Budget Report 2009: Adjustment Time
Libraries are either tightening budgets or preparing to do so
By Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 01/15/2009
The country may be awash in bad budget news, but it hadn't completely hit home for libraries in late October. Those that answered LJ's budget survey then projected a modest increase in budgets for 2009, just 2%, with less than a 1% increase in funds for materials, a predictable area for cuts.
That represents a clear tightening from last year's report (see “Treading Carefully,” LJ 1/08, p. 49–51). While in last year's report, respondents talked about a 4.2% increase in per capita funding for FY08, the respondents to this year's survey—a different cohort—say they received a 4.7% increase in per capita funding but expect only a 2% rise for FY09.
Some 70% of all libraries project an increase in total operating budgets, but only 53% are looking forward to an increase in materials funding. Indeed, in some size categories, including the smallest and largest libraries, materials budgets are expected to decline (see Table 1).
The materials budget is one of the few areas where libraries have flexibility. About 12.5% of the total operating budget in 2008 and 2009 goes toward materials, with an average of $5.34 per capita this year; personnel costs, even with the notoriously low library pay, make up 60% of the budget. In last year's survey, 14% went to materials, but with a slightly lower average of $5.22 per capita.
Challenges accelerated
However, it's long been feared that the situation would get tougher in 2010. Indeed, budgets began to tighten even sooner. In November, numerous cities and states, responding to drastic decreases in tax collections, proposed midyear budget corrections with ripple effects involving libraries. Most prominently, mayors in major cities like Philadelphia and San Diego proposed closures of multiple branches; the San Diego plans were postponed, while Philadelphia's still seem on track (see News, p. 15).
Libraries are open an average of 60 hours per week, essentially the same as in past years, but that's hardly guaranteed. While closures tend to generate the most public pushback, many libraries nationally are considering cutting hours and freezing positions. That poses a painful tension. On the one hand, many libraries are straining to provide services. On the other, when the economy tightens, library use increases as financially stretched residents look to the library for Internet access, borrowing books and electronic media, and help with their job search and small businesses.
Respondents to this year's budget survey reported that per capita circulation rose five percent over last year, from 8.79 to 9.25. It's a good bet that circulation will rise even more, given the increase in demand.
The picture is not uniformly dire. A not insignificant number of libraries are on relatively solid ground, with dedicated funding provided via a library district or an untouchable millage. Then again, the value of real estate is declining in some areas, which could impact those income streams.
Biggest challenges
As might be expected, nearly every library reports that increased staffing expenditures—often involving contractual cost-of-living increases as well as higher insurance premiums—is their top challenge. The smallest libraries, however, say their biggest concern is rising materials prices.
Escalating energy costs hit the list as the second most contentious issue cited—a situation likely to have changed in the past few months as the price of oil dropped from record highs. If librarians did not lock in long-term utility contracts, the fluctuating energy market could mean some good news.
Ranked third by many libraries is the increasing demand for services and programs—a challenge that likely has accelerated since the surveys were completed in October. Some libraries, however, say increased materials costs and demand for new media is their third largest obstacle.
Interestingly, larger libraries, those serving populations over 500,000, put finding money to fund building projects as their second or third biggest challenge.
How they cope
Libraries are coping by reallocating resources, applying for more grants, and relying more on alternate funding from their foundations or Friends groups. Notably, nearly ten percent said there were no policy changes—an indication that those libraries are in solid shape.
Libraries serving populations greater than 50,000 largely cite the tactic of reallocating resources. Libraries in the two smallest categories, serving populations under 25,000, say they're applying for more grants.
Libraries in the two largest size categories say their first priority is to reallocate resources but note that their second strategy is to introduce self-check systems and thus either save on personnel costs or redeploy staff. In populations under 50,000, libraries report they are turning down the thermostat or choosing other green initiatives.
What hurts the most?
LJ sought some insight into the most painful budget-trimming policies. Most say purchasing fewer materials is hardest, though the largest libraries—and medium-sized ones—say it was instituting a hiring freeze.
Others point to hiring more part-timers, changing the balance between professional and nonprofessional staff, and cutting or eliminating budgets for conferences, travel, and continuing education. In other words, in many libraries, the downturn is likely to mean an increased burden on staff.
Indeed, more than half of those surveyed (51%) reported no change in staff size from 2007 to 2008. Though 26% reported an increase in staffing over the past year, 23% reported a decrease. Overall, libraries lost an average of 0.4 employees. However, the very largest libraries, serving populations of 500,000 or more, lost five FTEs.
All the numbers, however, can be boiled down to this: libraries are being asked to do more with less.
| Population Served | Total Budget 2009 | % Change in Total Budget | Materials Budget 2009 | % Change to Mat. Budget | Salary Budget 2009 | Change to Salary Budget |
| Total Sample | $7,204,000 | +2.0% | $923,000 | +0.9% | $4,394,000 | +2.8% |
| Under 10,000 | 256,000 | +2.5% | 27,700 | -1.3% | 159,000 | +2.1% |
| 10,000–24,999 | 788,000 | +2.9% | 94,000 | +3.6% | 422,000 | +3.4% |
| 25,000–49,999 | 1,688,000 | +1.4% | 204,000 | +1.6% | 1,031,000 | +3.3% |
| 50,000–99,999 | 3,195,000 | +2.3% | 401,000 | +3.7% | 1,898,000 | +2.6% |
| 100,000–249,000 | 6,501,000 | +3.5% | 855,000 | -0.1% | 4,044,000 | +3.7% |
| 250,000–499,000 | 14,045,000 | +1.8% | 1,931,000 | +2.3% | 8,614,000 | +3.6% |
| 500,000–999,999 | 34,378,000 | +0.7% | 4,416,000 | +0.6% | 20,964,000 | +1.6% |
| 1 million or more | 58,134,000 | +2.1% | 6,869,000 | -0.8% | 33,806,000 | +2.7% |
|
SOURCE: LJ BUDGET SURVEY 2009 Additional data from the survey is available as a pdf. |
||||||
| Author Information |
| Norman Oder is Editor, News, LJ |
|
