DOCUMENT RESUME ED 409 025 IR 056 427 AUTHOR Messas, Kostas, Comp.; And Others TITLE Staff Training & Development. SPEC Kit 224. INSTITUTION Association of Research Libraries, Washington, D.C. Office of Management Services. REPORT NO ISSN-0160-3582 PUB DATE Jun 97 NOTE 200p.; Contains drawings and illustrations that may not reproduce clearly. AVAILABLE FROM Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Services, 21 Dupont Circle, N.W., Washington, DC 20036. PUB TYPE Guides Non-Classroom (055) Tests/Questionnaires (160) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC08 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Academic Libraries; Evaluation Methods; Higher Education; Human Resources; Inservice Education; *Library Personnel; Library Statistics; Library Surveys; Off the Job Training; On the Job Training; *Professional Development; Program Evaluation; *Research Libraries; *Staff Development IDENTIFIERS *Association of Research Libraries ABSTRACT This study examined the state of formal staff training and development in Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries by identifying what programs are offered; how they are organized, administered, and budgeted; who participates; and how training is evaluated. In February 1997, a survey was distributed to all ARL libraries; of the 120 member institutions, 50 responded. Fifty-six percent of respondents have .a formal library program in place, and the remaining are planning such a program. Most libraries (73%) have a budget for staff training and development. Although the size of this budget varies from year to year, most respondents (36%) receive more than $25,000. Some libraries have no staff development program at all. Primary responsibility for staff training and development rests more frequently with a committee (38 %) and less with the Library Personnel Department (26%), or the Staff Development Coordinator (24%). Thirty-seven percent of ARL libraries have programs that were established more than 10 years ago, while 27% of respondents have relatively new programs (1-3 years); ARL libraries spend more time planning versus actually delivering staff development activities. ARL libraries provide training in a wide variety of both technical and nontechnical areas. The most frequently used formats are small group discussions and on-site workshops (38 responses each). Other popular means include off-site workshops (35); videotapes and films (32); and lectures (31). Librarians and members of the university community most frequently deliyer staff training and development (88% each), followed by other library staff and paid consultants (80% each). Staff is almost always the primary target audience (97%). While attendance at training is mostly voluntary, it is strongly encouraged. Participation is compulsory mostly for faculty/librarians (34%), followed by staff (28%). Evaluation of staff training and development programs is conducted by all libraries through questionnaires; many use observations (69%), individual interviews (65%), and group interviews (54%). The overall effect of staff training and development on employee morale appears to be very positive. Very few libraries consider the staff development program to have made no noticeable difference to the staff or to have affected them diversely. However, some negative issues were 64 +++++ ED409025 Has Multi-page SFR--- Level =l +++++ noted. Besides survey results, the kit also includes supporting documentation from the survey and related materials in the form of guidelines, annual reports, budgets, training activities, course catalogs, evaluations, staff recognition awards, and newsletters. A list of selected reading materials is also provided. (AEF) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** /14 SYSTEMSANDPROCEDURESEXCHANGE CENTER Staff Training & Development t 224 June 1997 N N N N N N N N r U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY C.A. Mandel TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." vJ 0 ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES irsr CORI/ Ad l3L SYSTEMS AND PROC nr. EDURES EXCHANGE CENTER Staff Training & Development yel224 June 1997 INTRODUCTION Coordinator, Staff Development Intern, Library Systems This study examines the state of formal staff training Department, Interactive Media Professionals, Electronic and development in ARL libraries by identifying what Resources Librarian, Coordinator of User Education, programs are offered; how they are organized, adminis- persons responsible for staff development in a particular tered, and budgeted; who participates; and how training area, the Human Resources Director, or someone who is evaluated. Staff training and development programs coordinates training for employees wishing to take their can maximize thepotential and effectiveness of own learning and development initiatives. Forty percent employees in the dramatically changing environment of of those people responsible for staff training and proliferating electronic resources, budgetary crises, development spend less than one-quarter of their time downsizing, outsourcing, restructuring and reorganization. on this task; only 30% devote all of their time to it. In February 1997, a survey was distributed to all ARL Primary responsibilityforstafftraining and libraries; of the 120 member institutions, 50 responded. development frequently rests with more than one entity, SURVEY RESULTS in combinations that usually include a committee. The Fifty-six percent of respondents have a formal average committee has seven members and spends three library program in place. Of the 44% that do not, hours per week on staff development. slightly more than half are planning such a program. Programs: Thirty-seven percent of ARL libraries Most of these institutions participate in traininghave programs that were established more than ten delivered by their university's human resources division. years ago, while 27% of respondents have relatively new A small number rely exclusively on formal training programs (1-3 years). Eighty percent of those with an provided at the university level. established program and those currently in the planning Budgeting: Most libraries (73%) have a budget for stages conducted a needs assessment as a first step. staff training and development. Although the size of this Interestingly, ARL libraries spend more time budget varies from year to year, most respondents (36%) planning versus actually delivering staff development receive more than $25,000. Some libraries have no staff activities. However, this can probably be attributed to training and development budget at all. The typical staff the need to make the best use of limited training time. development budget does not constitute a line item in Forty-three percent of member institutions devotemore the library's overall budget; in most cases it consists of than 20 hours per month to planning, but 30% spend five a series of funds made available on an as-needed basis. hours or less on this same task. Most libraries (34%) offer Most funded programs support technical and nontechnical five or less hours of training activities each month, while training inside the library; cover administrative costs; only 31% offer more than 20 hours per month. provide university mandated training; pay outside Topics and Formats: ARL libraries provide training in trainers and consultants; provide travel support for a wide variety of both technical and nontechnical areas. conferences and off-site programs; pay tuition fees; and Mandatory sessions usually address nontechnical topics, purchase training materials. Some also cover foreign and are offered on a regular basis. language training. The most frequently used formats are smallgroup Responsibility: Primary responsibility for staff discussions and on-site workshops (38 responses each). training and development rests more frequently with a Other popular means include off-site workshops (35); committee (38%) and less with the Library Personnel videotapes and films (32); and lectures (31). Some Department (26%), or the Staff Development Coordina- libraries also use experience-based programs taught at tor (24%). A few libraries assign primary responsibility computers with handouts; writing exercises; panel to other various entities, including Head of Administra- presentations; hands-on technology training; Web-based tive and Facilities Support Services, Human Resources training; video conferencing; audio conferencing; micro- ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 3 computer labs and online instruction (e.g., via Internet participate dislike having to do the work of those who conferences). attend programs. Staff working in departments with very Librarians and members of the university community little release time resent their inability to attend as most frequently deliver staff training and development many programs as staff working in departments with (88% each), followed by other library staff and paid