Treatise on Library Disparities (sparked by the Public Library Funding & Technology Access Study)
ALA has just published the 2008 Public Library Funding & Technology Access Study. A few interesting highlights to whet your appetite:
- broadband access speed is up – 2/3 of libraries provide 1.5Mbps or faster Internet access speeds (note the huge disparity between urban libraries (90%) and rural libraries (51.5%)).
- 66% of libraries offer free wi-fi (up 12% from 2007′s report)
- public libraries report large growth in online services: video is up 32%, audio (inc. audiobooks & podcasts) are up 33%, eBooks are up 13.5%, homework resources are up 15%, and digitized special collections are up 13%.
- over 90% of libraries have time limits for public use computers and 46% of libraries still maintain manual computer sign-up sheets to manage customer use
As always as I read this report, the disparity between urban and rural library services continues to amaze me. I am a strong believer that if you are a resident of a particular country, state, county, or town you should have the same level of government services regardless of where you live. There are certain practical difficulties that sometimes cannot be avoided (like limited broadband access, period, in some rural areas), but most of these difficulties can be overcome.
It is not acceptable to me that our rural residents receive less services, less resources, and less of our attention than our city-dwellers. I know that it sounds like I might be advocating for some sort of federally run library program to ensure equity among all libraries (which I’m not). But I do think that states, at the very least, need to reevaluate how libraries are funded to ensure a more equitable balance of services for all. Maybe that means that the state libraries get involved to help close the gaps. Maybe that means a redistribution of wealth.
The idea that wealthier communities have better and more service-rich libraries makes sense in the sense that these are their tax dollars and they want to see them at work. But the idea doesn’t make sense sin just about every other way you can think about it. Our residents in poorer communities are the ones who generally need the better libraries with more resources and services. They need computers to get online and apply for jobs. They need literacy services to help them compete in today’s economy. They need free access to books and other materials so they don’t have to buy them. This brings me back to the idea that states should, perhaps, find a way to state-wide tax on libraries and then distribute the money equally on a per capita basis.
I am constantly dismayed by my library technology friends, who are wonderful in many ways, but who constantly forget that a good portion of the country’s libraries don’t offer IM reference, have staff who don’t know what RSS is, and can barely maintain their 1998-installed public PCs that they probably got from the Gates Foundation in the first place. Please, please library world — remember that not every library is the same, and that we must include our rural and underfunded libraries with every step we take.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Equal funding would be fine for all libraries if, in fact, state funding accounted for the majority of library funds for many libraries. But many good libraries are funded primarily through local support. If the local population has decided to make funding their library a priority, I think they deserve the library that gives them. I’d note that my library provides almost all of our resources for free to users of other county and state libraries, so they can either visit our library or request our items and use them for free. I don’t think that because the local residents have chosen to fund an excellent library by providing funds above and beyond the state funds and other areas unfortunately rely more on just the state funding means that my locals should be punished and have the money they raise and put in locally dispersed to other regions. It’s not state or even county money.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Nicely said, Sarah. There is such an expectation that the grass grows the same–and is tended the same–in libraries across our country. This simply isn’t true.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:42 am
9-12-2008
Hello: Agree heartly with the above comments. We are small town, rural, understand a lot of the technology needs, but are so small we just cannot get everything done. We have a hard time keeping the website up to date and no money to hire a webmaster. So many things to do and provide that would be good for the patrons, little time to do more than the basics. Jane Ellen, Indiana
September 12th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
While I understand the “keep the tax dollars local” sentiment, there are many states that provide money to schools in addition to the locally collected property taxes. Why? Because the states know that relying on local taxes results in glaring geographic and socioeconomic inequalities. Libraries are no different. Ensuring equal funding for public institutions requires some sort of redistribution of wealth, and there’s nothing wrong with that distribution being geographic in nature. Obviously these funds shouldn’t make up for a local desire to avoid paying for a decent library. However, we can design all kinds of public policy mechanisms to make sure that doesn’t happen (much like they do with schools). In places that truly cannot afford a decent public library, there is much to be said for state funding, particularly if you care about the future of our small towns.
September 13th, 2008 at 8:20 am
What about two small towns of roughly equivalent tax bases, one of whom chooses to support a local library and the other does not? Why should the second be given preference by the state?
That’s actually the problem we run into locally. This area is made of of many, many small towns and boroughs. Some choose to band together and pay local taxes to support a library. Others of equivalent means choose not to put ANY (literally) local taxes towards library service but still use that library. We don’t even get the state taxes from those users because their boroughs don’t commit to us, so their state tax moneys go to the district library.
I’m not against providing extra state support for poor areas. I AM against providing extra funds for areas that won’t put any local funds (or some sort of sacrifice) towards libraries. If one area is willing to sacrifice to make a library a priority, I don’t think the state should necessarily penalize them for that.