Transcript PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDING & TECHNOLOGY ACCESS STUDY Presented by: Larra Clark Project Manager Office for Research & Statistics American Library Association [email protected] John Carlo Bertot, Ph.D. Denise M.

PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDING &
TECHNOLOGY ACCESS STUDY
2010
Presented by:
Larra Clark
Project Manager
Office for Research & Statistics
American Library Association
[email protected]
John Carlo Bertot, Ph.D.
Denise M. Davis
Professor and Director
Center for Library & Information
Innovation
College of Information Studies
University of Maryland
[email protected]
Director
Office for Research & Statistics
American Library Association
[email protected]
Webinar goals



Share high-level findings and trends from 20092010 report
Share new tools for using the data to support state
and local planning and advocacy
Create forum for conversation around study
findings and key issues related to the
sustainability of public library technology
Study background


The Public Library Funding & Technology Access
Study assesses public access to computers, the
Internet and Internet-related services in U.S. public
libraries, as well as the impact of library funding
changes on connectivity, technology deployment
and sustainability.
The project, building on work begun in 1994 by
John Carlo Bertot and Charles R. McClure, is the
largest and longest-running study of Internet
connectivity in U.S. public libraries.
Study background

Three components to Study:
o
o
o
Data collected from public libraries of all sizes
through national online survey – responses come
from both the branch and the system level;
Interviews with library staff involved with the
planning and deployment of public access computing
and related services; site visits to a sample of
libraries; and
An annual questionnaire to State Library Agencies on
key technology and funding issues.
Key messages



Healthy public libraries play a vital role in ensuring
digital opportunity for all.
Libraries bring together free access to computers and
the Internet, robust electronic resources and expert
assistance to help people succeed and thrive online.
At a time when many Americans are facing job losses,
working to gain new skills and seeking assistance in an
increasingly digital world, U.S. public libraries are first
responders in a time of economic uncertainty.
Key messages



As government information and resources increasingly
move online, public libraries are playing a greater role in
helping people access and use e-government services.
Snowballing funding cuts at state and local levels are
forcing thousands of libraries to literally lock away
access to these resources as they reduce
operating hours.
We respect the budget issues in state and local
government, but this research demonstrates that
libraries are an essential service throughout the
country.
Finance Results
Denise M. Davis
PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDING &
TECHNOLOGY ACCESS STUDY
2010
The differences are in the details
Different from what IMLS and State Libraries collect
annually from public libraries, PLFTAS collects
finance data from the director of the public library,
or designee, for the following:
Operating expenditures for the current fiscal year and
anticipated expenditures (operating budget) for the
upcoming fiscal year
 Detailed by source of funding and category of
expenditure
 Salaries (incl. benefits), collections, other expenditures

Technology-related
expenditures




Salaries/Benefits for
technology staff
Outside vendors
Hardware/Software
Telecommunications
Detailed funding data
Revenue source categories
reported include:
 Local/county
 State (including state aid to
public libraries, or statesupported tax programs)
 Federal
 Fees/fines
 Donations/local fundraising
 Government grants (local,
state or national level)
 Private foundation grants
Estimated changes during a fiscal year
and future fiscal year
Current Fiscal Year (2010), Percentage of Public Library Systems that
anticipate changes to its total operating budget
Metropolitan Status
Remain
unchanged
Decrease
Increase
Don’t Know
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Overall
37.0%
56.0%
55.8%
54.8%
(n=192)
(n=1649)
(n=2995)
(n=4836)
43.2%
28.3%
24.0%
26.6%
(n=224)
(n=833)
(n=1289)
(n=2346)
8.5%
8.7%
13.3%
11.5%
(n=44)
(n=256)
(n=713)
(n=1013)
11.4%
7.0%
6.9%
7.2%
(n=59)
(n=206)
(n=373)
(n=638)
Detailed technology expenditures
Average Percentage Change Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Public Library
System Technology Budget Stability by Metropolitan Status
Metropolitan Status
Operating Budget
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Increased up to 2%
1.3%
1.8%
2.4%
Increased 2.1-4%
2.7%
1.6%
1.5%
Increased 4.1-6%
3.4%
0.9%
0.7%
Increased more than 6%
-10.1%
-4.2%
-4.2%
Decreased up to 2%
-1.7%
-2.2%
-1%
Decreased 2.1-4%
Decreased 4.1-6%
0.3%
Decreased more than 6%
-1.6%
-2.3%
-1.6%
3%
1.9%
1.2%
Stayed the same
Qualitative data to support
quantitative reporting
State Libraries surveyed

