ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ November 2002 / 711 College & research Libraries news How practical are the ACRL “Standards for College Libraries”? Applying standards in the academic library by Robert W. Fernekes and William N. Nelson Force for Academic Library Outcomes Assess m en t in 1996, a n d its 1998 rep o rt m andated d that all future ACRL standards incorporate out comes assessment. The 2000 standards This decision helped to shape the new edition of the “Standards for College Libraries,” which w as formally approved in January 2000. This w as the first ACRL sta n d a rd to in co rp o rate outcom es assessment, but it was not adopted without controversy. During hearings and pub lic review of the draft docum ent, a num ber of librarians decried the loss of baseline quanti tative m easures. T he com m ittee thoroughly investigated the subject, bu t could n o t find a valid basis for the earlier quan titativ e m e a sures. To address this concern, the committee incorporated peer comparisons using ratios to provide a valid m eans of incorporating some quantitative measures. The 2000 ed itio n o f th e “Standards for College Libraries” has been accepted by college librarians and has b e e n favorably view ed by the University Libraries Section and Commu nity a n d Ju n io r C ollege Libraries Section. In January 2002, the ACRL Board voted to create a College and Research Libraries Standards Task Force to a d a p t these sta n d ard s “for u se as a document and process that would apply across re T w o decades ago, the higher education re gional accrediting associations b egan to consider outcomes assessment as the prefer m ethod o f self-evaluation for the higher e d u cation institutions they accredit. O ne example o f this trend was the new em phasis o n “insti tutional effectiveness” by the Southern Asso ciation of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges (SACS-COC), which first appeared in th e 1986 version of their “Criteria for Ac cred itatio n .” The e x p ectatio n of SACS-COC w as that e ach year colleges a n d universities w ould b ecom e m ore adept at this m ethod of self-evaluation and that every institution was ex p ected to be fully com pliant w ithin a ten- year evaluation cycle. The 1986 edition o f the ACRL “Standards for College Libraries” relied almost exclusively on inputs, outputs, and formulas to create ar bitrary baseline figures. There was heated d e bate over th e 1995 edition, w ith a vocal m a jority o f m em bers expressing preference for the same approach as in 1986. This sentiment prevailed over a minority of members w ho fa vored incorporating outcom es into the stan dards. Those w ho drafted those standards did recognize, and incorporate into the introduc tion of the 1995 edition, a n u m b er of dev el oping trends. Recognition of these trends in turn lead to th e form ation o f the ACRL Task A b o u t t he a u th o r s Robert W Fernekes is information services librarian at Georgia Southern University, e-mail: fernekes@gasou.edu; William N. Nelson is library director at Augusta State University, e-mail: w nelson@aug.edu mailto:fernekes@gasou.edu mailto:wnelson@aug.edu 772 / C&RL News ■ Novem ber 2002 all types of academic libraries. … A move ment is presently underway to develop a single ACRL standard for all types o f academic li braries, using the “Standards for College Li braries” as its basis. W h a t's in th e s ta n d a rd s The 2000 edition o f the “Standards for Col lege Libraries” addresses 12 different aspects o f academic libraries and provides a list of relevant questions to be used in evaluating li brary effectiveness and quality. It provides some basic definitions, then introduces peer com parison. There is also an informative section on planning, assessment, and outcomes assess ment. The first three of the twelve sections of the standards are grouped together as planning, assessment, and outcomes assessment. Practi cal application o f this group can be accom plished by using a matrix to link the library mission and goals with assessment measures and by using the results o f the assessment. National statistical data can be used for peer comparison to provide some quantitative data. For the next four sections (services, instruc tion, resources, and access), the qualitative measures of user satisfaction and service qual ity are employed. For quantitative measures, internal trend analysis and peer comparison are used. Outcomes performance indicators will focus on the desired educational outcomes and the impact o f library services. For staff and facilities, the questions in the standards are used for 1) reviewing program and service needs in relation to staff expertise and the capacity, condition, and telecommuni cation infrastructure of library facilities; 2) pro viding appropriate staff development and re lating program and service needs to campus- wide outcomes; 3) conducting longitudinal analysis of staffing and library condition and comparison with peers. The communications and cooperation, ad ministration, and budget sections all have as sessment elements in common. All three areas involve basic standards compliance issues, i.e., the library is either doing them or not. In as sessing these elements the evaluator should, at a minimum, answer the questions from the stan- Want to learn more about implementing the "Standards for College Libraries"? T a k e th e M id w in te r w o rk sh o p The authors of this article, Bob Fernekes and Bill Nelson, will be leading a full-day work shop, “Creating a Continuous Assessment Envi ronment in Academic Libraries,” on January 24, 2003, prior to the Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia. With them, you will work through the “Standards for College Librar ies” (2000 edition) using the instrument Stan d ards a n d Assessment f o r A cadem ic Libraries: A W orkbook (ACRL, 2002). Learn about the new concepts of the stan dards, discover how the individual sections of the standards are part of overall institution and library planning, and find out how to incorpo rate performance indicators and outcomes as sessment measures to assess the impact of li brarians and libraries on student learning. The workbook provides practical infor mation