operations; coordinating interlibrary loans; cooperative acquisition and joint storage of library materials, film circuit systems, and other cooperative practices; establishing scholarship and other training programs; and sponsoring or conducting surveys and research projects.

Each of these specific projects is one component in a total program of good library service, tailored to meet the particular needs of a State and its local areas. Each of these 5-year summaries is a study of an individual State plan in action and each one testifies to the effectiveness of the Library Services Act and to the viability of the State plan. Every State is able to report considerable success; every State has also had some failures, setbacks, and obstacles.

The most persistent of the tangible obstacles has been the severe and chronic shortage of trained and experienced library personnel. Several States refer to this problem which, in at least three cases, has seriously retarded progress in implementing the State plan. Scholarships, intensified recruitment, job simplification, improved compensation plans and training programs have all been aimed at helping to provide the needed staff support, but the problem is still very much in evidence. Other objective impediments to library progress which have been reported includes: insufficient funds; obsolete or cumbersome library laws; and the difficulties connected with serving sparsely populated areas of large size. Although these tangible difficulties have been, and continue to be serious, they have tended to yield more readily to attack by the States than have the intangible obstacles. Because these involve personal attitudes and prejudices, they are much more difficult to measure and to overcome. Three which have been mentioned most often are the indifference of some librarians and library board members, as well as some of the citizens they serve, toward library improvement; a sense of complacency with existing, inadequate service; and suspicion or hostility toward cooperative activities which seem to threaten local autonomy.

Most States have recognized that these attitudes exist largely because of inadequate information about the role of the modern public library and because of insufficient experience with the operation of a cooperative library system. Those States which have been most successful in coping with these attitudes have done so through consultant visits, Governors' conferences, and similar educational activities, and through well-planned demonstrations. Several States have produced 16-mm. films describing good public library services and showing how a cooperative approach can be mutually beneficial to existing libraries serving a given area. The public information programs of some State plans have been designed to create an accurate image of the library and to motivate citizens, trustees, and librarians toward working together in improving their facilities. The successful library demonstrations have dramatically illustrated the willingness of the voter to support good libraries when he has been convinced of their value to him and to his family.

The States have begun to make substantial gains in overcoming these and related handicaps and even more rapid progress may be expected during the second 5 years of the program. In at least one State where the pattern of cooperation is well established, the problem has been described as one of motivating continued improvement and progress toward long-range goals. A bookmobile rolling down a country road, bringing public library books to children and adults for the first time, has an undeniable emotional appeal. Far less dramatic, but even more important, however, is the job of organizing rural public library service in such a way that the full range of modern library facilities becomes available to each user of that bookmobile.

Preliminary data for 1961 indicate that more than 15 million rural residents had no legal access to local public library service and that an additional 44 million rural people had only inadequate service. At least 24 States refer in their State plans to the American Library Association public library standards as a determining factor in defining "inadequate" services. Yet only in a limited number of States have the various LSA projects, including demonstrations of county or multicounty service, been conducted at a level of quailty comparable to those set forth by national standards. This use of LSA funds to create inadequate library service for people who were previously unserved can be considered as progress in the right direction only if continuing conscious effort is made to move these projects toward adequacy. In many States the first 5 years of the Library Services Act were used to construct the organizational framework which would make substantial qualitative growth possible. A task of crucial importance during the next 5 years is to make this potential a reality.

A contributing factor to the difficulty of establishing and maintaining high standards of quality for LSA projects has been the limitation in the law to improvement and development of public library service in rural areas only. Several State plans point out the economy and efficiency to be obtained by building rural systems on strong existing libraries, nearly all of which are in places of over 10,000 population. Because these urban libraries are ineligible for benefits under the act, they have had little incentive to participate in an extension program and some States have thus undertaken less promising, but legally eligible projects. The pattern of such projects has typically been the creation of library systems out of political components each one of which was under 10,000 population, but when taken together had a population and tax base capable of using and supporting good library service.

In looking back over a 5-year effort to implement State plans, it seems clear that while many persistent problems remain troublesome, they are now more clearly defined and more thoroughly understood by the State library agencies, and their solution is being found in well-designed, systematic library-development programs. These 5-year reports give a reasonably clear picture of some of the general trends which now prevail and they also provide some insight into present and future needs.

