Serving More with Less

First, the bad news. LJ's annual book-buying survey of public libraries confirms major cuts in adult book budgets for this fiscal year, hardly surprising to those who have kept up with the library world. Some 23 percent of LJ's respondents—and fully half of those serving populations 500,000 or more—saw their budgets tumble. While cuts averaged about three percent in the largest libraries, some places suffered staggering blows, with budgets falling by a third or more.

That said, what could the good news be? In fact, adult book budgets rose modestly by an average of 3.5 percent overall—not as robust as the six percent jump reported in 1998, when the survey was launched, but up slightly from last year's 3.1 percent. What's more, circulation climbed dramatically, surging past last year's 2.9 percent increase to hit 3.7 percent—a record for this survey, which even reported a slight decrease in 1999. In one out of five of the libraries reporting increases, circulation rose by more than ten percent.

Clearly, librarians at LJ's 100 are doing something right. (Contacted each year, these libraries are evenly distributed throughout the country by population served.) Those whose budgets are up have generally put them to good use, and those with shortfalls are still finding ways to meet readers' needs. True, the full impact of this year's budget cuts may not yet be evident, but among respondents facing the ax only one acknowledged a decrease in circulation thus far. Nationwide, better promotion, increased programming, and cyberlinks with patrons have combined to make libraries the busiest place in town.

In 1998, only five percent of the respondents to LJ's survey reported budget cuts, which made last year's 12 percent look bad indeed. This year, the figure has nearly doubled, and librarians are compelled as never before to make some hardheaded decisions regarding book purchases. They are taking various approaches to this challenge, from cutting back on multiple copies and standing orders to buying more paperbacks. For three-quarters of our respondents with butchered budgets, however, the most obvious solution is to buy fewer titles (see Budget Blues, p. 43).

In this regard, the area hardest hit by far is print reference, which has been suffering cutbacks for years as librarians and their patrons turn to the Internet and to print products that have migrated to the web. This year, nearly six out of ten libraries in straitened circumstances opted to slash this area further. "There's a lot of duplication with print materials that are no longer needed or used," explains Kim Garza, Tempe PL, AZ. "And they're so expensive," says Carolyn M. Rokke, Sacramento PL, CA. Reductions in reference are, of course, linked closely to reductions in standing orders.

What's notable this year is that LJ's respondents are also trimming selected areas in nonfiction as patron use of the web both inside and outside the library drives down the need for print. "The transition from print to electronics has been a gradual one," explains Garza, but has finally hit full force. "The need for more timely information has always been better answered electronically. But now there are some databases that have more extensive coverage, so that cyberspace can often provide quite specific information, obviating the need to buy certain kinds of books."

Like several of her colleagues, Garza reports that demand has diminished for books on travel, job hunting, and college information; her patrons, a mostly affluent and well-educated bunch, are answering questions in these areas by availing themselves of free databases at home or databases to which the library subscribes. Other respondents have sliced purchases in medicine/health, science, literary criticism, and business.

That some respondents say they are passing up medicine/health comes as a surprise, for it still reigns supreme in circulation (see Subject Areas with Highest Circulation/Expenditures, p. 42); indeed, others insist that this is one of the few areas they are not tightening. The findings regarding business are also anomalous; overall, this area has grown, with a third of LJ's respondents placing its sometimes pricey offerings among their top three expenditures—nearly double last year's rate.

But business ranks much lower in circulation than in expenditures, and in any case its circulation has not grown much this year. The nation's economic woes notwithstanding, people don't seem that interested in books about the economy. "It's hard for books to reflect a rapidly changing economic situation," points out Cynde Bloom Lahey, New Canaan PL, CT. The same might be said of medicine/health, where circulation is up dramatically—nearly three-quarters of LJ's respondents cite books in this area as top movers compared with half last year. But as more people turn to the net, these books could lose steam, too.

Even as libraries reduce their purchases in travel or business, they're not abandoning nonfiction altogether; they're simply shifting formats and buying electronic databases that can be accessed in the library or from home. "We've been cutting back in reference for several years, and now we are making the same decision regarding nonfiction," reasons George W.S. Hays, Salem PL, OH. "This definitely does not mean that we are supplying fewer resources, less service, or less interaction with patrons. On the contrary, the more technology we introduce, the more library use increases."

There are categories for fiction and nonfiction, however, for which the Internet cannot compensate: titles that look intriguing but may not circulate rousingly. "Instead of cutting in specific areas, we are replacing less and buying fewer 'lovely to have but not this year' sorts of titles," elaborates Melissa Maier, Multnomah County Lib., Portland, OR. First novelists who dream of making it big, midlist authors looking to please a small but dedicated readership, biographers who have struggled with that special book—all may be sacrificed to the need to concentrate on catchier titles.

