Reading Into America’s Public Library Funding Crisis

Katrina Verlinde

Dr. Chris Spielvogel

Rhetoric & Civic Life | CAS 138

16 April 2018

Since the founding of the United States, public libraries have played a central role in fostering an

informed and bettered democracy: offering vast resources and personalized assistance in literacy

education, childhood development, reference and research aid, community/government program

navigation, technology, and other vital public services. Many lower income Americans rely on public

libraries for assistance in navigating the world of

social services, free access to internet and

technology that cannot be found elsewhere, and a

welcoming environment with a positive focus on

learning and bettering ourselves and our

communities. Families depend on libraries for a

myriad of programs and materials that facilitate

reading at all ages and levels, and cherish the safe,

positive learning environment that public libraries

cultivate. Public libraries serve as a gateway for

citizens into the world of democracy, bridging the

gap between institutions and people with friendly, personalized assistance and services. Because

libraries are at the heart of their communities, they are able to gauge and address the needs of their

community far more effectively than any outside institution. And, since enriched communities are the

cornerstone of a liberal democracy, investment in public libraries is integral to bettering the United
States as a whole country, and to inspiring curiosity and civic engagement in our citizens, whether on a

local, state, or national scale.

In the past decade, however, the United States has undergone a rapid and undeniable shift in

general perceptions of public libraries: rather than curating cutting-edge information and being

forefront in education, development, and community welfare, many have concluded that public libraries

have simply become obsolete in today’s Information Age, where personal technology reigns supreme

and libraries are nostalgic, antiquarian remnants of an era that is now past. While there may be some

truth to this (in that public libraries have often struggled to keep up with the latest technology), it is in

no way unavoidable; rather, the struggle of public libraries is due to a severe lack of funding which

impedes libraries from serving their full

potentials. As the graphic at right illustrates,

public libraries have weathered increasing budget

cuts by correspondingly reducing staff and

opening hours—shaving off where they can in

order to remain able to provide excellent

resources and services on which many have come

to rely. In this situation, everybody loses: the

community has less access to the public library

due to its fewer operating hours, and less staff is

available to serve the needs of patrons. This

doesn’t begin to take into account the lack of

money for library materials and programming, including tax assistance, technology classes, eBook and

other online subscription services. Libraries also offer personal assistance and resources for underserved

populations including veterans, disabled individuals, ESL individuals, the homeless, unemployed, and
many others, many of whom have no other place to turn for such resources. Despite emaciated

budgets, many of which rely almost solely on local sources, public libraries have made measurable

impact in their communities, and their continued—and enhanced—funding is supported by a vast

majority of Americans: 78%, according to surveys by the Pew Research Center (Pew 2015). As libraries

provide excellent service to communities and can aid in bridging the gap between citizens and their

institutions, it is in the best interest of all American citizens to ensure that they are adequately funded.

In order to better address the problem of insubstantial public library funding, it’s important to

understand where public library funding comes from. This is easier said than done, as each public library

has its own very unique financing breakdown, although several evolving trends emerge nationwide. In

general, public libraries receive a majority of their funding, typically on the order of 70-80%, from local

sources. State and federal aid combined comprise approximately 10-20% of national public library

revenue (Humanities Institute 2014). However, both state and federal funds have declined rapidly in the

past two decades. A study published in

2016 indicated that income garnered

from state governments alone

decreased from 12% to 7% of library

income from 1995-2014 (Humanities

Indicators 2014), with federal

government following suite in an

alarming double whammy to public

libraries. To account for the decrease in support, overall library expenditures decreased by 8% from

2009 to 2014 (Humanities Indicators 2014), although library usage remained relatively stable. Today,

public libraries continue to scramble for funding, relying more and more on grants, endowments,

foundations, and donations. This is bewildering, as there is plenty of money available from state and
federal sources, and only a small stimulus on their part could rejuvenate public libraries. The solution

itself is simple: public library funding deficits can be subsidized through a modest increase in federal

funding of the IMLS (rather than its proposed elimination), and by reallocating state tax dollars to fund

public libraries via SLAA.

Currently, public library funding from the federal government takes the form of grants allocated

to states by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), an agency responsible for providing

grants, policy development, and research for public institutions. IMLS grants have been in place since

the passage of the Library Services Act (now the Library Services and Technology Act) in 1956. Money is

apportioned to states, which then redistribute it at their discretion for services such as access to e‐books

and adaptive technology, computer instruction, and summer reading programs, to name just a few.

This federal funding makes up a tiny percentage of overall public library funding. In the 2015 fiscal year,

federal administration requested $226.4 million for the IMLS (CBO 2017). To put that figure in

perspective, it’s a mere 0.0017% of the cost a Navy aircraft carrier (O’Kelley 2014).

