three county metropolitan area could become the financing base for a metropolitan library system. A uniform property tax levy extended over an entire metropolitan area would draw the largest sums from the high value areas and, in the manner of power equalization, the proceeds would be redistributed in accordance with actual library needs.

Summary Findings and Conclusions

The preceding analysis of fiscal factors in the financing of public libraries supports the following general conclusions.

1. State and local expenditure for public libraries is extremely small relative to spending for other domestic services and has been growing more slowly than the state-local sector generally.

2. Until its recent curtailment the Federal Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) has been financing about 7 percent of statelocal library expenditure for public libraries.

3. Notwithstanding a new Federal initiative under the so-called Library Partnership Act, there may be little likelihood that substantial Federal library aid will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. Pressure should be maintained, however, to ensure that the Federal government retains responsibility for a fiscal role designed to further stimulate the states to increase their support for expanded local public library services.

At the minimum, the Federal government should provide funds for research and demonstration grants for innovative projects, the expansion of the interlibrary cooperation program, and the expansion of data gathering and research functions. 4. LSCA has been instrumental in encouraging some growth in state government participation in library financing, but the level of fiscal response in most states is inadequate.

5. Library financing, then, falls almost entirely on the local level and therefore is subject to the exigencies of increasing local fiscal problems and financing disparities.

6. State governments have been moving toward a more productive and economy-sensitive revenue structure.

7. With few exceptions, states have the fiscal capacity to pick up any slack resulting from curtailment of Federal library aid and, indeed, to increase their participation in library financing. 8. A substantial shift in library financing from the local to the state level (at least 50 percent of the non-Federal cost) would raise the general level of library expenditure and at the same time help eliminate interlocal disparities in the provision of library services. 9. At the local level there is a need to strengthen the organizational structure for the financing and delivery of library services. Steps should be taken to develop means for areawide financing. Orga

50

ALTERNATIVES FOR FINANCING THE PUBLIC LIBRARY

nizationally, the library function should be brought into the mainstream of the local political structure.

FOOTNOTES

1. The District of Columbia, with a 1971-72 per capita expenditure of $11.81, is excluded from this analysis.

2. See the "technical note," following the footnotes, for an explanation of the procedure for constructing the "governmental source of financing data" used here. 3. It should be noted that the state share of library financing may be understated to the extent that state aid for general local support (a form of state general revenue sharing) is applied to library services. Thus, although Table 3 indicates that the State of Wisconsin provides only 0.4 percent of library financing, about 40 percent of its state aid expenditure is for general local support. Wisconsin, however, is an extreme case in this regard. For all states in total, only 10 percent of the state aid expenditure is for general local support, and some states provide little or no such aid to their localities.

4. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Financing Schools and Property Tax Relief-A State Responsibility (Washington: January 1973), A-40, p. 16. 5. Indiana is the only state where library services are provided virtually across the board by independent special districts. In Ohio, a substantial portion of library services is provided by independent school districts, as well as by special districts and, in a few instances, by municipal governments. It should be noted, however, that many library systems, while nominally dependent agencies of municipal and county governments, do exist under the quasi-independent umbrella of library boards which often take on the political insulation characteristics of special districts. 6. ACIR, City Financial Emergencies—The Intergovernmental Dimension (Washington: July 1973), A-42, p. 120.

7. Ibid., Table B-22.

8. Ibid., Table B-23.

9. Ibid., Tables B-8 and B-10.

10. For an analysis of the various school financing cases, see ACIR, Financing Schools and Property Tax Relief-A State Responsibility (Washington: January 1973), A-40 Chapter IX.

11. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Governmental Finances in 1970-71, Table 4 and City Government Finances in 1970-71, Table 1.

12. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Statistics of Public Libraries Serving Areas With at Least 25,000 Inhabitants, 1968 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1970), Table 1.

13. Frederick D. Stocker, Financing Public Libraries in Ohio (Columbus: Ohio Library Foundation March 1971), p. 1.

14. Ibid., p. 13. The Census data on Library expenditure for Ohio ($22.7 million for 197172) are drastically understated. Apparently a major portion of this understatement stems from the fact that many library boards in that state operate as part of school districts and the library finances for such boards are reported in census statistics together with school district finances. The missing portion would then be reported by the Bureau of the Census as "local schools" rather than as "libraries." This situation is apparently unique to Ohio as similar gross understatements were not found in the other states.

15. Ibid., p. 23.

16. Ibid., P. 3.

17. Department of the Treasury, Office of Revenue Sharing, General Revenue Sharing— The First Planned Use Reports (Washington: September 24, 1973), p. 7.

18. ACIR, Federal-State Coordination of Personal Income Taxes (Washington: October 1965), Report A-27, p. 13.

19. Ibid., p. 111.

20. For a discussion of the elements necessary to achieving a high-quality tax system see, ACIR, Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System (Washington: October 1967), A-31, Vol. 1, p. 132 ff.

21. As shown in Table 3, the state portion rose to 43.7 percent in 1971-72, and preliminary NEA estimates indicate a further rise to 44.5 percent in 1972-73.

