment, librarians can adjust their organizations to the environment. With materials increasing both in numbers and complexity of content, limited financial resources, and rising costs of operation, it became apparent to California public librarians, several years ago, that some course of action had to be undertaken if the public libraries were to continue to be of value to the citizens of the State. Over the next ten years, one may expect the number of potential public library users to more than double, and I the character of that user population to change in the direction of much more literate and highly educated set of customers, whose needs and demands on library ser vice will be much more specialized and varied than is currently visable. If these demands are to be met, the public libraries must implement specific means to meet them.^ California public librarians adopted the cooperative library systems concept as a specific means to 1Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organization (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964), p. 122. 2System Development Corporation, Technology in Libraries; Technical Memorandum 3602 (Santa Monica, California: System Development Corporation, 1967), p. 31. solving current and long range problems. This concept has certain basic features which may produce improved operational and organizational patterns: (a) the organi zation of systems may extend geographically over several political subdivisions, (b) the operations of the systems may be financed by several political subdivisions, (c) the book and material resources may be shared among members of systems, (d) the accessibility to users may be on a systems basis. - It is the purpose of this study: (1) to report the developmental aspects of the systems concept in California, (2) to report on legislative and administrative regulations concerning the systems concept, (3) to discuss the role of the California State Library in the administration and development of the systems concept, (4) to analyze federal and state financial aid in the development of the systems concept (5) to investigate emerging organizational patterns of systems, (6) to analyze the relative effectiveness of cooperative library systems, and (7) to offer recommendta- tions which may aid in the development of the cooperative library systems program as it is developing in California. California public librarians had discussed means for greater cooperation among all types of libraries for a considerable period of time, but it was not until the mid 1950's that a movement began towards a positive program of action. The California Library Association and the California State Library**- became the spearheads in the development of this.program. In 1959, the California state legislature took official notice of the need for developing the public libraries of the state. This 1959 act has since been called "the Magna Carta for California public libraries." The Legislature hereby declares that it is in the interest of the state that there be a general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence through the establishment and operation of public libraries. Such diffusion is a matter of general concern inasmuch as it is the duty of the state to provide encouragement to the voluntary lifelong learning of the people of the state. The Legislature further declares that the public library is a supplement to the formal system of free public education, and a source of information and inspiration to persons of all ages, and a resource for continuing education and re-education beyond the years of formal education, and as such deserves adequate financial support from government at all l e v e l s .2 Although the federal government had passed legislation making funds available for the development of •*-Hereafter, the "California State Library" will be referred to as the "State Library." ^California, Education Code (1965), Section 2700. (Added by California, Statutes of 1959, Chapter 755). public libraries to a limited degree in 1956, not until 1963 did California pass the necessary legislation allocating state funds for the support of public libraries. In the same year, the federal government amended its 1956 legislation extending financial support to all public libraries regardless of size or geographic area served. This state and federal financial aid gave added impetus to the establishment of cooperative library systems in California. To project the future contributions of the cooperative systems concept, it must be assumed that state and federal financial aid will continue for some time, at least until the local taxing authorities have had sufficient opportunities to judge the value of improved library service in their communities, and exhibit a willingness to provide adequate financial support. Importance of the Study A concept is an idea, and as an idea, it exists in the minds of individuals. Only when an idea or concept is formalized in an organizational manner with certain purposes, goals, and functions can that idea or concept yield to critical analysis. After a period of time has elapsed, when data has been collected and an evaluation has been made, then one can measure the results against the goals. At the time of this writing, there has been no study concerning the overall development of the cooperative library systems concept in California.1 Limitations of the Study This study encompases statistical analysis from the fiscal year 1962-63 through 1967-68. Statistical material for a later period of time is presented only when such data were available, and when the presentation of such material contributed to a better comprehension of the total subject. There is a lack of uniformity in the recording of statistical material relating to the activities of the cooperative library systems in California. The questionnaire which is part of the study is applicable only 2 to the imiltxjurxsdxctxonal lxbrary systems. The materxal collected relative to the activities of the single library systems applies only to the unique programs offered by these libraries through project grants of financial aid. ■'•The plural form "systems" will be used throughout the study except when referring to a specific system. ^The term "multijurisdictional" refers to those systems which provide services in more than one town, city, district, or county. The primary object of this restric tive term is to exclude those libraries operating wholly 10 Definition of Cooperative Library Systems There is no comprehensive definition of the systems concept capable of expressing every aspect of the term as it is used in modern society. Although the basic elements of the systems concept are similar, the methodology of application differs. Through the investigation of varying approaches to the concept, it may be possible to arrive at a satisfactory definition of the term which will be suit able for the purpose of this study. Chester Barnard, former President, New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, in his writings on the nature of organization says: Out of the existence, or belief in the existence, of purpose of individuals and the experience of limitations arises cooperation to accomplish purposes and overcome limitations.1 He adds: A cooperative system is a complex of physical, biological, personal, and social components which are within the boundaries of a city, town, or county which are recognized by the California Public Library Services Act as "single unit systems." These single unit systems can only possess the full characteristics of a system when they enter into a contract to provide services to other libra ries outside the local political subdivision boundaries. ^Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1942), p. 22. 11; in a specific systematic relationship by reason of the 1 cooperation of two or more persons for at least one definite end. Such a system is evidently a subordinate unit of larger systems from one point of view? and it self embraces subsidiary systems— physical, biological, from another point of view.1 The most useful concept for the analysis of experience of cooperative systems is embodied in the definition of a formal organization as a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons.2 From these statements, it is learned that the coordination of individual activities is attained through organization. The efforts of different individuals coordinated to achieve an objective creates a system. The vitality of organiza tions lies in the willingness of individuals to contribute to the cooperative system. Objectives are reached through the coordinated efforts and cooperation of individuals operating within an organizational framework. Another view of systems is presented by Gerald Nadler, Professor and Chairman, Industrial Engineering Program, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. He is concerned with levels within the system. He says, "The work systems . . . involve any level of the whole complex ^Ibid., p. 65. 2Ibid., p. 73. of physical (mechanical, electrical, chemical) and human activities required to process material or information to the desired state of product or service."^ The systems concept here is the coordination of all work activities in an efficient manner to attain the realization of the established goals. The human element is injected because individuals perform the activities. Superimposed upon the work activities is the consideration of the human element. Since groups perform activities, the harmonious interaction of groups must be considered in the systems design. Melvin L. Hurni, Manager, Operations Research and Synthesis Consulting Service, General Electric Company, Newi York City, provides the engineer's concept of a modern systems design: Such a system has describable inputs feeding to it on a continuous basis, certain describable outputs also on a continuous basis, certain interactions in between that convert inputs to outputs, and a method of corrective feedbacks or measurements from output to various parts i of the system itself.2 ■^Gerald Nadler, Work Design (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1963), p. 89. 2Melvin L. Hurni, "Modern Systems Design," in American Management Association, Organizing for Effective Systems Planning and Control, Special Report, No. 12 (New York: American Management Association, 1956), p. 11. Here the concept of the system is concerned with the search for better and more precise descriptions of inputs, inter actions, outputs, and feedback. When such information is available, a better system is the result. Furthermore, in the process of securing such information, a better under standing of the business or organization can be obtained. Charles P. Bourne, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California, in discussing information systems design says, "An information system is defined for the purpose of this discussion as a complex of people, equip ment, and procedures— working together to provide needed information to a group of users. Here the user require ments, defined and evaluated, are factors in the designing of information systems. The systems are composed of outlets sharing staff and book resources among them according to a preconceived plan to meet reader require ments. These requirements must be known prior to the designing of the systems. Systems analysis provides another application of •'•Charles P. Bourne, "A Review of the Methodology of Information System Design," in Information Systems Workshop; The Designer's Responsibility and His Methodology1 (Washington, D. C.: Spartan Books, 1962), p. 11. 14! the term. This is a method of handling complex problems through the division and subdivision of a complex organization into successively finer and finer parts until it has been sufficiently described to be understood. A complex task is studied and then analyzed into a number of individual tasks or steps. Next the tasks are reorganized in a manner which will enhance the achievement of goals or objectives. Each task must be analyzed in relation to other tasks which will contribute to the total operation of an enterprise. The publication Technology in Libraries defines a system in these terms: A system is an aggregate of parts tied together by some form of regular interaction or interdependence. A system is an organized whole composed of a set of functioning parts. A system is usually directed toward the accomplishing of a specific purpose. In addition, the publication reports: For a description of systems analysis as it is applied to library operations see, Robert Hayes, "Library Systems Analysis," in Data Processing in Public and University Libraries. Drexel Information Science Series, Vol. Ill, ed. by John Harvey (Washington, D. C.: Spartan Books, 1966), pp. 6-7. ^System Development Corporation, Technology in Libraries, Workbook System Analysis Units, 1-5 (Santa Monica, California: System Development Corporation, 1967), pt. 1, p. 22. 15 The most important element in the system approach is determining objectives. Unless the purpose for which a system is created is clearly understood, the system that is ultimately designed and developed is apt to be far less than useful. Objectives serve as a check on design relevance and the system approach is simply an organized way of finding relevant and practical solutions to problems.1 The American Library Association, Minimum Standards for Public Library S y s t e m s , ^ presents standards which are qualitative and attempts to establish minimum size of budgets, book collections, personnel, and population served by a library or a group of libraries to achieve improved patron service and greater economies in operation. The standards recommend that libraries attempt to achieve these' objectives through cooperative activities among libraries, and through contractual agreements designed to increase the; availability of materials in a given geographic area. Although the standards recommend that libraries attempt to ; achieve objectives through cooperative activities, the standards are not precise in defining systems of libraries. The 1963 state law which permitted the formation of’ 1Ibid., p. 6. 2 . . American Library Association, Minimum Standards for Public Library Systems, 1966 (Chicago: American Library Association, 1967). library systems in California does not define systems, but the law does indicate what may constitute a library system: A library system may consist of any of the following systems: (a) A library system consisting of a library operated by a single public agency. (b) A consolidated library system in which two or more public agencies consolidate their libraries to form a single library. (c) A co-operative library system in which two or more public agencies enter into a written agreement to implement a plan of service for the agencies so contracting.1 All the definitions of systems and systems activities have some relationship to the concept of cooperative library systems as this concept has been developed by California public librarians. The systems analysis approach was used in identifying the problems, determining objectives, analyzing conditions created by the problems, studying alternative solutions, and estab- | lishing the recommendations for an organizational pattern that would help solve the problems. The problems were identified with the theory that public libraries acting independently in the traditional California, Education Code (1965). Section 27125. ; fashion were incapable of providing adequate service to users in view of the proliferation of knowledge and the rising costs of operation. The objective was the creation of an organization that would aid in overcoming these problems. The organizational pattern recommended was the cooperative library systems concept. It requires the cooperation of participating libraries in the sharing of resources, personnel, and funds according to an established plan. This pattern requires interaction and interdepend ence of public libraries in their efforts to solve problems and to reach objectives. Achieving higher goals of service; to all individuals is basic to the systems concept. Applying to libraries Nadler's idea that different operational levels exist within a system, and each of the levels is influenced by higher levels, a similar pattern can be established.'*' In systems analysis, the analyst looks at functions first; then he is concerned with the establishment of an organization to coordinate the i functions. The functions of a library include: (1) the selection and acquisition of materials, (2) the classifica-; tion and arrangement of materials, (3) the housing and ■*"Nadler, Work Design, p. 89. 18 preservation of materials, (4) the service activities such as circulation and reference associated with making the materials available to users. The organization which has been established to coordinate these functions is the cooperative library system. The concept of cooperative library systems is a network of libraries in a given geographic area combining their resources, personnel, equipment, and financial resources in a cooperative manner to provide adequate library service to all inhabitants of the area on an equal access basis. A cooperative library system might look something like the diagram in Figure 1.' The first level of service is provided by the local public libraries which are members of the system. These libraries are the initial agency for supplying basic informational resources and services. For reference materials in greater depth, more specialized subject infor mation, back files of periodicals and newspapers, and public documents, a secondary reference center may be established. These secondary reference centers are also local public library members of the system, but mayjbe. assigned this secondary function because of superior holdings of desired materials. Holdings of secondary reference centers may be improved through cooperative allocation by system libraries 19! FIGURE 1 A DIAGRAM OF A LIBRARY NETWORK PRIME READER REFERENCE CENTER Key: Local Public Libraries Secondary Reference Centers Academic and Special Libraries Source: Diagram based on a network concept appearing "SrffT' ; Raymond M. Holt and Gerhard N. Rostvold, Communityi Libraries to Match Community Needs; A Case Study and Plan of Action, Public Libraries in East Los Angeles County, May 23, 1966, p. 135. of funds to improve the collections at this level. A third level of service may be established. On the diagram, this level is represented by the prime reader reference center. The center may have holdings comparable to a research type library and may conceivably serve more than one library system.^ The systems concept is introduced through the interaction and interdependence of member libraries at all levels in the form of interlibrary loans and the exchange of reference information and books according to some preconceived plan. The plan is also based on the avail ability of the resources of member libraries to the residents of the geographic area served by the system. The sharing of resources, personnel, and finances at all levels of service is an attempt to overcome limitations and accomplish purposes through cooperation. To add another source of information level, arrangements may be made with libraries other than public ■^For example, the Los Angeles Public Library is the headquarters for the Southern California Answering Network, and represents the prime reader reference center for the Black Gold and Metropolitan Cooperative Library Systems. Twenty-five local public libraries represent the first level of service in these two systems. The State Library serves all systems. libraries to supply highly specialized materials to public libraries through the prime reference center. Contractual agreements may form the basis for this service, or it may be offered on a reciprocal basis. In the diagram, Figure 1, the "Academic and special libraries" represents this level of service. Through such a network of interacting libraries, the local public libraries may be able to meet the demands of users. Methodology In a study of this nature, source material had to be obtained which revealed the developmental aspects of the systems concept as well as records of the activities of the participating libraries. Much of the basic information was secured by analyzing annual statistical reports of libraries. To secure information relative to programs in operation and to learn of future plans, it was determined that the best method would be to visit personally the head quarters library of multijurisdictional systems within the state. To insure that uniform information capable of yielding opportunities for comparison be secured, the interviewer had a prepared interview questionnaire which formed a part of the personal interview. In addition, single library systems were visited to secure pertinent program information. These visits were completed in the months of August and September, 1968. The literature, the collected data, and the personal interviews provided the necessary information on which the recommendations and the effectiveness of the systems concept were based. Review of the Literature There is a wide and varied choice of materials available to the reader in both the social and scientific aspects of the systems concept. The concept is highly sophisticated in both its theoretical aspects and practical! applications. i Three publications were helpful in providing a basic understanding of theoretical approaches to coopera tive systems, and were instrumental in developing a model to test the effectiveness of cooperative library systems. Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive. provided insight concerning cooperative systems, and the functions of organization in these systems. Chris Argyris, •^•Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive; (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1942). 1 Integrating the Individual and the Organization, was I helpful in understanding organizational effectiveness and i • , • • • • 2' ineffectiveness, and Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations. provided information on the nature of organizational goals. These publications were instrumental in shaping the; research methods of the study. In the development of the cooperative library systems concept in California, certain publications became basic documents and essential reading for the understanding! j of the forces at work to change the existing organizational! patterns of public libraries. These documents included official surveys of, public libraries, master plans develop-! ed as guide-lines, and reports concerned with the i development of cooperative library systems. Pour basic i documents established the pattern which California public ! librarians adopted as guide-lines in the formation of library systems. In 1957, Governor Goodwin Knight appointed the California Public Library Commission to study! public library problems in the state. The results of the i ^Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organization (New Yorks John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964). 9 * ' Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964). study were issued in a series of reports and recommenda tions. 1 Immediately after the completion of the study, a number of bills concerning California public libraries were introduced in the 1959 session of the legislature. A specific plan was proposed for the development of library systems in a report to the State Librarian by Dr. Lowell A. Martin, formerly Dean of the Graduate School of Library Science, Rutgers University, and Miss Roberta Bowler, formerly Assistant City Librarian, Los Angeles Public 2 . . Library. The California Library Association had prepared a plan in 1962, later revised, which provided a framework for the development of library systems m California. A study of a large metropolitan area was done by Martha Boaz, Dean, School of Library Science, University of Southern California Public Library Commission, Reports, Pursuant to 1957 Statutes of California (Berkeley, California: California Public Library Commission, 1959). 2 Lowell A. Martin and Roberta Bowler, Public Library Service Equal to the Challenge of California: A Report to the State Librarian, California Statewide Survey of Public Library Service (Sacramento, California: California State Library, 1965). ^California Library Association, Master Plan for Public Libraries in California (Berkeley, California: California Library Association, 1962). 25 1 California. This was a study undertaken for the purpose of assembling information and evaluating the services of the public libraries in the greater metropolitan area of Los Angeles to determine the feasibility of establishing a cooperative library system or systems in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Much valuable socio-economic data on the greater metropolitan area of Los Angeles is available in this document. Since public libraries are created by law, any change in legal status must be accomplished through appropriate legal procedure. Interested groups often have to inform legislators of the need for certain laws to gain a desired objective. Securing this approval was an important step in the development of cooperative library systems in California. The federal laws authorizing financial assistance to public libraries are contained in, Library Services Act, Statutes at Large. LXX, and subsequent amendments to this original Act in 1960, 1964, and 1966. The Public Library Development Act of California became law in 1963, California, Statutes of 1963. The ■^Martha Boaz, Strength Through Cooperation in Southern California Libraries (Los Angeles, California, 1965). original law was amended in 1965, and 1966. Comprehension j of the objectives of both federal and state laws relating j to the development of public libraries is essential to the i study of library systems development in California. The initial impetus for the formation of library systems was provided through the enactment of both federal and state laws. I The official journal of the State Library is News j I Notes of California Libraries, a quarterly publication, j which reports the organization, development, and progress of cooperative library systems in the state and elsewhere, i [ Every issue since 1956 was examined for pertinent material. | The California Librarian is the official publication of thej ! California Library Association. This publication is j I especially valuable for its reporting of official actions i ! taken by the Association membership relating to the ! development of library systems. Publications devoted to reporting the development of cooperative library systems in states other than j i California were helpful in providing a broader view of the | j systems concept. One publication of considerable j i significance is Emerging Library Systems; the 1963-1966 27: i Evaluation of the New York State Public Library Systems.^ Although New York State developed a state-wide program for the establishment of cooperative library systems some years before California, there are similarities in methods developed to achieve objectives. Two additional publica tions were useful in learning of systems development on a national scale: Public Library Systems in the United ... 2 States: A Survey of Multnurisdictional Systems; and An Overview of the Library Services and Construction Act— Title I.3 | Development of the Hypotheses The idea of groups of individuals achieving a set i of goals through planned cooperative effort is not new, but; the application of the cooperative concept to the solution i ^New York (State) Education Department, Division of! Evaluation, Emerging Library Systems: the 1963-66 Evaluation of the New York State Public Library Systems (Albany, New York: University of the State of New York, 1967). 2 . . . . . . American Library Association, Public Library Systems in the United States: A survey of Multijurisdic tional Systems (Chicago: American Library Association, 1969). 3 Jules Mersel, et al.. An Overview of the Library Services and Construction Act— Title I (Santa Monica, California: System Development Corporation, 1969). of problems and the improvement of service in public libraries is of more recent origin, especially in California. However, sufficient time has elapsed to permit a study of the development of the concept as a basis for proposing recommendations which may be useful as guides for further improvement of public library service. The study will also allow the testing of certain hypotheses. The cooperative library systems concept is based upon a program of federal and state financial assistance which permits member libraries to extend library service beyond local political subdivision boundaries and provides a means for a state-wide program of public library development. Because of shifts in the tax structure with more taxes going proportionately to state and federal governments, many local political subdivisions are unable to provide adequate financial assistance for the improve ment of public library service at the local level. Federal and state financial assistance provide an equalization factor which permits a uniform improvement program on a state-wide basis. Any attempt to decrease or eliminate this financial assistance, especially at the state level, may have a deterring efrect on the part of those respons ible for establishing and implementing cooperative 29 programs. Therefore, an objective of this study is to test the following hypothesis: The lack of a realistic state financial aid program in relation to the intent of the California Public Library Services Act will have a tendency to place more financial burden on local political subdivisions for the support of ongoing state-wide library systems programs. Such lack of state support will have an effect of levelling off the development of cooperative library systems in the State of California. Organizations are established to achieve desired objectives. If the objectives are not being attained, the organization must be changed to enhance goal achievement, or the goals must be altered or even abandoned. Therefore, j a further objective of this study is to test the following i hypothesis: California cooperative public library systems have exhibited relative effectiveness in achieving the stated objectives: (1) to improve public library services, and (2) to reduce operational costs through the sharing of resources, personnel, and financial assistance by member libraries. Public librarians and local governmental officials have been encouraged to participate in a state-wide program of public library improvement through the incentive of state financial assistance. Organizational patterns have been developed which permit the development of plans for improved services through cooperation among several libraries in a given geographic area. Although the concept ' 30 j of larger units of service as a means of improving library service is not new, few, if any, public librarians achieved ! improved service through voluntary cooperative programs. State financial aid provided the incentive as well as the i means to the development of cooperative library systems in j i California. j i j I CHAPTER II HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS OF THE SYSTEMS CONCEPT j I Systems or other organizational patterns rarely ' come into existence fully developed. Much preliminary i | thought and discussion took place among library leaders, I ! over a considerable period of time, before plans were ; i , formulated for the development of library systems. The I idea of establishing a set of standards by which librariansj j could measure progress towards achieving a set of goals was; an initial step in the consideration of the systems concept j i for libraries. j In 1943, the American Library Association issued Standards for Public Libraries.^ The standards stated that! the smallest library unit should have a minimum income of j $25,000, and should provide service for a minimum population of 25,000. These standards were essentially the! I first developed on a national scale for the improvement of i I ■^American Library Association, Committee on Post- War Planning, Standards for Public Libraries (Chicago? American Library Association, 1943), p. 46. | ...... 32 public library service at the local level. The major contribution was the implication that the population served; be considered as an organizational unit rather than any one political subdivision. Standards are intended as guides to: encourage local political subdivisions to maintain at least; recognized minimal requirements for library service. In 1948, the American Library Association published! i A National Plan for Public Library Service.