Despite IMLS constituting a tiny portion of federal spending, both 2016 and 2017 saw detailed

budget proposals from federal administration targeting the funding of the Institute of Museum and

Library Services (IMLS) and several other, related government agencies (including the National

Endowment of the Arts/Humanities and the Department of Education’s Innovative Approaches to

Literacy program), with proposals to drastically reduce the funding of such programs, which comprised

just .02% of the federal budget in the 2016 fiscal year. Even more dire, 2018’s fiscal year budget

proposals recommended the complete elimination Institute of Museum and Library Services, LSTA, and

IAL.
 Libraries currently receive very, very little federal funding, and an increase in this funding, which

would be incredibly insignificant in light of the federal budget, could have an incredibly massive impact

in revitalizing public libraries.1

State funding makes up approximately 5-15% of public library budgets. This funding takes the

form of block grants from State Library Administrative Agencies, or SLAA. SLAAs took a significant hit

during the economic recession of the mid-2000s, and have struggled to recover since, with revenues

stifled by more one-fifth over a 12-year period (Library Journal). A drop in public library funding due to

the economic recession is logical; many programs suffered similar cuts as the economy reeled due to the

collapse of the housing market.

However, as is clear in the figure

at left, efforts were not taken

once the economy had recovered

to revive library funding—

measures that should have

occurred automatically. This is an

indication that state policymakers may have decided that their priorities lie elsewhere. One such

‘elsewhere’ is standardized testing, which cost states approximately $1.7 billion in 2012 (Brookings

2012). Public libraries offer services in education and welfare that are comparable to those offered by

state and federal welfare and education programs, but at a much more personalized level, as they are

1
An addendum: the omnibus spending bill signed less than a week prior to the drafting of this brief unexpectedly
awarded an additional $9 million to IMLS (ALA 2018). This triumph is a testament to the advocacy of public
libraries, associations, and individual citizens. It also marks the beginning of an upward trajectory for public
libraries not only in terms of income, but in terms of quality and quantity of services and materials, and a greater
impact in their communities and in the United States as a whole. By continuing this positive reversal in federal
funding of programs such as IMLS, even with a very minimal investment, the federal government can ensure that
struggling public libraries can be subsidized to provide excellent services that benefit their communities, and, by
extension, the United States as a whole.
better able to gauge the needs and services in their communities—something which state and federal

programs, due to their encompassing breadth, cannot provide. Thus, state policymakers should strive to

move more state money into SLAAs, bringing the state funding of public libraries back to the level it was

at prior to the housing market collapse.

Opponents of increased government funding of public libraries argue that the purpose which

libraries were created to fulfill has grown obsolete in the wake of the internet’s emerging omnipotence,

and that federal and state capital could be better invested elsewhere in order to more effectively

address gaps in education and social services. It would be expected, by this logic, that public library

usage would have declined significantly in light of its ‘replacement.’ However, while it has seen slight

decline, patronage of public libraries has remained relatively stable. The IMLS 2015 annual report on the

state of libraries observed that “even though investments might have declined, any decreases in use did

not drop by the same magnitude,” furthermore noting that “as investments, such as revenue, staffing,

and programs, increased, so did critical use measures, such as visitation and circulation.” Thus, the

conjecture that public libraries have lost their place in the center of America’s communities is false;

rather, what decline in usage public libraries have seen is due to their financial handicaps, a problem

which can be easily rectified by reversing the trajectory of state and federal funding to public libraries.

With 95% of American adults agreeing ‘the materials and resources available at public libraries play an

important role in giving everyone a chance to succeed’ and 81% citing public libraries as providing ‘many

services people would have a hard time finding elsewhere’ (Pew 2013), the importance of public

libraries in local communities is undeniable, and investing more in public libraries at the state and

federal level will ensure that public libraries can offer services to their communities that benefit the

United States as a whole. Since such a small portion of funding currently comes from these sources, a

slight increase in funding from state taxes and government grants could ballast the unstable funding and
allow libraries to provide excellent and all-encompassing services without living in constant fear of

funding cuts.

In addition to being a financial problem, library funding is an issue about which the public is

generally misinformed. A report published in 2018 by the American Library Association which reviewed

perceptions about library funding discovered that 59% of those surveyed believed that ‘majority of

public library funding comes from non-local sources,’ i. e. state and federal grants. In reality, however,

86% of public library funding comes from local sources: municipality taxes, donors, and foundations

(IMLS 2015). Of those surveyed, 70% had visited their public library in the past year, and 95% agreed

that ‘the materials and resources available at public libraries play an important role in giving everyone a

chance to succeed.’ Thus, many American citizens highly value their libraries, but don’t realize how at

risk they truly are and how attainable the solution actually is.

Public libraries are hailed as being institutions of civic participation, vital to liberal democracies.

As political scientist Kevin Mattson stated in a book on public democracy: “There are a number of ways

one could address the concerns of the public library community with the broader context of a

democratic political system. As the public storehouse of knowledge, the public library can be viewed as

a free society’s insurance that all ideas will be accessible to everyone who may want them” (Mattson

1998). And this is certainly true: public libraries are a place free from censorship and bias, which is

becoming harder and harder to find in a society reliant on media for its information. In a similar vein,

author and historian David McCullough in a 2001 speech at the Library of Congress offered this

sentiment: “Freedom is found through the portals of our nation’s libraries.” The necessity of public

libraries in today’s world of political turmoil and confusion, then, grows not lesser, but greater.

