Keeping the "free" in public libraries

I came across an editorial today titled "Rethinking Government: Why We Need Library Rental Fees." The article discusses how incorporating operational fees into more public library services could help to bridge the budget gap that threatens so many public libraries. My first reaction was a gut-wrenching "NO WAY!" followed swiftly by a mental call-to-arms to denounce and take down this town selectman who thinks he knows everything. But then I took a step back and tried to see his points in a more objective way.

When the modern library was still in the process of evolution, there were several "types" that emerged before the public library as we know it dominated the industry (if such a thing can be called that). One of these, as the writer of the article points out, was the subscription library that required a membership fee to be able to utilize its resources. It seems that Mr. Greenfield wants to reinstate this idea to a certain degree and charge patrons $.50 per book they wish to borrow. He notes that the cost of a new book has greatly increased since the beginnings of the free public library, which of course means that the cost for the library to acquire said books has also greatly increased--a valid point. A vast majority of the money to pay for these and other costs comes from local taxes, and most if not all of us are aware how much local governments across the nation are struggling to afford many necessary services that include not only libraries but fire and police forces, social services, and educational programs. Knowing all this, I can understand Mr. Greenfield's suggestion that the community pitches in a little more to boost the library's available monies and provide some relief to the local budget.

Yet I still feel that his solution would not really solve the problem. A $.50 fee per book would be prohibitive. Statistics produced by many sources (including the ALA's 2011 State of America's Libraries Report) show library use increasing, a fact Mr. Greenfield mentions in his article. What he doesn't note is that a large percentage of those who do visit and use the library are those with little money, the unemployed, and the undereducated--all evidenced by the trends that libraries continue to see increase: more demand for job-seeking and job preparation resources, patrons placing higher value in programs promoting education and life-long learning, and increased circulation as patrons try to cut back their own personal costs by utilizing the free services and resources offered by public libraries. How would these patrons be able to afford more charges and more fees for things they rely on being able to use or borrow for free? Realistically, there will be patrons who can afford the additional costs, but there will always be a number of patrons who will not. This distinctly conflicts with the mission of the library to provide equal (and free) access to materials to all patrons. Tagging on borrowing fees will not provide equal access to patrons--the additional costs will prohibit some patrons from utilizing those resources.

I wonder if Mr. Greenfield also thought about the many families that use the library. A poorer family would be able to afford borrowing items even less than poorer individuals. Children often rely on library materials for school projects and to supplement their own education. Many schools have had to close or severely restrict their own library operations, meaning that children in those schools would be relying on their local public library even more. Children of the poorer families who need information for projects would not be able to borrow the resources they require--thereby diminishing their educational success. Every child in this country has the right to a public education. One could argue that this would include access to the public library.

Just to put a more practical face on this, let's assume there is a public library that decided to take Mr. Greenfield's advice and each item is $.50 to borrow. A mother takes her three children there after school one afternoon to get some books the school recommended for her sixth grader's India project and her first grader's bean seed project, and a couple of picture books for her toddler. She also wants to get a book for herself to read in the evening after her children have gone to bed. After her children have made their selections, they check out all the items and the mother has to pay $4.00 for the eight items they have borrowed. This is a weekly visit, so the mother will end up spending $16.00 a month (perhaps more) for their library privaledges. This may not seem like a lot, but to someone who is trying to make ends meet, every dollar is precious.

As a side note, my local public library system allows patrons to take out 65 books at a time--a limit that would cost a patron $32.50 who was being charged per item. That doesn't take into account the CD or DVD limit, which combined would add on another $15.00. Granted very few people actually do reach that limit, but it shows potentially how expensive using the library could be.

My point is that $.50 an item can easily add up and become cost-prohibitive to many patrons, discouraging continued visits and usage of library items. Circulation is one of the quantitative measurements that can be taken of library patronage (qualitative measurements are much harder to acquire). Libraries often rely on their circulation to help support their efforts to have their budgets approved: "See how many items have been borrowed over the last three months compared to the same time last year? Patrons are increasing their use of our resources, so we need the funding to continue to provide them." (Yes I know this is a rather simplified version of any library's budget discussion and the actual debate would include a lot more talking points.) If additional fees cause circulation to decrease, that could have lasting ramifications affecting many aspects of a library's operation since such a trend could directly affect future budget proposals.

And here's another thought: who would want to spend money for a service their taxes already pay for?

I would highly recommend reading through the comments of Mr. Greenfield's article. There were a lot of interesting points made on both sides of the table. Which side do you agree with?

A response to Mr. Greenfield's editorial written by ALA's executive director can be found here. He discusses a few of the points I made above, as well as a number of other points.