Mrs. GREEN. When did you receive the guidelines? Miss KRETTEK. I believe the end of February they went out. Mr. GELFAND. We received them in March. The applications have to be postmarked no later than April 10. Mrs. GREEN. When were the guidelines received, in March? Mr. GELFAND. I don't recall precisely, I think it was the middle of March that we received them. Mrs. GREEN. What day was the legislation signed? Miss KRETTEK. It was passed the last of October, and signed November 7. Mrs. GREEN. There was about a 5-month period between the time the bill was signed and the time the guidelines were received. Mr. GELFAND. May I add a comment here, please? Mrs. GREEN. Certainly. Mr. GELFAND. In my own institution, using the criteria set forth in the guidelines, we established that we would require a collection of some 900,000 volumes to serve the needs of our large and growing student population. We presently have, as I mentioned in my testimony earlier, 250,000, and if you take a rough figure, say $8 a volume, and multiply that by the 550,000-odd additional volumes we need to come up to standard, I think you can see what the effect would be in one institution. Even the little survey that the ALA made of the impact of the present act up to this time, I think that suggested that problems of this magnitude were being experienced on the college and university level. The other point I should like to make is that it has been unfortunate, really regrettable that the timing has been so poor. This length of time you just mentioned, 5 months or so that elapsed, that put us in the position where we were having to make applications for rather sizable funds which had to be made on short notice and for which we had to be prepared to make the expenditures before the end of, or commitments before the end of June 1967. All these factors impinge upon us in the field to create rather difficult conditions. So, of course, we all hope that when the new legislation is passed that at the same time some provision will be made on the administrative side for facilitating the application for grants. Miss KRETTEK. The Library Services Division has been without a college library specialist which has made their handling of applications very difficult. This stems in some measure from the fact there is a great shortage of librarians and other factors in the office where we have provided them with insufficient staff to do their job. Mrs. GREEN. When you relate the number of new books being published every year, my only reaction is that the American Library Association ought to start a national program, a nationwide program in speed reading. Congressman Quie, do you have any questions? Mr. QUIE. Yes, I have a question that was prompted from our field hearings on the study of the U.S. Office of Education last winter and a subsequent letter from Mr. Stanford, director of libraries at the University of Minnesota. He is a collector of college and university library statistics. Let me read a little of what he said in a couple of letters and see if you have had that experience. In one letter of April 27, 1966, he expressed concern to Dr. Frank L. Schick, Coordinator of Library Statistics, National Center of Educational Statistics, U.S. Office of Education, about the article in the March issue of Special Libraries and the new system that would be used. He was concerned that it would mean a delay of information being made available to colleges and universities. He says: Statistics on expenditures and salaries are of little use in administrative planning if they do not arrive until a year or more after the period they represent particularly in these times of rapidly changing costs and library growth and support. On April 12, 1967 he wrote to Mr. A. M. Mood, the Assistant Officer of Statistics, Office of Education, indicating the changes that had occurred. He said: The fact that the request blank carries printed directive please return on or before October 1st, a date that passed over 6 months ago, clearly indicates that something is seriously wrong with your new procedures for gathering college and university library statistics. He then questions what little value this will be. He said: If library figures are to be of any use in planning budgets and in support of state legislative requests the data from the most recent fiscal year ending June 30th are needed by the following January or February. Instead the latest publication, he said, that is available now is institutional data for 1963-64. Have you had that same experience and what would your comments be on Mr. Stanford's criticism of the U.S. Office of Education? Mr. GELFAND. We have had similar experience, the statistics do come out. At least in the past they have come out rather late. I won't say they are useless, we have made good use of the statistics however late they have been. Certainly it would be far better for us if we could have prompt tabulation and publication of the statistics. I think since you received these letters, or the latest one of these letters, the statistics for 1965-66 have been published and although I personally have not received my copy yet, I have seen a notice of the publication. That is comforting. Miss KRETTEK. That is an ALA publication, not U.S. Office of Education. It was done through a grant from the Office of Education because they were unable to compile the statistics at that time. It was wholly