Georgia reported state funding
reductions greater than 7
percent each year for the past
three fiscal years. When we
look at data reported by public
libraries in Georgia we can
interpret declines in reported
funding from State sources and
increases in other areas of
funding to compensate for the
corresponding decline.

Visit states to understand what is
happening “on the ground”.
Why do we collect the detail we do?



To specifically understand public access
computing trends
To understand support for technology – the
financial kind – we must ask about sources of
revenue to support public access computing
Together, these data provide early forecasting
about public library funding and expenditures
that ALA and others use to advocate for libraries.
How are data analyzed?

Total response (Figure 10)

Metropolitan status


Detail by pre-assigned metropolitan codes of rural, suburban, urban
(Figure 12)
Population served ranges

Using the ALA Public Library Association population range
divisions, the data are secondarily analyzed by those ranges to
identify trends not observable by metropolitan status detail alone.
Figure 10: FY2011 Public Library Systems Average Total Operating
Expenditures, by Type and Funding Source
Sources of Funding
Local/county
State (including state aid to
public libraries, or statesupported tax programs)
Federal
Fees/fines
Donations/local
fundraising
Government grants (local,
state or national level)
Private foundation grants
(e.g., Carnegie, Ford, Gates,
etc.)
Reported average total
Reported average percent
Salaries (including
benefits)
Collections
Other Expenditures
$970,967
$188,512
$421,282
(n=4,682)
(n=3,919)
(n=3,558)
$214,336
$49,689
$67,362
(n=846)
(n=1,431)
(n=1,094)
$45,584
$6,833
$40,554
(n=65)
$33,520
(n=109)
$19,692
(n=342)
$31,584
(n=316)
$19,712
(972)
$13,543
(n=814)
$20,974
(n=318)
$52,934
(n=1,483)
$9,460
(n=1,177)
$34,799
(n=201)
(n=458)
(n=559)
$25,485
$9,898
$19,764
(n=125)
(n=365)
(n=837)
$966,713
$183,951
$398,685
(n=4,925)
(n=4,663)
(n=4,205)
25.7%
Figure 12: FY2011 Urban Public Library Systems Average Total Operating
Expenditures, by Type and Funding Source
Sources of Funding
Local/county
State (including state aid
to public libraries, or statesupported tax programs)
Federal
Fees/fines
Donations/local
fundraising
Government grants
(local, state or national
level)
Private foundation
grants (e.g., Carnegie,
Ford, Gates, etc.)
Reported average total
Reported average
percent
Salaries (including
benefits)
Collections
Other Expenditures
$7,592,162
$1,312,457
$2,903,942
(n=302)
(n=271)
(n=271)
$1,096,864
$235,936
$463,560
(n=68)
(n=126)
(n=77)
$76,429
$8,587
$256,004
(n=9)
$406,143
(n=3)
$166,352
(n=38)
$226,604
(n=16)
$70,492
(n=49)
$58,373
(n=59)
$127,368
(n=14)
(n=86)
(n=77)
$313,606
$16,885
$257,139
(n=16)
(n=17)
(n=49)
$128,528
$45,830
$79,003
(n=10)
(n=26)
(n=49)
$7,665,262
$1,315,000
$2,951,836
(n=311)
(n=304)
(n=295)
64.2%
11.0%
24.7%
FY2010-2011 trends
Finance data as indicators of change