^ Because of the increase in operational costs, it was recommended that j the minimum income required for an effective library unit | be fixed at not less than $37,500 to serve a population of j not less than 25,000 in the service area. The plan also j recommended that the larger unit should include all local libraries in a given area as a means of correcting the existing inequalities of service. The local libraries were! encouraged to become part of larger units on a completely voluntary basis. j 2 In 1950, the Public Library Inquiry reiterated the! •^American Library Association, A National Plan for | Public Library Service (Chicago: American Library Association, 1948), p. 35. 2 ! Robert D. Leigh, The Public Library in the United j States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), p. 57. . 33 need for coordination and cooperation among libraries. ; ! t This study recognized that service might not be improved through the proliferation of libraries in small political subdivisions incapable of securing adequate financial support, and that the size of the public library unit in population, area, and expenditures might be of prime importance in determining the character and efficiency of library service. Larger Units of Service i As early as 1935, Carleton B. Joeckel, then j Professor, Graduate Library School, University of Chicago, I | advocated larger units of library service. He particularly; I i favored the California county library system as an j organizational pattern which, at the time, appeared to be i i the vehicle to make modern library service available to allj the people in the state. He argued that? j | The picture is that of a library system centering in the state library. Local autonomy is not eliminated, but the influence of the state is very important. The I county librarian is a powerful administrative officer j who looks to the county for support but also looks to the state as the fountainhead of the system. Carleton Bruns Joeckel, The Government of the American Public Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935), p. 29. ......... 34 j The idea of the county library has been so thoroughly j implanted in the consciousness of librarians that in some places it may actually be harmful in the sense i that it prevents the study of the whole subject of library regionalism on a broader scale. Although the concept of larger units of service has been ; recognized for some time, efforts have been directed mainlyj | to the governmental aspects of the problem rather than to service patterns. Local political subdivisions have been reluctant to give up their autonomy to become part of a j I j larger governmental unit. The county librarians of j i California approached the concept of larger units of j | service through the contract provisions of the county library law which permits library service to be extended to municipalities within the county and to other counties. | i This may have been a major reason that California was j i slower than some states in considering the cooperative j | library systems concept. The County Library System California enacted legislation in 1909 which ^Ibid., p. 271. permitted the establishment of county libraries.'*' Leader- J | ship at the state level envisaged the county libraries as a! means of establishing a state-wide pattern of library i service, and much effort was made to establish county j i I libraries. As a result, California was one of the leading j states in the development of county libraries. The j 1 California law requires that the County Board of Super- i i i visors levy an annual tax in support of the county library | i in the same manner and at the same time as other county | taxes are levied; however, this requirement does not I guarantee adequate financial support. The proponents of the county library system looked upon the county as a large governmental unit capable of supporting a library system. The county library was basically concerned, at its inception, in serving the rural elements of the county or that part of the county not : i i served by nunicipal libraries rather than the county as a j i whole. Contractual provisions in the law did provide for a j I method whereby municipal libraries may become a part of the j county library system, but few municipal libraries have | i ! For laws governing the establishment of county libraries see, California, Education Code (1952), Sections 22101-22180. taken advantage of this provision. The library pioneers who looked to the total county population and tax resources as the basis upon which to build the county library system have been disappointed. Most of the municipal libraries have chosen to remain out side of the county system. The county library law contains; a provision permitting a municipality which has become part of a county library system to withdraw from this relation- j ship. Certain municipalities served by the county library system have now grown in population and taxable wealth to the point where these muncipalities wish to have their own | tax supported municipal libraries. Consequently, these libraries have withdrawn from the county system. Each time; this occurs, the tax base for the support of the county library is weakened proportionately. The objectives of ; establishing the county as the governmental unit of library; i service has not been fully realized. j Preliminary Activities Leading to the Adoption of the Systems Concept Although California is credited with maintaining a : good county library system and appears to provide statewidei service, Table 1 indicates that there were still unserved 37 rural areas in the state at the time of the passage of the Federal library Services Act in 1956. TABLE 1 AREAS WITHOUT LOCAL PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE 1956-57, BY COUNTY County 1957 Population of County Population Without Service Alpine 325 325 Del Norte i 17,800 15,000 Lake 13,000 7,800 Mendocino 55,000 36,824 Nevada 18,700 10,138 Yuba 26,000 16,500 :Totals 130,825 86,587 Source: California, Public Library Commission, Reports, Pursuant to 1957 Statutes of California (Berkelev. California: California Public Library Commission, 1959), p. 27. 38 | j Another situation needing attention was the j inability of California public libraries to maintain an ! i adequate book stock in proportion to population increase. This is shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 TRENDS IN POPULATION AND BOOK STOCKS, BY DECADES 1920-21 to 1960-61 Year Number of Population Libraries Volumes at end of year Volumes Per Capita 1960-61a 15,717,204 210 22,131,965 1.4 1950-51b 10,586,223 209 15,492,484 1.5 1940-41 6,907,387 205 13,083,183 1.9 1930-31 5,677,251 191 9,782,434 1.7 1920-21 3,426,861 183 4,519,577 1.3 •i j Source: aNews Notes of California Libraries. LVII j (Winter., 1962), 20. j ^California, Public Library Commission, Reports, Pursuant to 1957 Statutes of California (Berkeley, California: California Public Library Commission, 1959), p. 34. ! i i Unserved population and inadequate materials were prime factors in alerting California librarians to existing ! i problems and the need to seek solutions to them. One of the first steps was the establishment of library standards I ! to provide guide-lines to minimum objectives. In 1953, the! California Library Association appointed a committee to ! ! i develop a set of standards. j The document, Public Library Service Standards for j California, was adopted by the membership of the Associa- j | tion on November 14, 1953. These standards were j subsequently amended by action of the Board of Directors on November 1, 1958. There now existed at both the state and national levels standards emphasizing the cooperative j library systems concept as a means of securing adequate 1 i modern library service. j The California standards stated specificallys Each; system would have a central library or libraries with I branches and/or cooperating libraries, and with small library service points jointly providing the public library! facilities of the area. Many systems will be served most | effectively by a combination of basic library units and bookmobiles. Instead of wiping out existing units, estab- j lishing new units where service points now exist, or crea- ; ting a single central library independently providing ser- ; vices to large sections of the state, these ends may be I achieved by counties, districts, and municipalities working! together and using the total reservoir of special materials! and other facilities in the state. . . . With such an i ' 40 The Association membership was also engaged, with ! i i the cooperation of State Library personnel, in attempting to have the California State Legislature officially j . recognize the state's responsibility for the development ofj ; ' ! : I of public library service as part of the state-wide j : t ;educational program. Much of the background material on public library problems has been published in three reports i of the Subcommittee on Library Problems of the Assembly : I Interim Committee on Education, pursuant to House Resolution 189 of 1953, and House Resolution 264 of 1955.1 The final recommendation of the Subcommittee on Library organizational structure, the materials and personnel most | needed by a locality are brought close to the user by the j direct service of accessible neighborhood or small commun ity units. The materials needed less frequently, and the technical processing of materials, are mobilized at a sec ond level to assist all the localities comprising the library system, and the resources needed only occasionally j and by specialists are maintained at the state level and j are called upon as required by the service points closer to I the library user. "Public Library Service Standards for j California," News Notes of California Libraries, LVII I (Spring, 1963), 292. j •*-The first subcommittee reported to the Assembly ini Assembly Interim Committee Reports, 1953-55, Vol. X, No. 1 | (March, 1955). The second committee reported in Assembly Interim Committee Reports, 1955-57, Vol. X, No. 6 (April, 1956). The third committee reported in Assembly Interim i Committee Reports, 1955-57, Vol. X, No. 9 (March, 1957). j 41: j i Problems was for the creation of a commission to be : 1 appointed by the governor to study library problems in California. The members were announced on October 28, | 1957,^ and the first meeting of the California Public Library Commission was held on November 15, 1957. The basic factual data collected by the Commission with i 0 recommendations are included m a single volume. This was! I the first*, stud; on public libraries ever undertaken in i California,. “ ! The report of the Commission proved to be a | : ! valuable survey document, and the recommendations containedj therein became the basis for futurd legislative programs j j which were endorsed by the membership of the California j | j Library Association. Specific recommendations included* ' (1) cooperative library systems should be the future organizational pattern, (2) a Public Library Aid Board i i Commission membership included: Mr. Percy C. j Heckendorf, Chairman; Mr. Ira J. Chrisman, Vice-Chairman; Mrs. Lucile V. Mohr, Secretary; Senator Paul L. Byrne; j Senator Fred S. Farr; Assemblyman Ernest R. Geddes; Assemblyman William Byron Rumford; Dr. Bernard B. Bartlett;: Mr. Marion Dizier; Mr. Walter D. Drysdale; Mrs. Evelyn M. | Ingalls; Mrs. Dorothea McCall; and Colonel Samuel Rubin. n California Public Library Commission, Reports. 1959. ! should be created and empowered to formulate the j ! administrative regulations concerning state financial aid, I i and to pass upon the applications of library systems for such aid, (3) there should be specific methods of financingj j by the state, including per capita and establishment j grants, (40 libraries should meet minimum standards to receive state financial aid. As a result of the Commission study, numerous bills were drafted for introduction at the 1959 session of the legislature. The proposed legislation presented a modest program for the improvement of state- i wide library service, but little action was taken on the j I bills. However, the legislature did give full legal j recognition to the educational purposes of public j libraries.^ The Master Plan for Public Libraries in California^ was adopted in October, 1962 by the membership of the California Library Association. Essentially, this i document embodied the recommendations of the Commission, j and expanded some of the most important features of the j report. The plan proposed a network of libraries - - - - - 1 ' See supra. Chapter I, p. 6. ! 9 • * California Library Association, Master Plan, 1962.; 43f consisting of four categories: (1) Community Libraries, (2) Local Library Systems, (3) Regional Library Service | Centers, (4) California State Library. Since there had been some opposition from local governing bodies concerning the effect of state aid and the systems concept on local autonomy, the plan clearly stated that any systems forma- j j tion should be on a voluntary basis. "The decisions as to i i which smaller libraries will form systems and the planning | l for the operation of local library systems are the exclusive responsibility of local governments and j ! authorities. j The Master Plan recommended that the Legislative j i t Committee of the California Library Association should ask ! [ to have introduced certain bills in the 1963 State j Legislature. The bills would have these major objectives; (1) to create a permanent commission to be known as the California Public Library Board, with the State Librarian j serving as Secretary, (2) to establish a program of j | financial grants for public library development to be i California Library Association, Master Plan, p. 6. For a complete listing of the legislative objectives, see Master Plan, p. 11. administered by the Board, (3) to enable groups of public libraries to form cooperative local library systems which j meet the minimum standards adopted by the Board, (4) to j encourage merger of city and county library systems whose headquarters are located in the same city by provision of i non-recurring integration grants, (50 to establish a state j i system of legal certification for public librarians. In i i addition, there was a strong recommendation that the State ; Library should be strengthened in all areas necessary for j performing its function as the central agency in the j state's public library organization. The Master Plan is important because it won the support of the members of the California Library Associa- i tion. Although the membership had an advisory function I relative to the report by the Public Library Commission, | i the Report was a state document and not one necessarily j composed and supported by the membership. The Master Plan j i also attempted to allay the fears of some local governing bodies concerned with the possible loss of local autonomy i in library operation. This situation loomed large as a ! barrier to securing the necessary legislation which would permit governing bodies and librarians to proceed with the establishment of library systems. It was recognized at an : 45] I early period that the State Library would have to assume a ' prominent role in the allocation of any financial aid ! forthcoming from the state. ; After a period of some ten years, the combined J efforts of the Legislative Committee of the California Library Association, State Library personnel, and a state- I i wide organization of friends of the public libraries were j successful in securing the passage of the first state-wide i financial aid bill in the history of library development in! California. The Public Library Development Act became law | on September 20, 1963, and carried an appropriation of $850,000 for the fiscal year 1963-64.'*’ The passage of this| act was only an initial step toward the formation of j | cooperative library systems. Local bodies, and, in some | cases, librarians had to be convinced of the need to j j establish systems of libraries in accordance with a state- j I wide plan. The next step was to produce a report showing ; i existing situations in the public libraries of the state, j : j : ' ! The report was intended to advance and extend the Master j ;Plan. Dr. Lowell A. Martin, formerly Dean of the Graduate •'•California, Statutes of 1963, Chapter 1802. School of Library Science, Rutgers University, and Miss Roberta Bowler, formerly Assistant City Librarian, Los | Angeles Public Library, were engaged by the State Library , to conduct the study. The final report was published in j June, 1965.1 At the conclusion of the study, library trustees, government officials, and librarians were invited to a I State Library-sponsored workshop to discuss the findings j and the plan of action proposed in the study. Since the J establishment of library systems is on a voluntary basis atj the local level, the Martin and Bowler study produced ! I information which was helpful in assessing local library ; service. The study recommended a library structure of ! 2 levels similar to those recommended m the Master Plan. j With the securing of state financial aid and the adoption j of a workable plan of action, California public librarians j i achieved the first stage in a library developmental program! i geared to present and future needs. j i t ! i ^•Lcwell A. Martin and Roberta Bowler, Public | Library Service Equal to the Challenge of California; A Report to the State Librarian. California Statewide Survey i of Public Library Service. Sacramento, California? | California State Library, 1965). j O | See supra. Chapter II, p. 42. ! : 47 j I I The Evolving State Legislation and j Administrative Regulations : _ I The California Public Library Commission Report with its recommendations formed the basis for the legisla- j Itive program which was finally embodied in Assembly Bill 590.’ * - The Bill was enacted into law in the 1963 Session of i the Legislature as the Public .Library Development Act. The; i ■ . . 9 ! most important features of the law are summarized: j 1 i 1. Declares that it is in the interest of the | people to aid and encourage the development of ! | free public libraries by grants for the purpose i i of assisting and encouraging them to establish j I library systems where such formation would j i facilitate improved library services. j j 2. Empowers the State Librarian to administer the j | provisions of the law, and the State Librarian may expend any funds appropriated for j t I expenditure under the law. j i : i ■ - | ^For a detailed account of the activities involved in securing the passage of A.B. 590, see David Sabsay, "A. B. 590: The Saga of a Bill," California Librarian. XXIV. (October, 1963), 241-50, 263. 2 For the complete law, see California, Statutes of 1963. Chapter 1802 . ' 48 3. Provides for the establishment of systems. 4. Outlines the procedure for the formation of library systems. 5. Explains the limitations on expenditures for systems development including planning, establishment, and per capita grants. 6. Establishes minimum standards for annual per capita grants. The process of amendment has been utilized to correct inequities and to strengthen the original Public Library Development Act. In the 1965 Session of the Legislature, Assembly Bill 1622 was enacted.’ 1 ' Several important amendments were introduced in this legislation. The original law provided that total state aid expenditures were not to exceed two per cent of the total operation expenditures of all public libraries of the state from local sources for the preceeding fiscal year. The 1965 amendment increased the percentage limitations on expenditures from two per cent to the amounts for the indicated fiscal years as follows: to four per cent in 1966-67, to six per cent in 1967-68, to eight per cent in ^California, Statutes of 1965, Chapter 1820. 49 i i i 1968-69, and to ten per cent in 1969-70. The amendments J I also increased the amounts of per capita grants which are j based on population density. These amendments were intend-j ed to improve the financial structure of the library j | systems. | When the original bill was being considered, it wasi. j recognized that an equalization formula should be developed to permit an equitable distribution of state financial aid among library systems. Since time was a factor in placing the bill before the legislature, a clause was inserted in the bill calling for a grant formula to be developed based on need, effort, and ability. The 1965 legislation provided for a study group to report to the 1966 legislature recommending such a grant formula. The recommendations were enacted by the 1966 legislation.'*' j Accordingly, need is recognized by basing the distribution, in part, on the population served by library systems and by allowing a special weighting for low density of population. Effort is recognized as a qualification for receiving a I grant by a minimum level of local financial support, j expressed either as a tax rate or as an amount of i I ^California, Statutes of 1966, Chapter 97. j 50 expenditure per capita, and by establishing minimum j standards of service. Ability is recognized by adjusting the population estimates by the relative standing of such systems with respect to assessed valuation per capita.^ j The Role of the State Library The Public Library Development Act established the! Public Library Development Board in the Division of Libraries of the Department of Education. The membership ! included the State Librarian and nine members appointed by i | 3 I the Governor. The state Librarian is a nonvoting member, j The duties of the Board are to confer with, advise, and 1 . ! To maintain eligibility for state financial aid, j systems must maintain a standard of book acquisition. 2 The Public Library Development Act was renamed as the Public Library Services Act in Assembly Bill 114, (1966). 3 . I On March 5, 1969, Governor Reagan submitted to the; Legislature, Reorganization Plan No. 1, which consolidates j certain boards and commissions and eliminates others. In this plan, the Library Development Board was eliminated. This action was taken because the systems development program is now stabilized, and three-fourths of the sitate i grant is on a fixed formula basis, and the State Librarian ! can administer the remainder without the necessity for a statutory board. If advice is needed, it may be obtained on an ad hoc basis with no expense to the State. CLA ; Newsletter, August, 1969, p. 11. make recommendations to the State Librarian relative to j carrying out the provisions of the Public Library Services j Act.1 The law designates the State Librarian as the . 2 . 1 administrator of the Public Library Services Act, and is • * - given the power to prescribe such rules and regulations as j may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. ! The State Librarian has the power to expend any funds j 3 . ' appropriated under the Act. The State Librarian is I | j responsible administratively for the allocation and expenditure of federal financial aid granted to the State of California for the purpose of aiding public libraries. | l The State Department of Education is hereby named and j designated as the proper state agency to accept, j receive and administer any and all funds, moneys or j library materials, granted, furnished, provided, appro-j priated, dedicated or made available by the United States or any of its departments, commissions, boards, bureaus or agencies for the purpose of giving aid to public libraries in the State of California.4 Regulations which implement the Act, and which have been amended from time to time, are contained in Sub- j chapter 2 of Chapter 2 of Title 5 of the California Administrative Code. ^California, Education Code (1966). Section 27114. ! i ■^California, Education Code (1965). Section 27114.1: ^California, Education Code (1965), Section 27053. I In the State Library organizational structure, the j Library Consultant Services is the arm of the State Library! ! which keeps in close contact with public library develop- i ment in the field. All plans at the local level involving j | the use of state or federal funds for public library aid | must be approved by the State Librarian. Basic functions j | of the Consultant Services include: (1) providing advice j i ! and counsel to administrators of local public libraries j I I involved in developing plans for the establishment of | j library systems, (2) conducting studies at the local levels} which may be helpful in the establishment of library ! systems, (3) performing a supervisory role over local I j | library projects which are financed either by state or j federal funds. Each consultant within the department is assigned to work in specific geographic areas of the state. ! Power and influence rest in the individual j I occupying the office of the State Librarian, a situation | j which has not always been acceptable to some local govern- j ! mental units. However, much of the former opposition to j control by the State Library over state and federal i financial assistance programs has disappeared with the formation of library systems. It is becoming more generally accepted that a partnership between various levels of government is possible without relinquishing the j desired local controls. Strong leadership at the state level is necessary in the development of the cooperative j library systems concept. The Public Library Services Act recognizes this need by placing authority and responsi bility in the office of the State Librarian for the state- | wide development of the systems concept. ! | An important function of the State Library j i administration is to anticipate the need for legislation ! which will assist in furthering state-wide development of public library service. The fulfillment of this function requires continuous and adequate communication with the j library profession, trustees, and other interested individuals and groups. There exists a close working | i relationship between the State Library and the California Library Association. Prime examples of this relationship I include the drafting of the Public Library Standards, 1953,j j the Master Plan for Public Libraries in California, 1962, j I and providing the essential contents of the important Assembly Bills 590, 1622, and 114. The State Librarian was instrumental in obtaining the cooperation of Governor Edmund G. Brown and Governor Ronald Reagan for the purpose ! ! .... 54| of holding Governor's conferences on libraries.’ * ' j An important responsibility of the State Librarian is the allocation of federal and state financial aid to j ! I qualified library systems. Although the law provides guidance for the allocation of state funds through an adopted formula, much discretion rests with the State Librarian in allocating scarce resources among a growing number of competing library systems. The State Librarian will continue to play an important role in the development of future programs designed to improve public library service on a state-wide basis. Current Developments The need to establish a time table for completing ! the research prevented the inclusion in the main body of ! • ■ . | the study certain types of information and statistical data for cooperative library systems formed after the fiscal year 1967-68. The purpose of this section is to present significant developments after the cutoff data. "Governor's Conference for Public Library Trustees| and Officials," News Notes of California Libraries. LVI j (Siammer, 1961), and "Governor's Conference on Libraries: Developing Partnerships for California Libraries," News Notes of California Libraries. LXIII (Pall, 1968). ! 55 Where possible, updated information has been incorporated in the main body of the study. i The North Sacramento Valley Cooperative Library System was granted system status in the fiscal year 1968- i 2 69. This system received a planning grant. The system ' was organized under the Joint Powers of Agreement Act, and the affairs of the system are administered by an executive | , ■ i committee. All the libraries in the system are members of j ; i the State Library Processing Center. Two libraries, Shasta; I County Library and the Butte County Library, have been selected to be the reference centers for the system, and a ! grant of $115,000 has been requested to aid in the improvement of the reference collection of these two j centers. There will be a system-wide book selection ! policy. There are approximately 787,231 volumes in the | combined libraries to serve a population of 313,000. The j headquarters library will be the Chico Public Library. Thej j , i : ................................................ — ■ . ■ — i ■ } ■'"System membership includes the following librar- i I ies: Butte County, Chico Public, Colusa County, Glenn j I County, Modoc County, Orland Public, Oroville Public, " ; Plumas-Sierra Counties, Shasta County, Siskiyou County, j Tehama County, Trinity County, and Willows Public. 2 The planning study is: Public Administration ;Service, Public Library Services in Northern California, Conducted for the Northern California Council of Librarians, 1966. system services will cover a land area of approximately j 35,157 square miles."'' The Monterey Bay Area Information Service, j described in the study, was a demonstration project. As a direct result of this demonstration, the Monterey Bay Area Cooperative Library System was granted system status during 2 the 1968-69 fiscal year. Under provisions of an establishment grant, the system will be entitled to $50,000 for the.first two years after formation of the system. The system has a combined total of 416,323 volumes to serve a population of 240,100. The land area of the system is 3,323 square miles. j Librarians within Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, El Dorado, Placer, and Yuba Counties formed the Mountain ; 4 Valley Library System in 1969. This new system includes "'"Letter from Mrs. Alice Mathisen, Librarian, Tehama County Library, December 3, 1968. 2 1 The system members include the following librar ies: Monterey County, Monterey Public, Carmel Public, Pacific Grove Public, and Salinas Public. The Santa Cruz i City and County Library has applied for membership. j 3 . . 1 Letter from Mrs. Lois Koolwyk, Librarian, Montereyj County Library, December 3, 1968. I ^The new system includes the following libraries: i Auburn-Placer County, El Dorado County, Lincoln Public, ' 57 the former Mother Lode Library System and the Sacramento City-County Library System. Two additional members were added to the former systems by this consolidation to | establish a broader geographic service area. The new members added 50,400 in population, increased the land area! ! i served by 604 square miles, and added 126,490 volumes to | i the book collection of the new system. j i I An amended Plan of Service to include the Riverside Public Library in the Inland Library System was approved in 1969. Although the Riverside Public Library serves as the Riverside County Library by contract, not all libraries in Riverside County will participate in the system activities j I ! at the outset. The Riverside Public Library is eligible to receive $10,000 a year for two years as an establishment grant. This money will be used for extension of the existing communication system, the purchase of an addition al delivery van, and the hiring of system personnel. The specific areas of cooperation between the Inland Library . . — . Marysville Public, Roseville Public, Sacramento City- County, and Sutter County. The Woodland Public Library has applied for membership in the system. ■^Letter from Dorothy Drake, Librarian, Sacramento City-County Library, December 6, 1968. System and the Riverside Public Library will include: 1. Book evaluation 2. Rapid communications 3. Reference cooperation 4. Film circuit cooperation 5. Bookmobile service 6. Extensive interlibrary loan program j By joining the Inland Library System, the Riverside Public | Library adds approximately 7,000 miles to the service area,! i 136,800 to the population to be served by the system, and j 516,359 books to the system collection.'*’ j The Berkeley-Oakland Service System, known as BOSS, was awarded system status in 1969. Until this merger, the j | Oakland Public Library was considered a single library ; system and received per capita grants. The major program of the new system will be one of improving reference ! i services in the geographic area served by these two public libraries. At the May 8, 1969 meeting of the California Public Library Development Board, a resolution was passed adopting I ^Letter from Albert Lake, Director, Riverside Public Library, December 6, 1968. 59 a geographic plan for California public library systems. Basically, the plan divides California into twelve geographic regions. Figure 2 shows the location of the regions, and indicates the region make-up by counties. At the same meeting of the Board, certain policies affecting future systems membership were adopted.