Perhaps the most apparent such trend is that the State library agency in many States will continue to exert an increasing degree of influence on the development of public library services. Indications of this trend are not always present in each of the following reports, but those which recur frequently include: greater and more effective use by local libraries of the increased resources and services of the State library; closer and more productive working relationships with State library associations, library trustee associations, and other educational agencies and organizations at the State level; better mutual understanding between the State library and governmental officials at the State and local levels; in some States, a sharp increase in the quantity and scope of direct services to library users from the State library; a gradual increase in the authority of the State library to establish and to enforce standards for local public libraries; and closer relationships with library schools and other university departments in the areas of study and research, training programs, and recruitment activities.

These reports also reflect the increased willingness of the State agencies to assume added, more intensive, or less temporary, responsibilities. To some extent, these responsibilities have been assumed by the States because of the rural limitation in the act. The States were quick to see the dangers in merely combining weak libraries, yet they were often unable to include the stronger urban libraries as full partners in the development of library systems. This meant that the State agency had to be, or had to create, the basic core of materials, administrative services, and personnel required for any substantial qualitative development. In some areas, the State did this on a temporary basis in the form of a terminal demonstration program; in others, this function is being conducted on a continuing basis. In either case, the relative influence in the development program of the State library agency has been heightened.

The obvious advantages to general library development in such a strengthening of the State library agency are unquestionable. but the reports also reveal at least two sources of risk. One is that rural and urban public libraries will tend to become too highly compartmentalized with the State agency becoming exclusively identified with rural service to the neglect of urban libraries. Related to this risk is the possibility of developing facilities for rural library projects which duplicate unnecessarily and uneconomically the collection, staff skills, and equipment of nearby urban libraries. This kind of division, if allowed to develop, would inhibit progress toward a broad-scale cooperative network of library resources as envisioned by the national standards. A second risk is that these activities by the State agency will establish functions prematurely at the State level which might better be developed at local or regional levels, perhaps with partial State financial support, and with greater participation by the urban libraries in the region. An example of this second potential risk is the Stateoperated library system headquarters or regional branch which will not be closely integrated with the libraries it tries to serve. Unless these local libraries have a sharp sense of identity with such centers, at both the policy and operational level, the services tend to be regarded as a separate and probably temporary "fringe benefit." Libraries which do not feel that they are particinating as partners in this kind of activity are not likely to use it fully or to work for active public acceptance and support of such a center.

The original 5-year time limit on the Library Services Act and the relatively small amounts of money provided, in addition to the rural limitation, were the major contributing factors to the kinds of State agency activities described here. The State-administered service centers described in these reports seem most soundly functional in those areas where a small population is widely scattered or where there are many small independent libraries in an area without an urban center. The 11 regional libraries in Tennessee are useful examples of how State-administered centers can secure maximum local participation in working together to achieve standards. The State-operated centers in Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio illustrate the various patterns of service to a number of small, independent libraries.

The concepts of strengthening the State library agency as revealed by the reports pervade nearly all LSA activity and they deserve careful study by the reader. The general patterns of activity described briefly below are based on the 5-year summaries and on other reports by the States. Although many of the projects are comprehensive library development programs, it may be helpful in observing major trends to consider some examples of activities in the following categories: Organization of library system; cooperative functions or services; public information programs; surveys, studies, and research; personnel recruitment and training programs; and State standards and State grants-in-aid.

ORGANIZATION OF LIBRARY SYSTEMS

A significant proportion of LSA activity has been devoted to the development of library systems organized in such a way that efficient and economical service is available to all residents of an area. The three most important methods used to accomplish this goal have been the projects demonstrating good system operation, the establishment of State-operated system headquarters, and the encouragement and support offered to localities which initiate and develop such improved services.

The third method has been successfully employed in New York State which reports that 550 public libraries in 60 counties are now participating in 22 public library systems chartered by the State Board of Regents. Aimed at reaching ALA national standards, the development of these systems has been encouraged by State grants-in-aid. The amounts of these grants are based on a formula which considers such factors as the number of people to be served, the geographic size of the system, the number of counties participating and the existing library resources in the area to be served.

