in public education, perhaps not as visible as the fiscal, reflects the dynamic forces of basic change which are beginning to become operative. Evidence that public education is breaking out of its restraining concepts and rigid forms is emerging. Hopefully, educational goals. and structures will be broadened to reflect increased concern for the quality of life, a concern that emphasizes the "sensibility'"' about which Molz has spoken in The Metropolitan Library. To the extent that these changes emerge, and to help make them happen, there is a need for strong, functional linkages between the public education and public library systems.

Structural and Organizational Problems

Finally, there are a number of structural and organizational problems affecting public libraries at state and local levels that need to be mentioned.

1. Local government can be viewed as the delivery system for many governmental services, including public libraries. Typically, state statutes permit local units of government to establish public libraries, and grant authority for their fiscal support, frequently in the form of a prescribed maximum tax rate. In many instances, that prescribed tax rate which was designed as a guarantee of fiscal support has become, with the passage of time and rising costs, an inadequate ceiling on revenues and expenditures. The larger point is that the prevalent use of permissive legislation provides not much in the way of incentive or urgency for the establishment and aggressive development of local public library services. There is little in the way of permissiveness in the state delegation of local public education responsibilities.

2. In most states, the traditional state library was created to serve the special library and archive needs of the state capitol clientele. Over the years, this agency in many states has led the way in not only providing direct service, but also in extending library services to local communities. In a national perspective, the role of the state library agency is crucial to the development of the pattern of public library services envisioned in this report. It is in the national interest to stimulate and support the strengthening of the state library agency to perform this task. What is required is an agency which is clearly charged with aggressive leadership responsibility for statewide development of adequate public library services, and equipped structurally and administratively to carry out this task. 3. Important goals in designing any governmental organizational structure or plan are (1) to provide easy access to the top executive and legislative leaders of the state and (2) to provide the means of formulating and implementing sound, progressive policies and procedures which are responsive to changing needs.

60 ALTERNATIVES FOR FINANCING THE PUBLIC LIBRARY

The pattern of state organization for administration of public library services varies. Board and commissions heading up state library organizations are commonly used. Some of these are independent administrative agencies; others may be advisory to the library unit housed in the state education department or some other department of state government. There is some research available which concludes that library agencies operating within state educational departments fare better, according to budget and other administrative criteria, than library units located elsewhere in state government. There are strong proponents for the use of independent administrative boards or commissions on the specific grounds that they provide direct access to the legislature and the governor. Other observers are critical of the plural executive form of organization. While more research is needed in this area, clearly no one organizational form can be prescribed for all states. The central criterion is that the state agency must be able to demonstrate substantial political clout at the highest levels of state government, and it must be supported by increasingly strong, vigorous constituencies at state and local levels. Whatever form is used, the criteria indicated above should be applied to evaluate its effectiveness.

Alternative Options for

Funding the Public Library

One of the problems in formulating a set of alternative options for funding the public library is the difficulty of estimating the total national cost of a viable pattern of public library services. In this report, some effort has been made to assess fiscally and comparatively the status and level of services which now exists. In general terms, the report has been bluntly critical of the distribution, scope, pattern and content of existing services. It has been noted that total expenditures by states and localities for public library services (including Federal funds) was $814 million in 1971-72.

An effort also has been made to characterize and describe the potential role and functions of the public library in meeting the defined needs of a modern society. The points have been made with emphasis that the present system of funding the public library is basically deficient, and that the institution is an underdeveloped national resource. In its present form and at its present level of expenditure, it has not achieved anything like its full potential of service in most communities.

Based on the $814 million national expenditure described above, the per capita rate of expenditures in 1971-72 was approximately $4.00. An exemplary program, such as found in Nassau County, New York, cost

just under $12.00 per capita in the same year. Current calculations for Nassau County indicate a present cost level of almost $14.00 per capita. Thus, it would seem reasonable that a more adequate national program of public library services could reflect a per capita cost range of $8.00— $10.00. Total national expenditures might then approximate a range of between $1.7 billion and $2.1 billion, based on 1974 population estimates. This would seem to be a more realistic national expenditure figure on which to formulate a set of alternative options for funding the public library.

There is a series of five options that can be considered in developing alternative systems for financing public library services. For purposes of the discussion which follows, they can be identified as: (1) status quo featuring no change from the present system, (2) a retrenchment of the Federal government financing role, (3) direct Federal funding at a 75-90 percent of total cost level, (4) expanded state funding role to the 75-90 percent level, and (5) a staged funding program moving toward a balanced intergovernmental funding system. These alternatives are intended as a strategic, rather than an exhaustive grouping of possible options. Each will be examined in terms of the possible advantages, disadvantages and problems their implementation would entail in achieving the level and nature of public library services envisioned in this report.

Status Quo

The difficulty of discussing a status quo or no change option is that, as this report makes clear, change itself is a prime feature of the present system. This is particularly true at the Federal level in relation to revenue sharing, the cutting-off of the categorical funding programs and, currently, the formulation of a new kind of Federal initiative. While it is difficult to predict the outcome of present discussions, it is certain that whatever the final formulation of the Federal program, it will have a decided effect on state and local financing patterns.