^- In summary form, the policies stated: (1) the geographic plan was recommended as a guide to be used by the State Librarian to group libraries into systems, (2) no new systems could be approved after June 30, 1969, (3) in the future, libraries applying for system membership must join the existing system in the geographic area in which the applying libraries are located, and (4) grants may not be approved for any system that denies membership to a library located within the system area. The adoption of the geographic plan and the policy statements established a state-wide framework as a guide for future expansion of library systems. ■^For complete information on the adoption of the geographic plan and the policy statements, see From the California State Librarian, XLIX (July, 1969), 4, 9. FIGURE 2 ~».c IUM; CHAPTER III ANALYSIS OP FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Introduction During the last thirty years, the federal government has out-distanced by a large margin the tax collecting roles of either state or local governments, despite the! fact that the state and local governments are each collecting more money. For example, in 1932 local governments collected 53.6 percent of all taxes paid? in 1961 they collected 16.9 percent. In 1932 the fed- j eral government collected 22.7 percent of all tax receipts, but by 1961 this figure had risen to 66.7 percent. The change in percent of tax receipts by states was much less dramatic and significant— only a 7 percent drop in receipts took place during this j thirty year period. . . . An analysis of these trends j and figures shows that local governments are receiving I an ever-increasing proportion of their revenue from federal and state grants, and state governments are j receiving increased sums from federal grants.^ j Federal grants were allocated to public libraries through i | i the Library Services Act, on a limited basis, in 1956. j State grants to public libraries in California were approved by the Legislature in 1963, as has been stated, 1Maurice F. Tauber and Irlene Roemer Stephens, Library Surveys (New Yorks Columbia University Press, 1967), p. 110. 62 again on a limited basis. Federal and state financial ' i assistance programs are basic to the successful organiza tion and operation of cooperative library systems, because the introduction of such financial assistance at local j | levels permits the extension of library service beyond j local political subdivisions, and establishes a framework for interaction and interdependence between and among these! j political subdivisions. In addition, such assistance provides strong motivation for librarians, trustees, and | I governmental officials in a given geographic area to work together to achieve an overall objective of improvement in public library service. ! Many factors enter into the formulation of a financial assistance program. The values and acceptability of the library program for which aid is being considered are important. The program should contain elements of social, educational, and cultural significance in the minds of legislators who must approve the use of public money for library development. The program must also have support ;from the citizens who will provide the tax dollars to pay j |for the program. Certainly, the professional librarians j who will be responsible for the judicious spending, of such ! funds must be completely devoted to the concepts of the j ; program and be willing to exert much energy to obtain the goals of the program. These elements are necessary to • create a favorable milieu in which appropriate legislative action can be secured. Even with the presence of these ! elements, the adoption of an adequate financial assistance program is not easily attained. It is difficult to know what an adequate program should contain. Those charged ; with the development of a financial assistance program depend upon their own experience, the experience in other states, and study and research to produce the elements of i i a sound financial program. j i Federal Financial Aid j There are more than fifteen federal programs i offering, at the time of this study, some form of financial1 I i assistance which may be applicable to the public library | service.1 For the purpose of this study, discussion will be limited to the Library Services and Construction Act, because it offers the widest range of assistance to public ; ; libraries in California, and because California has ^■"Directory of Legislative Programs, Fiscal Year 1967," American Library Association Bulletin, LX~ (October,; 1967), 1075-86. ' ’ 64 i limited the financial assistance from Titles I and II of : j the Act for financing cooperative library systems \ projects. In presenting the developing federal aid i program, the Library Services and Construction Act with its! I j subsequent amendments will be described; then a brief j i report will be made on allocations to California; and ! i i finally a description will be given of some of the more i | important programs which have been supported by these funds.; Basically, the original Library Services Act of 1956 was designed to promote the further extension by the j several states of public library services to rural areas."*- The state agencies were required to submit plans of service j to the Commissioner of Education for approval. The | ! i California State Plan, in 1956, stated that its aims were: ; | To help to extend and upgrade California public I libraries, not only during the period of federal aid, but for many years into the future. It listed as further aims the exploration of new patterns of service,; and the fulfillment of long-range objectives of the j State Library, such as, the establishment and mainten- j ance of library units which grow toward maturity; which j foster reasonable selfsufficiency within a library j system, balanced by wise cooperation and use of state- I wide resources; and which stimulate intellectual, moral; • ^ Library Services Act. Statutes at Large, Vol. LXX, 293-294 (1965). and financial support by the communities the public ; library exists to serve.^ j | These aims were reaffirmed in 1964 when state plans were submitted for participation in financial grants under the i Library Services and Construction Act. j Congress authorized for the fiscal year ending ! June 30, 1957, and for each of the three succeeding fiscal | i i years the sum of $7,500,000. There was a basic allotment j I j of $40,000 to each state with lesser amounts to territoriesj and possessions. However, Congress did not appropriate the| 2 ' full amount authorized m the initial three year period. An amendment was incorporated in Public Law 86-679 which j I was approved on August 31, 1960 and provided for a five j j 3 year extension of the Library Services Act. - From 1957 to . ' • r a w * m j ^■"Summary of State Library Services Act and Library Services and Construction Act Program in Ten-Year Period Ending June 30, 1966," News Notes of California Libraries. LXII (Summer, 1967), 337. 2 Congress did appropriate $2,000,000 in the fiscal year 1957; $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1958; and $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1959. Not until fiscal years 1960 and 1961 did Congress appropriate the full $7,500,000. The basic I allotment of $40,000 for each state was based only on the 1957 appropriation of $2,000,000. Thereafter, each state j ■ was eligible for an amount calculated on the basis of popu-l lation density and per capita income. Also money was avail able only on a matching basis— each state having no have a ; ‘ certain minimal of state money to qualify for grants. ^Library Services Act, Statutes at Large, Vol. LXXIV, 571 (1960). j 1964, the rural aspects of the Act had some success in extending and improving public library services to people living in places with less than 10,000 population. In California, the funds derived from this Act, although not j used exclusively for the formation of cooperative library j systems, did provide experience in techniques of organization. More importantly, the experience confirmed i | the knowledge that strong cooperative library systems ; could not exist if the stronger libraries of the urban i areas were excluded. This was the era when the Library | Service Act money was designated, in popular terms, as | "seed" money to encourage the establishment of library j units where none had existed. Most of the funds from the j Library Services Act were used in California to form i experimental units, and demonstrations of library service j ^ j as preliminaries to forming cooperative library systems. I i I A significant improvement came with the passage of I # 1 I Public Law 88-269 which was approved on February 11, 1964. ! i i, This law, renamed the Library Services and Construction | Act, provided for several important changes. Under Title I ^Library Services and Construction Act, Statutes at Large. Vol. LXXVIII, 11-16 (1964). 67 of the Act, financial aid was extended to all public i | libraries. The population limit was removed? grants were j provided for public libraries serving urban as well as j i rural areas. Under Title I of the Act,.$25,000,000 was made available for library services, and under Title II of | the Act, $20,000,000 was made available for library build- ! i I i ing construction. The funds made available to the states under Title I might be used for salaries and wages, boohs and other materials, library equipment, and general operating expenses. The percentage of matching funds required could be determined by a ratio between the per I I capita income of the individual states and the average | j national per capita income in addition to a population i density factor. The federal share of total expenditure was not to exceed 66 per cent nor, in the case of wealthier states, was it to be less than 33 per cent. Funds available under Title II, Public Library Construction, could be used for the construction of new public library buildings and the expansion, remodeling and alteration of existing public library buildings, or the remodeling and alteration of any building if it was to be used as a public library. Such funds might also be used for architect's : I fees, land acquisition, and initial equipment of buildings j constructed under state plans. The allotment and matching ; ! procedures were the same as those for Title I. As in the i original Act, to become eligible for the payment of federal1 funds, a state was required to submit a state plan to the j I United States Commissioner of Education for approval. The j budget for a service program was to be planned for a fiscal year, but a budget for construction was on a project T - • 1 basis. The latest amendments to the Library Services and j Construction Act are incorporated in Public Law 89-511 2 ! which became effective on July 19, 1966. These amendments ■ i authorized appropriations that may increase each year from I I $88,000,000 in fiscal year 1967, the first year to j j $192,000,000 in fiscal year 1971, the fifth year. The j i amendments extend the Title I and Title II programs j through 1971, and provide federal financial assistance j under two additional Titles: Title III authorizes the ! ^or complete information on the California State j Plan for Library Programs under the Library Services and 1 Construction Act, as amended, effective April 1, 1967, see j News Notes of California Libraries, LXII (Summer, 1967). j 2 Library Services and Construction Act. Statutes at Large, Vol. LXXX, 313-18 (1966). establishment and maintenance of cooperative networks of all types of libraries; Title IV authorizes the establish ment and improvement of state institutional library service and library services to physically handicapped persons. California Federally Financed Projects Associated with the Development of Cooperative Library Systems During the fiscal years 1956-57 through 1962-63, California received $1,255,703 in federal grants.'*’ Administrative costs of v357,074 reflect the addition of | Library Consultants to the staff of the State Library to direct the several demonstration projects initiated with federal funds, and for a continuing program of strengthen- i ! ing the book resources of the State Library to permit t improved service to rural areas of the state. The remaining grants financed a number of projects. Three I bookmobile service projects were successfully demonstrated.: i I A demonstration in Mendocino County resulted in the I establishment of the county library which eventually becamej :a member of the North Bay Cooperative Library System. ! i • ■^State of California, Annual Budget, Department of | Education, Division of Libraries. 1956-57 through 1962-63. I " 70 Amador, a small mountain county, operated under a j ; t contract with the Stockton-San Joaquin County Library for a! I demonstration of cooperative services. This program was a j pilot project, and as a result, two similar operations were established— those of Calaveras County and Tuolumne I County— both contracted for library services to be i provided by the Stockton-San Joaquin County Library. Each : county now continues the program with local funds As a ■ j result of the demonstration, all three counties are now members of the 49-99 Cooperative Library System. Lassen, j Plumas, and Sierra County libraries shared one librarian in| ! | a venture in functional consolidation. Lassen County j withdrew from the project, but Plumas and Sierra have j continued this cooperative program. The eleven members of the San Joaquin Valley j i Information Service project participated in a telephone- | network reference service with headquarters in the Fresno ! ;County Free Library. The San Joaquin Valley Information I i 1 I Service is now self-supporting. The Santa Barbara j 1 I Reference project demonstrated the use of modern means of communication to strengthen and expedite reference service ! ,in a large geographic area. The reference collections of 1 the participating libraries were strengthened. The Santa 71 I Barbara Public Library eventually became the Reference ! | Center for the Black Gold Cooperative System. j California had two opportunities to observe the j functioning of libraries within a systems concept with the ! i i establishment of the North Bay Cooperative and the San j j Joaquin Valley Information Service prior to 1963. The I North Bay Cooperative Library System, when it was purely a federal funds demonstration project, was a decentralized federation of sixteen libraries. Under the state Public j Library Services Act, this system was established as a j separate agency through the joint exercise of powers agreements of all members. Ground breaking ceremonies for j this first library system headquarters building took place | on November 6, 1966.^ j Perhaps one of the more spectacular projects, one which exemplified the element of cooperation, is the 2 i Processing Center at the State Library. It has had the | j longest period of demonstration. At first, the Center was i ^ • California Library Association, Newsletter, I X | (February, 1967), 2. j o For an overview of the projects financed by | federal funds, see News Notes of California Libraries, L X I I j (Summer, 1967), 338-43. j 72 j supported as a demonstration, but in 1961 the members beganj paying their own way on a gradually increasing scale. The j i Center is now completely self-supporting. Plans were made j | to charge fifty cents a volume for processing in 1961-62* ! t I $1.00 in 1962-63; and full reimbursement of costs in 1963- | 64. At this time, the cost was established at $1.40 per volume processed. The Center orders and processes books selected by member libraries. The released time gained by j ! member libraries is used for the enrichment of public ser- j ■ i vices in their respective communities. Federal funds pro- j ; ! ! | vide an operating fund for the Center, and these funds are used for salaries and operating expenses until payments are received from member libraries. Table 3 shows the number j ; t I of libraries participating in the program from the begin- j ning fiscal year 1958-59 through 1968-69 with the number of books processed. In producing processed books at $1.40 per book, the Center has established a standard of cost. 1 . i The reporting to this point has been centered on ! ! I ;those activities which were made possible by federal funds ;through the federal Library Services Act for the purpose | of improving library services to rural areas of the State, j | The Act has strengthened the book resources of the State I Library, stimulated extension of service in the traditional! 73 TABLE 3 PROCESSING CENTER MEMBERS AND BOOKS PROCESSED FISCAL YEARS, 1958-59 to 1968-69 Members Fiscal Year Books Processed 16 1958-59 29,873 . 16 1959-60 39,128 16 1960-61 46,817 20 1961-62 53,350 20 1962-63 55,000 21 1963-64 53,400 21 1964-65 53,000 21 1965-66 51,000 22 1966-67 56,441 30 1967-68 ____a 34 1968-69 85,000b Total 523,009 aNo figures reported. I d Estimated in From the California State Librarian. XLVII (December, 1968), p. 7. ! i Source: “Statistics and Directory Issue,1 ' News Notes of California Libraries, Vol. LV (1960) to and including Vol. LXIII (1968).! fashion, and fostered experimentation with new forms of j library systems designed to improve rather than to extend service. The California State Librarian in a report to California Congressmen stated that more than 1,350,000 people in thirty-one counties benefited from this program.1 The 1964 amendments to the federal Library Services; I Act provided for additional fund allocations to the states,! | and widened considerably the scope of activities which may : ; ! be undertaken. For the fiscal years 1963-64 to and ] i i including 1967-68, California received $19,698,326 in j I i federal grants for the improvement of library service j 1 . 1 2 I within the state. All the funds were used, directly or ! i indirectly, to foster the expansion of the cooperative | i 3 library systems concept in the state. Grants in the amount of $10,464,037, which represent 53 per cent of the ^From the California State Librarian, XXVI (January 28, 1964), 4. 2 State of California, Support and Local Assistance i Budget for the fiscal years 1963-64 to and including 1967- 68. 3 j For complete information on the California State plan for library programs under the Library Services and I Construction Act, as amended, see News Notes of California j Libraries, LXII (Summer, 1967), 289-327, and Vol. LXIII (Summer, 1968), 363-74. total grants, were for the construction of new library buildings or for the remodeling of older library buildings or for the remodeling of older library buildings. Dr. E. A. Wight, Professor of Library Science, University of California, Berkeley, in his landmark survey I for the California Public Library Commission made the following observations concerning library buildings; The peak decades for constructing present buildings were those beginning in 1900 and 1910 when 91 (53.8 per cent) of those which reported the construction date were, erected. These were the two decades when most of the Carnegie gifts for buildings were made. It should also be noted that over half (54.3 per cent) of the headquarters buildings have less than 5,000 square feet of floor space. In the 1955-56 report to the California State Library, Head Librarians were request ed to estimate the adequacy of the then headquarters or main building. Fifty-two of 139 reporting said the building needed immediate replacement; all but 10 of these were constructed before 1930. I I Federal financial assistance did much to relieve the adequacy of library building space in California. Since priorities for awarding construction funds are based on systems membership, this was an inducement for libraries to become members of systems, and to plan cooperatively the functional aspects of buildings to be 1 ' California Public Library Commission, Reports. pp.! 49.50. 76 constructed. For the period 1965 to and including 1969, | fifty-nine building construction projects were approved in eighteen library systems.1 The total construction program provided 1,095,830 square feet of building space. Total grants amounted to $9,727,507? local matching funds were $21,395,888; and the total cost of the projects amounted 2 to $31,123,395. If the ratio of federal to local : contributions is examined, the result will indicate that federal funds accounted for 31.2 per cent, and local funds accounted for 68.8 per cent of the total cost. In addition, some local political subdivisions started construction on major buildings before joining a system. Under these conditions, federal funds were not available to them, but since joining a system, the new buildings have added valuable square footage to systems ■^See Appendix for list: "Public Library System Building Construction Projects." 2 Information on the construction program was | secured from records maintained by Library Consultant ! Services, California State Library, Sacramento, California. Some statistics for individual building projects were ! released through the publication, From the California State8 Librarian. j 77 l operations.^ ( I Several of the projects initiated under the federal j Library Services Act were continued and expanded under the j amended Act. Additional programs concerning cooperative i 2 library systems included: 1. The Monterey Bay Area Information Service | project is a demonstration of reference servicej o ! to five libraries in the Monterey Bay area. j The project represents a strengthening of the i reference collection and personnel# additional j ■^Palos Verdes Library District constructed a new j central library building with 64,608 square feet at a cost | of $1,653,001. The District joined the Metropolitan j Cooperative Library System. The San Francisco Public j Library constructed the Excelsior Branch Library adding | 8,200 square feet at a cost of $357,500. The San Francisco Public Library is the headquarters for the Bay Area Reference Center, and a single unit library system. The Whittier Public Library added the Whitford Branch Library with 10,404 square feet at a cost of $596,121. Whittier is a member of the Metropolitan Cooperative Library j System. Information secured from the Library Consultant j Services, California State Library, Sacramento, California. ^From the California State Librarian, XLVII (July 29, 1968), 13. ^The five libraries includes Carmel Public |Library, Monterey County Library, Monterey Public Library, I Pacific Grove Public Library, and the Salinas Public ;Library. I | : . I photocopying equipment, and improved telephone j reference service. Reference books are purchased and processed for the core collec tion, which is located in the Monterey Public Library, as well as for each member library. The five libraries are connected by special j telephone lease lines. The Black Gold Cooperative Library System received a grant of $87,250 to purchase j reference materials and to improve reference j i service. i j The 49-99 Cooperative Library System received a! grant of $42,600 to purchase books in foreign i languages. j | The Metropolitan Cooperative Library System l I received a grant of $176,000 to purchase ! I | reference materials and to improve reference j i i service to the newly expanded system area. The East Bay Cooperative Library System j I i received a grant of $45,680 to extend the j ! i Richmond Service Center for Young Adults. ! j The Sacramento City-County Library System and the Mother Lode Library System received a grant; 79 of $300,286 to establish jointly an Information Communication Network between the two cooperative systems. 7. The Serra Library System received a grant of $405,022 to secure books for a central reference service. Grants under Title III of the Library Services and Construction Act for 1967-68 were awarded to three cooperative library systems;'*' 1. The Black Gold Cooperative Library System was awarded a grant of $25,000 to support a cooperative information system which would include Moorpark College, and all types of i libraries in the tri-county area■ ca^vJ^yt'Ora, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara. This is one of the first attempts at cooperation among j all types of libraries. 2. The San Jan Joaquin Valley Library System received a grant of $38,106 to provide extension services to business and industry in ^From the California State Librarian, XLVII (July 29, 1968), 3-4. 80 the area served by the system. The project requires the purchase of specialized materials I suited to the needs of these groups. 3. Lassen County, California, and Washoe County, | Nevada, received a joint grant of $18,500 to | I demonstrate interstate cooperative library ! service. Only one system r.eceived a grant I ! under Title IV B. j I The 49-99 Cooperative library System received $26,100 to j establish library service to the blind and physically handicapped in the geographic area served by the system. j The grant will also be used to establish a centralized j i library of books in large print which will be available to j system members. j I These examples of federal financial aid supporting the development of cooperative library systems in California serve to illustrate the importance of such aid in developing certain specific areas of service. In addition to those projects, several demonstration grants were awarded to single unit library systems. California State Financial Aid i The 1965 Martin and Bowler study of public library j service in California reported: I California public libraries, including the State Library are now supported at under two-thirds the levelj needed to meet the needs and challenge of the state. , In the next five years, library support must double to ! meet growing demands and to keep up with increasing | population and costs. California is confronted with J the fiscal decision of whether it believes enough in I lifelong education through reading and enough in giving its people access to the record of man's knowledge to devote one per cent of its public expenditures to this purpose.^ | i This viewpoint is well taken as it applies to the financial! i needs to improve public library services within the state. j As noted previously, although California librarians were i successful in obtaining the passage of legislation ! I recognizing the systems concept, they were not successful | in obtaining the full appropriation of funds authorized in j the law. Table 4 shows the full appropriations authorized ! under the law and the actual amounts approved by the ! legislature for the six-year period, 1963-64 to and j 2 ' including 1968-69. The ever-widening gap between actual | appropriations and both the authorized amounts and actual j /^Martin and Bowler, Public Library Service Equal to; the Challenge of California, p. 81. ! 2 The actual appropriation for the fiscal year 1969-| 70 amounts to $1,251,616. CLA Newsletter, XI (September, 1969), 8. TABLE 4 SYSTEMS ESTABLISHED, POPULATION SERVED, FULL AND ACTUAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1963-69 Fiscal Year Systems Established Population Served by Systems Estab lished Under PLSA Full Appropria tion Authorized Under the Act Actual Appropr iation 1963-64 9 6,154,000 $ 995,685 $ 800,000 1964-65 12 10,106,000 1,009,865 800,000 1965-66 19 12,964,000 1,214,570 800,000 1966-67 19 13,914,000 2,681,291 1,000,000 1967-68a 20 14,901,200 4,200,000 800,000 \ 1968-69^ 20 17,147,134C 5,600,000 1,200,000 Source: California Public Library Development Board, "Fourth Annual Report, 1966-67," News Notes of California Libraries, LXIII (Spring, 1968), 276. aNews Notes of California Libraries. LXIV (Stammer, 1969), 358. ^California Library Association, Memorandum, July 5, 1968. cEstimated. 83 1 needs of the systems, has undoubtedly proved discouraging to the expansion of systems and retards the activities of ’ i those already established. To improve upon this situation,; there has been some attempt to bolster state financed programs with federal funds. In 1965, the State Librarian reported that a portion of federal Library Services and Construction Act Title I services fund would be used in j 1964-65 to grant an additional eight cents per capita to i multijurisdictional library systems. To demonstrate i certain attitudes relative to the participation of the state in financing library development, it is reported that ! t the funds budgeted for the continuation of the state Public Library Services Act in 1965-66 were recommended for dele- j I tion by the State Legislative Analyst.^ His contention wasj i that federal funds were available, and state money was not needed. Regardless of this recommendation, it appears that state financial aid will continue, but the amount may ■^California Public Library Development Board, j Minutes of Meetings of the Board of Directors, meeting of j May 24, 1965. j ^The Legislative Counsel's opinion of May 17, 1965 j stated that if the state cut the library development funds; it would have made itself ineligible for federal funds. I California Public Library Development Board, minutes of meeting, May 24, 1965. 84 j remain negligible unless the Governor and the Legislature j are willing to appropriate the full amount authorized I under the law. The Public Library Services Act provided for three types of grants: (1) planning grants, (2) establishment | grants, and (3) per capita grants. The first two types are| S awarded on a one time basis, while the per capita is awarded on an annual basis.’ * ' In the first year of the i program, 1963-64, planning grants in the amount of ! $165,961 were awarded to sixteen groups of libraries j involving seventy-four independent libraries; establishment grants amounted to $247,561 involving thirty-one libraries, i and $386,478 in per capita grants went to thirty-five 9 ! libraries. Two systems, the San Joaquin Valley Library | i I System and the Black Gold Cooperative Library System, were j established during the year. In this initial year of the I program, insufficient funds were available to satisfy all the per capita grant requests. In the fiscal year 1964-65, applications for grants ^Planning grants were discontinued after 1964-65. j 2 California Public Library Development Board, | "First Annual Report, 1963-64," News Notes of California j Libraries. LIX (Fall, 1964), 420. j amounted to $1,141,832, but only $800,000 was appropriat- ; ied.'*' These grants demonstrate a specific relationship to the establishment of cooperative library systems. The j availability of funds determines whether or not systems ; : • j l will be formed, and once formed, there is need for reliance) on annual appropriations to carry out the plans of service j established for the systems network. In the fiscal year | 1965-66, total applications for grants amounted to ! $3,003,530, but only $800,000 was appropriated in state ! j funds. As a result, none of the large single library systems that applied and were qualified received any funds j from the state in that fiscal year. However, nine multi- jurisdictional systems received $274,231 in establishment | l grants, and six of the nine received $552,769 in per ! 2 capita grants. In the fiscal year 1966-67, twelve multi- jurisdictional systems received $322,915 in establishment I , j grants; thirteen multijurisdictional systems and four i single unit library systems received $658,414 in per capitaj ’ - ______ ■ ! ■^California Public Library Development Board, j "Second Annual Report, 1964-65," News Notes of California j Libraries, LXI (Spring, 1966), 198-214. | ■ i o ! “ ^California Public Library Development Board, "Third Annual Report, 1965-66," News Notes of California Libraries, LXII (Spring, 1967), 234. grants; and six multijurisdictional systems received $18,671 in special projects grants.^- The total systems grants amounted to $1,000,000. In the fiscal year 1967-68, eleven multijurisdictional systems received $319,842 in establishment grants; thirteen multijurisdictional systems and one single unit library system received $465,220 in per capita grants; six multijurisdictional systems and one single unit library system shared in $14,938 of project grants.2 State Financed Cooperative Library Systems Projects State financial aid funds have been applied to 3 these typical areas. 1. Planning studies prior to the establishment of i I i systems. 2. Enrichment of the book and materials collec- California Public Library Development Board, "Fourth Annual Report, 1966-67," News Notes of California Libraries, LXIII (Spring, 1968), 278-81. 2 s From the California State Librarian, XLVII (July 29, 1968), 5-7. j j 3 t Cooperative Library System Activities and ! Services," News Notes of California Libraries, LXII (Spring! 1967), 257-72. j tions. Establishment or the improvement of the following: a. Central reference collections. b. Collections of films and the establishment of film circuits. c. Union catalogs. d. Advisory and consultant services other than those available from the State Library. e. Teletype and other quicks means of communication. f. Photocopy and other types of duplication service. g. Microfilm collections and print-out service. h. Bookmobile service, pooled or system-wide. i. Adequate and speedy delivery service. j. Cooperative public relations and publicity. k. In-service training programs. 