ARE WIDER LIBRARY UNITS WISER?   

Originally published in American Libraries, Jun/Jul2002, Vol. 33, Issue 6

By Thomas J. Hennen Jr.  
See also: Wider and Wiser Added information.  

What form of organization delivers the best library service? For many years library leaders have told us that wider units of service will produce better services. After an examination of some of the issues, using national data, my findings suggest that, in most cases, wider units of library service are, indeed, wiser. Library planners will want to consider the issues carefully, as well as consulting the accompanying planning checklist and outline of a model district library law, as they choose the road their library is to travel.

Special district libraries are the fastest-growing type of library organization, even though only 19 states have laws that permit them. In other states, multijurisdictional libraries can be established by various means, including joint- powers agreements Between municipalities or counties.

Congressman lip O'Neill was famous for asserting, "All politics is local." The same can be said about libraries. In the United States, libraries developed in a local and decentralized pattern rather than following the more centralized model of European libraries. In this country educational functions, including libraries, are generally state and local prerogatives. Andrew Carnegie's early-20th-century endowments of 1,679 libraries in 1,412 communities led to a sudden proliferation of libraries in many communities. At that critical juncture in the nation's growth, the Carnegie grants encouraged local rather than district, regional, or state library development. The sheer number of small libraries, mostly municipal, is still an important factor in state and regional planning activities. If wider units had become the standard, these activities might have taken a different direction.

Although the most common form of libran/organization in the United States is a municipal library, such facilities serve only about one-third of the population; county libraries, district libraries, or other types of libraries serve the other two-thirds. These other forms (with the exception of the non- profit or agency form) can be considered "wider units of service."

Federal data allows for a comparison of libraries by a variety of organizational structures. The accompanying table outlines the situation in each state. The Federal-State Cooperative Service, an endeavor of the U.S. Department of Education and state library agencies, has been collecting and compiling data on the nation's libraries since 1988. The data used for this article comes from the annual reports filed with state library agencies by some 9,000 libraries as reported to FSCS during 2000, the latest year available at the time of writing.

All but 12 states have county, city county, or parish libraries. The lower percapita rate found for these types of libraries may be more apparent than real. The percapita revenue in such organizations is spread across residents, usually in rural areas, that are completely unserved, or taxed at a lower rate, in other areas. This distorts per-capita funding measures for county libraries when compared to municipal libraries.

In some states, notably Illinois and New York, library district boundaries may be drawn along lines that do not correspond to existing municipal boundaries. In other states, the multi-jurisdictional libraries are formed along county or municipal lines. Many district libraries have taxing authority and elected boards. In some states, districts can expand territory by a process similar to municipal annexation, usually with voter approval.

Many multi-jurisdictional libraries are multi-county organizations; in other cases such arrangements encompass one or more municipalities. Multi-jurisdictional libraries, unlike district libraries, do not usually have either elected boards or taxing authority. Ohio has a large number of multi-jurisdictional libraries because of a prohibition on any state funding to libraries in communities with a population of less than 25,000.

Many multi-jurisdictional libraries, lacking any taxing authority, suffer from the "Where does the buck stop?" syndrome. In these cases the library board must go to two or more independent municipalities to ask for operating and capital funds. The low bidder most often wins the budget battle, but the library loses. In Wisconsin, where no library-district legislation exists, joint libraries operate on 50% less funding per capita than their municipal counterparts. Some would argue that the "Where does the buck stop?" syndrome is to blame.

Illinois has the largest number of special district libraries, with nearly 300; but as a percent of libraries in the state, Kentucky bests the Illinois tally at 90% to Illinois' 48%. Another state with significant numbers of special districts is Delaware with 53%. Colorado, Nevada, Michigan, Washington, Idaho, and Arizona all have more than 25% district libraries. Ten other states have at least one district library.

Special district libraries on average spend over 25% more per resident than municipal libraries do. One might thereby conclude that that form of governance results in better support. It is possible, however, that the majority of the extra spending is for services for which municipal libraries are not charged; for example, parent municipalities often do not charge municipal libraries indirect costs for maintenance, accounting, payroll services, and so forth. Such indirect costs must usually be accounted for in wider-unit operations. A 1999 study by Keith Lance of the Colorado Library Research Service (available online at www.lrs.org/documents/fastfacts/ 156plfund.pdf) does an excellent job of demonstrating this correlation and noting the variability of the spending data. Additional research on this point is sorely needed.

There is less variation between materials spending than there is for total spending when comparing special district and municipal libraries. In the same manner, the variation in total spending observed when comparing municipal and multi-jurisdictional operations is greatly lessened when we compare only materials spending.