22. National Journal, June 30, 1973, p. 936.

23. ACIR, Financing Schools and Property Tax Relief—A State Responsibility (Washington: January 1973), Report A-40, p. 109.

24. Ibid., Table 36.

25. Ibid., p. 114.

26. Ibid., Table 41.

27. Ibid., p. 9.

28. ACIR, The Gap Between Federal Aid Authorizations and Appropriations (Washington: June 1970), Report M-52, pp. 23 and 24.

29. ACIR, Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System (Washington: October 1967), Report A-31, Vol. 1, p. 5.

TECHNICAL NOTE ON TABLE 3 DATA COMPILATION

The information on governmental source of library financing presented in Table 3 was constructed from Census data as follows:

1. It is assumed that most Federal aid for libraries is paid to the states. Figures for 197172 on state intergovernmental revenue from the Federal government for libraries are not published in State Government Finances 1972, but are readily available in Census worksheets. These were supplied by the Governments Division and were used as the Federal component for each state.

2. The Census report, State Government Finances in 1972, provides data on state expenditure for libraries, with separate figures for direct state expenditures (state library, supervision of local library services, and the like) and for state payments to local governments (including Federal aid funds channeled through the states). Deducting the Federal intergovernmental revenue figures from the total state library expenditure figures yields state own-source expenditure for libraries.

3. The Census report, Governmental Finances in 1971-1972 (soon to be published), does not present separate state-by-state figures on local expenditure for libraries (although national totals are presented). The state-by-state figures are, however, developed separately and were drawn from a computer run available in the Governments Division. From these figures were deducted the state and Federal aid amounts (see paragraph 2, above) to arrive at library expenditure from local sources.

CHAPTER 4

Alternative Systems for Funding

the Public Library

Summary of Findings

The central conclusion of this analysis of funding patterns and general assessment of financing requirements for adequately supporting the public library is that the present system is basically deficient. In almost two decades of operation since the direct involvement of the Federal government, the present system has not produced an effective development and distribution of public library services. The distribution of costs among the levels and jurisdictions of government is grossly inequitable and is a prime deterrent to the progressive development of a public library system responsive to the informational-educational-cultural needs of a modern society.

General Conclusions

Historically, the public library represented a private response to the clearly felt need to provide a central repository of information and knowledge vital to the self-development and economic and cultural understanding of all citizens and, through them, the advancement of the community.

The public library today represents an under-developed national resource affecting and affected by the educational, cultural and overall quality of life in the United States. This resource, which is unique to this democratic society, provides informational, educational, and cultural services in patterns which vary according to estimates of need, sometimes imperfectly perceived by the library institution itself. More importantly, services vary widely according to the fiscal ability of the more than 10,000 state, county and local jurisdictions to provide library services equitably to all the nation's citizens.

Uniquely, and for a variety of reasons, the public library has not emerged or developed in a political or bureaucratic form typical of other social institutions. It exists today largely in its pristine state as an

ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS FOR FUNDING 53

almost randomly distributed pattern of semi-autonomous local service agencies and systems, loosely coordinated with other libraries and almost quasi-governmental in nature. As a social institution, it is related by tradition and function to the public education system. Yet, it cannot be considered an integral part of public education, nor can it be described as a functional service in the mainstream of government. This set of characteristics represents a heavy liability for public libraries in terms of attaining stable, adequate financial support for a full set of services available to all citizens. The institution's deep roots in the community and its strong civic support represent the public library's principal asset, at least potentially, in striving to develop a viable pattern of services responsive to the full variety of community and individual needs.

Today, in our highly complex, industrialized and fragmented society, the need for decentralized repositories of information, knowledge and cultural services still exists and perhaps is even accentuated. There are still wide socio-economic and cultural gaps and quite alienated groups in our social structure producing needs which have long been the focus of public library services. In an era of affluence, there is still the need to provide an even wider variety of channels of upward social and economic mobility responsive to community and individual needs and selection. There is increasing evidence that our formalized, bureaucratic structures for social, educational and economic advancement have not served adequately or equally well the varied needs of all citizens. Indeed, decentralized, unorganized (if you will) social and educational resources such as public libraries increasingly are being seen as providing valid adjuncts and alternatives to governmentally sponsored, formally structured educational programs.

This is not to say that we should replicate or simply expand the traditional patterns of public library services. Proximity of service to each community and individual remains important, but there are essential changes to be achieved through expanded inter-connecting linkages and networks of library services. These advances are needed to increase service efficiency and to more nearly satisfy cost-benefit requirements of the public sector. Modern technology provides vast new means to establish such network linkages and provide the means by which information and knowledge from the accumulated record can be translated for individual utilization. It is unlikely, however, that modern technology can ever replace the printed page or the highly personalized interactive process of consulting the written record. Nonetheless, the style and pace of modern life in an information demanding society requires more than the passive, unobtrusive pattern of public library services that exists today in many communities. Changes such as these, and more, should be incorporated in modern