88 i 1. Special programs, children's programs, j i and story hours. j i i m. Cooperative research programs. j n. Centralized acquisition and processing ! I centers. j j o. Computer produced book catalogs. p. Additional personnel to permit the | i l carrying out of systems programs. j Specific examples to support the above listed j areas of systems activities include:^ j j 1. The San Joaquin Valley Library System budgeted | its first establishment grants amounting to ! approximately $40,000 to the establishment of a! central processing service in the Fresno j t County Free Library. Books for all member j I libraries are ordered and processed by this j central processing center. In addition, a j I teletype system was installed in each central ! ! library of system members, and a daily delivery^ ^Mudh of the state financial aid has been used by libraries in systems to strengthen and enrich the collec tions of member libraries. For more detailed reports on | these activities, see the quarterly issues of News Notes of California Libraries, especially for the years 1964-67. schedule was established. j The Serra Library System used approximately i $50,000 in per capita grants to strengthen the i book and periodical collections by purchasing i additional materials, either duplicates or new j titles as needed. The System purchased additional reference titles to improve the ! j reference and information services of the central reference area which is located in the i San Diego Public Library. j | The los Angeles Public Library System allocated! I $105,130 of its per capita grant to the ! enrichment and extension of the reference and j | research services as expressed through the book collection. The funds were divided on the! f i basis of 45 per cent to the Central Library and; i t 55 per cent to the seven Regional Libraries. j ; j The East Bay Cooperative Library System, acting; i through the Contra Costa County officials, signed an eighteen months contract with Econolist Incorporated for cataloging and furnishing printed book form catalogs to be used by member libraries. TWX was installed in the headquarter libraries of the Contra Costa j i I County Library and the Alameda County Library. j The San Jose Public Library, a member of the i San Jose-Santa Clara-Sunnyvale Cooperative j i Library System, allocated $23,104 of per j I capita grant funds for books, binding, and films. j i i The Mother Lode Library System used system j t i funds to provide McNaughton Rental Service for j 1 • » i each member library. Analysis of Systems Operating Costs and Supporting Subventions j The adoption of the cooperative library systems 1 concept has enabled California public librarians to | | develop an organizational framework which is capable of j j indefinite expansion to meet growing needs. Inherent in j the concept is the partnership of the federal and state governments in supplying financial assistance to encourage ! i the expansion of library services beyond the boundaries of j local political subdivisions. The concept is based on a state-wide public library improvement program. Without thej definite assurance of adequate and continued financial support from the state, administrators of systems may be 5. 6. forced to curtail existing cooperative programs, and may hesitate to propose new and needed expansion programs to reach stated and desired goals of state-wide public library service. The alternative to the lack of adequate financial assistance from the state is that the local political subdivisions might have to provide the required additional revenues for systems operations. Such a situation could conceivably destroy the cooperative library systems concept on a state-wide basis, because not j all local political subdivisions aixs financially capable j j of providing the additional revenues. In the allocation of; | state financial assistance, the law provides for an i equalization factor relative to the ability of local j political subdivisions to provide financial support of cooperative library service. j Using the fiscal year 1968-69 as an example, the j total system operating costs and supporting subventions forj systems of libraries may be analyzed.1 Only two newly j formed systems, the Monterey Bay Area Cooperative Library j Adequate statistics are available only for the fiscal year 1968-69. For complete supporting statistical data, see Appendix: "Total System Operating Costs and Supporting Subventions." i System and the Mountain Valley Library System, had complete! ; i s support of systems cost through subventions. On a state- ! | iwide basis, local political subdivisions are supporting slightly more than 70 per cent of total systems operating | ■ | costs for multijurisdictional systems. On a per capita | ;basis, the local political subdivisions are supporting the . t systems operations approximately twenty-three cents more than the per capita amount of subventions. The single unit library systems received less financial assistance from ! subventions than the multijurisdictional groups to support j i systems programs. The percentage of total systems i ! ' I expenditures funded by subventions was approximately one i ! per cent; the per capita amount of subventions was ; i slightly more than three cents. I An interesting analogy may be made to the develop- | i | ment of library systems in California and in the State of | New York. By comparison, New York State has virtually completed the library systems structure designed for the : j state through a consistent program of state financial aid. j ; ! New York increased a state aid appropriation from a sum of i i $2,350,000 in the calendar year 1956 to $14,300,000 for the! calendar year 1967, with a further appropriation of $700,000 for the use of the State Education Department in 93] ; | initiating a reference and research library resources j : i 1 program. As a result, twenty-two systems include all ! I sixty-two counties and serve over 98 per cent of the State's area and people. i Although operating income from local sources for ! I the support of multijurisdictional systems member libraries! | i in California rose 56 per cent in the fiscal years 1962-63 j I to 1967-68 inclusive, and single unit library systems j : j operating income from local sources rose 67 per cent during] the same period, state appropriations remained at an annual figure of $800,000 except for the fiscal- year 1966-67 when the amount appropriated was $1,000,000. Local support has continued to increase and part of the increase has been j ; | allocated to maintaining service programs instituted under j | the state Public Library Services Act. However, too much | I i reliance on the local tax structure for systems support mayj result in a levelling off of the systems concept in this state. This levelling off is more likely if the present j ! pattern of tax distribution between local, state, and ! _________________________ ^University of the State of New York, Education Department, Division of Evaluation, Emerging Library Systems: The 1963-66 Evaluation of the New York State Public Library Systems (Albany, New York: University of i the State of New York, 1968), Appendix B, p. B-l. federal governments continues. It is obvious that a j I reliable program of state financial assistance is needed to! | remove anxiety on the part of administrators of systems, j | and to give stability to the further development of the j cooperative library systems concept in California. This i analysis supports the hypothesis that: | The lack of a realistic financial aid program on the j part of the State of California will have a tendency to place more financial burden on local political sub divisions for the support of "ongoing" state-wide library systems programs. Such lack of state financial support will have an effect of levelling off the | development of cooperative library systems in the State of California. Furthermore, an evaluation of public library services to | j the citizens of the state resulting from the provisions of ' i the Public Library Services Act should serve to reassure j the State Legislators of the values to be derived from a j i continuing and expanding program of public library j development. j CHAPTER IV LIBRARY SYSTEMS: ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS Multiiurisdictional Systems j i j The purpose of the interview schedules, mentioned j t I earlier, was to permit the interviewer to observe the j attitudes and opinions of those who are responsible for the organization and development of systems of libraries? to secure information on the methodology employed to achieve cooperative library systems objectives; and to learn of anyj I future plans for the further development of the cooperative! i I library systems concept. It was anticipated that an j analysis of the interview schedules would provide a basis i for recommendations to be helpful in improving systems 1 programs and procedures. The following is a summary of ! the interview data presented under broad subject headings, j 1The administrators of thirteen multijurisdictionalI library systems, and seven single unit library systems were| interviewed. For a list of the library systems and a copy ; of the questionnaire, see Appendix. Organization i Although the planning studies were initiated'to permit groups of librarians to conduct system-wide studies j to faciliate joint planning for the establishment of I | cooperative library systems, none of the library groups relied solely on the planning studies as organizational ; guides in forming systems. The planning studies were : | valuable in presenting social, economic, and cultural information about people and the geographic areas to be | served; librarians placed more reliance on two documents: . 1 2 the Martin-Bowler study and the Master Plan. Probably the most significant contribution of the planning studies j was the bringing together of librarians for the specific purpose of considering the formation of library systems. | In many areas, members of governing bodies wt .e introduced j to the systems concept through these meetings and the | i studies. I i Administrative control of the systems is maintained I i |through executive committees. The membership of these : i .^Martin and Bowler, Public Library Service Equal to! the Challenge of California, 1965. 2 California Library Association, Master Plan for Public Libraries in California, 1962. committees is composed of the head librarians of the member libraries. Administratively, a group pattern of j organization has been adopted.1 The heads of member j libraries in the system meet regularly to solve problems and make decisions affecting operations within the system in accordance with the established goals enumerated in the | plan of service. It was observed that the administrators of large libraries in the systems made every effort to resist an automatic role of dominant leadership to provide a greater opportunity for genuine group decisions. In most situations, the larger libraries contributed more to the operational functions of the systems than did the smaller libraries, but such contributions were made with enthusiasm, and with great confidence in the systems concept. Although the executive committee is recognized by I law as the body responsible for the administration of the j activities of systems, the membership of three of the i committees considered the responsibility of the group to be •'•"An effectively functioning group pressing for i solutions in the best interests of all the members and refusing to accept solutions which unduly favor a particu- j lar member of segment of the group is an important characteristic of the group pattern of organization," j Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York? McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961), p. 109. 98 solely in establishing policy for the guidance of member libraries in forwarding the objectives of these particular i systems. The remaining executive committees acted as | strong administrative groups and considered any decisions of the group to be binding as they related to systems activities. In the majority of systems, the library named in i the joint powers agreement as the library to receive and j | account for system funds was also declared the headquarters! j library for the system. The East Bay Cooperative Library j i i System did not designate a headquarters library as such, j but did name the Alameda County Free Library as the fiscal agent for the system. Two systems, the North Bay Cooperative Library System and the Mother Lode Library System, have employed system administrators, The North Bay Cooperative Library System has its own headquarters build ing, while the Mother Lode Library System operates from a rented headquarters building. All systems have a plan of service which was approved and filed with the State Librarian. These plans of service embodied the specific objectives of the systems. | i I 1 The activities centered around the achievement of the | i specific objectives. Although the plans of service were j somewhat uniform in outlining objectives, the methods used I to obtain them differed considerably. At the time of this study, there was no uniform state-wide system of reporting the activities of multi- jurisdictional library systems. The lack of adequate statistics on library systems is a common national 1 . ! characteristic. Five of the systems eported that some I attempt was made to report systems acv.ivities to their governing ‘ bodies. The remaining systems reported j activities only incidently in relation to the activities of; i individual libraries within the systems. The annual report on public library activities in California issued by the | State Library does not report uniformily on these matters. | ; , ' | Each of the quarterly issues of the publication News Notes I | of California Libraries may report on individual system j I activities. All administrators felt strongly that there should be a uniform annual reporting of statistics at the i j state level relating to these activities. I Although the majority of the libraries relied i I i ■^"Most librarians recognize that one of the most j frustrating and disquieting characteristics of the field atj its present state of development is the paucity of data,” j Nelson Associates, Public Library Systems in the United j States, p. 1. t I 100; heavily on the consulting services of the State Library during the organization of systems, little or no use was made of the services after that time. However, the State Library consultants attended most executive committee meetings of all systems. Consultants may be used in conducting or directing needed studies into certain activities. All administrators agreed that the success of the ;systems concept depended to a high degree upon the resources of a strong library within a system. A combina- j tion of weak libraries does not offer any solutions to j service problems. Therefore, in forming a system of libraries, there should be at least one strong library j included in the membership. | With the inauguration of a new concept of service i to patrons, it would seem logical that there would be some I form of patron opinion studies conducted on a system-wide j i basis to determine public reaction to the concept. No suchj studies were undertaken on a system-wide basis. However, j ' ■ * I it was the opinion of systems administrators that most pat-j i ! rons were highly satisfied with the services offered. ^"The interviews revealed that the areas of greatest! I 101 I ! Accessibility The majority of administrators agreed with the following statements in the area of accessibility: (1) i : I access by patrons to any library within the system has increased patronage in those libraries which have the j ; i better resources, (2) patrons gravitated to libraries | within the system having resources in the patron's field ofj I interest, (3) patrons appreciated the privilege of returning borrowed materials to any library within the i system. The greatest inconvenience expressed by patrons was the fact that there was no uniform lending code for materials. What could be loaned and for what period of j time was left to the discretion of member libraries. ! j i Factual information about various factors in the systems is given in the following pages. i Book Selection Five systems have a system-wide book selection policy; two have a system-wide selection committee. In the headquarters library having a book selection committee, j patron satisfaction included: greater availability of phonograph records and films, improved reference service, daily book delivery service between member libraries, im- j proved interlibrary loan service, the results of teletype j service, and the accessibility to a number of system service points. j 102 librarians from member libraries may attend meeting of the j committee. In some systems, the membership of the ! committee includes representatives from member libraries, j I Eleven systems have subject specialists available to | ! member libraries for book selection. Nine systems attempt i I I I to improve the quality of materials through? (l) reference coordinators, (2) approved lists compiled by subject specialists, (3) consultant workshops on ways to improve book selection methods. Nine administrators agreed that the quality of local collections in the smaller libraries was substantially better than in 1963., Improvement in this area was credited to more use of professionally trained librarians in the book selection process on a system-wide basis. All administrators agreed that the single factor making such quality improvement was federal and state financial assistance. Acquisition and Processing of Materials Six systems have an overall policy on the acquisition of materials; ten systems have centralized acquisition procedures; two systems use a computer in acquisition operations; six of them use a plan for block acquisition of materials; and only two have a policy of limited duplication of materials. In three systems, the j i I processing function is performed through contracts with I commercial firms. Only two have printed book catalogs. Reference Services i In twelve of the systems, one member library of ! each system is designated as the reference center library. | In these systems, either teletype or telephone permit quick! i communication with the central reference library. The | remaining system uses teletype connections with the State ! | Library. State and federal financial aid is used in j | twelve systems to strengthen reference center collections. ! i In all systems, there is a policy relative to the method of referral of questions at levels within the systems. In nine systems, unanswered questions at the systems level are automatically referred to the State Library.^ Twelve systems use some type of photo-copying equipment in member libraries for patron use. All systems jointly prepare The Black Gold Cooperative Library System and the | Metropolitan Cooperative Library System refer their un- ! answered questions to SCAN, Southern California Answering i Network, which is located in the Los Angeles Public ! Library. The North Bay Cooperative Library System refers { its unanswered questions to BARC, Bay Area Reference Center| which is located in the San Francisco Public Library. j 104 ; i bibliographic tools for the use of member libraries. Eleven observe a system-wide policy on interlibrary loans, and all of them place some restrictions on certain types of material loaned within the systems. The amount of restriction depends upon the rules of the individual member libraries. According to the librarians interviewed, refer- ;ence services are among the better organized systems activities. Non-Book Materials Six of the systems have a complete depository of federal documents in each system; three have complete i depositories of state documents. Nine systems have i centralized audio-visual libraries, and the materials are available on a system-wide basis. Three systems operate their own film circuits; ten have member libraries belonging to film circuits which are cooperatively operated by circuit members. State and federal financial aid has contributed to the rapid development of audio-visual services within systems. Circulation Procedures There is no uniform circulation policy at the systems level, nor is there a systems centralized 105 registration file. Only one system reports computerized circulation control, but three indicate that feasibility j studies of computer services are in progress. i Personnel Eleven systems maintain an in-service training ! program which utilize specialists within the systems. Ten | i i systems indicate that state and/or federal financial aid makes it possible to employ individuals with qualifications I superior to those which have been employed from available local appropriations. Workshops have been a common method | among systems to inform personnel of systems activities. | i I I Comments and Opinions j i i Systems administrators and some executive j t committee members were asked what they considered to be the i strong points of the systems operation. The major | strengths are considered to be: i 1. The printed book catalogs used on a system-wide! basis. | 2. The system centered reference service. 3. The greater number of books being made avail- i able to patrons through system-wide accessi- j bility to all member libraries. j 4. The improved collections in certain subject areas made possible through state and federal financial aid. 5. The improved ability of systems to provide j desired information and materials quickly to any member library through the use of teletype I and systems operated delivery trucks. 6. The willingness of the executive committee to j i cooperate and accept problems of member I i i libraries for solution. i 7. The improvement in audio-visual services. | 1 8. The availability of systems specialists to j member libraries. | I 9. The improvement in book collections for j children and young adults through the use of ! i systems specialists in these fields. 10. The establishment of system-wide acquisition I j and processing centers. 11. The existence of a real sense of cooperation among member libraries and between systems. j These same administrators and members of executive | committees stated that the present weaknesses of systems are grouped in the following areas: 1. The insufficient state financial assistance limiting or preventing further development of desirable systems activities. 2. The lack of uniformity in book selection policies at the system level. 3. The insufficient number of union catalogs recording the total collections of member libraries. 4. The poorly developed collections in some member libraries. As a result, a heavier patron load is placed on those with better developed collections. All multijurisdictional library systems have been organized through 1 1 joint exercise of powers" agreements among member libraries. This method makes possible the establishment of library services which may transcend local political subdivision boundaries. One problem revealed by the interviews was the lack of centralized collection of systems statistics. If any evaluation studies are to be produced, there will be a need for such statistics. The interviews also revealed that systems had additional "input" in the form of federal and state financial aid, and an "output" of increased book collections and services, but a "feedback" from the public j is lacking. At the moment, there is little supportive I evidence that desired societal goals are being achieved. I i There appears to be a trend towards: (1) more . inter-system cooperation, (2) more financial grants being made available to those systems which propose projects j ; ' j involving more than one system. The second trend may be a j I result of the first. However, this approach is in agreement with the overall objective to make systems a i i state-wide network of public library service. j Finally, multijurisdicational systems appear to be | slow in making use of the computer in those functions whichj 1 i may be adapted to computerization. Those systems which j I have computerized certain procedures use equipment avail- j able in larger governmental units, or contract for computerized services from private firms. Several systems indicated that studies were underway to determine how the computer can best serve systems operations. ! I i Single Unit Library Systems Although the library operated by a single public • • ■ agency does not have the characteristics of a multi- jurisdictional library system, the law includes such single! ' 109] ■ I 1 I libraries in the definition of library systems. At the ! j discretion., of the State Librarian, the single unit library i systems are eligible for state.financial aid on the same ; i basis as the multijurisdictional library systems. However,j : i of the seven public libraries recognized by law as single j I library systems, only two have interaction with multi- . jurisdictional library systems. The Los Angeles Public Library System supplies reference service to the Black Gold and Metropolitan Cooperative Library Systems through 2 contractual agreements. The Bay Area Reference Center is a project of the San Francisco Public Library undertaken in August, 1967 to provide reference service to suburban and rural libraries in the San Francisco Bay area. The project was financed by a federal Library Services and Construction! Act grant. The center serves seventeen libraries in six J ■^California, Education Code (1965), Section 27113. , j ^The Southern California Answering Network began operations in September, 1969. Its objective is to offer j !fast service to contracting library systems when higher ilevel or very specialized reference service is indicated. t Seven regional branches of the Los Angeles Public Library j are linked to the Central Library. The Pasadena and Santa j Barbara Public Libraries are linked to the Los Angeles Public Library by TWX. 1 ' 1 110 counties.’ * " In April, 1968, facsimile transmission equip ment was added to the Bay Area Reference Center communication network. The San Mateo County Library System has established a coordinated book selection program. Several municipal libraries in the county, which are not members of the system, participate in the program through contractual agreements. This procedure may eliminate unnecessary duplication of certain titles within the geographic areas ! served by these libraries. A "books for consideration j | list" is prepared by the San Mateo County Library staff and; distributed to the participating libraries prior to the j book selection meeting where purchase decisions are made.^ ! The Los Angeles County Public Library System has I i j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j 1 . ! The six counties include: Mann, Mendocino, Lake,| Sonoma, Napa, and Solano. i 2 Libraries participating in this coordinated books ; selection program include: Menlo Park, Redwood City, San j Bruno, and San Mateo City. The Daly City Public Library j limits its participation to juvenile and young adult books.; Organization and physical preparation of materials are performed centrally by the Technical Processing Center j which is operated by the San Mateo County Library. Acquis - j itions of the four municipal libraries are cataloged and processed at the Center. A union file includes, since 1962, a record of the acquisitions of the four municipal libraries, and serves as the basis for requesting interli- brary loan materials from these libraries. certain reciprocal agreements with a number of municipal libraries within the county whereby the residents of these | municipalities may use the County Library services, and thej residents of the county may use the services of these j ! i municipal libraries. There is a per capital charge when anj | imbalance of use on either part reaches a certain j percentage.* The interviewer had the opportunity to visit with public librarians who are among the top professional leaders in the State of California. As leaders, most of ' them had a responsible role in the activities leading to the adoption of the cooperative library systems concept for California public libraries. Consequently, these librar ians have strong convictions concerning the effectiveness of the cooperative library systems concept to improve public library service on a state-wide basis. The summary I listed some weak areas in the systems concept which will | require the attention of the administrators, but it is apparent that Cooperative library systems have improved 1 ! Municipal public libraries participating m the j reciprocal agreements include: Inglewood, Los Angeles, Glendora, Long Beach, Whittier, Cerritos, Alhambra, Azusa, ! Glendale, Irwindale, Pomona, Monrovia, and Pasadena. ! public library service in the State of California. 113 CHAPTER V RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SYSTEMS 1 The purpose of this chapter is to attempt to j measure the effectiveness of cooperative library systems in; attaining objectives of better library services. The basic! objectives of the cooperative library systems concept are: j j i (1) to improve services, and (2) to reduce operational i I costs through the sharing of resources, personnel, and financial assistance by member libraries. The methods j utilized to obtain the objectives are through system-wide access to materials which increases the amount of resources! available to system members; improved reference services byj the use of rapid means of communication among system j members; the reduction in cost by eliminating duplication of effort wherever possible; and the establishment of i i cooperative library systems. i i California is approaching total systematization of ! public library service. Figure 3 shows California cooperative library systems by counties in 1963-64. At 114 FIGURE 3 CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SYSTEMS BY COUNTIES, 1963-64 SISKIYOU MOOOC County Totally Served by Systems SHASTA LASSEN TRINITY TEHAMA PL'JMAS County Partially Served by Systems OLENN /BUTTE SIERRA PLACER iYOLO MARIN .MONO SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO SANTA CRUZ INYO TULARE KERN SAN BERNARDINO LOS ANGELES IMPERIAL SAN DlCOO i that time, only three counties were totally served by i library systems, and twelve counties were partially served i by library systems. Figure 4 shows the increase in library systems by 1968-69. Only thirteen counties remain j unserved by library systems; however, the Santa Cruz City- I County Library has applied for membership in the Monterey Bay Area Cooperative Library System, and the Woodland Public Library in Yolo County has applied for membership j in the Mountain Valley Library System. In addition, the E l j ! Dorado County Library, which is a member of the Mountain Valley Library System, is conducting a demonstration j project in Alpine County. At the conclusion of the j i demonstration project, it is conceivable that Alpine County! will join the Mountain Valley Library System. The same | I situation applies to the demonstration project being j conducted in Nevada County by the Auburn-Placer County Library which is also a member of the Mountain Valley Library System. Lassen County, California and Washoe j ' | County, Nevada are engaged in an inter-state cooperative venture which is being financed through Title III of the j !Library Services and Construction Act. A joint Title I . 1 and Title III application was approved for a study of potential cooperation among libraries in Humboldt | 116 FIGURE 4 CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SYSTEMS BY COUNTIES, 1968-69 mm County Totally Served by Systems Uh County Partially Served by Systems you> MARINE. .m o n o INYO YJ3s c g { m MM imperial County. A number of the libraries in the remaining unserved counties are unable to meet the minimum material resources and local financial support standards established for system membership in the California Public Library Services Act. Chester Barnard says, "For the continued existence ’ 1 of an organization either effectiveness or efficiency is 2 necessary." Given a systems concept of organization, how i can assessment be made of how well or how poorly the , system is functioning? Chris Argyris, Professor, Department of Industrial Administration, Yale University, says? We begin by defining the organization as an open dynamic system; that is, it is characterized by a continuing process of input, transformation, and out put. Organizational input characteristically includes people, materials, and energy, organizational output is typically in the form of products or services. . . . The openness of the organization as a system means that! it is eternally dependent upon its environment for the absorption of its products and services, and for providing the necessary input which activates the organizational processes of transformation and thereby For complete information on cooperative library projects see, News Notes of California Libraries, LXV (Winter, 1970), 17-19. 