ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


231

Elementary & Secondary Educ. Act

Title II—School Library Resources, Textbooks, 
and Other Instructional Materials . . .

Library Services and Construction Act
Title I—Public Library Services ................
Title II—Public Library C onstruction..........
Title III—Interlibrary Cooperation ..............
Title IVA—State Inst. Library Servs.............
Title IVB—L. Servs. to the Phy. Handicapped

Higher Education Act
Title II—College Library Assistance and Li­

brary Training and Research ...................
Part A—College Library R esources..............
Part B—Lib. Training, including Institutes

—Research .....................................
Part C—LC Acquisition and Cataloging

“If no effort is made to override these recom­
mended cuts, the prospects for even minimal 
aid for library resources for school, public and 
academic library users will be dismal indeed. 
There will be no funds at all for the school 
library program under Title II of the Ele­
mentary and Secondary Education Act. Half of 
the Title I funds for public library services and 
all of the Title II construction money will be 
withdrawn from programs partially supported 
by the Library Services and Construction Act. 
And half of the college library resources fund 
will be cut out of the HEA Title II-A program, 
leaving only enough money to make basic 
grants of $5,000; training opportunities for li­
brarians will be reduced by more than fifty 
per cent under Title II-B; and the Library of 
Congress acquisition and cataloging activities 
now assisted by the Title II, Part C program 
will be reduced by $2,856,000.”

Revised Budget January Budget FT ’70
Recommendation Recommendation Authorization

—0— $42,000,000 $200,000,000

$23,209,000 $49,894,000 $166,000,000
$17,500,000 $35,000,000 $ 65,000,000

—0— 9,185,000 70,000,000
2,281,000 2,281,000 12,500,000
2,094,000 2,094,000 12,500,000
1,334,000 1,334,000 6,000,000

$23,000,000 $42,606,000 $114,100,000
12,500,000 25,000,000 75,000,000
4,000,000 8,250,000 28,000,000
2,000,000 2,000,000
4,500,000' 7,356,000 11,100,000

LTP has made a significant impact. Its work is 
now known in many countries of the world—as 
nearby as Canada, as distant as Australia. It 
gives assistance and information free—and free­
ly—to all who seek its help, whether it concerns 
a $1,000 expenditure on audiovisual equipment, 
or the manufacture of rustproof paper clips.”

Carhart recalled that the idea of a technical 
project to serve the needs of the library world 
originated with the Council on Library Re­
sources, Inc., and out of this idea grew a pro­
posal that the Council undertake a research- 
testing-standardization program in the field of 
library supplies, equipment, and systems. A 
grant of $136,395 from the Council transformed 
the idea into a reality on May 1, 1959. “How 
well the idea and the reality have matured is 
seen today in the range of LTP’s activities,” 
continued Carhart. “They encompass an in­
formation service, a subscription service, the 
development of standards, product develop­
ment and testing, publishing and international 
cooperation.

“On this 10th anniversary of the Library 
Technology Program, I am particularly proud 
that we have been able to stimulate industry 
to bring to the market place products that an­
swer the needs of librarians. We have done 
this in many ways, from speeches and informal 
talks, to marketing our own LTP inventions. I 
am proud, too, of Library Technology Reports, 
that every two months brings to subscribers 
much important information about products, 
and current technological news of interest to li­
brarians. Its impact on the profession and on 
the library equipment and supplies manufactur­
ing industry has been considerable, bringing 
with it an awareness by both groups of the 
need for better quality products and more in­
telligent purchasing. In another area,” he

L IB R A R Y  T E C H N O L O G Y  
P R O G R A M  M A R K S

1 0 T H  A N N IV E R S A R Y
May marks the 10th anniversary of the Li­

brary Technology Program of the American Li­
brary Association. In a statement issued on the 
occasion, Forrest F. Carhart, Jr., director of the 
Library Technology Program, said, “I am proud 
of the accomplishments of the Library Tech­
nology Program over the past 10 years. LTP 
has, I believe, made many worthwhile contri­
butions to the library community in the areas 
of testing, research, publishing, invention, 
standards and product evaluation. In a profes­
sion,” he continued, “that 10 years ago had 
few guidelines or tools available to help the li­
brarian make decisions on technical matters,



232

stated, “we have made considerable progress 
in techniques of evaluating equipment and sup­
plies in order to determine appropriate levels 
of performance and durability.”