Real-time finance data
Weighted to calculate national estimates
PLFTAS estimates have been confirmed in later IMLS
annual public library reports

A 2006 ALA study revealed that libraries follow a set pattern of
reducing expenditures when economies are down – they cut
collection expenses first, then other expenses (like programming,
repairs, equipment upgrades, OPAC upgrades, etc.), then reduce
staff expenses last.
Operating Budget, Percentage Change FY2009 and FY2010
Regardless of
metropolitan
status, fewer
libraries
reported any
increases in
operating
budgets in
FY2010 from
FY2009, and
more libraries
reported
operating
budget
decreases.
Urban
Suburban
Rural
All
2010
2009
2010
2009
2010
2009
2010
2009
Increased up to
6%
28.2%
47.3%
35.1%
51.1%
38.8%
50.6%
37.0%
50.5%
Increased 6%
or more
5.2%
10.6%
5.2%
9.0%
7.2%
9.4%
6.7%
9.4%
Decreased less
than 6%
24.2%
14.7%
24.2%
13.0%
15.5%
8.9%
17.1%
10.6%
Decreased more
than 6%
30.4%
7.4%
17.4%
3.6%
11%
3.3%
14.3%
3.7%
Stayed same
11.4%
19.9%
22.7%
23.3%
27.5%
27.8%
25%
25.9%
Figure: Average Percentage Change from Fiscal
Years 2010 to 2011 Expected Technology Budget
Stability, by Metropolitan Status
Metropolitan Status
Operating Budget
Urban Suburban
Rural
Overall
Increased up to 2%
-3.7%
3.9%
0.6%
1.4%
Increased 2.1-4%
0.1%
0.7%
1.8%
1.3%
Increased 4.1-6%
1.6%
1%
0.3%
0.6%
Increased 6.1-10%
-1.7%
-0.1%
0.2%
0%
Increased more than 10%
-1.6%
-2.5%
-1.5%
-1.9%
Decreased up to 2%
-2.0%
-0.2%
-0.1%
-0.3%
Decreased 2.1-4%
0.1%
0.1%
0%
0%
Decreased 4.1-6%
0.5%
0.2%
0.4%
0.3%
Decreased 6.1-10%
2%
-1.1%
-0.1%
-0.4%
Decreased more than 10%
-3.9%
-1.2%
-0.7%
-1.1%
Stayed the same
8.5%
-0.8%
-0.7%
-0.1%
 Overall, technology-related
expenditures have declined
and this figure shows what
libraries expect in the 2011
operating year.
 Urban libraries report an
anticipated decline in
increased technology
spending in 2011 – 5.3%
reporting any increase,
while 3.9% anticipate less
drastic cuts (-3.9%
anticipating decreases of
more than 10%). The
number of urban libraries
anticipating level funding
rose 8.5% from FY2010.
 Suburban libraries report
similar shifts, with 2.5%
fewer reporting increases of
10% or more.
 Rural libraries anticipate
little change – already
challenged financially.
FY2009-2010 Change in the Average Total Technology-Related Operating Expenditures, All Public
Libraries
Sources of Funding
Local/county
State (including state aid to public
libraries, or state-supported tax
programs)
Federal
Fees/fines
Donations/local fundraising
Government grants (local, state or
national level)
Private foundation grants
(e.g., Carnegie, Ford, Gates, etc.)
Reported average total
Reported average percent
Salaries (including benefits)
Outside Vendors
Hardware/ Software Telecommunications
$30,445
$7,875
($2,411)
($1,635)
30.2%
30.3%
-6%
-7.4%
$33,539
$960
$9,199
$12,523
258.1%
9.5%
71.7%
147.1%
$31,134
$22,235
$23,997
$17,951
6045.4%
1088.9%
279.3%
110.5%
$3,015
($153)
$4,322
$3,907
489.4%
-3.9%
305.9%
281.5%
$5,451
$13,466
$1,804
$15,632
647.4%
928.0%
62.4%
2350.7%
$10,098
$8,164
$1,707
$11,910
1480.6%
1042.7%
27.8%
748.6%
$5,644
$6,121
$577
$17,293
860.4%
869.5%
7.6%
1958.4%
$119,326
$58,668
$39,195
$77,581
201.9%
230.4%
149%
251.2%
The FY2009-FY2010 change in average technology-related
expenditures for all library systems reporting are
presented in this figure.
FY2009-FY2010 change in average
technology-related expenditures
In FY2009-2010 libraries tried to maintain funding for technology,
while overall operating expenditures showed declines in other
areas.



