Book Buying Survey 2004: Facing Down the Crunch

Strategy. It's the word that comes to mind while perusing the results of LJ's latest annual book buying survey, for surely libraries will need new ways of dealing with the tight year ahead. Consider the numbers.

Last year, budgets were up overall by 3.5%; however, 23% of respondents reported that adult book budgets were down. This year, one-third of those answering the survey complained of cuts, which averaged 21%. One-third of LJ's respondents did manage to secure increases, which shot up on average 11%. The luckiest libraries were those serving populations 250,000–499,9999, where 40% won increases averaging 6.4%. On average, where budgets increased, libraries serving populations under 50,000 posted the biggest gains. But for the first time since this survey began in 1998, adult book budgets have decreased—by 3%. Jointly, however, U.S. public libraries continue to represent considerable spending power (see "Purchasing Power/Circulation Profile: LJ's 125," p. 39).

Circulation is still up overall, by 2%, demonstrating that libraries have what the public wants. Still, that figure is about half last year's flourishing 3.7% increase, halting an upward trend that has been in place since 2000. Furthermore, only 47% of LJ's respondents this year reported increases in circulation, compared with last year's 58%. While libraries reporting decreased circulation tended to blame the Internet, one-third also cited inadequate funding for new books.

A little context is necessary: while the libraries comprising the LJ 125 are evenly distributed throughout the country by population served, some have left the survey and been replaced and others have been added, making this less a strict scientific study than a series of snapshots that show how U.S. public libraries are faring over time. And if this year's snapshot is indisputably gray, librarians have endured tight budgets before and lived to tell the tale. As the economy begins to bubble, library budgets should rise, too, though because of the way libraries are funded budgets inevitably lag behind recovery.

Still, the current recovery is as yet uneven; a recent poll by the National Conference of State Legislatures optimistically foresees improved state fiscal situations in 2004 ("A Brighter Future," LJ 1/04, p. 54), yet several of LJ's respondents reported the state or local agencies governing their funding have indicated that they are not yet in the position to be more generous. And with libraries now offering database access, web sites, and the ability to reserve from home, dollars are stretched tighter than ever. Libraries have always dealt creatively with budget crunches, finding new ways to raise funds and streamlining operations to use what's available more effectively. Now more than ever, they need good strategies to combat the latest round of budget blues.

Libraries are responding as best they can, starting with the expected strategies (see "Inside the Budgets," p. 39). Two-thirds of those with reduced budgets are buying fewer titles, and over half are eliminating standing orders and securing fewer multiple copies of popular titles. As confirmed by past surveys, the areas of the adult book collection hit hardest are nonfiction and print reference, which many librarians say patrons are deserting as they seek out information on the Internet. Belles-lettres, too, is suffering, with 15% of LJ respondents reporting literature and poetry among the areas seeing reduction as their patrons lose interest.

As public library budgets are fraying, patrons are beginning to notice the effects. "I think our patrons especially noticed the longer holds list on best sellers when our spending decreased," acknowledges Maura Mandyck, Nashville Public Library. "We try to maintain a three to one ratio on high-demand titles, but it has become more difficult."

There's some good news, however, especially when librarians take the time to explain the situation. "We have had very few negative comments," offers Jo Griffith, Richland County Public Library, SC. "What we have had is several donations. One patron donated $2000 to buy copies of titles for school reading lists, which would have been stopped otherwise. Another donated $10,000 for unrestricted use."

Take the situation in Pennsylvania, where, as LJ has already reported, state funding for public libraries was halved for FY03/04. Though $10 million was reinstated in December 2003, libraries were still left far behind. "For some libraries the loss of funds represents more than half of their operating budgets," observes Pat James, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, "and the Pennsylvania Library Association has been lobbying aggressively all year. In June over 600 people from all over Pennsylvania traveled to Harrisburg for Library Legislative Day to meet with representatives and senators. Now we are gearing up for 2004."

Lobbying is, of course, a time-tested strategy used by libraries during funding crises, but government funding is not always the problem. "Our city's share of the funding remained the same," notes Deborah Duke, Fort Worth Public Library, TX, when asked about budget cuts at her library. "But we have less income from trusts, grants, and credits this year"—fallout from an economy that is still less than glittering, whatever the experts might say.