2 Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, p. 82. 118' maintains the organization in existence.'*' | I An organization increases in effectiveness as it j obtains: (a) increasing output with constant or decreasing inputs, or (b) constant outputs with decreasing inputs, and (a) is able to accomplish this in such a way that it can continue to do so. If this approach to measuring the effectiveness of cooperative library systems is utilized, it will be j i ! necessary to define "input" and "output" in relation to j the activities of library systems. Since the only guides to library use and internal activities which are kept consistently by all libraries are in quantitative form, "input" and "output" must consider these available forms of measurement. "Input" energy may be in the form of money and personnel. Employees supply energy in the form of know ledge and physical activities in the acquisition, organization, and interpretation of materials. "Output" is the measureable goods and services? books processed; circulation of materials; reference questions answered? and interlibrary loan activities. The operational activities ■ * ■ Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the 1 Organization, p. 13. j 2Ibid., p. 123. | required to transform "input" to "output" is termed the "mix." This diagram illustrates the elements of an input- output model. Input Mix Output Feedback j "Feedback" is information gained after an analysis of ! I "output" and may indicate a need for adjusting "input" to j | secure desired objectives or goals. There are some i elements which may affect the "input," "mix," and "output."! For example, the "input" may be affected by the financial ability and willingness of political subdivisions to j supply adequate financial support, inadequate state or i federal financial aid, and the availability of professional! librarians. "Mix" may be affected by inefficient methods | of operation, lack of sufficient personnel, and lack of j I adequate physical facilities. "Output" products and | services may be affected by the socio-economic levels of the society which the library serves, cultural and ! educational development within the service area, and the ! location of service points in the geographic area served by! 120: the library. Careful analysis of ’ ’ feedback" is necessary \ \ if the "output" is to be improved. j Analysis of Inputs and Outputs of Library Systems ' The time period used for the analysis includes the j i fiscal years 1962-63 through 1967-68. Systems were not ! formally organized under the California Public Library j Services Act until the fiscal year 1963-64. For compara tive purposes, statistics for those libraries becoming members of systems are included for the fiscal year 1962- 63. Since no single source of reliable information on the activities of system members existed at the time of the j study, information had to be extracted from a variety of offical sources. I ! | Statistical information is reported on all present j system members for the time period of the analysis i l i regardless of when they became members of their respective system. Federal and state funds are not included in the "input" for individual libraries; however, the "output i does reflect a causal effect of the use of such funds in ; the form of improved collections or the ability to trans form "input" to "output" more efficiently with additional 121; | personnel and new equipment acquired through federal and ! state financial assistance. To provide an opportunity to judge the effectiveness of multijurisdictional systems, and to distinguish between types of systems, information is recorded separately for multijurisdictional and single unit: I library systems. | | . Table 5 shows the local financial "input1 1 for multijurisdictional systems. Operating income increased 76i i per cent, but the per capita operating income increased only 46 per cent due primarily to a 20 per cent increase in the population served. Although the percentage of library j materials expenditures to operating income did not change j perceptibly, the amount of money expended for library j i i materials increased 75 per cent; the per capita expendi- i t i tures increased 47 per cent. Book costs and operational | costs have increased during the period under study, but thej 1 I increase in local financial "input" may be considered a j i compensating factor for these increases. Table 6 shows a somewhat similar situation for the j ! I single unit library systems. Operational income increased 48 per cent; per capita income increased 37 per cent; the amount of money expended for library materials increased 68; per cent; and the per capita for library material TABLE 5 LOCAL FINANCIAL INPUT FOR MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SYSTEMS FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE Fiscal Year Population Operating Income Per Capita Library Materials Per Capita Percentage of Operating Income 1962-63 6,375,399 $17,031,546 $2.67 $2,853,344 $0.44 16.7 1963-64 6,682,697 18,748,018 2.80 3,173,796 0.47 16.9 1964-65 7,110,111 21,450,433 3.01 3,875,344 0.54 18.0 1965-66 7,272,682 24,387,085 3.55 4,146,612 0.57 17.0 1966-67 7,509,681 26,900,617 3.58 4,505,016 0.59 16.7 1967-68 7,689,497 30,009,622 3.90 5,071,051 0.65 16.8 Source; Calculated from; News Notes of California Libraries Statistical Issues, 1964-69. TABLE 6 LOCAL FINANCIAL INPUT FOR SINGLE UNIT SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE Percentage of Fiscal Year Population Operating Income Per Capita Library Materials Per Capita Operating Income 1962-63 6,806,034 $18,393,715 $2.70 $2,540,501 $0.37 13.8 1963-64 6,980,268 19,601,039 2.80 2,629,323 0.37 13.7 1964-65 7,096,499 21,024,286 2.96 2,916,291 0.41 13.8 1965-66 7,198,840 22,265,466 3.09 3,379,857 0.46 15.1 1966-67 7,280,703 24,685,486 3.39 3,712,508 0.50 15.0 1967-68 7,385,303 27,379,094 3.70 4,282,258 0.57 15.6 Source: Calculated from: News Notes of California Libraries, Statistical Issues, 1964-69. | - - 124 : i expenditures increased 54 per cent. The rise in the j percentage of library material expenditures to operating expenditures is measurable with a 1.8 per cent increase. : i The single unit library systems experienced an 8 per cent gain in population which accounts for the better percentage increase in per capita expenditures for library materials j in contrast with the 47 per cent for the multijurisdic- ! ; j tional systems. j To present a realistic view of the financial j i "input" to systems, federal and state financial aid must j be considered. Federal funds available for the activities of systems totaled $8,502,992,^ and. state funds totaled $4,030,039. Total "input" of funds from all sources, local, state, and federal, increased 72 per cent with an j increase in funds per capita of 51 per cent for the six year period. This information is recorded in Table 7. A considerable amount of the federal and state funds was used ^The federal funds presented here do not include construction grants nor funds expended for other than systems projects. TABLE 7 ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INPUT FOR ALL SYSTEMS FROM FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS, FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE Fiscal Year Population Operating Income Federal Grants State Grantsa Total Income Per Capita 1962-63 13,181,433 $34,425,261 $ 142,487 $ ------- $35,567,748 $2.69 1963-64 13,662,965 38,349,057 180,155 634,039 39,163,251 2.86 1964-65 14,206,610 42,474,719 1,409,720 796,000 44,680,439 3.14 1965-66 14,471,522 46,652,551 1,516,923 800,000 48,969,474 3.38 1966-67 14,790,384 51,586,103 1,710,774 1,000,000 54,296,877 3.67 1967-68 15,074,800 57.388.716 3,542.933 800.000 61.431.649 4.07 aPlanning grants not included. Source: State of California, . Annual Budaet, Department of Education. Division of Libraries , 1962-63. State of California, ; Support and Local Assistance Budaet, for the fiscal years 1963-64 to 1967-68. David Sabsay, "Statistical Study of Library Systems," News Notes of California Libraries, LX (Summer, 1969), 357-8. 126 i ! to strengthen reference collections in all systems. Personnel "input" for multi jurisdictional systems is summarized in Table 8. In the six year period, full time equivalent personnel of all types increased 689 or 29 j per cent. On the basis of one employee for each 2,000 | population unit, the increase was .06 per cent. Profes sional librarians increased 127 or 18 per cent. No ! | appreciable change was recorded for the 2,000 population ! 1 unit. Non-professionals increased 562 or 33 per cent. j There was an 11 per cent gain in the 2,000 population unit.| i i The analysis shows very little increase in personnel in ! i proportion to the increase in population. | Table 9 shows the local salary "input" for multi- ! i i jurisdictional systems. Added staff, inflation, and earnedj j yearly salary increments accounted for increased salaries in the amount of $7,430,313 or 63 per cent, and salary funds per capita increased 65 cents for a 35 per cent gain. 1 | j ' j 1 * For example, the following systems received funds j to improve reference collections and services: Black Gold ■ Cooperative Library System, $87,250; 49-99 Cooperative Library System $42,600; Metropolitan Cooperative Library ! System, $176,000; Monterey Bay Area Information Service, $32,000; Serra Library System, $405,022. For complete information see, From the California State Librarian, XLVIIi (July, 1968), 13. TABLE 8 PERSONNEL INPUT FOR MULTI JURISDICTIONAL SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE Fiscal Year 1 Population 1 1 Full Time Equivalent Per 2,000 Pop. Profes sionals Per 2,000 Pop. Non- Profes sionals Per 2,000 P o p . 1962-63 1 6,375,399 ' 1 2,339 0.73 685 0.21 1,654 0.51 1963-64 6,682,697 ' 1 2,478 0.74 711 0.21 1,766 0.53 1964-65 7,110,111 ' 1 2,616 0.73 740 0.20 1,875 0.53 1965-66 7,272,682 ' 1 2,748 0.75 755 0.20 1,993 0.55 1966-67 7,509,681 ' 1 2,878 0.76 777 0.20 2,100 0.56 1967-68 7,689,497. ' 1 3,028 0.78 812 0.21 2,216 0.57 Note: Personnel calculated to the nearest round figure. Source: Calculated from: News Notes of California Libraries, Statistical Issues, 1964-1969. TABLE 9 LOCAL SALARY INPUT FOR MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE Fiscal Year Population Salaries Per Capita 1962-63 6,375,399 $11,697,111 $1.83 1963-64 6,682,697 12,862,907 1.92 1964-65 7,110,111 14,393,759 2.02 1965-66 7,272,682 15,772,032 2.16 I 1966-67 7,509,681 17,317,984 2.30 1967-68 7,689,497 19,127,425 I 2.48 1 Source: Calculated California from: News Notes of Libraries, Statistical Issues, 1964-69. j Table 10 records the same type of "input" I • . i information for the single unit library systems. Full j time equivalent personnel of all types increased 350 or 13 1 per cent. For each 2,000 population unit, the increase was; .03 per cent. Professional librarians increased 87 or 11 per cent, and the increase per 2,000 population unit was i negligible. Non-professional employees increased 263 or 15 TABLE 10 PERSONNEL INPUT FOR SINGLE UNIT SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE Fiscal Year 1 Population 1 1 Full Time Equivalent Per 2,000 Pod. Profes sionals Per 2,000 Pod. Non- Profes sionals Per 2,000 Pod. 1962-63 1 6,806,034 ' 1 2,525 0.74 777 0.22 1,748 0.51 1963-64 6,980,268 ' 1 2,552 0.73 781 0.22 1,775 0.51 1964-65 7,096,499 ' 1 2,639 0.74 791 0.22 1,847 0.52 1965-66 7,198,840 ' 1 2,728 0.75 818 0.22 1,909 0.53 1966-67 7,280,703 ' 1 2,700 0.74 834 0.22 1,865 0.52 1967-68 7,385,303 ' 2,875 " 0.77 864 0.23 2,011 0.54 Note; Personnel calculated to the nearest round figure. Source; Calculated from; News Notes of California Libraries, Statistical Issues, 1964-1969. 130 j per cent, and the increase per 2,000 population unit was also negligible. The multijurisdictional systems recorded higher gains in personnel "input" than the single <unit library systems. Table 11 shows the local salary input for single unit library systems. Salaries increased $5,203,323 or 38 per cent; salaries per capita increased 54 cents or 27 per cent. The salary "input" for single unit library systems is less than that recorded for the multijurisdic tional systems. For both types of systems, the average per cent increases for the six year period are: operating income 62! per cent; operating income per capita 41 per cent; I expenditures for library materials 71 per cent; and per capita expenditures for library materials 50 per cent. Only local funds are included in these averages. For both types of systems, the average personnel increases for the six year period were: equivalent full time personnel 519 or 21 per cent; professional librarians 107 or 14 per cent; and non-prof ess ional employees 412 or 24 per cent. The average salary increase was $6,313,818 or 50 per cent, and the average salaries per capita increase was 59 cents or 31 per cent. It is clear that there has 131 TABLE 11 LOCAL SALARY INPUT FOR SINGLE UNIT SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEARS 1962-63--1967-68, INCLUSIVE Fiscal Year Population Salaries Per Capita 1962-63 6,806,034 §13,477,476 §1.98 1963-64 6,980,268 14,240,848 2.04 1964-65 7,096,499 15,181,065 2.13 1965-66 7,198,840 16,147,871 2.24 1966-67 7,280,703 17,316,745 2.37 1967-68 7,385,303 18,680,799 2.52 Source: Calculated from: News Notes of California Libraries, Statistical Issues, 1964-1969. been a constant increase in the "input" factors for both types of systems. Table 12 shows the book "output" for multijurisdic tional systems. The number of titles added increased 133,572 or 54 per cent. The 20 per cent increase in population limited the per capita gain in titles added. ; Volumes added increased 425,054 or 48 per cent. Volumes TABLE 12 BOOK OUTPUT FOR MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE Fiscal Year Population Titles Added Per Capita Volumes Added Per Capita Total Collection Per Capita 1962-63 6,375,399 245,736 .0385 874,373 .137 8,338,618 1.30 1963-64 6,682,697 258,320 .0386 956,281 .143 9,371,796 1.40 1964-65 7,110,111 272,025 .0382 956,700 .134 9,891,255 1.38 1965-66 7,272,682 282,349 .0388 1,017,963 .139 10,571,235 1.45 1966-67 7,509,681 287,147 .0382 1,137,564 .151 11,309,333 1.50 1967-68 7,689,497 379,308 .0493 1,299,427 .169 11,891,534 1.54 Source: Calculated from: News Notes of California Libraries, Statistical Issues, 1964-1969. added per capita showed a slight but constant gain in spite: of the population increase. The total volume collection increased 355,291 or 42 per cent. Again, books per capita showed a constant gain. Table 13 shows the book "output" for single unit systems. Titles added increased 17,329 or 25 per cent; volumes added increased 271,050 or 36 per cent; and the total volume collection increased 2,007,846 or 25 per cent.; i There was a noticeable gain in both the per capita volumes : i added and the per capita collection for the last year of j the study. j Reference questions answered, circulation of I materials for home use, and interlibrary loans as "output" j j for multijurisdictional systems are summarized in Table 14.j Reference transactions increased 1,882,452 or 58 per cent. : There was a noticeable gain in the reference questions per : capita for the last three years of the study. Circulation i of books, pamphlets and periodicals for home use increased I 7,969,885 or 22 per cent. Again, a sharp increase in circulation per capita was recorded for the last three years. Books lent on interlibrary loan increased 52,829 or: i 279 per cent. Books borrowed increased 45,214 or 140 per cent. TABLE 13 BOOK OUTPUT FOR SINGLE UNIT SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE Fiscal Year Population Titles Added Per Capita Volumes Added Per Capita Total Collection Per Capita 1962-63 6,806,034 67,231 .009 734,891 .107 7,790,216 1.14 1963-64 6,880,268 65,835 .009 730,683 .104 8,107,639 1.16 1964-65 7,096,499 74,318 .010 773,308 .108 8,442,903 1.18 1965-66 7,198,840 75,829 .010 798,560 .110 8,767,741 1.21 1966-67 7,280,703 77,080 .010 872,605 .119 8,561,484 1.17 1967-68 7,385,303 84,560 .011 1,006,031 .136 9,798,062 1.32 Sourcet Calculated fronu News Notes of California Libraries, Statistical Issues, 1964-1969. 134 TABLE 14 REFERENCE QUESTIONS, CIRCULATION, AND INTERLIBRARY LOANS OUTPUT FOR MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— -1967-68, INCLUSIVE Interlibrary Loans Fiscal Year> Reference Questions Per Capita Circulation Per Capita Lent Borrowed 1962-63 3,225,134 0.47 35,486,766 5.21 18,921 32,230 1963-64 3.779,649 0.56 37,119,800 5.55 20,690 35,185 1964-65 4,265,275 0.59 38,934,535 5.46 21,656 43,186 1965-66 4,338,659 0.59 40,224,609 5.53 27,523 53,087 1966-67 4,816,611 0.64 41,630,381 5.54 47.108 69,180 1967-68 5,107,586 0.66 43,456,651 5.65 71,750 77,444 Note: Population figures Source: Calculated from: from Table 14. News Notes of California Libraries, Statistical Issues, 1964-69. 135 136 The "output” for reference questions, circulation, i and interlibrary loans for single unit systems is summarized in Table 15. There was an increase of 3,483,034 in reference transactions or a 34 per cent gain. Circulation of materials for home use increased 382,350 or a .01 per cent gain, but a decrease in the per capita circulation was recorded. Single unit library systems increased interlibrary loans by 2,554 or a 50 per cent gain, while borrowing of materials increased 1,544 or a 48 i per cent gain. Non-book materials such as government publications,! i and certain types of' micro-forms are important sources of I current information. Table 16 shows the total holdings and; | circulation of these kinds of materials for both types of systems. Using the fiscal year 1964-65 as a more realistic! base, there was an increase of 193,578 non-book items or a j 157 per cent increase in this four year period. Although much of this material is restricted to library use, circulation of materials for home use increased 534,645, or! 141 per cent in the four year period. In the plan of service filed by all systems with the State Librarian, two items frequently listed for improvement were reference materials and services and TABLE 15 REFERENCE QUESTIONS, CIRCULATION, AND INTERLIBRARY LOANS OUTPUT FOR SINGLE UNIT SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE Fiscal Year Reference Questions Per b Capita Circulation Per b Capita Interlibrary Loans Lent Borrowed 1962-63 10,117,338 1.48 34,104,169 5.01 5,070 3,204 1963-64 11,313,960 1.62 34,569,381 4.95 7,199 2,680 1964-65 12,741,841 1.79 34,524,360 4.86 5,286 3,068 1965-66 13,441,947 1.86 33,705,498 4.68 5,289 3,847 1966-67 6,175,570a 0.84 32,330,568 4.44 5,275 4,343 1967-68 13,600,372 1.84 34,486,519 4.66 7,624 4,748 aOakland and San Francisco did not report reference questions for the fiscal year 1966-67. Los Angeles County reported only adult reference questions for this fiscal year. Population figures from Table 15. Source: Calculated from: News Notes of California Libraries, Statistical Issues, 1964-69. 137 138! i i TABLE 16 ! OTHER NON-BOOK MATERIALS OUTPUT FOR ALL SYSTEMS, ! FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE Fiscal Year Collection Circulation ! 1962-63 6,338a i 377,045 1963-64 3,651a 794,421 1964-65 122,982 684,090 1965-66 228,592 950,347 1966-67 260,731 825,884 1967-68 316,560 911,690 aSome libraries did not report holdings of non-book materials. Source: Calculated from: News Notes of California Libraries, Statistical Issues, 1964-1969. either the improvement or the inauguration of phonograph record and motion picture services. Phonograph records I added for both types of systems increased 32,218 or 209 peri cent. The total collection was increased by 113,817 records or a gain of 99 per cent. Circulation of phono graph records increased 281,502 or a 70 per cent gain. The: 139 motion picture films collection increased 14,410 or a 215 I per cent gain. The number of times films were released for viewing increased 94 per cent, and the number of individtalsj viewing the films increased 125 per cent. Table 17 shows I the collection of records and films and patron usage. When the results of the foregoing analyses are j studied in relation to the objectives of cooperative j i library systems, they indicate support for the hypothesis j that library systems are effective in the achievement of j goals. It has been established that the basic objectives of the cooperative library concept are to improve services i | and to reduce operational costs through the sharing of | | resources, personnel, and financial assistance by member libraries. Various methods are utilized to achieve the objectives. In the area of services, a study of the statistical analysis shows decided improvements in several service activities: 1. The availability of more books per capital. i Both types of systems have improved this i i service by providing more book titles and more j books added resulting in larger collection | availability to patrons. The multijurisdic tional systems show greater numerical j TABLE 17 PHONOGRAPH RECORDS AND MOTION PICTURE FILMS OUTPUT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1962-63— 1967-68, INCLUSIVE ALL SYSTEMS, Fiscal Phonoqraph Records Motion Picture Films3 Year Added Collection Circulation Collection Showincrs Attendance 1962-63 15,401 114,208 400,370 6,677 96,591 2,845,388 1963-64 13,179 111,276 419,978 5,704 9-3,702 3,103,409 1964-65 23,461 136,771 455,064 10,248 117,488 3,862,847 1965-66 29,383 150,721 572,195 15,829 147,419 4,577,906 1966-67 45,167 191,876 531,063 21,494 160,381 5,656,977 1967-68 47,619 228,025 681,872 21,087 188,286 6,413,705 aIncludes films owned, rented, or secured through a film circuit. Source: Calculated from: News Notes of California Libraries. Statistical Issues, 1964-69. advancement in this service area than the single unit systems. A significant improvement in service is shown in the quantitative measurement of reference questions answered, and the related inter- library loan services. Even though a number of libraries did not report fully on the number o f reference inquiries, those libraries reporting were sufficient to establish a constant upward trend in these services. The multijurisdic tional library systems reported the greater advance in reference and interlibrary loan services. Methods used may have contributed significantly to the successful improvement of | services. For example: the allocation of i federal and state funds for the improvement of j i reference collections; the establishment of reference centers in a number of multijuris dictional systems; the type of services offered; by the Bay Area Reference Center and the Southern California Answering Network to member; libraries; and the improvement of the means of communication among libraries and between ............... 142] I I systems of libraries. 3. Increase in circulation of books for home use resulting from wider availability of materials i in an expanding collection of books shows I | another improvement. Multijurisdictional j i library systems have recorded a definite j increase in the number of books circulated and | books borrowed per capita in a rising popula- : : | tion. On the other hand, the single unit ! i ............. i systems have not increased the circulation of [ | books, and only in the fiscal year 1967-68 was j j there a slight improvement in books loaned per j capita. Part of this low rate of improvement j i in the single unit systems may be attributed to patrons using more suburban libraries through ; j reciprocal borrowing agreements between single j unit systems and member libraries of I ! multijurisdictional systems. j ; ' I j 4. Improved service can be measured quantitatively ; in the provision of more non-book materials, especially in the form of microtext.^ Service •^Microtext includes such forms as microfilms, microcards, and microfiches. ! 143 has also been improved through the supplying of necessary equipment for viewing this type of non-book material. Although all libraries did , j not provide statistical information concerning non-book holdings and circulation of the materials, the available information suggests a strong trend towards continued improvement in this service. ; 5. A significant improvement may be recorded in the acquisition of phonograph records and motion picture films. Patrons have shown their interest in this service by making use of both records and films. The above analysis provides quantitative measurements which indicate that cooperative library systems are attaining objectives in the form of improved services. A second objective of the cooperative library system is to reduce operational costs through the sharing of resources, personnel, and financial assistance by member I libraries. Unfortunately, there is no systems-wide statistical information available to support this objective t in a quantitative manner. However, it is known that ; certain cooperative programs do exist which contribute to j 144 i the attainment of this objective. In addition, there are several reports which can be cited as supportive data. 1. There is a definite trend among multijurisdic tional systems to centralize the acquisition process. The methods employed in this process j result in a reduction in cost by eliminating duplication of effort wherever possible. By l ' j pooling financial resources, greater discounts j I in purchasing books and materials were j i achieved.1 I 2. Centralized processing in multijurisdictional systems is not as well developed as the acquisition procedures, but certain systems are developing programs which may serve as models i i 2 for other systems. Thirty-four public j 1 i In a recent cost study, a questionnaire was sent to nine multijurisdictional systems. Seven reported moderate to substantial savings in purchasing books and materials through centralized acquisition procedures. For i complete information on discount savings, see Raymond Holt,i "Benefits and Economies of Interlibrary Cooperation," News Notes of California Libraries, LXIII (Summer, 1968),327-28.1 2In the same study, seven cooperative library j systems reported some savings in personnel through centra^- j lized processing. With centralized processing, member li- ' braries no longer need to employ catalogers. For further information on savings in centralized processing, see Holt,| libraries, with the majority belonging to systems, are members of the California State Library Processing Center where boohs are processed for a standard price.1 The coopera tive program saves both money and personnel for member libraries, thus reducing operational costs. 3. The sharing of resources offers savings in the 1 non-duplication of materials. There is no 2 j systems-wide study on the exact savings. i 4. The establishment of system-wide film circuits | 1 is another example of sharing resources. In this program, expensive color films formerly | ''Benefits and Economies of Inter-library Cooperation," pp. 329-30. 1See supra, Chapter III, p. 71. 2 Systems allocate funds for purchase of a special collection, or for improving the holdings of each member library. Agreements on specialization make it possible for| members to buy more widely in certain fields, within their own budgets, since each member may call upon the other libraries' collections freely, for material in other fields. Twelve multijurisdictional systems have collection specialization programs. For further information on collection specialization, see "Cooperative Library Systems Activities and Services," News Notes of California Libraries, LXII (Spring, 1967), 257-58. 146; limited in availability to single political subdivisions are now shared on a system-wide basis.'*' In some systems federal and state financial aid is shared to improve the basic 2 film collection. 5. To implement the sharing of resources; most j I multijurisdictional systems have some form of I union catalogs which record the holdings of i i specific materials throughout the systems. j Consultation of these catalogs may locate i desired materials within a particular system, j j and the items may be requested on a inter- 3 library loan. 1There are two regional film circuits in California! which system libraries may join: Southern California Film ! Circuit and the Northern California Film Circuit. There are also a number of smaller circuits. The trend is to wards the formation of individual system-wide circuits. 2 . . . Six of the multijurisdictional library systems have system-wide film circuits. For further information on; systems film and film circuits, see “Cooperative Library Systems Activities and Services," pp. 259-60. 3 . . , The San Joaquin Valley Library System is the only ; one reporting a complete system union catalog on cards showing holdings of all member libraries. Several systems ; have developed system-wide booh catalogs which indicate holdings of member libraries. All systems have some form of union catalogs. Typical examples would include: union ; 6. Advisory and consultant services represent an area in which personnel is shared, and where systems funds are shared to pay salaries. Systems-wide services are performed by these specialists, and provide services which many member libraries may not be able to afford. 7. All multijurisdictional systems provide some form of specialized service. Specific provisions are made for advisory, consultant, j and coordinating services, by specific category! I such as administrative, children's services, I technical processes, and reference services. j Subject specialists contribute to the book catalogs of reference books; union catalogs of current acquisitions; union lists of periodicals; union lists of newspaper holdings; union catalog of phonograph records; and the Serra Cooperative Library System in cooperation with other type libraries in the San Diego area compiled a directory of scientific library resources. For further information on union catalogs in library systems, see "Cooperative Library System Activities and Services," pp. 260-62. 1 ! selection process on a systems-wide basis. i 8. Systems funds have been used to purchase delivery vans to provide regular delivery service of materials among member libraries. j Ten multijurisdictional library systems share | i " ’ 2 ! funds to provide for this service. | Although systems-wide cost studies are non-existent at thisi : i time, the reporting of certain systems activities by j ! j individuals and the State Library indicate savings in | | operating costs through cooperation. Such savings, for thej most part, have been directed to acquiring more resources j j to improve services. When applying the "input" and "output" model to the! analysis of systems activities to determine effectiveness, j certain observations may be made. Local funds supplemented with federal and state financial assistance programs have j increased the financial "input" 72 per cent during the For a listing of advisory and consultant services for the multijurisdictional library systems, see "Cooperative Library Systems Activities and Services," pp. 262-64. 2 For a description of delivery services, see ‘"Cooperative Library Systems Activities and Services," pp. ; 266-67. ; 149j ' j period of the study. However, there have been certain offsetting increases in operational and material costs. If? the efficiency of an organization is measured by the amount ; of resources used to produce a unit of "output," it may be i i hypothesized that the systems increase in "output" has j i offset, to a degree, the measurable increase in financial "input." Although the personnel energy "input" has increased1 j in numbers of employees and in the amount of salaries paid,; : i there are offsetting cost increases. The beginning I . i salaries paid to professional librarians increased 32 per j cent during the period of the study, but this was more than matched by an overall 62 per cent increase in salaries paid l to all employees. This increase was, at least partially, offset by the increase in numbers of employees. The | analysis showed that personnel has remained fairly constant when measured on a per capita basis. j The "output" measured in products and services i showed gains in every area. Some substantial gains were measured in added book resources, reference services, interlibrary loans, and audio-visual materials and services. Only one service area did not show a steady gain; the circulation of material for home use by single 150 iunit library systems remained fairly constant. It was not 1 until the final year of the study that there was evidence | of improvement in this service. : ( Some of the increase in "output" can be attributed j to at least two functional changes in the "mix.1 1 The j ! i centralizing of the acquisition and processing functions j : i has increased the "output" of new materials. The reference function has been improved with the establishment! ! • ! of Reference Centers. I Some observations may be made in the form of "feedback" on the systems analysis. It is obvious that there is a lack of quantitative measurements in the area of : j cost analysis. Studies should be made in this area to i I | permit a more effective means for measuring the efficiency ! of the systems concept. Any savings in operational costs | as a result of cooperative activities should be considered | i for the acquisition of more titles per capita. The greater! increase in non-professional over professional employees | should be investigated to determine whether the use of machine equipment, especially the computer, might reduce ; | the number of non-professional employees, and contribute to! j i lower unit cost of "output." j Organizations are formed to achieve objectives, butj 151] it is the interaction of the human element within the I organization performing duties in a cooperative manner ! which makes possible the attainment of established objectives. Much of the improvement in the effectiveness | of multijurisdictional library systems can be attributed to| ! the group pattern of organization as exemplified by the executive committees. The members have accepted their I responsibilities with a display of energy and enthusiasm, j I Their administrative contributions to the systems concept ! ! may not be overlooked when judging the effectiveness of the! i I cooperative library systems concept. ! The analysis of California public library systems, j especially as this analysis applies to multijurisdictional I library systems, supports the hypothesis that: j California cooperative public library systems have | exhibited relative effectiveness in achieving stated objectives: (1) to improve public library services, and (2) to reduce operational costs through the sharing' of resources, personnel, and financial assistance by member libraries. