Historical background

Public libraries in the United States emerged in a haphazard way, springing up wherever local citizens cared enough about public libraries to create one. During the nineteenth century, many wealthy residents of the United States, mostly along the east coast, took it upon themselves to fund public library building projects. The most famous example of this phenomenon is Andrew Carnegie, who provided the funds for the construction of more than 1,600 libraries throughout the United States. In the more sparsely populated western regions, however, it was left to community activists to be the driving force behind the creation of public libraries (Bobinski, 1969).

The history of public library development in Louisiana is an illustrative example of the way in which individual movers and shakers were far more effective in establishing library services than state governments. Although Louisiana had passed legislation enabling the creation of public libraries in 1910, as of 1925 only five public library systems had been established. It took the money of Andrew Carnegie and the exceptional drive and ambition of one Essae M. Culver, Louisiana’s first State Librarian, to bring public library service to most of Louisiana. When Culver arrived from California to take up her post, she discovered that ‘no facilities for the [state library] commission’s headquarters, not even a desk’ awaited her. After surveying the countryside, she recommended that the public library be established as a unit of state government with regional branches, but this plan was abandoned because he didn’t want to fund it. Culver then recommended establishing libraries at the county (or ‘parish’ in Louisiana) level. Several county libraries were operated on a ‘demonstration’ basis for a year, accompanied by an intense public relations campaign to demonstrate to rural area residents just what public libraries were, since the idea at this point was completely alien to them. This helped convince the populace to take on the support of the libraries themselves (Jumonville, 2004).

Current framework

With the exception of certain single pieces of legislation (such as E-Rate and the Library Services and Technology Act, to be discussed later), the federal government of the United States does not interact with public libraries on any meaningful policy level. Individual states are free to come up with their own standards and best practices, if they so choose. These types of guidelines are often the work of state libraries (which are, as their name suggests, funded largely by the individual state in which they operate) which operate as resource clearinghouses for public libraries in need of guidance.

The standards a state library sets for the public libraries it serves are generally written into law or code at the state level. The consequence of a public library not meeting the standards set by its state library is the forfeiture of state funding. However, this can have a starkly different meaning state to state, and even library to library within a state. Overall, libraries nationwide received just 8.7 percent of their total funding from sources at the state level in fiscal year 2008, the most recent year for which data is available. There are some exceptions, such as Ohio, whose state government supplied 61.6 percent of the funding for its public libraries, and Hawai’i where the state pays for 88.6 percent of library services, but by and large public libraries do not receive the majority of their funding from state governments, making it difficult for state libraries to force recalcitrant libraries into compliance. Federal funds are even more scant, with just 0.4 percent of library funding coming from the federal government (Henderson et al., 2010).

Local funding is by far the largest source of funding for public libraries in the United States. In fiscal year 2008, local funds made up 82.7 percent of total funding (Hawai’i is once again the exception; exactly 0 percent of its public library funding came from local sources in 2008. Hawai’i also boasts the biggest percentage of federal funding, a whopping 3.5 percent).

While the term ‘local funding’ sounds uniform, it can actually mean several different types of funds. Since different types of local government are funded with different kinds of taxes, public libraries across the United States are funded by a variety of tax funds. Public libraries that are part of the local government are reliant on the local government’s tax base, which is largely composed of property taxes. Libraries that rely on state funds, such as those in Ohio, are more reliant on sales tax revenue. Independent library districts are in the enviable position of typically levying their own tax, which is a property tax.

Of course, as tax revenues are buffeted by economic and political winds, public library funding can change drastically. Public libraries in the state of Michigan are experiencing a large shift in their tax funding. The total assessed property value in Michigan has fallen every year since 2007, putting politicians in the unenviable position of having to use higher property tax rates to create the same amount of revenue (Ad Valorem Property Tax Report, 2010). State revenue for public libraries in Michigan, while paltry to begin with, is also being cut. In 1996, Michigan began establishing ‘Renaissance Zones,’ which were zones where new businesses could open free of any taxes whatsoever. Tax revenue lost to these zones was to be reimbursed by the state. While the original law established nine such zones, over 100 now exist. As time went on, the law was amended by the state legislature to reduce the amount of compensation paid by the state government to public libraries and other units of local government affected by the zones. In the 2009-10 budget year, the compensations were reduced by 12 percent. In 2010-11, they were eliminated entirely. At the ground level, this resulted in individual libraries having to cut their budgets by anywhere from 1-31 percent (Couraud, 2011).