Minnesota and Missouri have also reported success in securing a high degree of local participation and support by localities through the establishment of county and regional libraries during the early stages of planning development programs.

An outstanding example of a successful demonstration program is provided by the Columbia River Regional Library in Washington. Designed to offer a full range of library services, this project covered the five counties of Chelan, Douglas, Ferry, Grant, and Okanogan, a total area of 15,000 square miles. Service to the 92,000 residents began in June 1958 and in 1960 the voters established the program as a library district, now named the North Central Regional Library. Oklahoma, Utah, Louisiana, Texas, and Nebraska are among the States engaged in demonstration programs. Oregon reports a multicounty project and South Carolina's Aiken-Barnwell-Edgefield Regional Library began its fourth and last demonstration year with aid from the State. The tricounty New Jersey demonstration covering Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, and a six-county library develoment demonstration in Wisconsin also continued during most of the report period.

The most active involvement of the State library agency in local development projects has been through the establishment of State-operated system headquarters or regional branches. The Ohio State Library now has two library service centers which have been referred to as "libraries for libraries." The Napoleon Center serves 31 libraries in 10 counties in the northwestern part of the State and the Southwestern Regional Library Services Center located in Caldwell serves an eight-county area. An interesting development in Ohio has been the "spot" bookmobile service, offered by the State library to any community in the State which will contract to purchase the service. Contracts are in effect on a year-to-year basis, and the cost is based on the number and duration of the stops to be made.

The pattern of services offered by the Ohio centers including supplementary book loans, inservice training activities, interlibrary loan, reference and information services, and consultant advice, can also be found in several other reports. The Southern Illinois Regional Library, located in Carbondale, serves 34 counties and a similar center in De Kalb, the Northern Illinois Regional Library serves 17 counties. The Carbondale headquarters is on the campus of Southern Illinois University and the library extension program there has been closely identified with the community development activities of the university. In Connecticut, two centers located in East Hartford and Middletown serve a comparable function. In Rhode Island, because of its size, the State unit named Public Library Services in Rural Areas, located in Providence, is able to supplement the resources and services of rural libraries throughout the State. In the implementation of their newly developed Statewide Plan for Public Library Service, Michigan is using a technique which has features of both a demonstration and a State-operated service. The Upper Peninsula Branch at Escanaba and the headquarters of the State library at Lansing, both work closely to give maximum support to local developments. The West Central library project in White Cloud, which serves six counties, has been called a partial demonstration and its program includes such system services as a film circuit, reciprocal borrowers privileges, and centralized processing.

An example of less direct State participation in the regional pattern of development can be found in West Virginia where the program has been one of activating or supplementing and strengthening the services of local libraries in a network of 14 regions which cover the State. Both the preparatory activities and the demonstrations by the State agency have been conducted with reference to the overall statewide plan.

California provides an outstanding example of a federation of libraries to improve and expand services in the North Bay Cooperative, covering all or parts of Napa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. This system was organized through contractual agreements among the 14 participating libraries and is being financed with LSA funds under the California State plan. The federation has no single headquarters location but member libraries have assumed various responsibilities. The Sonoma County Library perform centralized processing; the Petaluma Library is serving as a depository for lesser used materials; and other member libraries have undertaken some subject specialization in their acquisition of materials. The cooperative is under the policy guidance of a council composed of representatives from the member libraries and is administered by a coordinator chosen by the council. A specialist in library service to children has been employed to serve as a consultant to member libraries and to conduct inservice training programs.

An interesting approach to cooperative services is provided by the contract between the Maryland State Library and the Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore. Under the terms of this agreement, the State reimburses the Enoch Pratt Library for certain books services to library users throughout the State. Although this has not been financed with LSA funds under the Maryland State plan, it demonstrates a useful method of building the extension of service to small libraries and to individuals without local service by using a strong existing collection. Some of the historical materials formerly held in the State library collection were turned over to the Enoch Pratt Free Library, most of the juvenile books were distributed to local libraries, and the adult books were made available in the form of incentive grants to county libraries which agreed to undertake the cooperative use of these materials.

