12  ·  Survey Results:  Executive Summary
The survey also asked respondents if their institu-
tions belonged to various programmatic accrediting
agencies. All but two (95%) reported they are mem-
bers of one or more programmatic accrediting bodies.
They identified 127 agencies that can be organized
into 15 categories: 1) architecture and construction
science; 2) agriculture; 3) business; 4) computer sci-
ence, engineering, engineering technology, and sci-
ence; 5) dentistry; 6) dietary; 7) education; 8) health
care management; 9) medicine; 10) nursing; 11) phar-
macy; 12) psychiatry, psychology, and social work;
13) therapy; 14) veterinary medicine; and 15) other
programs. The agencies most frequently identified
were ABET (applied science, computing, engineer-
ing, and engineering technology), the Association
to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB),
the American Psychological Association (APA),
the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE), and the American Association
of Colleges of Nursing (CCNE).
Accreditation Reports and Site Visits
Thirty-nine of the responding libraries (95%) have
participated in a regional or programmatic report in
the last five years. Of these, 37 indicated they have
participated in between one and 18 reports, for a total
of 201. This is an average of 5.43 accreditation reports
per library = 3.83) during the last five-year period.
The highest number of reports were prepared for
the National Architectural Accrediting Board (16)
and ABET (15). The National Association of Schools
of Music (8), NCATE, and the Council on Social Work
Education (7 reports each) followed distantly. The sur-
vey asked respondents to select one report and briefly
describe the library elements the agency asked for and
what recommendations the agency had for the library.
Seventeen respondents described regional agency
reports; 27 described programmatic reports. In most
cases, the accrediting agencies’ follow up reports did
not contain any specific recommendations regarding
the institution’s libraries.
Of the 37 survey respondents who have partici-
pated in the preparation of an accreditation agency
report, 28 (76%) indicated they had participated in a
regional or programmatic accreditation visit in the
last five years. These added up to a total of 100 visits
with an average of 3.70 per library = 2.49). Visits at
each institution ranged from 1 to 10 in the five-year
span. Eleven respondents briefly described a visit by
a regional accrediting agency; 17 reported on a pro-
grammatic agency visit.
Staff Participation in the Accreditation Process
The library staff who participate in the accreditation
process varies, but associate directors (17 responses,
or 55%) and directors (15, or 48%) are the most fre-
quentparticipants. Other individuals who participate
in report preparation, committee work, or site vis-
its include subject librarians (such as “subject librar-
ian for Journalism and Mass Communication”) and
branch librarians (e.g., “Head Veterinary Medicine
Library”)—particularly in the programmatic accredi-
tation process—collection management librarians, and
bibliographers. While survey comments indicate that
library participation is not treated as a single-person
assignment in many cases, only a few respondents
indicated that a committee was formed for the ac-
creditation process.
Associate directors have the broadest involvement,
from serving on institutional accreditation groups,
to preparing reports, to meeting with site visitors.
Subject librarians and department or branch library
heads most often prepare reports and meet with the
visiting evaluation team. Directors most often play a
role in the accreditation team visit.
Although respondents indicated that library staff
worked with their institutional research office to
prepare the accreditation report (36%) or to prepare
for the site visit (29%), a greater percentage (58%) re-
sponded there was no interaction with that office.
However, since some responses were for program-
matic reviews rather than regional accreditation, in-
volvement with the central institutional data office
might not be warranted. The college, department, or
faculty under accreditation review would typically
address programmatic accreditation requirements. So,
library involvement in the accreditation process may
have been at the college/departmental rather than at
the institutional level.
Previous Page Next Page