Neighboring Indiana has also recently experienced a drop in property tax revenues as the declining economy pushed property taxes into the spotlight. In 2008, Indiana began phasing in caps on property taxes that, when fully adopted, limited the amount of tax to be paid on property to 1 percent of taxable assessed value for homeowners, 2 percent for agricultural land, and 3 percent for other real property, including commercial real estate. In 2010, Indiana voters approved writing these changes into the state constitution. This resulted in total property tax revenue declining by almost 10 percent across the state of Indiana between 2007 and 2010 (DeBoer, 2010). These caps, combined with falling property values, had wide-ranging effects throughout the state. Allen County, home to Fort Wayne and the state’s second most populous library district, saw their property values drop by almost 3 percent from 2010-11. Tax rates for the same time period were raised by an average of 4 percent, but the county still collected almost $6 million less in total property taxes (DeBoer, 2011).

Currently, one of the country’s most dire funding situations exists in Ohio. Since 2000, funding to libraries in Ohio has dropped by 30 percent. During this same period, library use has risen by 23 percent. The sharp drop in funding has been due largely to a budget shortfall at the state level. The Public Library Fund, which is the primary source of funding for public libraries in Ohio, is funded directly by the state. Since 2001, staff levels have been cut by 20 percent and hours by 10 percent (Sievering, 2011).

Across the United States as a whole, library funding is experiencing a downward trend. In 2011, a majority of all public libraries (59.8 percent) reported that their budgets shrank or stayed the same. This is up nearly 20 percent from 2009. Urban libraries in the United States have been especially hard hit, with 55 percent reporting a decreased operating budget for 2011, compared with 36.2 percent of suburban libraries and 26.9 percent of rural libraries. Similarly, only 29.4 percent of urban libraries reported funding increases, while 40.5 percent of suburban and 41.2 percent of rural libraries were able to report that their operating budgets had grown in 2011. In total, library funding in the United States decreased by 3.8 percent from 2010 to 2011. This is almost certainly a direct cause of the decreased number of opening hours offered by public libraries in the United States. In 2011, 16 percent of public libraries reported a decrease in operating hours, compared to 4 percent in 2009. To put it in perspective, the American Library Association estimates that this translates into reduced hours at more than 2,600 library locations in the United States. Again, more urban libraries reported decreasing hours than their suburban or rural counterparts. The American Library Association expects this trend to continue into 2012, when they project that 65 percent of public libraries will see operating fund decreases (American Library Association, 2011).

Legislation and legal structure

While the federal government contributes no direct funding to public libraries, it has enacted two pieces of legislation that have come to play major roles in their operation. They are the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), and E-rate. The legislation that created LSTA was a part of the larger Museum and Library Services Act, passed in 1996. The Institute of Museum and Library Services distributes these funds to state libraries based on the population of each individual state. Local public libraries (as well as schools, academic libraries, and other educational institutions), then apply to their state library for these funds. Each state grants their funds based on the goals outlined in their specific five- year plan and evaluation model (IMLS, 2011). State libraries are also eligible to use the funds for statewide technology programs, such as the Georgia PINES initiative, wherein approximately 275 public libraries participate in a ‘borderless library’ system. A patron of any PINES library may use his or her library card at any other participating library. The catalog of all participating libraries is shared, and most of the 9.6 million items can be transferred between PINES libraries at no charge to library patrons (Georgia Public Library Service, 2011).

E-Rate, formally known as the Universal Service Fund and administered under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is a federal program that offers telecommunications services to libraries and schools at a discounted rate. The amount of funding an organization is eligible for is calculated based on the service area’s poverty and rurality, and can range from 20 percent-90 percent. Most libraries use E-Rate funds for Internet access, but the funds can also be used for other telecommunications services and internal connections (Universal Service Administrative Company, 2011). Almost half of all public libraries in the United States take advantage of E-Rate, with more urban libraries participating than suburban or rural libraries (American Library Association, 2011).

Public libraries that accept E-Rate compensation or LSTA funds for projects related to Internet connectivity or access, agree to adhere to the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which mandates that libraries accepting federal funds take certain steps to block minors from accessing ‘visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors’ (CIPA, 2011). In other words, in order to be eligible for LSTA or E-Rate, public libraries must filter the Internet. However, if LSTA grant funds are not to be used towards public access computing with Internet connectivity, compliance with CIPA is not mandatory.