an emergency situation. The only library statistics that have come out since the reorganization is this one publication by ALA. There has not been a library statistic from the U.S. Office of Education in several years. Mr. QUIE. Evidently things were going quite well prior to that, because in his letter of April 27, 1966, he said: As you know, the ACRL and the Association of Research Libraries was delighted when the Office of Education assumed full responsibility for the collection and publication of library statistics of colleges and universities a few years ago. Each year thereafter, both the coverage and promptness in the publication of the statistics improved notably and under your direction, and it was very helpful to have these data available by January each year, for use in our own internal budget studies and presentations. It is not that they are not able, because they were once. Miss KRETTEK. This is part of the problem of reorganization I would expect, and we hope they will be resolved. We are disturbed not only about the delay of statistics but the fact there is no librarian in the National Center for Educational Statistics. Mr. QUIE. I think they will be able to assume this responsibility again. Miss KRETTEK. We hope they will be able to. Mr. QUIE. I commend your organization for developing statistics and information, but it also does bother me that the U.S. Office of Education contracts with organizations to represent people who receive funds individually through their institution and not the organization itself. Miss KRETTEK. This particular project was just in order to get some needed statistics out. We would hope this would not be continuing, because we feel this is a responsibility of the Office of Education. They have better facilities to gather statistics on a national basis. Mr. QUIE. I would think of any responsibility they have this one should come first. That is all. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Burton. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Gibbons. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. Now we will proceed with the lady from the University of Florida, Mrs. Srygley. Mr. QUIE. May I request that these letters from Mr. Stanford be made a part of the record? Mrs. GREEN. Without objection, they will be included. (The documents referred to follow :) UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, Minneapolis, Minn., April 12, 1967. Representative ALBERT QUIE, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE QUIE: Since the enclosed matter (the Office of Education's fiasco in its new system for collecting college and university library statistics) is directly relevant to the hearings on U.S.O.E. you conducted in Minneapolis a few months ago, I am submitting copies of the correspondence for your attention. I hope you will wish to take it up with the Commissioner and perhaps with your committee at an appropriate time. I am sending copies also to Don Fraser, since he represents the University district, to Senator Mondale, and to Commissioner Howe, for information and any response they may be moved to make. Very sincerely yours, E. B. STANFORD, Director of Libraries. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Minneapolis, Minn., April 12, 1967. Mr. A. M. MOOD, Assistant Commissioner for Statistics, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MOOD: With this letter I am enclosing the library statistics you requested in your form letter of March 30, which reached me yesterday. The fact that the request blank carries the printed directive "Please return on or before October 1" (a date that passed over six months ago) clearly indicates that something is seriously wrong with your new procedure for gathering college and university library statistics. As I wrote* Dr. Frank Schick a year ago (before he left the Office of Education in discouragement with the new set up for statistics) I had misgivings lest the reorganization would fail to furnish university libraries with the data they urgently need for budget planning, in time to be useful. This has now proved to be the case. To date the latest library publication the Office of Education has issued is the Institutional Data for 1963-64. As you know, the A.L.A., A.R.L. and A.C.R.L. urged you to send your 1965-66 request forms directly to each library, but it was evident when you spoke to the A.L.A. conference last summer in New York that this advice would be disregarded. As a result of your decision A.L.A. had to undertake, as an emergency measure, its own collection of 1965-66 library data (with some financial aid from U.S.O.E.), when it became evident that your office could not do the job. Some time ago I received the finished 233 page publication furnishing basic data for 1,891 institutions. Admitting that the results of your current data solicitation may possibly cover more institutions, it will, whether compiled and issued in late 1967 or 1968 became available too late and be too out-dated to be of use to libraries, except for historical purposes. If library figures are to be of any use in planning budgets and in support of state legislative requests, the data from the most recent fiscal year, ending June 30, are needed by the following January, or February at the latest. Until last year's U.S.O.E. reorganization botched the enterprise, this time-table had become generally operative, after years