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 deliver 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 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)