An article titled “Funding Our Priorities: Comparisons of Public Library Funding and Services with Other Sectors in Post-COVID America” by A.J. Million and Jenny Bossaller in The Political Librarian, vol. 6.2 (Fall 2023) provides research indicating that public libraries today are delivering traditional library services while also increasingly delivering non-traditional services “that support or enhance the work of other government and/or nonprofit agencies, and many of these services were created to fill a void when existing services were unavailable or inadequate.” (Page 80) They argue that “Where libraries fill a gap or meet a need, services should not become unfunded mandates or expected responsibilities just because public libraries exist to support community needs.” Their research also shows that library funding is often disproportionately low when compared to sectors providing the same or related services. The authors encourage libraries to participate in creative funding whereby libraries collaborate with these other entities to share resources to make these services possible. And libraries that do not have a reciprocal sharing of resources to deliver these services risk overextending staff and space which leads to unrealistic expectations and staff burnout. (Page 90)
As President of the California County Librarians Association my presentation at the 2022 annual meeting of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) encouraged county leaders from across the state to leverage their libraries through strategic partnerships to deliver community services. Essentially, I was demonstrating the benefit of library collaborations when responsibilities for funding and resources are shared with other government and nonprofit agencies, just as recommended by Million and Bossaller. I have seen many of these collaborations across California over the past few years, many of which have been sparked by supplemental one-time grant funding from the California State Library thanks to strong championing by California State Librarian Greg Lucas.
But heading into FY26-27, California libraries are undoubtedly facing reductions and eliminations in one-time grant funding from the state and federal governments. And in California, despite Education Code, Article 1. Section 18012 that declares the Legislature’s policy and objective is to “Provide permanent, stable, and predictable financing for public libraries of the state through a combination of state and local revenues,” there is no source of ongoing non-appropriated funding for libraries at the state or federal level. Additionally, local funding for libraries is being reduced or eliminated in many places, a trend that will increase in FY26-27. At the same time, as Million and Bossaller point out, “Policymakers continually debate about the priorities of states and municipalities to fund public libraries, education, and the social safety net relative to public safety, including police and sheriff services.” (Page 79) Are library services “core” services that are basic services that a municipality is responsible for providing to its residents as required by law, or discretionary services that are optional and may augment or supplement core services? By collaborating with other government agencies or nonprofits to deliver community services, libraries have inadvertently made themselves lean towards the supplemental or optional definition of discretionary services. This is a slippery slope and precarious place to be when it comes to competing funding priorities. Libraries need to maintain the ability to provide traditional library services related to lifelong learning, education, and literacy, which is impossible without steady, ongoing funding.
Way back in 2015 A.J. Million argued for a “new approach to library funding that entails balancing state and local revenue with federal resources” to address economic inequality. In The Political Librarian, “Why Local Isn’t Enough”, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Sept. 2015, he points out the state-level disparities when it comes to library funding, as well as the inequality within states when it comes to local funding for libraries. Not all communities can afford a public library. “If such a right to libraries exists, public libraries’ reliance on municipal revenue cannot guarantee it.” (Page12) He argues that the “most direct way to address this problem is for larger jurisdictions to distribute funding”; ie, state to local, federal to state. For example, in addition to local funding for libraries, states could make transfer payments and use their taxing authority to redistribute income. He points out that this model already exists for K-12 education where the wealthy districts pay for their public schools out-of-pocket while poor ones receive aid from state and federal governments. He states, “State constitutions also typically require that legislatures provide adequate funding usually defined by an agreed upon formula. By supplementing local library funding with state and federal tax dollars, transfer payments would mitigate asymmetric risk and better address unequal access.” This mirrors California Legislature in Education Code, Article 1, General Provisions, Sec. 18012 that states their objective is to “Provide state funds for public library service through application of a simple formula” and to “Assure the availability to every resident of the state of an adequate level of public library service regardless of the taxable wealth of the local jurisdiction providing the service.”
In “Why Local Isn’t Enough”, A.J. Million points out “that a local approach to library funding is not enough” due to asymmetric risks associated with one-sided revenue streams.” (Page 11) Asymmetric risk is defined as “A situation in which the potential gains and losses on an investment are uneven” (Page 11) He points out that “during times of financial crisis” libraries have reported shortfalls due to challenged municipal budgets, and even catastrophic disaster such as during the 2007-09 Recession when the Detroit Public Library had an $11 million dollar library shortfall and local officials understood the consequences of cutting funding in a city with a functional literacy rate of 47% but still had to make cuts due to DPL’s reliance on local taxes and the absence of outside funding. Ironically, library services are needed even more during these times of financial crisis, so librarians have to work more but spend less.