Carhart said that he was “proud of reaching 
the point where we support, with our own ef­
forts, 57 per cent of our operating budget, and 
29 per cent of research costs.” At the begin­
ning, 100 per cent of Library Technology Pro­
gram support came from the Council on Li­
brary Resources, Inc. Carhart added, “I must 
acknowledge, gratefully, the assistance given by 
the Advisory Committee of the Library Tech­
nology Program. Over the years, we have bene­
fited from both the sound advice of committee 
members, and their considerable goodwill. Fi­
nally,” said Carhart, “I am proud of the Li­
brary Technology Program staff. From the be­
ginning we have had a dedicated and intelli­

gent staff always working in behalf of the Pro­
gram. Together with the library profession it­
self, they have made success possible.” ■■

C A L L IN G  A L L  
C O N S T R U C T IO N !

If you are building a new library or making 
substantial physical changes in your library, the 
Library Administration Division will appreciate 
receiving pictures, slides, floor plans, sketches, 
explanatory materials, and a copy of your writ­
ten building program. These materials are 
needed in the buildings collection used by li­
brarians, architects, and other building plan­
ners. For details about this collection write: 
Mrs. Ruth R. Frame, Executive Secretary, 
LAD, ALA, 50 E. Huron Street, Chicago, 
Illinois 60611.■ ■

From Inside the DLP
By Dr. Katharine M. Stokes

College and University Library Specialist, Li­
brary Planning and Development Branch, Di­
vision of Library Programs, Bureau of Adult, 
Vocational, and Library Programs, U.S. Office 
of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202.

As usual, this piece is being written two 
months before you will read it. We are sur­
rounded by stacks and boxes of applications for 
Title II-A (Higher Education Act) grants for 
library materials. The Grants Section, headed 
by Mrs. Catherine Robertson, has “logged in” 
2,282 applications for basic grants (of up to 
$5,000), 1,808 applications for supplementary 
grąnts (those that don’t require matching), 670 
applications for Special Purpose Type A grants, 
70 for Type B, and 61 for Type C (for co­
operative acquisitions by groups of libraries).

The corresponding figures for 1968 were 
2,153 basic applications, 2,111 of which received 
grants; 1,550 supplemental applications, 1,524 of 
which received grants; 493 Special Purpose 
Type A applications, 19 of which received 
grants; 52 Special Purpose Type B applications, 
9 of which received grants; and Special Pur­
pose Type C applications from 173 libraries. 
Eleven combinations comprised of 65 libraries 
were awarded Type C grants.

All of these past and present statistics are set 
down to help you understand why you did or

didn’t receive a Title II-A award last month. 
The competition gets stiffer each year, but the 
$25,000,000 appropriation has remained the 
same for three years. Next year the President’s 
budget calls for half that amount.

The teams of evaluators have been with us 
for parts of two weeks rating the Special Pur­
pose applications; the Grants Section is work­
ing through the basics; and Frank Stevens, 
Title II-A Specialist, Nathan Cohen, and I 
have almost finished checking the supplemen­
tary ones. We have had to make numerous 
phone calls, especially to universities which 
listed more than 30 PhD programs instead of 
grouping them under the fields of graduate 
study noted in Appendix 2 of the application 
form. Sometimes we could classify them our­
selves, but when Xerox copies of pages from a 
graduate catalog are the only clue, not even 
distinguishing master’s programs from doctoral 
ones, we couldn’t cope!

We are impressed again with the great need 
for resources in libraries at all academic levels, 
from the innumerable new community colleges 
to the universities with their proliferating new 
graduate programs.

Congratulations to those of you whose needs 
were great enough, and well documented 
enough, to receive the highest ratings. My sym­
pathy to all the rest of you who need the 
money we don’t have to distribute.■ ■