Despite public library popularity and heavy per capita use, the library budget is usually the least increased in good times and takes the biggest cuts in bad. Why is this?
Public library funding decisions are made by local elected officials: councilmen, aldermen or county legislators – whatever they are called in their respective communities. It’s hard not to notice and generalize, and there are plenty of wonderful exceptions, but I believe the problem is in the nature of those who run for local office.
I’ve had the privilege to direct four public libraries in four different states, each year preparing and presenting a budget to the powers that be. I never did a formal study on this, but can not help but observe that, with marvelous exceptions in every community, the people who decide the library’s budget are less disposed to support the library that the population at large. The reason for this, I believe, is in the nature of people who run for local office and the funding structure of the public library itself, that is, being a step removed from the people who use and appreciate them.
In general the people who make decisions about library budgets ---
1) Don’t use the library.
In most cities these positions are not full time jobs and those who hold them are gregarious and busy. They spend their free time in meetings, working on council business, meeting people at ceremonies, sports events and restaurants. They are not at the library. When it’s budget time, they are more favorably disposed towards a park or municipal golf course than a library.
2) Don’t feel responsible for the library.
In most states, library boards prepare a budget and submit it to the city/county. Whether the public library is a private entity or not, the perception is that the library is its board’s problem. The heat for shorter hours, a lay off or closed branch can be rhetorically passed on to the Board, while the heat for poor street maintenance will go directly to the council member. This is an important consideration for a person with the gregarious nature most elected people have.
3) Don’t understand the role of the public library.
Despite all the data and justificatin prepared by a library director, budget cutting can be done on notions and impressions. I’ve heard behind the scenes and in the chamber talk that we don’t need libraries anymore (now that we have the internet and mega-book stores). You can presume the speaker 1) does not understand the current commoditization of information so sees the internet as a viable substitute and 2) reads so seldom that s/he can afford his/her and his/her family's reading material and 3) does not understand the children's programs and the role reading and storytelling play in reading development, nor how many books it takes a child to become a reader and 4) has no idea that the book store will not have unpopular material, specialized reference and research material, nor one of a kind items. In summary, this person has no idea of the library's role in the quality of life in the community or the role that free access to information and lifelong learning play in an educated democratic society.
4) Don’t feel that library cuts will show as much those to other departments.
Besides underestimating the popularity of their local library, most elected official feel that waste is evenly spread among the departments they oversee. I’ve seen elected officials tolerate huge overtime scandals and millions wasted on failed technology. I’ve seen these overlooked or paid for in the next year’s budget for too many other departments. If a library were to make a mistake on this scale, (I have never seen one) it would never be tolerated. There would be no supplemental allocation to pay for a mistake or cost overrun, it would come out of the libray's operating budget.
5) Have priorities in other departments.
This shows up clearly when cities launch new programs and build new facilities on very sketchy projected use data. A new library program, technology or branch usually requires years of justification, public lobbying and often private seed money.
Where the library direct has access to the voters, there are usually better libraries. For instance, in Illinois many library boards are elected and able to set the tax rate, or in New York State there are libraries that can place their budget on the ballot. These libraries have the most secure funding. In California where the library is a department of city or county government, with the city or county directly responsible, funding can be much better. This can and has cut the other way though, some California local governments have decided that the library is a department that isn’t needed.
Urban libraries are in the most difficult funding situations. They often have to support an aging and more logistically difficult infrastructure than their suburban counterparts. They are competing with other departments for a share of an eroding tax base. Urban libraries often bear the costs for housing, securing, and preserving large collections which are as valuable to the state or region than they are to the city.
Public libraries have survived because people use them and want them. It’s been my observation that library boards, friends groups and general supporters usually have to put forward twice the effort of those supporting parks or other quality of life services to get an equivalent result. Without those dedicated people who speak up on behalf of public libraries, and there are thousands, maybe millions, throughout the US, public libraries would not exist as we know them today.