In order to address the changing needs of their communities, public libraries themselves have

begun to mold and change, while still holding true to their core principles as community hubs and

repositories of knowledge. In partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which established
the Gates Library Foundation in 1997 with the purpose of bringing first internet and later other

innovative technologies (think 3-D printing, maker and hacker spaces, innovation labs, etc.) to public

libraries, the Aspen Institute releases a yearly report detailing measures being taken by public libraries

to maintain relevance in the Digital Age. Such measures include national public library networking,

offering resources and media in all formats, and considering long-term impact and benefits of public

libraries in communities. The report outlines plans of action that can be taken by library administration,

policymakers, and individual citizens to induct change in the way we as Americans view the role that

public libraries play in our localities and our democracy, and proves that libraries are trying—and

succeeding—in keeping pace with this brave new world. The question becomes: can they continue to do

so while facing tremendous budget slashes?

Public libraries are the cornerstones of communities. Vast majority of the public support their

continued funding, citing their impactfulness and greater contributions to their counties and

municipalities. In a global climate of mistrust and fake news, public libraries are bastions of democracy

and purveyors of free, equally accessible information. They help connect individuals to their

communities and other institutions by offering personalized programs and assistance for free. They also

strive to grow along with American culture, serving the needs of all, regardless of socioeconomic status,

race, gender, education, or age.

One point becomes blaringly obvious when considering the data: the decrease in public library

funding is not due to some supposed slide into obsoletism. Rather, public libraries are being actively

prevented from strengthening and enhancing their communities as intended due to funding cuts and

general apathy toward libraries by the government. Policymakers have chosen to largely ignore the

plight of libraries, in some instances threatening to remove funding entirely. But, even a miniscule

increase in the already minute percentage of government funding that goes to libraries would help

revitalize America’s struggling institutions and bring personalized and curated education and welfare
resources to their communities with an effectiveness that simply cannot be mimicked by larger—state

and federal—entities and programs. As famed industrial tycoon and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie

(1835-1919), an early public library advocate who helped establish and fund 1,689 public libraries in the

United States, puts it, “A library outranks any other one thing a community can do to benefit its people.

It is a never-failing spring in the desert” (Stamberg 2013).

 Works Cited

Aspen Institute Dialogue on Public Libraries. 2014. Rising to the Challenge: “Re-Envisioning Public

Libraries, Washington, D.C.” The Aspen Institute.

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5660b272ebad645c44000001/attachments/ori

ginal/1452193779/AspenLibrariesReport.pdf?1452193779.

Buker, Christi. 2017. “State funding increases for libraries needed now, not later.” Pennsylvania Library

Association. http://www.palibraries.org/blogpost/1005146/269808/State-funding-increase-for-

libraries-needed-now-not-later.

Chingos, Michael. 2012. “Strength in Numbers: State Spending on K-12 Assessment Systems.” Brookings

Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/research/strength-in-numbers-state-spending-on-k-12-

assessment-systems/

Congressional Budget Office. 2017. The Federal Budget in 2017: An Infographic.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53624

Hines, Shawnda. 2017. “President’s budget proposal to eliminate federal library funding

'counterproductive and short-sighted.’” American Library Association.

http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2017/03/president-s-budget-proposal-eliminate-

federal-library-funding.

Horrigan, John. 2015. “Libraries at the Crossroads.” Pew Research Center.

 http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/09/15/2015/Libraries-at-crossroads/.

Humanities Indicators. 2014. “Public Library Revenue, Expenditures, and Funding Sources.” American

Academy of Arts and Sciences.

https://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=419

Institute of Museum and Library Services. 2016. State Library Administrative Agencies Survey: Fiscal Year

2016. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services.

International City/County Management Association. 2016. “Local Libraries Advancing Community Goals,

2016: Summary of Survey Results.” Aspen Institute. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/

308908_2016%20public%20library%20survey_ICMA%20summary%20report.pdf.

Mattson, Kevin. 1998. Creating a Democratic Public: The Struggle for Urban Participatory Democracy

During the Progressive Era. Pennsylvania State University Press.

OCLC and American Library Association. 2018. From Awareness to Funding: Voter Perceptions and

Support of Public Libraries in 2018. Dublin, OH: OCLC. https://doi.org/10.25333/C3M92X.

O’Kelly, Kevin. 2014. “Why We Absolutely Need to Care More About Library Funding.” Huffington Post

Blog. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-okelly/post_7535_b_5288037.html

Peet, Lisa. 2018. “Holding Pattern | Budgets & Funding.” Library Journal. https://lj.libraryjournal.com

/2018/02/budgets-funding/holding-pattern-budgets-funding/#_

Stamberg, Susan. 2013. “How Andrew Carnegie Turned His Fortune Into A Library Legacy.” National

Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2013/08/01/207272849/how-andrew-carnegie-turned-his-

 fortune-into-a-library-legacy

Zickuhr, Kathryn. 2013. “How Americans Value Public Libraries in Their Communities.” Pew Research

Center. http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2013/12/11/libraries-in-communities/