LRC Evaluation Report 2000

LRC Evaluation Report 2000
Institutional Effectiveness and Program Reviews

LRC Entire Evaluation Effectiveness Criteria Comparison to ACRL Standards Comparison to previous years Outcomes vs. Mission & Goals Qualitative Measures	Administrative Evaluation Effectiveness Criteria Comparison to ACRL Standards Comparison to previous years Outcomes vs. Mission & Goals
Access Services Pgm. Review Effectiveness Criteria Comparison to ACRL Standards Comparison to previous years Outcomes vs. Mission & Goals Qualitative Measures	A/V Services Pgm. Review Effectiveness Criteria Comparison to ACRL Standards Comparison to previous years Outcomes vs. Mission & Goals Qualitative Measures

Effectiveness Criteria

The quality of the LRC programs is evaluated based on the following criteria or standards (based on

the PAC LRC Mission;
Standards for University Libraries,
Standards for College Libraries, and
Poll and Boekhorst (see Works Cited for details)).

Evaluation Components

The evaluation will consist of the following:

Comparison to ACRL standards
Comparison to last year and multi-year trends
Comparison of outcomes to mission and goals
Survey to address factors which cannot be quantified
Specific research as requested, needed, or scheduled
Any factors in the program review manual not covered above will be added

Program Review Cycle:

(for evaluation Plans of Departments, click on the department name)

First Year	Access Services Audio Visual Services
Second Year	Children's Library Collection Development
Third Year	Community Outreach Instructional Services
Fourth Year	Personnel Reference Services
Fifth Year	Technical Services Web Site

Please note that the LRC entire, and administrative questions, will be reviewed every year.

Annual Evaluation Time Line

Month	Week	Action
Sept.	First Week	Evaluation Committee meets and forms subcommittees to address the sections of the work.
Sept.	Third Week	Subcommittees return work to Evaluation Coordinator who summarizes the plan and submits to the Evaluation committee for approval.
Oct.	First week	Surveys are sent out.
Oct.	Third Week	Surveys results are tabulated and added to all other data which has been collected.
Feb.	First Week	Final test draft of report is submitted to Director of Learning Resources for review.
Feb. 19	Second Week	Director forwards two copies of the entire report, supporting documents, and a summary to the Executive Vice President.
Feb. 27	Last Week	Program Review Council meets to review the report and establish an Open Forum Schedule.
Apr. 2	First Week	Program Review Council completes review, attaches their assessment form, provides feedback to LRC, and forwards the remaining copy of the report to the President.
Apr. 15	Third Week	President reviews the report, completes assessment form, provides feedback to lower levels, confers with anyone given a probationary status.

Works Cited

Poll, Roswitha, and Peter te Boekhorst. Measuring Quality: International Guidelines for Performance Measurement in Academic Libraries. IFLA Publication no. 76. New Providence: Saur, 1996.

"Standards for College Libraries, 1995 Edition." Final Version Approved by the ACRL Board and the ALA Standard Committee. College and Research Library News 56 (1995): 245-257.

Standards for University Libraries: Evaluation of Performance. Prepared by ACRL's University Libraries Section. Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries, 1989.

Effectiveness Criteria

Evaluation Components

Program Review Cycle:

Annual Evaluation Time Line

Works Cited

//<!- var upDate upDate = document.lastModified; document.write("<P>Last updated on: " + upDate); //-> Please send comments to: Colby Glass, MLIS, or Mario Ramirez LRC Homepage | ACCD Library Catalogs | A.C.C.D. | Palo Alto College

Please send comments to: Colby Glass, MLIS, or Mario Ramirez
LRC Homepage | ACCD Library Catalogs | A.C.C.D. | Palo Alto College