One formulation of a status quo option would be to assume zero funding of LSCA and a complete reliance on general and special revenue sharing to provide Federal funds for local library services. Based on the evidence to date of (1) the meager success of local public libraries in competing for local revenue sharing funds, and (2) the very modest response of states, under the prodding of ten years of LSCA to provide adequate levels of state funding, the outcome of implementing this kind of option seems very clear. In the present and foreseeable future climate of municipal finance, it is not likely that public libraries will be able to greatly improve their bargaining position for the tight local tax dollar. This is particularly true in urban centers where de

66-133 - 76 - 11

62

ALTERNATIVES FOR FINANCING THE PUBLIC LIBRARY

mands are greatest and where the disparities between needs and resources are most marked. Under present community development patterns, the tight local tax dollar will also increasingly represent a barrier to library development in many suburban communities. Even now, suburban communities are facing substantial and increasing municipal service and school costs, and they frequently are not equipped with the kind of tax base to easily meet new needs. Static and developing rural communities are characterized by both unrecognized needs and an undeveloped tax base and governmental organization framework. It is unlikely that rural local government will assign appropriate priority to the development of local library services.

A potential bright spot in the local government scene, in the context of their will and capability for developing improved public library services, is at the county level. Counties have the geographic size, resources and governmental capability to implement improved patterns of public library services. The current ground-swell of interest and activity in county home-rule is an added plus factor. On the other hand, less sanguine observers point out that counties have been "emerging" for at least a decade or two and, as yet, can hardly be called a viable form of area-wide government. There is also the problem that the development and provision of an adequate fiscal support base for a county program of library services must be coordinated with the diffused pattern of local services which now exists. Other emerging forms of regional governmental organizations, based on cooperative agreements among units of local government, can also be useful in developing improved local public library services. Their limitation is that they rarely have their own financing base, nor are they empowered to levy taxes against any local government tax base.

With respect to the state response under a status quo option featuring zero Federal support under LSCA and a reliance on general and special revenue sharing, the likely picture of the future is not brighter for development of a modern program of public library services. It can be argued that even the direct prodding of the LSCA has not produced the level of state fiscal response that is required, or that might be reasonably expected. Part of the problem is related to the low political visibility of public libraries, both at local and state governmental levels. In addition, as discussed earlier, the state organization for the development of public library services, in most instances, cannot be described as providing vigorous and aggressive leadership with easy access to the executive and legislative centers of political and fiscal power. State legislation is typically permissive, constrained, and lacks a firm mandate for full, continuing development of high standard public library services available to all citizens. Improvements must be made in these areas before substantially increased state funding can be expected.

ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS FOR FUNDING 63 Another factor that must be viewed as detrimental to achieving an upgraded state administrative and fiscal role is the Balkanizing impact of Federal revenue sharing itself. Two-thirds of revenue sharing funds are directed to local governments for the support of a wide range of services, including public libraries. States have the mandate for the development of public library services, yet they can neither guide nor direct the utilization of local revenue sharing funds in this or any other program area. It is also difficult to design an adequate state fiscal support system for public libraries that can be coordinated with a stable. pattern of use with respect to local revenue sharing funds.

All things considered, it seems apparent that a status quo option, featuring zero funding of LSCA and full reliance on general revenue sharing funds, is not a likely candidate for insuring the development and continuing fiscal support of a nationwide modern program of public library services. The form and nature of special revenue sharing programs have not yet emerged from the Congress, and it would be entirely speculative to attempt to evaluate their impact. It can be stated with assurance that to achieve the kind of public library services envisioned in this report, any such Federal or related state funding programs must (1) provide substantial relief for the overuse of local tax dollars in this area, and (2) direct the use of such funds toward specific measures to improve the distribution, content and quality of such

services.

A second formulation of the status-quo option would feature complete reliance on LSCA and a writing-off of any possible impact from revenue sharing funds. Some observers would argue that a writing-off of revenue sharing funds in relation to local public library services is only a nuance away from present reality. It has been noted earlier that the latest actual use report indicating the amount of revenue sharing funds used for public libraries is indeed quite small. Continued reliance on LSCA in its present form is perhaps not so bleak a picture. The key, of course, is the extent to which LSCA can induce substantial increases in state funding for public library services. It has been pointed out both that the states have lagged, but also that demonstrable progress has been made. Again, a prime factor in improving state performance in this area is to strengthen the form, impact, and mandate underpinning state public library organization and legislation. A plus factor indicating that the time is ripe to move on this front is that states currently enjoy an improved fiscal and tax base position. Partially offsetting that factor is Serrano-Priest related pressure for substantially enlarging the state fiscal role in support of public education. Such action might make substantial inroads in state level unused taxing capability.

The weaknesses of the LSCA have been pointed out. The legislation