Note the proportional variation in reported expenditures for funding
sources – state, federal, etc.
Note the decline in expenditures from local/county sources for
hardware/software and telecommunications. Those expenditures were
picked up in other revenue categories.
Also keep in mind the impact of a few urban or suburban libraries
spending more and the impact on deriving national estimates.
Finance Indicators and Local Use



The finance data, with the source detail, expose patterns of
reallocating expenditures to or away from tax sources (e.g., local, state,
federal) to/away from soft funding sources (e.g., fees/fines, donations,
grants, etc.).
The soft funding categories detailed in PLFTAS are aggregated to an
“other” category in national data from IMLS.
Knowing the range of funding sources and the proportion of
expenditures going to each helps libraries



Understand what similar libraries are spending.
Plan more effectively for maintaining or improving the infrastructure for
public access computing services.
Advocate for stable funding of technology-related expenditures that
support essential public access computing services.
John Carlo Bertot
Center for Library & Information Innovation
College of Information Studies
University of Maryland
[email protected]
www.plinternetsurvey.org
PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDING &
TECHNOLOGY ACCESS STUDY
Selected Findings from the 2009-2010
National Survey
Why the Survey?


Longitudinal data collection since 1994
Provides snapshot of
 Library
public access technology infrastructure
 Capacity
 Internet-enabled services
 Challenges and issues
 Funding
Why the Survey?

Informs policy makers of what libraries do in
their communities in key areas of
 Access
to the Internet
 Access to increasingly digital-only content and
services
 Employment
 E-government
 Databases
 More
 Digital
literacy
Methodology

To generate both national and state data, the
2009-2010 survey used
 Proportionate sample
based on MSA and state with
replacement
 Weighted analysis
 the 2007 IMLS public library dataset as the universe
file

Received 7,391 responses for a 83.4% response
rate
Key Findings and Issues
Community Access Points


66.6 percent of library
branches report that
they are the only
provider of free public
computer and
Internet access in
their
Overall, public library
branches report an
average of 14.2 public
access workstations,
up from 11.0 in 20082009
Public Library as the Only Free Provider of Public
Internet Access
10.3%
Yes
20.3%
No
66.6%
Don't Know
Community Access Points


82.2 percent of
public library
branches offer
wireless Internet
access, up from 76.4
percent reported in
2008-2009
Libraries offer a
range of technology
and information
literacy classes
Library usage is up
across the board
Public Library Availability of Wi-Fi
90.0%
82.2%
80.0%
Percentage of Availability

65.9%
70.0%
60.0%
54.2%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2009-2010
2008-2009
Availability of Wi-Fi
2007-2008
Broadband





14.8% libraries report
public access connection
speeds of less than
1.5mbps
27.4% 1.5mbps
33.4% 1.6mbps-10mbps
18.4 greater than
10mbps
53.0% of rural libraries
report public access
speeds of 1.5mbps or
less
77.2% of urban libraries
and 55.4%of suburban
libraries report public
access speeds of greater
than 1.5mbps
Public Library Internet Connectivity Speeds
100%
90%
Percentage of Connection

80%
8.6%
12.3%
17.1%
70%
32.2%
33.4%
60%
50%
>10mbps
38.9%
40%
1.6-10mbps
25.5%
30%
20%
10%
18.4%
27.4%
25.0%
21.9%
14.8%
0%
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
Speed of Connection
1.5mbps
<1.5mbps
E-government