throughout with checklists, forms, examples, and library assessment tools and techniques. S ta n d a rd s w o rk b o o k n o w a v a ila b le th r o u g h A C R L P u b lic a tio n s If you can’t attend the Midwinter workshop, or want to get a head start, Standards a n d Assessment f o r A cadem ic Libraries: A W orkbook is now avail able from ACRL. Using the new standards has meant looking at library operations in new ways. This workbook is designed to assist library pro fessionals in academic libraries of all sizes, both public and private, in applying the new ACRL “Standards for College libraries. ” It provides ques tions, worksheets, suggested resources, and sources of comparative data for evaluating per formance in academic libraries. A concept map illustrates the essential relationships among the institutional mission, the library, and the user. Each section also includes a methodology, in cluding checklists and tips, for responding to evaluation questions. F or m ore inform ation, visit http:// www.ala.org/acrl/newatacrl.html, or order by going to http://www.ala.org/acrl/pubsform.html. http://www.ala.org/acrl/newatacrl.html http://www.ala.oi%5eacrl/pubsform.html C&RL News ■ Novem ber 2002 / 713 dards. The library should ensure com pliance with specific accreditation requirements, both regional and specialized, as appropriate for the institution. P eer com parison can b e used to demonstrate the level o f com pliance in these areas. The current CLS committee has supported the efforts o f two o f its m em bers w ho have presented a number of seminars and workshops around the country and developed an accom panying w orkbook to provide exam ples o f practical applications o f the standards.1 H o w p r a c t ic a l a re t h e s t a n d a r d s ? Since the “Standards for College Libraries” are now considered to be important to all types o f academic libraries, regardless o f size, it is nec essary to exam ine the practical application of these standards. In incorporating outcomes as sessm ent into all new standards, ACRL is on the right track. As the first such document, the “Standards for College Libraries” are practical and serve as a useful tool for library evalua tion. Governors State University Library was the first library to evaluate themselves using the new standards,2 and the most recent is Butler University Libraries.3 Several other academic libraries are in the process of applying the stan dards. The availability o f practical guidance for application o f the new standards should assist a number o f these institutions to com plete this assessment. The standards may soon have another prac tical use: aiding the preparation for a regional accreditation visit. As the regional standards become less prescriptive, this national academic library standard could provide the preferred S tate m en t o f o w n ersh ip and m anagem ent College & Research Libraries News is published 11 times a year (monthly, combining July/August) by the American Library Association, 30 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. American Li brary Association, owner; Stephanie Orphan, editor. Second- class postage paid at Chicago, Illinois. Printed in the U.S.A. As a nonprofit organization authorized to mail at special rates (DMM Section 423.12), the purposes, function, and nonprofit status o f this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes, have not changed during die preceding 12 months. Exten t and nature o f circulation. (“Average” figures denote the number o f copies printed eadi issue during the preceding 12 months; ‘Actual” figures denote the number of copies of single issues published nearest to filing date.) Total number (c o p ies ( net press run): Average, 12,805; Actual, 12,886. basis for library self-assessment. The regional accreditation associations are moving toward less prescriptive standards and this allows for more subjective interpretation on the part of the institution and the regional association re view committee. This seems to be an ideal situ ation in which to apply a nationally approved professional standard to the process o f self- evaluation o f the academic library. O nce the evaluation is com pleted, it can also serve as the basis for the library portion o f specialized accrediting agency standards. Thus, o n e could con clud e that the ACRL “Standards for College Libraries” are indeed practical because: 1) they meet the expectations by regional and specialized accrediting associations that re quire outcomes assessment; 2) they are ap p licable to all sizes o f aca demic libraries, and are being used as the tem plate or basis for creation o f a single standard for all academic libraries; 3) they have b een successfully applied by several academic libraries; and 4) they provide a nationally approved pro fessional standard for com prehensive assess ment o f academic libraries. N o te s 1. Robert W. F ern ek es and William N. Nelson. S tan dards a n d A ssessm ent f o r A cad em ic L ib ra r ies: A W orkb ook (ACRL, 2002). 2. Governors State University’s document is available at http://www.govst.edu/library/ assess.htm. 3. T he Butler University Libraries’ d ocu m ent is available at http://www.butler.edu/ library/selfstudy.pdf. ■ Total paid/requ ested subscriptions: Average, 12,293; Actual, 12,386. Sales through dealers an d carriers, street vendors, counter sales, an d other non-USPS p a id distribution: not ap p lied . Other classes m ailed through the USPS: not applicable. Total p a id an d/or requested circulation -. Average, 12,293; Actual, 12,386. Free distribution by mail- Average, 76; Actual, 75. Free distribu tion outside the m ail: Average, 0; Actual. 0. Total free distribu tion: Average, 76; Actual, 75. Total distribution: Average, 12,369; Actual, 12,461. Copies not distributed: Office use, leftover, spoiled: Average, 436; Actual, 425. Total (sum o f previous en tries): Average, 12,805; Actual, 12,886. Percent paid an d/or re quested circulation: Average, 99.39%; Actual, 99.40%. Statem ent o f o w n ersh ip , m an ag em en t, an d c ir culation (PS Fonn 3526, October 1999) for2002 filed with the United States Postal Service, Postmaster in Chicago, Illinois, October 1 ‚ 2002. http://www.govst.edu/library/ http://www.butler.edu/