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I I | t Conclusions | I Compared with the almost 100 years of public library service in the State of California, the cooperative library systems concept is in its early developmental i stages. However, not since the adoption of the county library concept of library service in 1909 has there been such a concerted effort on the part of public librarians to develop an organizational and operational pattern directed j I I to the establishment of a state-wide network of public j j library service with the prime objective of improving pub- ! i i lie library service to the citizens of the state. | Although cooperative library systems have been in existence in the state for a little more than six years, j they have made a considerable impact on public library service. At the end of the fiscal year 1968-69, about 66 per cent of the public libraries will be members of systems. These libraries will contain approximately 80 per! cent of the total public library book stock, and they will j 153| t serve more than 80 per cent of the population. If state and federal assistance funds, excluding capital outlay, are added to local operating funds, library systems expended $3.90 per capita for the fiscal year 1968-69. This amount ! is still some distance from the $5.00 per capita minimum | recommended in the 1965 Martin-Bowler study, but some | improvement over the $2.77 per capita expenditures for the j ! fiscal year 1961-62. Inflation has wiped out some of this j | gain, but the amount that has been lost to inflation has ! not been fully established. i j The results of the study show that the organiza- | tional pattern of systems is fairly well established, with j the possible exception of the definite designation of j I proposed "area1 1 and ’ ’ research1 1 libraries. The adoption of | i the geographic plan and certain policy statements relative I to the expansion of systems’ 1 - are indications that the State! Librarian anticipates the need for establishing a state- ; wide framework as a guide for future development of library I systems. The inclusion of proposed area libraries and research libraries in the geographic plan reflects the recommendations made relative to levels of service in two ^See supra. Chapter III, pp. 51-54. 154 basic documents previously discussed: the Martin-Bowler | report and the Master Plan. The current developments | I toward the enlargement of system membership and activities ! i indicate a strong trend in the direction of total i i systematization of public library service in California. j i I The pace with which this takes place will be determined in | j large part by the capability of public libraries to meet i i the qualifications for membership in systems, and the i willingness of the legislature to appropriate sufficient j | state financial aid to maintain and augment the expanding j i program. j i At this juncture in the development of a state-wide) network of library systems, the importance of adequate and continuing state financial assistance should not be under estimated. The governing bodies of the remaining local | I | public libraries not members of systems will need a strong i I financial incentive to guide them in reaching decisions i concerning membership in an existing system. It is logical) to assume that the governing bodies of non-system libraries! ! will want some assurance concerning the continuance of state aid as a possible compensatory factor should there be! a need to increase local tax support to qualify for I membership in a system. Furthermore, libraries joining j 155 i i systems at this comparatively late date in systems • formation will require considerable cooperation from the existing system members to bring a new member or members up to the quality level of service established for the system.; If adequate financial assistance is not available to offset the financial pressures involved in an expansion of system I membership, the entire system may be weakened. Therefore, i | in this partnership with the State of California to j i develop and improve public library service on a state-wide j basis, state financial assistance should be maintained at ! i ( the appropriation levels authorized by law. The study j shows that an increasing amount of local tax funds are I being used to support system-wide service activities which j i were originally established with federal and state aid. | Local governing agencies of member libraries of systems j will be reluctant to accept new member libraries if it means more local taxes to support enlarged system-wide activities. If the state appropriations remain at the same; i inadequate levels of past years and more libraries become j members of systems, it is obvious that less state aid per member library will be available. A continuance of this situation may well result in a sharp levelling off of cooperative library systems development, and it is not [ 156; ' i i I inconceivable that some libraries may relinquish their j membership in library systems. i Cooperative library systems have not solved all • * » problems relating to the increasing number of materials : • j being issued each year, the increasing costs of these j materials, and increasing operational costs, but some j I measurable advances have been made toward goal achievement. One of the objectives is to improve service. The study i | ! shows that this objective has been attained through: (1) j i the availability of more books per capita for patrons of I library systems, (2) the significant improvement in i | ! reference services, (3) the improved interlibrary loan j ! services, (4) the increase in the circulation of books for home use, especially in the multijurisdictional library systems, (5) the increase in the availability and use of | I i microtext and other non-book materials, and (6) the | i improvement of audio-visual services. j A second objective of the cooperative library i systems is to reduce operational costs through the sharing ! I ! I !of resources, personnel, and financial assistance by member; libraries. Since state-wide cost data on library systems ; i are not available, it is impossible, at the moment, to 'effectively measure the full achievement of this objective.; | 157 i i However, certain system-level programs do exist which i ; contribute to the attainment of this objective. The study shows that this objective has been partially achieved through certain cost reduction programs: (1) the centralization of the acquisition and processing functions, ; (2) the non-duplication of certain materials through i sharing of resources, (3) the establishment of system-wide i ; ! I film circuits, (4) the compiling of union catalogs to j j ! facilitate the sharing of resources, and (5) the sharing of j salaries for advisory and consultanting personnel. The analysis of systems activities show that system^ are effective in attaining objectives. Studies should be conducted in the area of cost analysis to permit a more accurate analysis of the efficiency of systems operation. The laws providing for the establishment and administration of library systems are relatively recent, and the need for revision of present laws or new laws is not apparent at this time. However, times change and the laws may need to be amended to provide for change. The study reveals the importance of concerted action on the part of public librarians and friends of libraries to inform the legislators of desired changes in the existing ' 158 l laws or new laws to improve public library service. The California Public Library Services Act places ’ | responsibility on the State Librarian for the development and administration of library systems. The rather abrupt termination of the Public Library Development Board has I ( placed full responsibility for program development on the State Librarian. The study suggests that some attention be given to the reorganization of the Consultant Services ;Department functions to provide more meaningful services to library systems. Federal and state financial assistance has had a strong influence on the establishment of library systems. The federal assistance was important in encouraging demonstration projects which contributed to the formation of systems. The construction funds contributed much needed space to the expanding service programs. A continuing and expanding federal and state financial assistance program r i will be a forceful incentive in the development of a j program of improved state-wide public library service. Much of the progress made in the development of thej | systems concept would not have taken place in such a short j I period of time had it not been for the strong belief by public librarians in the value of the cooperative library 159; i i systems concept as a means for solving problems and j i improving library service on a state-wide basis. Much i still remains to be done to bring the concept to full fruition. The following recommendations are based on i i personal experience in the formation of systems, reading on; the subject, and the results of the study. Hopefully, the J recommendations will be of some value in forwarding the j continued development of the cooperative library systems concept in California. j i I j Recommendations j I The study, obviously, has not uncovered all the ! problems facing the administrators of systems in their j i i intent to improve public library in the state, but it has j l revealed some problem areas with possibilities of solution.j The problems and recommendations are not listed in any j predetermined order of importance. They are all important j i to the further development of the systems concept, but j i some will require more thought, study, and research than i others before implementation. i A recurring problem throughout the study is the i i apparent lack of interest on the part of the state to ; fulfill its financial role in the tri-partite arrangement ! ■ i6d| ! ' ! between the local, stste, and federal governments to ; i finance a program of improved state-wide public library service. Professional librarians and friends of libraries have attempted to inform legislators of the importance of the state's financial role in contributing to the success of the program. However, not much success has been ; i achieved through this approach. A different type of i ] !influence is needed. It may be that the lethargy and dis- j ! t interest of state officials regarding support for libraries; | comes in part from the complicated administrative structure; I ; within which the State Library is required to function. j i I The Division of Libraries administratively is placed in the; ; i Department of Education, but the State Librarian is j appointed by the Governor and holds office at his pleasure.; I It is understandable that the Department of Education is | preoccupied with public school problems, and has little or j : ! no time for problems concerning the State Library, or for i I the problems of the public libraries within the state. If there is competition between the State Department of ; i Education and the State Library for funds, the State Library is not in a tenable situation. The State Librarian! enjoys a somewhat quasi-independent status as an appointee of the Governor, but this status may be inimical to 161 achieving state-wide objectives. If an organization is not functioning in a manner which permits the achievement of ! objectives, the organizational structure should be altered j to permit achievement. The State Library needs to be in an organizational structure which will provide it with stature equal to other governmental agencies. It is also j ; j desirable that the State Library should have some contact with the people of the state which it serves. A State Department of Libraries should be created with the State Librarian as head of the Department, appointed by the Governor and responsible to the Governor in the same manner as other appointed department heads of state agencies. To | | provide the necessary "feedback1 1 from the people of the state, an advisory library commission, composed of non librarians, should be established. One member from each of :the twelve system regions should be appointed by the Governor with the advice of the State Librarian to make up i the membership of the commission. The commission should bej helpful in providing both the Governor and State Librarian ! i I with local reactions to the adequacy or inadequacy of state! financial support for the development of public ..library j i service. j > i Recommendations That a Department of Libraries be j 162 established at the state level | 1 with the State Librarian as the ' administrative head of the Department. Furthermore, an ! advisory Library Commission to be j established at the state level to j i .advise the State Librarian in I i I matters pertaining to state-wide i i development of libraries. The | ! I membership of the Commission to be composed of one representative j from each of the twelve system j regions. The members are to be j appointed by the Governor with the i advice of the State Librarian. Within the last decade, more responsibilities have been placed with the State Library for state-wide develop- I i # I ment of public library service as well as other types of library service. There is one assistant librarian to share| the work load imposed by these added responsibilities. j There has been no appreciable change in the internal organizational structure to accommodate the added responsi-1 bilities, and to allow the State Librarian to devote more ; 163 time to the solution of state-wide library problems. There : I I are at least three separate areas requiring attention at ! the State Library. They are: (1) extension services, (2) administration of the services of the State Library i offered in Sacramento, and (3) research or directed study, i : i There should be established in the State Library three j administrative positions at the level of assistant ! ; j librarian to provide greater attention to these important i ■ i i areas than may now be given under the present internal j i organizational structure. At the moment, the State ! Librarian has general supervisory powers over some 150 individual public libraries. This span of supervision might be achieved through direct contacts with the • i Executive Committees of systems, thus reducing the number ! of units needing attention. j ^ . I Recommendation: The internal organizational structure of j the State Library to be reorganized with j three positions to be established at j i administrative levels as follows: (1) Administrator of extension services, (2) Administrator of services offered at Sacramento, and (3) Director of research i and directed study projects. Also, the I span of general supervision of public libraries to be reduced to the supervision of these libraries through the Executive Committees of library systems. The study reveals that the Consultant Services of ithe State Library were helpful at the time systems were being organized, but little value is now being received 'from this Department. Occasional studies for individual libraries are still produced by Consultants, and they attend Executive Committee meetings. With the major work involved in the organization of library systems completed, it seems that the Consultant Services would be more useful in a different role. The Consultants would be more useful to library systems as specialists capable of helping library systems solve problems in specialized areas to improve library service. Specialists would be helpful by providing guidance and help in the following areas: (1) developing cost studies in the field, (2) developing system-wide book selection policies and procedures, (3) developing programs in the areas of electronic data processing, (4) developing audio-visual centers, (5) evaluating book collections, (6) developing adequate public relations programs, and (7) improving communications :systems. i j l Recommendations: The role of consultants should change ■ from an advisory role to a specialist role being capable of helping to solve problems in specialized areas. At this time, there are practically no statistics, ' I other than those presented in this study, relating entirely! i to systems operations. Some statistics are reported m j i | the quarterly issues of News Notes of California Libraries,j but these are very general and of little value in : I conducting a research study. The recent study on public j : i 1 library systems in the United States, mentioned earlier, reports that there is a nation-wide deficiency in the area | of library statistics. It must be determined soon what j f different kinds of statistics are needed to provide an ! i j accurate and reliable reporting of activities and services | j in California library systems. A standard code for j reporting should be established to secure related data. j Meaningful cost statistics do not exist. Librarians of systems are making decisions now without having cost figures to help in making decisions. If the full objec tives of the systems concept are to be realized, statistics on cost of operation will be needed. If any research is to 166 I be done, the collection of meaningful statistics will be j j imperative. ! j Recommendation: The State Librarian should appoint immediately a committee of librarians to establish a coded form which will provide i a means for collecting types of statistics; i i on systems operations which will be meaningful and helpful to system members j ! in the operation of library systems. j , i Among the equipment represented by modern j j technology, the kind with the greatest potential impact forj j i library operations appears to be electronic data j processing. The study revealed that a surprisingly few j !' systems used such equipment. There is a growing amount of | literature on the subject directed specifically to library | use of such equipment. Since much of the equipment can be j * secured on shared time, the cost factor is within the j range of library systems. Recommendation: Using federal funds, the State Library should establish a pilot demonstration on ; the use of electronic data processing equipment. System librarians should be j asked to take part in the establishment ofj 167! i i the demonstration, and to help determine | which processes should be undertaken. I One function appearing to be totally centralized in systems operations is the acquisition process. Since the acquisition and processing functions seem to be similar in libraries of comparable size and type, these functions might be provided for a number of libraries at a considerable savings in cost. Some librarians are reluctant to have the cataloging process centralized for fear of having to wait a considerable amount of time for recently published works to be processed and arrive at the j library in time to satisfy patron demand. The State Library Processing Center is evidence that the acquisition j i and processing functions may be carried on successfully for| a number of libraries. | Recommendation: The State Library should conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establish ing as few as three well located acquisition and processing centers in the state to accommodate all library systems. The largest public libraries should be excluded from the study. Library system administrators are often unaware of 168 studies or new developments in service patterns undertaken i ’ 1 by other library systems. To save duplication of effort, i there should be an official clearing house for this kind of; information. This type of information is released through j I I the official publication of the State Library, a quarterly j ; publication. However, the information may be of value to j i ! system libraries prior to the publication date. Since mostj ! system headquarters libraries are connected with the State ! I I Library by TWX, or some other means of fast communication, j perhaps the headquarters library of each system could collect from member libraries information which might be of immediate interest to other library systems, and forward I i j the information to the State Library on a specific day of j i ! the week. The State Library in turn would relay the j ! collected information back to all headquarters libraries on! a specific day. The system headquarters library could then pass the information on to member libraries in the system. Recommendation: The State Library should assume the functions of a clearing house for impor tant information of immediate interest to library systems. The headquarters library of each system should be responsi ble for collecting information from member libraries and forwarding the information to the State Library by TWX. The State Library will compile the information from all system headquarters libraries, and return this information to all system headquarters libraries by TWX i for dissemination to member libraries. The transmittal of information should be ; j scheduled for a particular day of the ! i week. i i t Most system administrators reported that patrons complain about the lack of a uniform lending procedure throughout a given system. Since access to material i located anywhere in the system is offered to patrons, therej j should be an attempt to establish uniformity in lending j I I procedures. j j i Recommendation: Member libraries of systems should attemptj to establish a uniform lending code throughout a given system. None of the system administrators reported having completed a user survey on a system-wide basis. It seems i important that administrators know something about the needs and reading habits of the individuals using system j 170 libraries. A survey of this type may also reveal why some j individuals do not use system libraries. Much information ! can be gained from a user survey, especially that type of information which would be helpful in planning future service programs for library systems. Recommendation: The State Library should conduct a | minimum of three -demonstrations of user j I surveys on a system-wide basis. One ! survey should be of a system in the southern part of the state, one in the j central area, and one in the northern I area. The findings of the surveys to be ; i made available to all systems as guides in: i conducting additional use surveys. The interviews revealed that a system library, or j libraries, with the best collection of materials experi- i enced higher patron use than those libraries in the system | with poorly developed collections. To keep the cooperativej spirit alive, and to prevent local political subdivisions from paying from local taxes increased operational costs due, in large part, to increased system patronage, there should be some means of reimbursing the libraries experien cing unusually high system-wide patronage. Several methods: of repayment may need to be investigated to arrive at an ! I ! equitable solution to this problem. For example, certain ' i public libraries having reciprocal lending agreements, have! developed a formula for payment when an imbalance of books ! | loaned occurs between the reciprocating libraries. Usually! the payment is based on a fee per hundred books, or frac- ' tion thereof, of imbalance in loans. In some systems, the member libraries arbitrarily assess themselves an amount of ! money which is paid to the library having the greater ; I i system-wide patronage. In New York State, the central j library of the system is given an allotment from state | funds to help this library maintain a good book collection. There is no easy solution to this problem, but all avenues should be explored to find an equitable formula on which reimbursement may be based. Recommendation: The State Librarian should appoint a committee to be composed of one member from each of the Executive Committees of i Cooperative Library Systems to study the I I problem of reimbursement of system j i libraries having an unusually high system-j j wide patronage, and to make recommenda- ; i I tions on how such reimbursements should be! made. Committee membership should be such I that small, medium, and large size libraries in systems will have representa tion on the committee. These recommendations by no means exhaust the solutions to problems facing California cooperative I library systems at this time. The recommendations do offer; i ! possible solutions to problems encountered as a result of j the study. In the complex world in which library systems j operate, it is conceivable that an entirely new and different set of problems may face system librarians in the 1 j next decade. j Important work has been initiated in California j j libraries, the systems concept has been tried and been successful in many instances. The future hold unlimited j | opportunities for progress. APPENDIX 173 APPENDIX A PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, 1965-69 LIBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ACT, TITLE II Fiscal Year Library Systems Square Footacre Federal Grant Local Funds Total : COSt 1965 East Bay Cooperative Library System Pittsburgh Branch 41,022 $ 51,666 $ 155,000 $ 206,666 Los Angeles County Public Library System Rio Hondo Regional 41,022 202,017 606,056 808,073 West San Gabriel Regional 29,632 214,781 644,343 859,124 North Bay Cooperative Library System Mill Valley Public Library Headquarters 18,000 123,112 369,338 492,450 Santa Rosa-Sonoma County Headquarters, Branch 61,313 8,000 736,712 1,183,313 1,920,025 San Joaquin Valley Library System Hanford-Kings County Library Headquarters 24,389 230,000 460,000 690,000 San Jose-Santa Clara Sunnyvale System San Jose Public Library Hdqs. 120,000 1,000,000 3,090,824 4,090,824 Santa Clara Public Lib. Hdqs. 40,060 228,091 684,274 912,365 APPENDIX A— (cont. ) Fiscal Square Federal Local Total Year Library Systems Footaqe Grant Funds Cost 1966 Black Gold Cooperative Library System Conejo Branch 3,024 $ 43,910 $ 87,819 $ 131,729 Simi Branch 2,325 31,944 63,888 95,832 East Bay Cooperative Library System Antioch Branch 11,000 86,685 260,054 346,739 Inland Library System San Bernardino County Library Hdqs. 21,000 110,641 221,284 331,925 Los Angeles County Public Library System East Los Angeles Branch 15,000 154,250 308,500 462,750 Los Cerritos Regional Library 39,000 459,711 919,423 1,379,134 Woodcrest Branch 7,500 103,123 206,247 309,370 Metropolitan Cooperative Library System Altadena Library Dist. Hdqs. 24,440 250,000 500,000 750,000 Pasadena Public Library Hdqs. 11,000 114,000 228,000 342,000 North Bay Cooperative Library System North Bay Coop. System Hdqs. 3,745 37,227 111,681 148,908 Vallejo Public Library Hdqs. 90,000 900,000 1,800,000 2,700,000 San Joaquin Valley Library System Sanger Branch 8,500 50,000 150,000 200,000 APPENDIX A— (cont.) Fiscal Year Library Systems Square Footaqe Federal Grant Local Funds Total Cost 1966 San Jose-Santa Clara Sunnyvale System Berryessa Branch 8,000 $ 81,000 $ 162,000 $ 243,000 Calabazas Branch 6,500 38,125 114,375 152,500 Seventrees Branch 7,000 47,000 141,000 188,000 Serra Library System Carlsbad City Library Hdqs. 19,000 105,600 316,800 422,400 1967 Black Gold Cooperative Library System Lompoc Public Library Hdqs. 17,933 201,817 403,633 605,450 East Bay Cooperative Library System SLAC Branch 12,000 118,000 236,000 354.000 49-99 Cooperative Library System Turlock City Library 10,000 110,000 220,000 330,000 Inland Library System Yucaipa Branch 7,518 41,532 83,063 124,595 Rowe Branch 5,800 59,700 119,401 179,101 Upland Public Library Hdqs. 18,171 261,118 522,237 783,355 Kern County Library System Wasco Branch 4,315 37,533 75,067 112,600 Los Angeles County Public Library System Baldwin Park Branch 15,320 168,861 337,722 506,583 APPENDIX A— (cont.) Fiscal Year Library Systems Square Footacre Federal Grant Local Funds Total Cost 1967 Los Angeles County (cont.) La Puente Branch 10,400 $ 125,819 $ 251,638 $ 377,457 San Antonio Regional Branch 31,364 300,629 601,260 901,889 Serra Library System Oak Park Branch 5,200 60,640 121,280 181,920 Skyline Hills Branch 4,400 49,946 99,894 149,840 1968 Berkeley-Oakland Service System Lockwood Branch 4,037 52,500 105,000 157,500 Black Gold Cooperative System Santa Maria Public Libr. Hdqs. 23,122 245,160 490,319 735,479 Santa Paula Union High School District Library Hdqs. 20,845 129,970 259,940 389,910 East Bay Cooperative Library System Orinda Branch 3,645 52,423 104,847 157,270 Inland Library System Corona Public Library Hdqs. 22,800 360,000 720,000 1,080,000 Ontario Public Library Hdqs. 24,000 186,000 372,000 558,000 Victorville Branch 7,500 49,000 98,000 147,000 Long Beach Public Libr. System Burnett Branch 8,186 97,190 194,381 291,571 Los Angeles County Public Library System Culver City Branch 31,630 309,875 619,750 929,625 San Dimas Branch 13,225 130,048 260,097 390,145| APPENDIX A— (cont.) Fiscal Year Library Systems Square Footaae Federal Grant Local Funds Total Cost 1968 Metropolitan Cooperative Library System Monrovia Public Library Hdqs. 2,475 $ 24,075 $ 48,150 $ 72,225 Miraleste Branch 7,000 74,771 149,541 224,312 Mountain Valley Library System South Area Regional 14,000 127,545 255,090 382,635 North Bay Cooperative Library System Vacaville Unified School District Library Hdqs. 8,400 101,233 202,466 303,699 North Sacramento Valley Coop. Library System Siskiyou County Libr. Hdqs. 10,000 101,465 158,769 260,234 San Joaquin Valley Libr. Syst. Madera County Libr. Hdqs. 19,800 150,000 300,000 450,000 San Mateo County Libr. Syst. Half Moon Bay Branch 6,700 72,115 144,231 216,346 Santa Clara Valley Libr. Syst. Campbell Branch 24,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 Cupertino Regional Branch 24,000 159,000 318,000 477,000 Serra Library System San Diego Public Libr. Hdqs. 6,280 64,000 128,000 192,000 1969 Kern County Library System South Bakersfield Branch 6,000 54,000 108,000 162,000 CO APPENDIX B TOTAL SYSTEM OPERATING COSTS AND SUPPORTING SUBVENTIONS FOR MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEAR 1968-69 System Population Total System a Costs Total S ubvent ions Expended for Report Period Percentage of Total System Expenditure Funded by Subventions Per Capita Cost of Total System Cost Per Capita Amount of Subventions A 506,000 $ 580 $ ------- ------ $ 0.0011 ? 0.0251 B 593,657 248,143 14,911 6.0 0.4178 0.0251 C 1,005,738 386.483 19,310 4.9 0.3842 0.0191 D 520,900 194,745 151,012 77.0 0.3700 0.2800 E 1,024,181 342,571 138,261 40.0 0.3350 0.1350 F 841,431 265,334 167,117 62.0 0.3150 0.1400 G 240,656 8,747 8,747 100.0 0.0363 0.0363 H 823,580 152,462 152,462 100.0 0.1851 0.1851 I 643,988 333,919 24,740 7.4 0.5190 0.0380 J 303,200 168,603 24,712 14.0 0.5600 0.0800 K 203,594 540,736 4,683 0.8 2.6500 0.0230 L 545,447 171,867 162,352 94.0 0.3150 0.2976 M 614,000 291,995 18,386 6.2 0.4750 0.0300 N 348,616 29,397 10,113 34.0 0.0843 0.0290 O 805,530 144,000 60,284 41.0 0.1790 0.0750 P 1,365,700 136,070 35,262 25.9 0.0996 0.0258 Tot. 10,386,218 $3,415,655 $992,352 29.0 ? 