88.8% help people understand and use government websites
78.7% help people apply for E-government services
66.3% help people complete E-government forms
E-gov Roles and Services
E-government Roles
Help understanding accessing and using gov't
websites
88.8%
78.7%
As-needed assistance applying for egov services
66.3%
Assistance completing forms
43.3%
Assitance understanding gov't programs/services
Partnering with gov't and other agencies
20.5%
Percentage of Roles
Employment



88.2% provide job databases and resources
74.9% provide civil service examination materials
68.9% offer software and resources for resume creation
67.1% help people complete online applications
Public Library Employment Assistance, Services, & Resources
Percentage of Service

88.20%
74.90%
68.90%
67.10%
Job databases and Civil service materials Software and other
Help patrons
resources
resources for resume complete applications
creation
online
Employment Services, Resources, & Assistance
Key Issues and Challenges

Costs



Buildings



Space
Cabling/wiring
Staff



Staff
Technology – upgrades, replacement, maintenance
Number
Expertise
Increased usage


Library in general and
Public access technology in particular
Key Issues and Challenges

Adequacy of infrastructure
Internet Connection Adequacy
100%
90%
Percentage of Adequacy
80%
43.6%
42.0%
54.4%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
36.4%
39.4%
15.9%
18.1%
30.4%
20%
10%
14.7%
0%
2007-2008
2008-2009
Year of Study
2009-2010
Sufficient to meet patron needs at all
times
Sufficient to meet patron needs at some
times
Insufficient to meet patron needs
Key Issues and Challenges

Urban stress
 More
services and aggregate capacity, but…
 More likely to report reduced hours (23.7%
compared
to 14.5% overall)
 More likely to report inadequate


Broadband (52.2% inadequate connection some or all of the
time as compared to 45.1% overall)
Workstations (39.6% consistently fewer workstations than
necessary compared to 18.2% overall)
Trends and Implications

Investment in basic technology infrastructure (i.e.,
broadband, workstations, wi-fi)

But not library’s
Capacity
 Staffing
 Hours available
 Building


Increasingly services are shifting to user devices
such as smart phones

This will require additional development and
investment
Some Concluding Comments

Increased usage does not translate into
increased budget


Nice to have, not essential service
ARRA/Broadband - $7.2 Billion
NTIA/BTOP
 RUS/BIP


FCC National Broadband Plan


IMLS and CBO principles/guidelines
Digital literacy

Significant opportunities, but some
substantial challenges
Additional Resources

Issue briefs in key areas of:
 Libraries
and Broadband
 Libraries and Community Access
 Libraries and E-government
 Libraries and Employment
Available at www.plinternetsurvey.org
More coming – state/national comparisons in areas of
employment and E-government
Looking Ahead: Planning for rapidly
changing content formats
Unlike shelving that is purchased once and replaced infrequently,
and which has a life of decades, technology-related infrastructure
changes annually.



Technology-related infrastructure is at the core of how libraries operate.
Without adequate and stable funding, this infrastructure will suffer.
Public access computing is far more visible than print resources. When
there is a wait list for a book, library patrons are patient. When a resources
is accessible only via a computer and that computer is down, or the
hardware/software is inadequate to support access to valuable library
resources, the patron sees that and is far less forgiving.
As libraries move ever more quickly to non-print resources, maintaining
and improving the public access computing infrastructure is critical.
Without adequate hardware, software, and Internet access speeds libraries
will be unable to provide the services its community requires.
QUESTIONS?
PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDING &
TECHNOLOGY ACCESS STUDY
2010
Wrap up



Stay connected, join the conversation:
o Follow ala_ors Twitter feed
o Send us links to your Flckr photos
o Check out new blog starting in September:
ors.ala.org/libconnect
Participate in the 2010-2011 national public library
survey starting September 7:
www.plinternetsurvey.org
Find links to all study materials and related
resources online at www.ala.org/plinternetfunding
Thank you!