of gradual improvement in U.S.O.E.'s handling. Now, these advances have been largely wiped out under the new system. In the light of this year's regrettable failure I strongly urge that next year, if U.S.O.E. is to continue to collect these data, the library figures for colleges and universities once again be solicited directly from the libraries, The centralization of state reporting through the state library slowed up the operation in some cases, by introducing an additional level of clearance and communication, but was not serious. The well-intended effort to obtain all university data through each President's office obviously is not working. Frequently, especially in large universities, he simply does not have the figures, and with so many offices to contact to assemble full institutional data for all parts of the questionnaire, it it not surprising that deadlines cannot be met. Please solicit library figure directly from the libraries in the future. E. B. STANFORD, Director of Libraries. APRIL 27, 1966. Dr. FRANK L. SCHICK, Co-ordinator of Library Statistics, National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C. DEAR DR. SCHICK: I have just read your article in the March issue of Special Libraries concerning the status of library statistics in the Office of Education. As you know, the ACRL and the Association of Research Libraries was delighted when the Office of Education assumed full responsibility for the col *See enclosed letter. lection and publication of library statistics of colleges and universities, a few years ago. Each year thereafter, both the coverage and promptness in the publication of these statistics improved notably under your direction, and it was very helpful to be able to have these data available by January each year, for use in our own internal budget studies and presentations. I am sure the decision to centralize the collection of local statistics through each state library agency was well intended, but I had some misgivings that this procedure might possibly delay their publication. Now, this year, we are still awaiting the institutional data, but nothing yet has been forthcoming, although it is nearly the end of April. I note from your article that hereafter the Office of Education will probably discontinue to process separate statistical forms for elementary and secondary school as well as college and university libraries, and instead incorporate requests for information about these libraries in more comprehensive manifold forms, which will be sent to parent institutions. While your article does not indicate that this new procedure will affect any economies (which at least might explain the proposed change) I am understandably apprehensive that it may well delay the publication of this information even further, until it may be too out of date when we receive it to be very meaningful. Statistics on expenditures and salaries are of little use in administrative planning if they do not arrive until a year or more after the period they represent, particularly in these times of rapidly changing costs and library growth and support. For this reason I urge you to bring this matter to the attention of the Commissioner in the hope that the Office of Education may review its recommendations for further change in the gathering and publication of academic library statistics, before adopting a pattern that may delay the distribution of such information beyond the period of its practical usefulness in budget planning. Until now you have done an excellent job in collecting and publishing library statistical data, so I hope nothing will be done to delay or decrease the usefulness of this valuable information by introducing additional steps into the process. Very sincerely, E. B. STANFORD, Director, University Libraries. Mrs. SRYGLEY. I am Sara Krentzman Srygley, an associate professor in the Graduate Library School of the Florida State University. For the past 30 years I have been in library work, during which time I have served as a professor of library science, a library consultant, a State school library supervisor, and a school librarian. This service confirms my opinion that good library and information services are essential in a nation committed to the necessity for providing educational opportunities for all its citizens, young and old. Today I am speaking on behalf of the more than 35,000 members of the American Library Association, an organization of professional librarians and lay citizens. For almost 100 years the association has worked for the achievement of a well-defined and adequately supported program of library development for the people of this country, recognizing this to be in the national interest. Representing the American Library Association, I am grateful to you for this opportunity to discuss proposed amendments to higher education legislation, in H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265, and especially those sections related to library training and research in title II-B of the Higher Education Act of 1965. First, however, may I express great appreciation for the provisions in the Higher Education Act of 1965 and in other legislation already enacted, which assists in the development of library and information science programs. Title II provides for strengthening college and university libraries, recognizing the significant contribution of library services to the na |