The New Wariness
Facing a recession and a post–September 11 economic shock, PLs plan for retrenchment but remain fiscally sound
By Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 1/15/2002
In post-September 11 America, it's safe to say that libraries remain equity investments (see last year's Budget Report, "The Library as Anchor," LJ 1/01, p. 59–61), and, indeed, library construction projects remain on track. But public libraries, like several other sectors of government, faced a double whammy in the last quarter of 2001: not only did a recession squeeze public funds, the terrorist attacks shifted priorities to public safety and cut further into available funds.
Total budgets (see table below) are up 3.9%, while salary and materials budgets are up 5.07% and 3.1%, respectively. That 3.9% figure is a decline from last year's increase of 6.5% and the previous year's figure of 7.5%.
Some of the 355 libraries responding to the LJ Budget Report 2002 reported solid budget increases, thanks to a robust local economy or a strong funding mechanism. But most librarians' comments indicate a widespread wariness about their institutions' financial future, with some bracing for further cuts in FY03.
That's not to say that burdens are equal. Especially vulnerable were libraries in New York City, which faced a 10% budget cut in the current fiscal year (FY02), and in states dependent on tourists' sales tax revenues, such as Florida. Even Ohio, a paragon of library support, froze funding this year. State libraries, though still comparatively well funded, now must pay for the Ohio Public Library Information Network (OPLIN), which was previously paid for out of the general fund.
Also, in a notable shift, libraries reported a substantial decrease in the amount of donations received in 2001, an average of $482,000 vs. $571,000 in the previous year. That can be attributed not only to a slower economy and stock market losses but also the substantial charitable focus on the victims of September 11. Some smaller libraries (serving populations under 100,000) actually increased their fundraising in 2001.
Per capita up slightlyPer capita funding continued its steady increase, projected at $34.90 for FY02, up more than $1 per capita from FY01's $33.68. Still, 71% of libraries projected an increase in per capita funding, while 9% projected no change.
Compared with budgets from five years ago, medium and larger systems (50,000 population and above) averaged increases of 40% or more, while the budgets of smaller libraries grew more slowly. Also over five years, the net increase for materials (39.5%) exceeded the increase for salaries (36.8%), with the largest libraries (serving one million or more) reporting the most growth in materials budgets. That trend is likely to reverse, as libraries faced with tightened budgets often are forced to adjust their materials budgets in lieu of layoffs.
Then again, of those libraries receiving grant monies in FY02, 46% said they would use those funds for books/materials. Smaller percentages will use grant monies for technology (44%), literacy (30%), and Internet/web (19%). Among the largest libraries (500,000 or more), 69% will use grant money for books.
Funding & technologyWhile state governments remain the largest source of grants, half the libraries reported receiving money from the Gates Learning Foundation, with an average grant of $88,000. Larger libraries (50,000 and above) were most likely to receive Gates funding. For almost two-thirds of those libraries, the funding will run out this year, while another quarter have already expended their funds. Well over half the libraries aim to replace the Gates monies by increasing their budgets; time will tell if they have the capacity to do so.
Internet-related expenses still represent a very small portion of a library's total budget, but that proportion has almost doubled—from 2.2% to 4.2%—since 1998. The cost is projected to go up modestly, to 5%, in FY02. The major Internet-related cost is access, especially for those libraries serving smaller populations, followed by staffing, new hardware, and upgrades/maintenance. Fewer than one in five libraries has had to cut spending to pay for technology; in those cases, nearly all (90%) have targeted the materials budget.
The E-rate remained a significant source of funding, as two-thirds of libraries said they had applied for telecomm discounts, a slight drop-off from previous years. Perhaps reflecting the burden of filling out the forms, larger libraries (100,000 and over) were most likely to apply for the E-rate.
Meanwhile, online use continues to grow, by 40.3%. Per capita circulation, however, rose only modestly, to an estimated 8.29 for FY01 from 8.06 in FY00.
Some 43% reported filtering Internet use, a jump from previous years (31% in 2001, 25% in 2000). Of those filtering the Internet, 96% filter all their children's terminals. About half of those filtering also filter adult terminals. Perhaps because of the cost of filtering, smaller libraries (under 25,000 population) were least likely to use filters. The average cost was $1,722 per library system, but smaller libraries (under 50,000) spent an average of $360 or less.
Some of that filtering may have been implemented in response to the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which ties the receipt of E-rate funds to filtering. However, the law has been challenged, and it's likely that the courts will resolve the issue this year before libraries must decide whether to install filters.
| Population Served | Total Budget 2001 | Total Budget 2002 | Change of Total Budget | Materials Budget 2001 | Materials Budget 2002 | Change of Materials Budget | Salary Budget 2001 | Salary Budget 2002 | Change of Salary Budget |
| Total Sample (weighted) | $6,095,000 | $6,333,000 | 3.90% | $838,000 | $864,000 | 3.10% | $3,671,000 | $3,857,000 | 5.07% |
| Under 10,000 | 197,000 | 206,000 | 4.57 | 33,000 | 32,000 | -3.03 | 102,000 | 106,000 | 3.92 |
| 10,000 to 24,999 | 568,000 | 608,000 | 7.04 | 88,000 | 91,000 | 3.41 | 325,000 | 346,000 | 6.46 |
| 25,000 to 49,999 | 1,612,000 | 1,674,000 | 3.85 | 224,000 | 228,000 | 1.79 | 951,000 | 1,004,000 | 5.57 |
| 50,000 to 99,999 | 2,443,000 | 2,584,000 | 5.77 | 365,000 | 385,000 | 5.48 | 1,456,000 | 1,547,000 | 6.25 |
| 100,000 to 499,999 | 6,265,000 | 6,497,000 | 3.70 | 848,000 | 868,000 | 2.36 | 3,636,000 | 3,878,000 | 6.66 |
| 500,000 to 999,999 | 28,489,000 | 29,685,000 | 4.20 | 4,012,000 | 4,235,000 | 5.56 | 16,528,000 | 17,583,000 | 6.38 |
| 1 million or more | 58,907,000 | 60,831,000 | 3.27 | 7,473,000 | 7,602,000 | 1.73 | 36,580,000 | 37,174,000 | 1.62 |
| *LJ mailed out 2000 questionnaires to public libraries in October 2001, with 355 responding, for a response rate of 18% |
|||||||||
| Population Served | Average Amount Raise in 1996 | Average Amount Raise in 2000 | Average Amount Raise in 2001 |
| Total Sample | $384,000 | $571,000 | $482,000 |
| Under 10,000 | 4,000 | 22,000 | 24,000 |
| 10,000 to 24,999 | 61,000 | 24,000 | 41,000 |
| 25,000 to 49,999 | 22,000 | 88,000* | 58,000* |
| 50,000 to 99,999 | 438,000 | 136,000 | 170,000 |
| 100,000 to 499,999 | 122,000 | 553,000 | 388,000 |
| 500,000 or more | 2,009,000 | 2,402,000 | 1,776,000 |
| *One library with anomalously high fundraising was eliminated from these averages |
|||
| Author Information |
| Norman Oder is Senior Editor, News & Features, LJ |
|


















