| Summary: | The purpose of this study was to analyze the state programs funded under Title III, of the Library Services and Construction Act for the promotion of cooperative activities among the various types of libraries. The study was concentrated in the six states in the Southeast which had been administered on a continuing basis throughout the 1967-76 period by the Region IV Program Office of The United States Office of Education. The six states studied were Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee. Specific objectives of the research were to determine: the types of programs funded and whether they were administered by the state library agencies or at the local levels; problems associated with the administration of Title III funds at both the state and region levels; the nature of the planning; methods employed in the evaluation of the programs and individual projects; and whether state and local appropriations were stimulated by grant funds. Other objectives were to determine whether funded projects influenced other intertype library cooperative activities, and the activities the Region IV Program Office undertook in the administration of the Title III programs. The stages of the research were: preplanning and a review of the relevant literature; interviewing the Region IV Program Officer and obtaining copies of relevant documents relating to the state programs; studying annual programs, reports and other documents obtained from the Program Office; interviewing state library agency personnel in each of the six states and studying documents in their files; and the final analysis of the data. === The data gathered in this study indicated that the programs of intertype library cooperation in each of the six states were integrated with other library programs and were administered by the appropriate line positions. Major problems encountered in the administration of Title III included inadequate funding to provide appropriate incentive for major projects, uncertainty of funding, and an orientation of the state library agencies toward only public libraries. The types of projects implemented in the earlier years varied with a large number of local projects, but the emphasis shifted to the funding of major statewide projects. Planning for the implementation of state programs was largely confined to the state library agencies with project participants having input at the operational level. The management of Title III programs caused the state library agency heads to establish new formal relationships with other than public libraries. Also, the value of the programs was recognized to the point that state and local funds were made available to continue projects when Federal monies were withheld. The predominate use of LSCA, Title III funds was for continuing support of ongoing programs. The administration of the Title III programs at the Federal level was through the Program Officer in Atlanta, who had a wide range of responsibilities and only minimal support staffing resources. The majority of the state library agency personnel interviewed indicated they had failed to receive adequate guidance and leadership from the Program Officer in the development of programs. However, funding was felt to have been the single greatest handicap to the program. === Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 41-07, Section: A, page: 2813. === Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1980.
|
|---|