School district libraries spend almost twice as much per capita as the average municipal library. Public libraries in school-district configurations have a higher rate of materials expenditures. In school-district libraries, the materials spending and library-visitor rates are not as much higher as the materials spending rates would appear to suggest.

Ohio, with 11.2 million residents, has 250 library units (but 350 branch libraries); while Iowa, with 3 million residents, has 530 library units (and 26 branches). Both states average more spending per capita than the national average; but while Iowa residents borrow 50% more items than the national average, Ohio residents borrow 100% more. Do wider units affect the outcome? It appears so, but more study is needed. Both New York and Illinois have large numbers of both district and municipal libraries. Researchers should investigate the comparative outcomes in each state.

Many states allow for joint-powers-agreement libraries even when no district legislation has been enacted. A joint public library is usually administered by a library board consisting of a specified number of members representative of the populations of the participating municipalities. The joint library board usually has the same powers as those set forth in state statutes for a municipal library board. Usually the head of the municipal governing body of each participating municipality appoints board members.

A joint public library might be created by any two or more municipalities or by a county and one or more municipalities by appropriate agreement of their governing bodies.

An extensive planning checklist is available on my Web site at haplr-index.com. Along with the information in this article and the sidebars, it should help communities determine whether such a combination will be the best way to provide effective public library service, and help guide library planners in making good decisions. Library planners are advised to seek advice from state library agencies and regional library staff before embarking on such plans.

While far more research is needed to provide definitive answers, the author has some suggestions on why wider units are wiser.

Economies of scale come into play. With very small units, a disproportionate amount of time is spent on the administrative, budgeting, technical service, acquisitions, and the political end of things. Seven libraries, each serving a thousand customers, need seven monthly board meetings, seven annual budgets, seven annual audits, and so forth. One wider unit serving 7,000 needs just one monthly board meeting, one budget, one acquisitions department, and so on. The same number of total staff can be focused on customer service rather than going toward administrative overhead. If the organization gets too large, secondary layers of management and bureaucracy can develop, of course, but that is not inevitable. Good managers and alert boards avoid this pitfall.

In some cases, and this is where the research need is so critical, it may be more the form of organization than size that matters most. Consider the districts in New York State. Many New York districts serve a number of jurisdictions; they are classified as wider units. But beyond simply serving wider units, these districts go to the voters directly for their budgets, and they do so annually. Anecdotes abound about the extraordinarily high level of customer service that happens in the month before the annual budget referendum in one New York library.

In other states, districts with taxing authority must seek a referendum only periodically to expand the authorized mill rate. In still other states, elected boards are given taxing authority.

Impact fees allow communities to assess up-front costs on new homes as they are built in a community. They are intended to allow communities to levy a fee to offset the impact that a new household has on the ability of a library to sustain its service level. Such impact fees are far more workable in larger units of service.

The University of Wisconsin/Madison's Doug Zweizig, among others, has made the case that the formation of special districts for libraries runs a major public-policy risk. Popular items like parks and libraries in "a la carte" districts can soak up public funds. That leaves less for important but non-attractive government functions like accounting or road building. The converse of this argument is that too often local government officials use the very popularity of library services to our own detriment. City mayors have used this strategy in local budget battles: Threatening to close a branch library causes city council members to rally to the defense of their branches and voila--the budget is restored. Meanwhile other less-popular city services are protected from scrutiny.

When the ship is sailing smoothly, perhaps good manners are in order and the "nod and wink" strategy may apply. But when a budget-cutting iceberg like the present economic downturn threatens, it is our professional duty to fight for space on the lifeboats. If a district can be that lifeboat, then it may be time for some to get aboard. But only 19 states have provided for library-district legislation. ALA should provide model legislation for the formation of library districts.

Are wider units of library service wiser units? The data seem to point to a guarded answer of yes, but the final word must await a great deal more research on the issue. As Frost noted in "The Road Not Taken," Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

We cannot compare how well a library may have fared had its planners chosen a different road in the past. We can only compare the results for the roads taken by other libraries in different areas of the country, hoping that the comparisons will help library planners choose wisely in the future.

• Economies of scale come into play

• Greater populations mean per-capita spending gaps are less apparent

• Impact fees are more workable

Types of Library Jurisidictions

8,614 libraries with available data in 1999

Home    HAPLR ratings      Top 100 Libraries    Orders     Samples    Press    
Hennen Consulting      FAQ     Book     Presentation     Miscellaneous  

© 2006 haplr-index.com
Webmaster: thennen@haplr-index.com