While librarians acknowledge that private giving is being tugged down by the economy, they are still making an all-out effort to raise funds, and many have been successful. What seems to work best is maintaining a local focus. "Our fundraising has changed from approaching major leadership for high-end donations for specific collections to going to the general public," explains Janet Majilton, Memphis Public Library. "I think the public has begun to feel that it can help, and it has come to understand a greater need for a public/private partnership."

Majilton's sentiments are echoed across the country by San Francisco's Hildreth. Warning that some donors prefer to give funds for high-profile programs instead of materials acquisitions, she instead recommends throwing in one's lot with Friends groups, which are eager to do what they can for a beloved local institution. "Friends groups usually have a more grass-roots orientation and raise money purely for the library without too much desire for recognition," she argues. "It is probably these stalwart groups that support book budgets with the most enthusiasm and success."

Whatever fundraising librarians do, they should get used to being vocal about their efforts. As Fort Worth's Duke observes, "Sometimes I think that libraries hesitate to talk too much about any private money they may have because they fear that public funds will be cut back. But you always see lots of very public announcements about endowments and other gifts, and in reality most government officials recognize and respect the supplemental role that private money plays in the library's overall funding."

Some libraries are sparing their materials budgets and looking for savings elsewhere. Both Hildreth and Nashville's Mandyck recommend a careful assessment of purchases to eliminate duplicating information in print, online, and/or microfilm formats. Hildreth also believes that in the future more and more libraries will be sharing resources and thus saving funds via both intrastate and interstate consortia. As she explains, "Innovative Interfaces is currently sponsoring a demonstration project using collections at the Sacramento Public Library, CA; Salt Lake City Public Library; and Jefferson County Library, CO—all Innovative customers—to do interstate borrowing. It's working quite well, and, amazingly, less than 10% of the materials in all these collections are duplicated."

Finally, even as librarians aim to eliminate duplication, they're also trying to streamline their operations. "We are looking at centralizing some decision-making, particularly our standing orders, [so] we can exert more control and therefore spend less," observes Mandyck. Such thinking explains an accelerated trend toward centralized collection development, evident in this year's survey.

Among LJ's respondents, 42% claimed that they had some form of centralized selection. But when adjusted to exclude libraries where centralization is not at issue (like small libraries), the figure rose to 60%. Clearly, centralization is here to stay, though a few respondents voiced some reservations; they felt that centralization might not allow for enough diversity among branches and can be problematic when communication between selectors and branches is poor. For any doubters, Wayne Onkst, Kenton County Public Library, KY, has a few words: "Have the collection development staff encourage feedback from the public services staff on a regular basis, create the feeling that getting materials into the hands of users is a team process, and for centralized selection hire someone with a really thick skin."

Even without thick-skinned selectors, centralization has plenty of proponents; those who favor it point out that it is fast, efficient, and fair. Selectors can respond quickly to demand, they argue, and get the right amount of material to all the branches at the same time. Selection standards are consistent across branches, making for stronger, more cohesive collections. Selectors do their job full time, so collection development isn't squeezed in between desk duty, programming, and a dozen other tasks. Bias is avoided because selections are so visible. Librarians are freed up for public service. Centralized selection can save money on shipping and discounts through economies of scale. (Look for more on centralized selection in future issues of LJ.)

Obviously, centralization isn't the answer for every library, though where feasible it is certainly worth considering. But in the current climate, even libraries whose budgets are in the black need to strategize. In the meantime, interested outsiders are rolling up their sleeves to support libraries. Patrons are pitching in, and now the publishing community is speaking up for what is a critical market for them. As reported here (Late Bulletins, LJ 1/04, p. 13), the Association of American Publishers' (AAP) Libraries Committee is taking a solid first step. AAP will partner with the American Library Association and Friends of Libraries USA to encourage representatives at the state and federal levels to prioritize funding for libraries to buy books and other materials. Whatever strategies are considered, Fort Worth's Duke has some advice for her colleagues: "Identify your service priorities, develop a long-range plan, and stick to it." That way, they'll be ready to make the decisions needed until library budgets rebound.