In California public libraries’ reliance on tax revenue from narrowly defined geographic areas is problematic, especially during times of fiscal crisis. And poor localities cannot procure revenue that allows them to offer services that are comparable to wealthy ones. So those who often need services the most receive the least number of services. The Legislature previously recognized the need for a “foundation program” to “assure the availability to every resident of the state an adequate level of public library service.” Research shows that diversified funding sources for libraries is beneficial. Perhaps the most successful one-time investment to date by the State of California in public libraries came in the form of the Building Forward Infrastructure Grants. The key to the success of this program was a required local match based on a formula that took into account local income per capita. This example demonstrates how impactful it can be when local funding is supplemented by state funds. If this can be done through rewritten legislation that mandates and provides recurring unrestricted funding that is distributed on a simple formula that takes LIPC into account, it would have significant impact on the sustainability of public libraries in California. And it wouldn’t have to be a very big amount, even the smallest percentage of dedicated funding would enable libraries to keep their doors open and provide basic, core library services.
- One idea to revise legislation is that California’s public libraries get a small ongoing dedicated percentage of Prop 98 funding distributed through a LIPC based formula so they can keep their doors open and deliver library services to schools and provide after-school programming support, something they strive to do. Many public libraries also serve as school libraries and are located on or adjacent to school campuses.
- Another idea is to rewrite the California Library Services Act (CLSA) to mandate, fully restore, and make recurring the now one-time funds that go to the nine library cooperatives across the state in the form of a small percentage of the State’s General Fund. These cooperatives could be reviewed for best practices, consistency, and service needs across systems, as well as equity in funding distribution by incorporating LIPC.
- The library cooperatives mentioned above are formed under and guided by the CLSA. There is no doubt library consortiums can be beneficial for leveraging economies of scale. But the formation of these nine library cooperatives is dictated by outdated state law, not by the needs of today’s local districts, counties, or cities. There is little logical sense in how they are structured, and what services they provide for libraries. Thus, another idea includes disbanding some or all the nine library cooperatives altogether because they are not the most effective or equitable means for distributing state funds to libraries; ie, their restricted nature creates barriers to funding high priority needs and they come with unnecessary administrative costs. Formal agreements between library districts could take their place in a more organic, logical, and regional manner that makes sense. And libraries could leverage the statewide library consortia, Califa. These CLSA funds could be mandated, fully restored, and made a recurring portion of the State’s General Fund at the same time as the cooperatives are disbanded to reduce unnecessary duplication and administration fees, with the funds redistributed directly to libraries based on a simple formula that takes LIPC into account. This solution would also take some burden off of California State Library resources. Or maybe the solution is a combination of points 2 and 3 whereby the cooperatives are still leveraged and not disbanded under Education Code, but State reporting requirements for them are lessened as State funding instead directly provides for resource sharing among the libraries statewide through database and delivery support. This idea would free up cooperatives to contribute local funding and/or resources as desired to make local decisions regarding their function as local needs dictate.
- Another idea is that the section of the California Education Code regardingpublic library foundation funding could be rewritten to create a dedicated small percentage of the State’s General Fund mandatory for libraries, on an unrestricted basis, and distributed by a simple formula taking LIPC into account, similar to how the Building Forward Grant program local matches were determined. Local libraries currently get no state funding for operational support for foundational services, only one-time appropriations and grants for mission-adjacent programs that libraries serving communities that need them the most don’t have the staffing to deploy.
With libraries across the country facing unprecedented challenges, now is the time for California to act. Studies over the years show the very negative impact that illiteracy, low reading levels, misleading or inaccurate information, and lack of education have on communities. State investment in its public libraries would help California address homelessness, one of the biggest challenges today, by helping the unhoused and underserved develop skills and acquire the knowledge required to be successful. Education is key to enabling people to participate in society. As the people’s university, the library provides opportunity equity and is often the only place available to many people to learn and access information. From early childhood literacy through services to older adults, the library is there for everyone and improves lives and communities.
-Nancy Schram, President, California County Librarians Association
California County Librarians Association 