1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Funding and accountability

“Libraries are becoming less viewed as a community resource than they used to be, in part because chain bookstores are kicking their butts in that area, providing a place to read, chat, have a coffee and even attend events. Maybe it’s chicken and egg, because if libraries were better utilized they’d probably get more funding. I don’t know if that’s the issue. So libraries need to improve their current public image, from boring, dusty ‘whispering-only’ collections of old books, to cool places to check out the latest books from your favourite author. Basically that’s what the large bookstores are doing. Knowing that the library has copies of recent books is important, and borrowing the coffee shop idea from the chain stores is not a bad idea either!”11

Funding to libraries, museums, historical societies and other institutions reliant on the public purse may continue to decline in the short term. Libraries have been responding to reductions in funding by closing for some specified time, reducing programs, reducing staff hours and forgoing materials purchases. There is another trend: competition among sister institutions for funding. In one Ohio county, a private library strapped for funds and in danger of having to drastically reduce staffing and hours of service, appealed to the County Budget Commission for funding. They were successful in getting a share of the state library subsidy, but at the expense of two public libraries in the county. The amount awarded to the private library was deducted from the amounts allocated to the public libraries. As a result, the public libraries will have to determine what cuts to make up for the unanticipated shortfall in funding.

This example pits a private institution against public ones, but extrapolating from this budgetary battle suggests the possibility of county systems competing with city systems, with liberal arts college libraries vying with large academic libraries, with school libraries forced to merge with public libraries. There may be benefits to such joint-use libraries.

Here are some key points about funding and accountability made by people OCLC interviewed:

• Technology issues are not difficult, funding is.
• Librarians have unrealistic expectations about pricing of content—they do not understand the economics of publishing.
• Print revenue can’t be artificially protected by trying to make e-content mimic p-content—one user, one book doesn’t make sense for e-books.
• E-content has done nothing to help cost control of materials.
• We need changing measurements of library performance resulting from the growth of electronic services.
• Donors are very keen to have their collections digitized—libraries should use them for funding.
• Library directors are increasingly focusing on fund-raising.
• Special collections are increasingly important and could be a source of revenue.
• Libraries and archives may have to sell valuable collections to fund other collections and projects.
• Governments are questioning the value/cost/benefit of higher education versus vocational education.
• We need flexible e-commerce models for content—would you subscribe to Lands’ End?
• Better automation for assessing ROI is crucial for identifying what was bought and how it was used.
• Economies of copy cataloging have diminished as much content now shares little characteristics with traditional, published material.
• Accountability is really important—better your Board gets information on material usage than hear about it in the press.
• Budget reductions at institutions put centrally-funded collections at risk: national money builds collections, local money supports buildings and physical access so even if we keep national money, reductions in local funding jeopardize collections.
• The public won’t support endeavors they can’t see.

Library Landscape: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15