With no overarching, federal public library policy to speak of, and state libraries issuing what amount to best practices, public libraries in the United States enjoy a high degree of local autonomy. One effect of this autonomy is that there is a wide variety of governance structures. Public libraries in the United States operate within many different types of local government units, including city, county, city/county, independent library districts, school districts, non-profit organizations, and Native American tribal organizations.

Even within a single state, it is not uncommon to find several different types of public libraries. For example, approximately one third of Mississippi’s public libraries are county libraries, a quarter are city/county libraries, another third are multi-jurisdictional, and a very few are municipal. Neighboring Louisiana operates 88 percent of its libraries at the county level, with a handful of libraries operating at the municipal, city/county, and school district level. Ohio, uniquely, operates the majority of its public libraries as school district libraries, meaning the taxing and funding authority for these public libraries is the local School District Board of Education (Types of Public Libraries in Ohio By Law, 2011).

There are some states, however, that operate their public libraries on a more uniform basis. Every one of Indiana’s 238 public libraries, for example, is operated by an independent library district. Hawai’i’s single public library system is operated by the state of Hawai’i. In Wyoming, there is one public library system operated at the county level in all 23 counties (Wyoming Library Laws, 2010).

Something that virtually all public libraries in the United States have in common is the library board. While most library boards make policy and effectively govern the library, even libraries that are operated as a unit of local government typically have boards that, at minimum, serve in an advisory capacity. As the reader may have been able to guess, the role of the library board and the manner in which its members are selected varies from state to state and library to library within states. Thirty-eight of North Carolina’s 50 county libraries have advisory boards, with the remainder acting as the governing authority. Notably, the 38 libraries with advisory boards are all operated by counties or cities. Only two libraries within that are operated from within the local government and are run by governing boards, with the remainder being operated as non-profits. All nine municipal libraries in North Carolina are operated by the cities they serve. Regional libraries, however, are operated almost exclusively by governing boards, perhaps because asking several neighboring city or county governments to cooperatively operate a public library is optimistic (North Carolina State Library, 2011).

Most public libraries in the United States are supported by locally raised property taxes and are governed by library boards. Beyond these generalities though, it’s hard to make any blanket statements about the structure of American public libraries, or even one state’s public libraries. Local control is one of the central tenets of public library governance and finance in the United States, which endows public libraries with a high degree of autonomy. The basic standards of individual states do not act as guidelines for growth or development, but as a minimum service level that libraries should not fall below (occasionally the standards include a parallel ‘enhanced’ or ‘superior’ set of standards that libraries can strive to meet). Whether public libraries are in need of a stronger guiding policy is a matter of hot debate. One need only look to places like California, where the state recently narrowly passed legislation prohibiting the complete privatization of public libraries without first meeting a strict set of criteria, to understand that government attention to public libraries can be a double-edged sword in the United States (‘Make it hard to privatize libraries, California Assembly says’, 2011). Strong federal or state policies could bring unwelcome changes to public libraries in the current political climate of everything-must-go budget cuts. However, if and when this phenomenon passes, it’s possible that underfunded libraries would benefit from state and federal funding and the attendant policies.

Conclusion

Public libraries in the United States are governed without universal policies, standards, or even funding structures. Individual states govern their own public libraries as they see fit, and even within an individual state there may be several administrative models. This results in a high degree of flexibility, but also in disparities of service as certain public libraries are better placed to cope with disadvantageous situations. Leaving the vast majority of library services up to most local units of government possible also results in some localities electing to offer no library service whatsoever. Enacting policies or standards at the state or federal level could possibly homogenize American public libraries to the point where they lose their flexibility, but it is also likely to considerably improve the situation in areas that are unserved or underserved, assuming such policies are accompanied by a realistic funding model. As unlikely as it seems in the current American political climate, a policy resembling that of many European countries where library service goals are established at the national level, along with funds to subsidize those raised locally, could greatly benefit the American public library system. At the very least, a national policy mandating that local governments offer minimum level of library service (the particulars of which would be left up to the locals) would improve the lot of libraries that have a difficult time making a case for funding to tightfisted local administrators, and could effectively eliminate unserved areas. National (or in some cases, state) subsidies could also level the playing field between libraries in poor and wealthy areas by making them less dependent on funds raised locally. Public libraries in the United States have come a long way without a guiding policy, but support from anything above the local level would enable them to do even more.

References