THE ORGANIZATION, FINANCIAL SUPPORT STRUCTURES, AND PRODUCTIVITY OF LEARNING RESOURCES CENTERS IN SELECTED PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to establish an experiential base for the formulation of a criterion for the financial support structures of college and university Learning Resources Centers.; Procedures. Productivity, defined as production of instructional materials in support of the classroom faculty teaching-learning program where students receive academic credit, was selected as the dependent variable, working with the independent variable financial support structure, and the intervening variable organizational structure.; The American Association of State Colleges and Universities was selected as the population to be studied.; A survey instrument was developed in a four-part format: (1) organizational structure identification; (2) financial support structure identification; (3) specific (numeric) demographic and funding data; (4) specific (numeric) quantitative and qualitative production data.; Findings. (1) Learning Resources Centers providing campus-wide services existed in eighty-four (74.4 percent) of the 113 participating institutions. Departmental learning resources programs serving primarily the host department were found in seventeen (15.0 percent) of the institutions. Twelve (10.6 percent) of the participating institutions reported the total absence of an organized learning resources program. (2) Forty-six (54.8 percent) of the eighty-four Learning Resources Centers reported financial support achieved solely through direct appropriation to the Center. Learning Resources Centers supported by a combination of direct appropriation to the LRC and charge-back to the patron were reported by the remaining thirty-eight (45.2 percent). No participants reported the maintenance of totally self-supporting Learning Resources Centers either through restricted fee allocation or direct charge-back to the patron. (3) Of the eighty-four Learning Resources Centers, forty-eight (57.2 percent) reported the LRC's organized as separate administrative units. Centers organized as administrative sub-units were reported by the remaining thirty-six (42.8 percent) of the eighty-four; thirty of those thirty-six (37.5 percent) were identified as sub-units of the library. (4) Seventy-eight of the eighty-four Learning Resources Centers (92.9 percent) were thus found to be formed of only four discrete combinations of two organizational and two financial support structures. (5) Quantitative production of instructional materials in ten primary and three derived categories was determined. Comparison indices were developed referencing: (a) Frequency of production in designated categories per FTE faculty. (b) The ratio of direct, indirect, and total support costs per FTE student. (c) Ratio of production per FTE faculty to dollars of direct, indirect, and total support costs. (d) Percentage of direct, indirect, and total support costs supported by charge-back to patrons.; Conclusions. (1) A criterion for the financial support structures of college and university Learning Resources Centers has been formulated through the experiential investigation of this study: Direct appropriation to the Learning Resources Center should provide for equipment replacement, group and self-instructional presentation service, production of instructional materials, and consultation in instructional development as a minimum; revenue generated by fee-for-service (charge-back) should be restricted to recovery of a portion of extraordinary production costs. (2) The most effective Learning Resources Centers are those organized as separate administrative units irrespective of their financial support structures.