Basic to any program of library system organization and development is a modern and flexible body of State law authorizing the establishment and support of library services. Pennsylvania has achieved a complete codification and revision of its State laws affecting libraries; New Jersey is currently working on suitable revisions including a provision for the establishment of regional libraries; and Oregon has enacted major revisions in their enabling legislation These few examples of library system organization are amplified throughout the State reports. The impressive progress which the States have made can be clearly seen by comparing these reports with the earlier issues of State plans under the Library Services Act. Many of these developments which were new ideas in the first publication and its first supplement became ongoing projects in supplement 2 and now are firmly established as part of the library resources of the State. These reports of progress are oriented toward results. For the most part, the results have been mature and sound library service organizations.

COOPERATIVE FUNCTIONS OR SERVICES

Another pervasive element throughout LSA programs has been the philosophy of cooperation as an essential ingredient for improving and extending existing library services. All of the demonstrations listed above as well as the other patterns of system development contained in the reports have as a common element the cooperative approach to better service. Most of the following examples of cooperative activity are, in effect, components of library system organization, but their relative importance in the success of the LSA program deserves separate consideration.

One of the major activities of a library that lends itself most readily to cooperative accomplishment is the acquisition of materials and their preparation for use. Usually termed "centralized processing," this function may include such operations as book ordering, cataloging, classification, catalog card duplication, preparation of book cards and pockets, lettering the spine, applying a plastic jacket, etc. It is obviously repetitious for every independent library to do all of these routine operations separately even if each had trained staff and unlimited time. By centralizing these tasks, many LSA projects have been able to obtain a volume of work which makes economically feasible the use of massproduction machine methods.

In close connection with some of the centralized processing projects, many States have included workshops for the participating libraries on such subjects as book selection, adult services, and reference and information services. The southwestern Wisconsin processing center, now operating with partial local support, is among the centers which provide these and related activities. In New Hampshire, 32 independent libraries are now depositing their book funds into a single account which is administered by the State treasurer. Each library has absolute control over the selection of specific titles and the increased purchasing power through higher discounts helps stretch the book budgets of all the participating libraries. Cooperation among the members of this group is growing to include book selection meetings, the sharing of less frequently needed titles, and reciprocal borrowers' privileges. In Minnesota, the Anoka County Library does the technical processing for the nearby Dakota-Scott Regional Library and, in Ohio, any library in the State may use the custom cataloging services of the center in Columbus which is operated by the State library. The Idaho and North Carolina State libraries are also among those which perform centralized processing for libraries in the State.

The Northwest Montana Federation of Libraries, one of three cooperative systems now operating in the State, offers centralized processing and, in Nebraska, the south central regional library with headquarters in Holdrege performs a book repair service for the libraries in that area.

Although it may be said that the operation of centralized processing projects is not yet fully developed, many have achieved a high level of operating efficiency with a close accounting of unit costs. A result equal in importance to the service

itself is the practical experience in cooperation which centers have provided. This experience has led to additional cooperative activities on a broader scale with a substantial improvement in the quantity and quality of library services available to library users.

There is evidence in the reports of increasing importance being attached to centralizing reference, research, and information services. The Denver tricounty reference project uses the idea of reimbursing a strong existing library for the extension of its services. The Denver tricounty reference project uses the idea of reimbursing a strong existing library for the extension of its services. The Denver Public Library, under contract with the State library, serves as the major reference resource for 10 participating libraries. The service includes providing answers to specific inquiries as well as the interlibrary loan of materials to meet subject requests. The San Joaquin Valley Information Service, located in the Fresno County Free Library, performs a similar function for 10 libraries in a 6-county area and also conducts inservice training programs for the personnel of the participating libraries.

In many States where reference services are part of an LSA project, teletype communication is being used more extensively than ever before. Eleven rural library systems in New York State are linked to each other and to the State library, and this method of transmitting requests and receiving information is also in use by the regional libraries in Illinois, the North Bay Cooperative in California, the Nevada State Library, and the Missouri Bibliographic Center.