The current enthusiasm for purchasing more popular materials is a major explanation for the leap in circulation. LJ's respondents give any number of other reasons. Better promotion, increased population, and expanded programming are at the top; also mentioned are stringent weeding, more books and more multiple copies where budgets are thriving, and the effect of a poor economy, which usually sends people into libraries. Yet it is striking how many librarians cite redirected collection development policies as the means to circulation success. It's almost a mantra.

"Our collection development has been refocused toward supplying more popular materials vs. scholarly or reference titles," notes Tom Horne of the Seattle PL, where circulation has soared ten percent. At the Manchester PL, CT, says Ramona Harten, "We've done a better job of selecting materials to satisfy demand." So, too, have librarians at the Jervis Library, Rome, NY, where purchases of general fiction, mystery, and YA titles have burgeoned. Notes Keith Kinna, "Our fiction to nonfiction ratio has been improved to meet patron needs and statewide ratios."

To help get users what they want, librarians are implementing an important new tool: patrons' ability to reserve from home, ranked second by LJ's respondents as a major factor in circulation upswing. Such reserves allow busy patrons to cruise the electronic catalog at their leisure and pick up their books when the time is right.

It is too early to tell whether reserving from home has changed borrowing patterns, but most librarians argue that it hasn't put a dent in the browsing instinct. "Our reservers are true readers," asserts Robert Filgate, McArthur PL, Biddleford, ME. "When they come to pick up something they have put on hold, they stay to look at the new acquisitions shelf and to talk to staff about what to read next." Reserves have always helped librarians order more effectively; reserving from home simply expands the process.

Some librarians acknowledge that they regret being so circulation-driven, compelled to ignore authors without appreciable track records or more challenging subjects in the quest for big numbers. John Grisham and John Updike didn't start out as best-selling authors—they were nurtured toward success—but there seems to be little time in today's frantic atmosphere to let the new writers who could enrich a collection build a following. Paradoxically, many of the big titles librarians are chasing aren't even books.

According to LJ's survey, videos/ DVDs and audiobooks top the list of categories where expenditures are mounting, and music CDs are not far behind, ranking just below Spanish-language and genre fiction and evenly with large-print titles. The drive toward popular materials in any format has clearly energized public libraries nationwide, but it's also changing their mission, says Tempe PL's Garza. "Public library use seems to be shifting away from the library's being a source of information, which it became in the 1980s, and more toward its being a place for recreation."

Part of the library's role has been to encourage patrons to read beyond boundaries and to help foster an exchange of ideas about books. In this regard, another important new tool has come into play: remote access readers' advisory. Impressively, 52 percent of LJ's respondents now have some readers' advisory on their web sites. Best sellers lists figure most prominently, but nearly as common is the recommended titles list. This list generally originates with staff and reflects their interests—which are often broader than the obvious.

For instance, the Staff Picks at the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County range widely from Robert Boswell's Century's Son and Carol Emshwiller's The Mount in fiction to Siân Rees's The Floating Brothel: The Extraordinary True Story of an Eighteenth-Century Ship and Its Cargo of Female Convicts in nonfiction. In general, staff reviews appear less regularly but can go a long way toward rescuing titles that might otherwise languish. "With this section of the library's web site [we can] alert patrons to midlist titles," says Barry Trott, Williamsburg Regional Lib., VA.

Trott's library offers an exceptional model of remote access readers' advisory. Along with the various lists posted, the library has just launched an online book discussion forum formatted as an open bulletin board and aimed at patrons who can't get to book discussions. In addition, as do about a quarter of the libraries surveyed, Williamsburg offers e-mail readers' advisory. At most libraries, such advisory is in the developmental stages, and its success can't yet be measured. But it does have the advantage of allowing patrons to fire off a plea for suggested reading, allowing librarians time to consult with colleagues before answering.

Remote access readers' advisory promises to be an excellent means of keeping the library and its patrons connected, but it can entail administrative and, worse, financial headaches. Still, librarians persevere. Take the Brooklyn PL, which has seen its book budget fall by half as New York City struggles with finances. Currently, the library offers live chat reference, NoveList online, and the ability to reserve from home. "With each new service we offer, there is a learning curve—and the cost of upkeep," acknowledges Jo Anne Shapiro, manager of materials selection. "But we think it is all worth it for the enhanced services we can provide. E-content is one area of the collection that we are not cutting."

Several of LJ's respondents acknowledge that they expect money to be tight for at least a year or two. Fundraising, increasing fines, dipping into the trust fund for materials purchases—these are just a few of the balancing acts they may consider if finances don't pick up. Will circulation suffer? Possibly, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Librarians have simply become too good at getting readers their books.