0.3280 $ 0.0955 Notes: aPopulation figures from: Public Library Services Act, Annual Library System Evaluation Reports,- 1968-69. Source: Public Library Services Act, Annual Library ^ System Evaluation Reports, 1968-69. (Reports made to the California State Library), v o : APPENDIX A— (cont.) Fiscal Year Library Systems Square Footaae Federal Grant Local Funds Total Cost 1969 Los Angeles County Public Library System Bell Gardens Branch 5,190 $ 51,947 $ 103,893 $ 155,840 Total 1,095,830 $ 9,727,507 $21,395,888 $31,123,395 Source: Library Consultant Services. California State Library, Sacramento, California. Material secured from records maintained by the Consultants. Some statistics released through the publication. From the California State Librarian. H* CO © APPENDIX C TOTAL SYSTEM OPERATING COSTS AND SUPPORTING SUBVENTIONS FOR SINGLE UNIT SYSTEMS, FISCAL YEAR 1968-69 Total Percentage Subventions of Total Per Capita Expended System Cost of Total for Expenditure Total Per Capita System Report Funded by System Amount of Svstem Population Costs Period Subventions Cost Subventions Q 351,500 $ 283,970 $ 9,625 3.300 $ 0.80 $ 0.0273 R 387,600 704,836 6,696 0.950 1.82 0.0172 S 2,377,016 8,109,668 107,826 0.130 3.41 0.0450 T 2,896,100 5,944,614 68,960 1.160 2.05 0.0238 U 748,700 2,518,539 18,187 0.007 3.36 0.9240 Tot. 6,760,916 $17,561,627 $ 211,294 0.012 $ 2.59 $ 0.9312 Note: aPopulation figures from: Public Library Services Act, Annual Library System Evaluation Reports, 1968-69. i Source: Public Library Services Act, Annual Library System Evaluation Reports, 1968-69. (Reports made to the California State Library). 182 KEY TO SYSTEMS LISTED IN APPENDIX A AND B Systems Symbol A Berkeley^-Oakland Service System* B Black Gold Cooperative Library System C East Bay Cooperative Library System D 49-99 Cooperative Library System E Inland Library System F Metropolitan Cooperative Library System G Monterey Bay Area Cooperative Library System H Mountain Valley Library System** I North Bay Cooperative Library System J North State Cooperative Library System* K Peninsula Library System* L San Joaquin Valley Library System M San Jose-Santa Clara-Sunnyvale Cooperative Library System N Santa Clara Valley Library System 0 Santiago Library System P Serra Library System Q Kern County Library R Long Beach Public Library S Los Angeles County Public Library 183 T Los Angeles Public Library U San Francisco Public Library ♦Established in 1968-69 ♦♦Combination of the former Sacramento City-County System and the Mother Lode System. 184 APPENDIX D A LIST OF SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS INTERVIEWED WITH A SAMPLE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SYSTEMS 1. Mrs. Catherine S. Chadwick, Black Gold Cooperative i 5 Library System. j i 2. Mrs. Bertha D. Helium, East Bay Cooperative Library I System. j 3. Mrs. Margaret Troke, 49-99 Cooperative Library System. 4. Miss Dorothy Traver, Inland Library System. | 5. Miss Marjorie Donaldson, Metropolitan Cooperative ! Library System. 6. Mr. Dale Perkins, Coordinator, Mother Lode Library System. I i 7. Mrs. Edna F. Hanna, Administrator, North Bay j Cooperative Library System. j 8. Miss Dorothy Drake, Sacramento City-County Library System. i 9. Mrs. Alice F. Reilly, San Joaquin Valley Library System. j ! 10. Mrs. Geraldine L. Nurney, San Jose-Santa Clara- | Sunnyvale Cooperative Library System. j i 11. Mr. George Farrier, Santa Clara Valley Library System. 12. Mr. Harry M. Rowe, Jr., Santiago Library System. 13. Mr. Marco Thorne, Serra Library System. j ; t The administrators of the following single unit ;library systems were interviewed: 1. Mrs. Lois Magee, Kern County Library.* 2. Miss Blanche W. Collins, Long Beach Public Library. 3. Mr. William Geller, Los Angeles County Public Library. 4. Mr. Harold L. Hamill, Los Angeles Public Library. 5. Dr. Peter T. Conmy, Oakland Public Library. 6. Mr. John F. Anderson, San Francisco Public Library. 7. Miss Virginia L. Ross, San Mateo County Library. In addition, a written questionnaire or letter was sent to the following librarians. 1. Alice S. Mathisen, Librarian, Tehama County Library. 2. Lois Koolwyk, Librarian, Monterey County Library. 3. Dorothy Drake, Librarian, Sacramento City-County Library. 4. Albert Lake, Director, Riverside Public Library. ♦Part of the information on the Kern County Library was secured through a written question naire. The information was supplied by Mrs. Lois C. Magee, County Librarian, December 17, 1968. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MULTI-LIBRARY SYSTEMS Organization Name of the Multi-Library System:___________ Did the original System receive a planning grant? Yes No_____ If yes, what is the name of the person or agency responsible for the study?_____________________________ _ Is there a copy of the planning study available for reading? Yes No_____ If yes, where may a copy be obtained?__________________ Did those individuals responsible for organizing the System follow the recommendations offered in the planning study? For the most part_____ To some degree_____ Very little_____ Not at all_____ In organizing the System, was some attention paid to the recommendations contained in the Martin-Bowler Study or the Master Plan for Library Development in California? Yes No_____ How was the System legally organized? 187 Joint Powers Agreement Act_____ Other contractual agreements_____ Incorporation_____ Other methods, please specify_________________________ 9. How are the affairs of the System conducted? Administrative Council_____ Executive Board_____ Other method, please specify__________________________ 10. How is this body selected? Automatically heads of participating libraries_______ Selected and appointed by governing body_____ Other method, please specify__________________________ 11. How is the chairman of this body selected? Elected by membership_____ Rotated.among members_____ Other methods, please specify__________________________ 12. How often does this body meet? Weekly Monthly Quarterly Other times._________ 13. Does this body have members other than administrators of libraries within the System? Yes No_____If yes, please explain _______________ 188 i 14. Does the administrative body of the System consider itself to be? Purely policy making body_____ Purely planning body_____ A body whose decisions are binding on members_____ 15. Does one library within the System act or is it declared the headquarters library? Yes No_____If yes, name the library and explain on what basis it was selected_______________________ 16. Does the System have a general or specific statement of objectives? Yes No If no, please explain_________________ 17. Is there an annual report issued reporting the activities of the System as a whole? Yes_____ No____ 18. Are the records of the System used for evaluation purposes? Yes_____ No____ 19. Do you adjust your statistics to those requested in the annual report form of the State Library? Yes_____ No____ . . . . . . . . . . 20. Do you think other types of statistics reflecting System operations would be more meaningful to System 189! i I administrators? | l Yes No_____If yes, what other types of statistics j i would you recommend be gathered?_______________________! 21. Does the System administration look to the State Library personnel for providing know-how and assistance in solving management and other problems? Yes____ No_____If yes, please give examples of assistance requested__________________________________ 22. Is this assistance requested: Often Sometimes Seldom 23. In your opinion, does the System concept require strengthening of middle management positions? Yes____ No_____If yes, please explain________________ 24. Are any management skills purchased for the System? Yes No If yes, name those purchased________ 25. In your opinion, does the depth, range, and , 1 i capability of a library system depend to a large i i extent upon the resources of the strongest library in 1 the system? Yes No 26. 27. 28. 29. 190 Has your System or System members entered into any inter-system contracts? Yes_____ No____If yes, with what System, and for what purpose?_______________________________________________ Does your System or System members have any coopera tive agreements or other types of agreements with schools, colleges, or special libraries for service? Yes_____ No____If yes, please give examples___________ Has your System or any System members conducted any form of patron opinion studies since the formation of the System? Yes No If yes, what is the general feeling regarding the services of the System? Highly satisfied_____ Moderately satisfied_____ Not satisfied What were the areas of dissatisfac tion?__________________________________________________ i If no opinion surveys or studies, what is your opinionj I i i of the patron's feeling regarding the services of the j i i System? I i Highly satisfied_____ Moderately satisfied_____ 191 I Not satisfied What were the areas of dissatisfac- tion?________________________________________________ 30. Are you aware of changes in the characteristics of patrons since the formation of the System? Yes No_____If yes, in what way?___________________ _ j I 31. Has your System entered into any inter-state j i cooperative ventures? j i i Yes No_____If yes, please explain_________________ j 32. Does your System provide: ! I i Consultation services to System members? I ! Yes_____No_____ j i Consultant specialists in childrens, young adult, or j i i special subject areas? Yes No If yes, please explain_________________ 33. Are there any conditions, other than those required by state law, imposed upon libraries applying for admission to the System? Yes No_____If yes, please explain_______________ 192 Accessibility 34. In your opinion, does physical accessibility tend to increase patrongage in the libraries within the System with better resources? Yes_____No____ If yes, are there specific reasons for i this situation?________________________________________ i 35. Does your System have reciprocal agreements, or contractual arrangements for patron service with libraries outside of the System? Yes No____ If yes , please explain._________________ 36. May non-residents of your System area have service by i paying a non-resident fee? Yes No Is this a matter for individual ; libraries to decide? j 37. May boohs be returned to any service point within the ; System? 1 Yes No_____ Acquisition of Materials 38. Is there any overall System policy on acquisition of I materials? i Yes_____No_____ I 193: 39. Are acquisition operations centralized? Yes No_____If yes, where are the operations located?____________________________________________ 40. What was the basis for selection of this location? 41. Is a computer used in acquisition operations? Yes No If yes, please explain________ If no, is the use of a computer anticipated in the I ! near future? j Yes No_____ | 42. Does the System use the Greenaway plan or similar j plans? Yes_____ No____ 43. Are System members responsible for acquiring all or | i most publications from one or more publishers? Yes_____ No____ | 44. Does the System use one main jobber? Yes No_____If yes, please supply the name of the j I jobber__________________________________________ > 45. Any acquisitions done for libraries outside of your System? 194 Yes No If yes, please explain 46. Is there a policy of limited duplication in the System? Yes No_____ 47. Have any acquisition cost studies been made since the formation of the System? Yes No_____If yes, what are the major conclusions of these studies?______________________________________ Book Selection 48. Is there a System-wide book selection policy? Yes No If no, is book selection considered a local concern? Yes_____No_____ 49. Is there a System-wide book selection committee? Yes No If yes, please list the composition of the committee _____ 50. Are specialists within The System available for System-wide book selection? Yes No If yes, list types of specialists 51. 52. 53. 54." 195 Are there any specific methods employed to improve System book selection and to provide improved quality j | of local book collections? Yes No____ If yes, please describe the methods used___________________________________________________ Is there any way to determine by professional standards that the quality of local collections in the; smaller libraries of the System is substantially better than it was in 1963? Yes_____No____ If yes , please explain_________________ ; If the quality is improved can it be attributed in large part to: State financial aid_____ Federal financial aid_____ Other factors, please list____________________________ Does your System provide assistance in book selection by: Providing in-service training sessions in the principles and techniques of current book selection? Yes_____No_____ Providing from state funds or other funds of more current reviewing-media for System members? 196] Yes____ No______ | j Providing book meetings for the entire System? j Yes____ No______ Providing book lists to System members which are compiled by Specialists? Yes____ No_____ Providing a continuous display of new books some where in the System for viewing purposes by System members? Yes____ No_____ 55. Any inter-system cooperation in current book selection? Yes____ No_____ 56. Does the System maintain a policy of special areas of collection among members? 57. Any last copy policy for the System? Yes____ No_____ 58. Any studies conducted in the area of book selection? Yes____ No_____ If yes, what are the major conclusions ; of the studies?__________ ______________________________ 59. Any part of book selection operation or procedure computerized? Yes No 197 Processing j I 60. Does the System maintain a central processing center? ! Yes_____No If yes, where is it located?___________ ; 61. Is processing done for all members? Yes_____No If no, for part of members? Yes No_____ 62. Any part of processing computerized? Yes_____No If yes, what part______________________ If no, does the System have plans for a central computerized processing center? 63. Do any members of the System use the State Library J Processing Center Services? Yes______No_____ If yes, how many?_____ ! 64. Any processing done by contract with firms other than ; the State Library? Yes_____No______If yes, what firms_____________________ j 65. Does your System have printed book catalogs? i i Yes_____No______If yes, are they for the entire System? i Yes_____No______If no, are they for part of the System?! Yes_____No______If for one library, name the library 66. 67. 68. 69. 198 Reference Services " - | Is one library in the System considered the Reference | and Research Center? Yes_____No____ If yes, Which one, and how was it selected?__________________________________ _____________ If yes, is the center tied to System members by some method of quick communication? ■ Yes_____No____ If yes, list type or types_____________ If no System reference center, are System members tied to the State Library by some method of quick communication? Yes_____ No____If yes, name type__________________ Are the System members tied to an area reference center? Yes_____ No____If yes, name area reference center If a central reference center, have funds been allocated to strengthen the reference collection? State aid funds_____ Federal aid funds_____ Local funds_____ 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 199 j Is there a System policy relative to method of referral of questions at levels within the System? Yes____ No______ Will the reference center accept reference questions from libraries outside the System? Yes____ No______ If reference questions can't be answered at the highest level within the System, are the questions automatically referred to the State Library or area reference center outside the geographic area of the System? Yes____ No_____ Are photo-copying machines available throughout the System for copying reference materials for patrons? Yes____ No_____ Has the System jointly created bibliographic tools? (Union lists, etc.) Yes No If yes, please give examples__________ Interlibrary Loans Is there a System-wide policy on interlibrary Loans? Yes No_____ 200 76. Is there a policy relative to referral methods of interlibrary loans within the System? Yes No_____ 77. Are there any limitations on types of material loaned within the System? Yes_ No if yes, please explain________________ 78. Communication methods available within the System: Direct telephone_____ Teletype_____ Closed circuit T.V._____ Other methods_____ 79. Method of delivery within System? Mail_____ Special delivery_____ System truck_____ Other methods______ Non-Book Materials 80. Is there a complete depository of federal documents in the System? Yes____ No_____ State Documents? Yes____ No____ 201 81. Does the System contain a centralized Audio-visual Library available to all System members? Yes____ No______ 82. Does the System maintain a film circuit? Yes____ No______ Bookmobiles 83 . Any bookmobiles purchased after 1963 for System use? Yes____ No______If yes, do they move freely throughout geographic area of the System? Yes____ No______ Circulation Procedure 84. Is there a uniform circulation policy for the System? Yes____ No 85. Is there a centralized registration file for System patrons? Yes____ No______ 86. Any part of circulation control computerized? Yes____ No______ If yes, what part?_____________________ If no, any plans for computerized circulation control? Yes No 202 Personnel 87. Does the System maintain an in-service training program which utilizes the skills of specialists within the System? Yes_____No_____If yes, what specialists?_____________ 88. Has state or federal aid made it possible to employ individuals with qualifications superior to those which could have been employed from local funds? Yes____ No_____ 89. Does the System maintain regularly scheduled workshops? Yes No_____ 90. Have the System members experienced a critical shortage of qualified professional librarians necessary for carrying"out program of the System? Yes No_____If yes, any particular areas?_________ General 91. What do you consider to be the main strength of your System?_______________________________________________ 203 92. What do you consider to be the main weakness of your Sys tem?________________________________________________ BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books American Library Association. Minimum Standards for Public Library Systems. 1966. Chicago: American Library Association, 1967. ________ . A National Plan for Public Library Service. Chicago: American Library Association, 1948. Public Library Systems in the United States: i Survey of Multi-jurisdictional Systems. Chicago: American Library Association, 1969'. Committee on Post-War Planning. Standards for Public Libraries. Chicago: American Library Association, 1943. Argyris, Chris. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964. Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1942. Boaz, Martha. Strength Through Cooperation in Southern California Libraries: A Survey. Los Angeles, California, 1965. Bourne, Charles P. "A Review of the Methodology of Information System Design,” in Information System Workshop; The Designer's Responsibility and His Methodology. Washington, D. C.: Spartan Books, 1962. 206 California Library Association. Master Plan for Public Libraries in California. Berkeley, California? California Library Association, 1962. Collins, Carole, ed. The Bowker Annual of Library and Book Trade Information, 1969. New York? R. R. Bowker Company, 1969. Drennan, Henry T. Public Libraries and Federal Legislation, Including a Directory of California Coordinators of Federal Legislation. Public Library Executives of Central California, April, 1966. (Mimeographed.) Etzioni, Amitati. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey? Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Freeman and Company. Library Systems Study for Public Libraries of Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties. Palo Alto, California, 1965. Garrison, Guy. The Changing Role of State Library Consultants. Report of a Conference held at Allerton House, Monticello. Illinois, November 26-29, 1967. Urbana, Illinois? University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science, 1968. Gates, Jean Key. Introduction to Librarianship. New York? McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. Griffenhagen - Rroeger, Inc. A Proposed Mother Lode Library System. San Francisco, California, 1964. Hart, Eugene D., and Palmer, Hans C. The Public Libraries of San Bernardino County? A Study with Recommendations. San Bernardino, California, 1966. Hayes, Robert. "Library Systems Analysis," in Data Processing in Public and University Libraries. Drexel Information Science Series, Vol. Ill, ed. by John Harvey. Washington, D. C.? Spartan Books, 1966. Henry, F. Patrick. Public Library Law and Administration in California; A Review of Selected Problems. Berkeley, California: Bureau of Public Administration, University of California, 1958. Holt, Raymond M., and Rostvold, Gerhard. The Community in an Age of Change: A Case Study of Public in San Gabriel Valiev. Pomona, California, 1965. ________ . Community Libraries to Match Community Needs: A Case Study and Plan of Action, Public Libraries in East Los Angeles County. Pomona, California, 1966. % Hurni, Melvin L. "Modern Systems Design," in American Management Association. Organization for Effective Systems Planning and Control, Special Report, No. 12. New York: American Management Association, 1956. Joeckel, Carleton Bruns. The Government of the American Public Library. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935. Leigh, Robert D. The General Report of the Public Library Inguiry: The Public Library in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1950. Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961. Martin, Lowell A., and Bowler, Roberta. Public Library Service Egual to the Challenge of California? A Report to the State Librarian. Sacramento, California: California State Library, 1965. Mersel, Jules, et al. Overview of Library Services and Construction Act— Title I: Final Report. Santa Monica, California: System Development Corporation, 1969. Nadler, Gerald. Work Design. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1963. 208 New York (State) Education Department, Division of Evaluation. Emerging Library Systems? the 1963-66 Evaluation of the New York State Public Library Systems. Albany, New York: University of the State of New York, Education Department, Division of Evaluation, 1967. Public Administration Service. Public Library Services in Northern California; A Report on Library Services in Northern California. San Francisco, California: Public Administration Service, 1966. Rike, Galen E. Statewide Library Surveys and Development Plans, an Annotated Bibliography, 1956-1967. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois State Library, 1968. Stenstrom, Ralph H. The Emergence and Development of Public Library Systems in Illinois. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois State Library, 1968. System Development Corporation. Technology in Libraries: Technical Memorandum 3602. Santa Monica, California: System Development Corporation, 1967. ________ . Technology in Libraries, Workbook System Analysis Units, 1-5. Santa Monica, California: System Development Corporation, 1967. Swank, Raynard C. Interlibrary Cooperation Under Title III of the Library Services and Construction Act: A Preliminary Study for the California State Library. Sacramento, California: California State Library, 1967. Tauber, Maurice F., and Stephens, Irlene Roemer, eds. Library Surveys. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Wheeler, Joseph L. Proposed Regional Library System for the San Diego Area. San Diego, California: San Diego Public Library, 1965. 209 ■ j ■ William Spangle & Associates. Library Systems Plan j Proposed for City and County Libraries, San Mateo.| California. Redwood City, California: William Spangle & Associates, 1964. ___________ San Joaquin Valiev Library System: A Study of Operations, Facilities, and Population Growth. Menlo Park, California: William Spangle & Associates, 1966. Documents California. Annual Budget, Department of Education. Division of Libraries. 1956-57 to 1962-63. Assembly Interim Committee Reports, 1953-55. Vol. X, No. 1 (March, 1955). Assembly Interim Committee Reports, 1955-57. Vol, X, No. 6 (April, 1956). Assembly Interim Committee Reports, 1955-57. Vol. X, No. 9 (March, 1957). "County Free Library" Law. Education Code ’(1952). "Joint Exercise of Powers" Law. Government Code j ’(1966). "Legislative Declaration" Law, Education Code ’(1965). - - j ! Public Library Development Act. Statutes (1963)1 Chapter 1802. j i i Public Library Development Act. Statutes (1965)! Chapter 1820. | Public Library Services Act. Statutes (1966) ! Chapter 97. j ! t | 210 California. "Public Library Services" Law. Education Code (1965). ' ________ . "Public Library Services" Law, Education Code (1966). ________. . "Public Library Services" Law. Education Code (1968). ________. Support and Local Assistance Budget. 1963-64 to 1967-68. California P'ublic Library Commission. Reports. Pursuant to 1957 Statutes of California, Public Library Commission. Berkeley, California; California Public Library Commission, 1959. California State Library. Public Library Services Act, Annual Library System Evaluation Reports, 1968-69. Library Services Act. Statutes at Large, Vol. LXX (1956). ________ . Statutes at Large. Vol. LXXIV (1960). Library Services and Construction Act. Statutes at Large. Vol. LXXVIII (1964). ________ . Statutes at Large, Vol. LXXX (1966). Periodicals California Public Library Development Board. "First Annual Report, 1963-64," News Notes of California Libraries, LIX (Fall, 1964), 419-26. ________. . "Second Annual Report, 1964-65, " News Notes of California Libraries, LXI (Spring, 1966), 198-214. "Third Annual Report, 1965-66," News Notes of California Libraries, LXII (Spring, 1967), 227-33. 211 California Public Library Development Board. "Fourth Annual Report, 1966-67," News Notes of California Libraries, LXIII (Spring, 1968), 278-81. "California State Plan for Library Programs Under the Library Services and Construction Act, as Amended, effective April 1, 1967," News Notes of California Libraries, LXII (Summer, 1967), 289-336. Clark,' Patrica J. "The Black Gold Cooperative Library System, " News Notes of California Libraries, LIX (Fall, 1964), 463-67. "Cooperative Library Systems— A New Look. An Institute Sponsored by the School of Library Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. February 15-16, 1968," News Notes of California Libraries, LXIII (Summer, 1968), 298- 374. "Cooperative Library Systems in California," News Notes of California Libraries, LXII (Winter, 1967), 22-26. "Cooperative Library System Activities and Services," News Notes of California Libraries, LXII (Spring, 1967), 257-72. Dalton, Phyllis I. "The Roles of Federal and State Funds in Library Development," News Notes of California j Libraries, LIX (Fall, 1964), 427-29. "Directory of Legislative Programs, Fiscal Year 1967," American Library Association Bulletin. LXI | (October, 1967), 1075-86. i Duggan, Maryann. "Library Network Analysis and Planning,"! Journal of Library Automation. II (September, j 1969), 157-75. ! Geller, William Spence. "Duplicate Catalogs in Regional and Public Library Systems," Library Quarterly, j XXXIV (January, 1964), 57-67. j 212 I "Governor's Conference on Libraries: Developing Partner for California Libraries," News Notes of California Libraries, LXIII (Fall, 1968). "Governor's Conference for Public Library Trustees and Officials," News Notes of California Libraries, LVI (Summer, 1961). Hann, E. F. "North Bay Cooperative Library System," News Notes of California Libraries, LIX (Fall, 1964), 471-73. Helium, Bertha D. "Alameda/Countra Costa County Cooperative Library System," News Notes of California Libraries, LIX (Fall, 1964), 474-76. Hiatt, Peter. "Cooperative Processing Centers for Public Libraries," Library Trends, XVI (July, 1967), 67-84. Holt, Raymond M. "Benefits and Economies of Interlibrary ; Cooperation," News Notes of California Libraries, LXIII (Summer, 1968), 327-30. Leigh, Carma R. "Interlibrary Cooperation in California,": Wilson Library Bulletin. XL, (October, 1965), 157-62. "A Master Plan for the Development of Public Library Serveice in the State of California. Adopted by the California Library Association at Fresno October 25, 1967," California Librarian. XXIX (April, 1968), 101-12. "Public Library Service Standards for California," News Notes of California Libraries. LVII (Spring, 1963), 289-301. Rohlf, Robert. "Fear of Real Costs— Some Financial Aspects of the PLA Systems Study," American Libraries, I (March, 1970), 242-44. Rowe, Howard M. "A Critique of the Concept of Library Systems," News Notes of California Libraries, LXII (Fall, 1967), 429-435. Sabsay, David. "A. B. 590: The Saga of a Bill," California Librarian, (October, 1963), 241-50, 263. ________ . "North Bay Cooperative Library Systems," News Notes of California Libraries, LVIII (Summer, 1963), 335-47. Smith, Hannis S., ed. "Regional Public Library Systems," Library Trends, XIII (January, 1965), 275-81. ________ . A Seamless Webb; The Systems Approach to Library Service," American Library Association Bulletin. LXI (February, 1967), 180-85. "Statistics and Directory Issue," News Notes of California I Libraries, LIX (Winter, 1964), to LXV (Winter, 1970). "Summary of State Library Services Act and Library j Services and Construction Act Program in Ten-Year ! Period Ending June 30, 1966," News Notes of ' California Libraries, LXII (Summer, 1967), 337-42. "Workshop on Library Systems: Better Library Service Through Better Coordination of Library Activities," News Notes of California Libraries. LXII (Fall, 1967), 355-464. "Workshop, Your Library in the 'Master Plan for Public Libraries in California,'" News Notes of California Libraries, LIX (Summer, 1964), 287-408. ; Unpublished Material California Public Library Development Board. Minutes of the Board, May 24, 1965. (Typewritten.) 211 Sohnore, Leo F., and Peterson. "Urban and Metropolitan Development in the United States and Canada," The Annals of the American Aoademy of Political ang"~ Social Sciences, Vol. jl6 (March. 1958). 60-68. Security First National Bank. Monthly Summary. Vol. **0, No. 5 (May, 1961). Sellin, Thorsten, ed. "Urban Revival: Goals and Stan dards," The Annals of the American Academy of ^ Political and Social Science. Vol. 352 (March, i$0i7Tnw.------- — Selvin, Hanan. "A Critique of Tests of Significance in Survey Research," American Sociological Review. Vol. 23, No. k (August, 195b), 519-527. Siegel, Paul M. "The Changing Character of Negro Migra tion," American Journal of Sociology. LXKt No. k (January, 190?), 429-WlT . "Migration and City-Suburb Differences," American Sociological Review, Vol. 29. No. 5 ( OctoTerT I9W 716-725.---- Skipper, James £., Guenther, Anthony L», and Nass, Gilbert. "The Saoredness of .05: A Note Concerning the Uses of Statistical Levels of Significance in Social Science," The American Sociologist. Vol. 2, No. 1 (February, 1967). r~^ Smith, Jr., Bulkeley. "The Reshuffling Phenomenon: A Pattern of Residence of Unsegregated Negroes," American Sociological Review. Vol. 2k (February, 1959)> 77-79. Sommer, Robert. "SociofUgal Spaoe." American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 72, No. 6 (May, 19b7)• "" Taeuber, Karl £., and Taeuber, Alma F. "White Migration and Socio-Economic Differences between Cities and Suburbs." American Sociological Review. Vol. 38. No. k (October, 1#*), 718, ----- Treadway, Roy C. "Social Components of Metropolitan Population Densities," Demography. Vol. 6, No. 1 (February, 1969)* Van Arsdol, Jr., Maurice D.. Sabagh, Georges, and Butler, Edgar. "Retrospective and Subsequent Metropolitan Residential Mobility," Demography. 212 Vol. 5, No. 1 (1968), 2^9-267. Van Aradol, Jr., Camilleri, Santo l Fv, and Schmid, Calvin P. ••Further Comments on the Utility of Urban Typology," Pacific Sociological Review. Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1962) , 9“ 12. Walls, Robert C., and Weeks, David L. "A Note on the Variance of a Predicted Response in. Regression," The American Statistician. Vol. 23, No. 3 (June, 1969). Watts, Lewis, et al. The Middle*Income Negro Family Paces Urban Renewal. Boston: Brandeis University Press. I 55T - -------- Wheeler, James 0. "Transportation Problems in Negro Ghettos," Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 53 > No. 2 (January» 19o9)> 17l-*l7$. Willhelm, Sidney M., and Powell, Elwin H. "Who Needs the Negro," Trans-action. Vol. 1, Issue 6 (October, 19W-), 3=57“ ~ Williams, Dorothy Slade. "Ecology of Negro Communities*" Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Southern California, I960. Williams, Jr., Robin M. "Social Change and Social Con flicts Race Relations in the United States, 19^“ 196^j" Sociological Inquiry. Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter, Wilson, William J., and Dumont. Richard G. "Rules of Correspondence and Sociological Concepts." Sociol ogy and Social Research. Vol. 52, No. 2 (January, 190b), 217-227. “ Winch, Robert P., and Campbell, Donald T. "Proof? No. Evidenoe? Yes. The Significance of Tests of Sig nificance," The American Sociologist. Vol. No. 2 (May, 1969).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Federal Aid To School Libraries; A Study Of The Title Ii, Phase Ii Program In California, 1965-1966

PDF

A Study Of Human Response To California Library Organization And Management Systems

PDF

A Study Of Some Aspects Of The Publication Program Of The Government Of India, With Recommendations

PDF

A Study Of The Architectural Design Of Six University Library Buildings

PDF

The influence of published reviews of sixteen millimeter motion pictures on film selection in public libraries with large film collections

PDF

Attitudes Of Academic Librarians In The Pacific Coast States Toward Library Technicians

PDF

The Library In The Administrative And Organizational Structure Of The American Public Community College

PDF

A Survey Of Mechanization And Automation In Large University Libraries

PDF

The Growth, Development, And Emerging Problems Of The California School Employees Association

PDF

A Study Of Accidents Involving School District Personnel And A Recommended Accident Prevention Program

PDF

An Analysis Of The Status Of Women As Full-Time Faculty Members In Coeducational Colleges And Universities Of California

PDF

Factors In The Conviction Of Law Violators: The Drinking Driver

PDF

The new guerrillas: public administration in the new industrial state

PDF

Beginning Cash Balances, Temporary Borrowing, And Contingency Reserves Ofcalifornia School Districts

PDF

A Bibliography Of Lion Feuchtwanger'S Major Works In German

PDF

The Selection, Administration And Content Of Health Insurance Plans For Public School District Personnel

PDF

Administration Of Substitute Teaching

PDF

Decentralization And Decision-Making: An Analysis Of The Perceptions Of High School Principals And Central Office Administrators

PDF

A Study To Define An Operational Index Of Innovation For School Administrators

PDF

Contemporary Theological Approaches And The Political Role Of The Anglo-American Protestant Denominations In An Urban Complex

Asset Metadata

Creator Rowe, Howard Marshall (author)

Core Title California Public Libraries And The Cooperative Systems Concept: A Study with Recommendations

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Library Science

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Library Science,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Boaz, Martha (committee chair), Hart, Eugene D. (committee member), Kilpela, Raymond (committee member), Lloyd, Kent M. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-438519

Unique identifier UC11362500

Identifier 7026531.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-438519 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7026531

Dmrecord 438519

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rowe, Howard Marshall

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA