Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large
ISSN 1534-0937
Libraries · Policy · Technology · Media


Selection from Cites & Insights 12, Number 6: July 2012


Libraries

Give Us a Dollar:
A Case Study

I believe Give Us a Dollar and We’ll Give You Back Four could be useful for almost any public library, especially those in the middle—that is, not quite starving for funds but without really good funding. I call it the Middle 6,500: 6,492 public libraries with at least $12 and less than $61 per capita funding. (Not that I don’t believe libraries below or above that point could find the book worthwhile, but I believe it’s most relevant in the middle.)

But the book—in its current form or in a vastly revised 2010-data version—can’t be useful if librarians don’t use it or find it incomprehensible. I’m going to step through a case study in an attempt to make the possibilities more concrete. After all, if the book isn’t useful, it shouldn’t exist: It’s not a literary work or an essay.

Actually, I’m going to do this twice: Once with pieces of a rethought structure for the book, again with the preliminary draft. I believe the rethought structure would be more directly meaningful and easier to use.

The Rethought Version

Let’s take a fictitious public library as an example and see what the director or staff could gain from the book. While this public library doesn’t exist, its profile was created by averaging two New York public libraries with very similar legal service area populations (LSA).

Fourbuck Public Library (henceforth Fourbuck) is in New York, a largish small library that’s serving Fourbuck fairly well but could probably do more with better funding. The director sends me email after buying the book and gets back something like this as part of a reply email shortly thereafter (except that labels are abbreviated):

State: NY

Key: NY999X

LSA population: 10,768

Expenditures: $280,057

Visits: 48,019

Reference: 3,590

Circulation: 94,886

ILL: 23,625

Program attendance: 2,922

PCs: 5

Personal Computer Use: 6,189

$ per capita: $26.01

Benefits per capita: $140.21

Hours: 2,559

Circulation per capita: 8.81

Benefit ratio: 5.39

Attendance per capita: 0.27

PC use per capita: 0.57

Reference per capita: 0.33

Visits per capita: 4.46

Circulation per hour: 37.1

Visits per hour: 18.8

After a revised introduction, the book would consist of 20 chapters—19 fairly short, one very long. The long one: libraries by state, with each state showing a limited set of tables splitting libraries by size.

Chapters 3 through 19 would each cover a group of libraries with similar population—between 493 and 506 libraries for the 2009 numbers, something fairly similar for 2010. Each chapter would have two sets of tables, which you can think of as benchmarks and budgets respectively. I show the full set of budget tables for Chapter 12, Libraries Serving 8,700 to 11,199 people, along with a partial view of one benchmark table. Chapter 2 would have the benchmark and budget tables for the full set of libraries.

12. Libraries Serving 8,700 to 11,199 People

First, here’s one example of the benchmark tables—this time for circulation per capita. (Other benchmarks include attendance per capita, reference per capita, visits per capita and PC use per capita).

Circulation per cap

Count

%

Cum%

24+

16

3.2%

3.2%

20-23

16

3.2%

6.3%

18-19

7

1.4%

7.7%

16-17

12

2.4%

10.1%

15

5

1.0%

11.1%

14

14

2.8%

13.9%

13

19

3.8%

17.6%

12

12

2.4%

20.0%

11

20

4.0%

24.0%

10

22

4.4%

28.3%

9

25

5.0%

33.3%

8

39

7.7%

41.0%

7

32

6.3%

47.3%

6

47

9.3%

56.6%

5

50

9.9%

66.5%

4

51

10.1%

76.6%

3

44

8.7%

85.3%

0-2

73

14.5%

99.8%

Total

505

Table 12.1 Benchmark percentages for circulation per capita

Two columns that do not appear here, for space reasons and because I haven’t done the calculations, would appear to the right of Cum%: BenR and $/cap, showing the median benefit ratio and expenditures per capita (respectively) for libraries on that row.

Fourbuck finds that it’s in the top 40% for circulation per capita among libraries of roughly the same size—but one-third of those libraries do better. Is that a useful piece of information? (If it’s accompanied by a strong correlation between circulation per capita and funding, would that help?)

The budget tables all use operating expenditures per capita (with ten divisions) as a secondary axis. This should mean that a typical row of data in a table covers roughly 50 libraries, although that number will vary (in the example shown here, it varies from 41 to 60). For most tables, each row shows two metrics with the median, 25%ile and 75%ile for that metric. The first table is a little different: It shows the breakdown of libraries by budget (and perhaps should include a cumulative % column to the right of the % column):

$ per cap

Count

%

$82+

34

7%

$61-$81

47

9%

$46-$60

41

8%

$38-$45

60

12%

$32-$37

55

11%

$27-$31

56

11%

$22-$26

45

9%

$17-$21

60

12%

$12-$16

57

11%

$5-$11

50

10%

Overall

505

Table 12.2 Expenditure distribution

Table 12.2 is the only budget table showing number of libraries. Fourbuck notes that it’s in one of the smaller groups—and also, significantly, that 58% of libraries in this size group have better funding.

$ per cap

Hours

Personal Computers

25%

Med

75%

25%

Med

75%

$82+

2,912

3,151

3,536

14

19

27

$61-$81

2,626

2,812

3,276

10

14

19

$46-$60

2,743

2,968

3,276

7

13

19

$38-$45

2,444

2,721

2,970

7

10

17

$32-$37

2,488

2,717

2,964

8

19

14

$27-$31

2,366

2,756

3,120

7

12

14

$22-$26

2,080

2,496

2,912

6

8

13

$17-$21

2,028

2,285

2,600

6

8

11

$12-$16

2,040

2,288

2,601

7

10

14

$5-$11

1,848

2,167

2,382

5

7

10

Overall

2,236

2,678

3,000

7

10

15

Table 12.3 Hours and personal computers

Fourbuck is open just slightly longer than most libraries with its funding level—but it’s not in the top quartile. More to the point, libraries with better funding are open a lot more hours, which almost automatically means more service to the community (assuming those hours are added when the community needs them—typically evenings and weekends). Adding another two or three hours per week would put Fourbuck at the median point for libraries of this size, but more would be better.

And look at the other metric! Fourbuck is really short of internet-connected personal computers for public use: Just half of the median for all libraries of its size and in the bottom quarter of libraries even with its mediocre funding. Even most libraries on starvation diets ($5-$11) have more PCs.

$ per cap

Circulation/cap

Benefit Ratio

25%

Med

75%

25%

Med

75%

$82+

12.9

19.6

24.7

2.4

2.8

3.5

$61-$81

9.5

13.4

18.6

2.6

4.0

4.6

$46-$60

7.7

10.0

14.6

2.8

3.7

4.8

$38-$45

7.0

9.2

11.4

3.4

4.1

5.3

$32-$37

6.0

7.4

9.5

3.6

4.5

5.3

$27-$31

4.7

6.3

8.9

3.5

4.7

5.3

$22-$26

4.6

6.0

7.7

3.6

4.6

5.8

$17-$21

3.9

5.1

6.8

4.4

5.3

6.7

$12-$16

2.5

3.5

4.7

4.3

5.4

6.9

$5-$11

1.8

2.6

3.6

4.8

6.3

8.4

Overall

4.2

6.9

10.5

3.5

4.6

5.7

Table 12.4 Circulation per capita and benefit ratios

This is one of those tables that speak to better funding fairly directly—look at the pattern of median circulation per capita as funding changes. Fourbuck is in reasonable shape: Better than median for all libraries its size and well into the top quarter for libraries with its funding. Bump that funding up a little and it would still be nearly in the top quarter—but it would probably do better with more hours. (Ten circulations per capita is a good starting target, and it’s not out of reach for Fourbuck.)

The benefit ratio for Fourbuck is above average for its mediocre funding but not in the top quarter—but benefit ratio is one place where you really don’t want to be at the top.

$ per cap

Attendance/cap

PC use/cap

25%

Med

75%

25%

Med

75%

$82+

0.6

1.0

1.5

1.5

2.7

4.1

$61-$81

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.9

2.0

2.7

$46-$60

0.3

0.5

0.7

1.0

1.6

2.5

$38-$45

0.3

0.4

0.6

0.9

1.4

1.8

$32-$37

0.2

0.4

0.5

0.9

1.3

2.1

$27-$31

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.8

$22-$26

0.1

0.3

0.4

0.6

1.0

1.5

$17-$21

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.5

0.8

1.1

$12-$16

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.7

0.9

$5-$11

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.6

1.0

Overall

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.6

1.1

1.8

Table 12.5 Attendance and PC use per capita

More money, more and better programs, more program attendance—although few of the libraries in this size category, even the well-funded ones, do really well on this metric. At 0.27, rounded to 0.3, Fourbuck is just about average for program attendance, but could do a lot better. (Should this—and some other metrics—show two decimal places?)

As for PC use—well, when the PCs aren’t there, it’s hard for them to be used heavily. Fourbuck’s in the bottom quarter even for its funding level, barely half of the median level.

$ per cap

Reference/cap

Visits/cap

25%

Med

75%

25%

Med

75%

$82+

0.6

1.4

2.2

9.9

13.8

18.3

$61-$81

0.5

0.7

1.4

6.7

10.1

12.5

$46-$60

0.2

0.7

1.0

4.9

6.9

10.2

$38-$45

0.3

0.6

0.9

5.5

6.9

9.0

$32-$37

0.4

0.7

1.0

4.7

6.4

8.7

$27-$31

0.2

0.4

0.7

3.8

4.9

7.5

$22-$26

0.2

0.3

0.6

3.1

3.8

5.7

$17-$21

0.2

0.4

0.7

2.8

3.9

5.2

$12-$16

0.1

0.2

0.6

1.8

2.6

4.3

$5-$11

0.1

0.3

0.7

1.4

2.0

2.7

Overall

0.2

0.5

0.9

3.1

5.4

8.2

Table 12.6 Reference questions and visits per

Here, Fourbuck is in reasonably good shape for its funding. Fourbuck is roughly average for its funding (but below average for its size) on reference, above average for its funding (but below average for its size) on visits per capita. You already know the refrain: Longer hours, more programs, more PCs, more money for fresher materials, and visits will go up along with circulation.

$ per cap

Circulation/hour

Visits/hour

25%

Med

75%

25%

Med

75%

$82+

38.5

57.4

87.0

31.9

38.2

57.4

$61-$81

30.3

47.6

55.4

20.8

29.5

43.1

$46-$60

23.2

34.6

51.0

16.6

21.1

35.8

$38-$45

26.0

32.3

41.1

18.8

24.4

31.9

$32-$37

21.6

25.8

36.0

16.4

25.2

31.5

$27-$31

16.6

24.5

33.6

13.2

18.9

25.8

$22-$26

17.5

24.0

28.2

10.1

15.2

22.4

$17-$21

17.0

21.0

28.9

10.9

16.4

22.8

$12-$16

10.0

14.2

21.9

7.8

12.0

19.4

$5-$11

8.5

11.8

16.6

7.3

9.7

12.3

Overall

16.6

25.8

37.0

11.8

20.3

29.5

Table 12.7 Circulation and visits per hour

Well-funded libraries attract more usage per hour, in addition to being open longer hours. Similarly for visits per hour: The ratio of best-funded median to worst-funded median is 2.6 to one, where it’s 6.9 to one for visits per capita.

That’s the set. I haven’t included correlations or graphs, and it’s not clear how many decimal places should appear. Remember that this set of tables (and similar state-by-state tables, but arranged by size rather than funding) would replace the other tables, not add to them.

I believe this would yield a book that many libraries would find helpful in seeing how they fit in compared to similar libraries and in making their case for better (or at least not worse!) funding. If at least 1% of public libraries would find this useful, I’d go ahead with the revised study using 2010 data. But I need feedback as to whether that’s useful.

The Current Structure

With the preliminary edition, the data line I send back to libraries (on request) is a little different—it doesn’t include the two “per hour” metrics and includes some other derivative metrics that aren’t addressed directly in the book. Let’s see what you (Fourbuck’s director) can learn from the current version—acknowledging that it turns out to be somewhat repetitive.

By the time you’ve read the first chapter, you know that with a 5.39 benefit ratio Fourbuck gets more bang per buck than most libraries. That may be too high (especially in a high-cost state)—it may be a sign that Fourbuck is underfunded (and, at $26.01 per capita, it’s certainly not swimming in money).

2. Library Size Breakdowns

Fourbuck is at the bottom edge of the LSA category with the most libraries: 10,000 to 24,999, with 1,713 libraries among the 8,506 in the book.

Dollars

per cap

Count

Median figures

Circ/cap

Att/cap

Ben/cap

BenR

$5-$11

185

2.74

0.12

$56.53

6.36

$12-$16

196

3.97

0.18

$76.97

5.39

$17-$21

174

5.08

0.26

$97.72

5.11

$22-$26

166

5.54

0.31

$108.45

4.48

$27-$31

165

7.81

0.30

$134.56

4.59

$32-$37

178

8.09

0.38

$146.78

4.20

$38-$45

189

9.52

0.38

$162.43

3.82

$46-$60

195

10.54

0.47

$182.76

3.53

$61-$81

138

12.78

0.53

$234.39

3.31

$82+

127

16.51

0.84

$296.69

2.40

Overall

1,713

7.18

0.32

$132.37

4.32

Table 2.11 Selected per-capita metrics by expenditures per capita

Fourbuck is one of 166 libraries with $22 to $26.99 per capita funding. Among those libraries, Fourbuck has substantially higher circulation than most (8.81 compared to 5.54), but it’s a little low on program attendance (0.27 compared to 0.31). There’s strong evidence that Fourbuck would continue to offer excellent value if it had a dime a day funding ($36.50 per capita) or even more (a buck a week?)—and its circulation and benefits are both close to the dime-a-day level.

3. Library Budget Breakdowns

At $280K, Fourbuck’s total operating expenses are in the $250,000 to $439,000 range along with 979 other libraries. How does Fourbuck compare with other libraries with comparable budgets?

Dollars

per cap

Count

Median figures

Circ/cap

Att/cap

Ben/cap

BenR

$5-$11

80

2.40

0.11

$49.06

5.87

$12-$16

96

3.88

0.19

$73.84

5.16

$17-$21

101

5.55

0.26

$101.75

5.31

$22-$26

111

5.66

0.31

$112.99

4.64

$27-$31

114

7.50

0.32

$135.91

4.65

$32-$37

128

7.78

0.44

$153.33

4.46

$38-$45

125

9.47

0.45

$171.84

4.29

$46-$60

103

11.51

0.62

$204.40

4.06

$61-$81

64

12.14

0.76

$242.11

3.50

$82+

58

21.17

1.14

$404.63

3.62

Overall

980

7.22

0.35

$141.57

4.51

Table 3.18 Median per capita benefit figures

There are 111 libraries with comparable expenditures per capita. Once again, Fourbuck is higher than most for circulation and lower than most for program attendance. Total benefits continue to be on the high side, with a benefit ratio considerably higher than most for this group ($4.64).

Dollars

per cap

Count

Median figures

Hours

Visits

Refer

PCUse

$5-$11

80

2,951

72,978

6,620

17,779

$12-$16

96

2,668

68,142

6,401

13,695

$17-$21

101

2,600

73,394

6,312

14,424

$22-$26

111

2,808

73,694

5,939

13,344

$27-$31

114

2,730

62,272

5,030

12,422

$32-$37

128

2,704

58,819

5,227

13,096

$38-$45

125

2,678

56,990

3,900

10,620

$46-$60

103

2,704

52,388

4,000

10,231

$61-$81

64

2,600

43,056

3,498

9,325

$82+

58

2,486

49,161

3,567

9,516

Overall

980

2,702

60,703

5,201

12,433

Table 3.19 Additional median benefit figures, not per capita

At 2,559 hours (49 hours per week), Fourbuck is open fewer hours than most libraries with this level of funding (54 hours per week): Right there is a case for additional funding that would almost certainly increase community value, especially if the hours added are on weekends and evenings. Fourbuck is well below average for visits and reference use, and not even half of typical PC use: Does it need more public access computers as well as longer hours?

4. Expenditures Per Capita

What about the 954 libraries spending $22 to $26.99 per capita?

LSA

Count

Circ/c

Att/c

Vis/c

PC/c

BenR

0

70

5.6

0.3

4.5

1.5

8.0

1

201

6.5

0.3

4.7

1.2

6.9

2

154

6.3

0.3

4.7

1.1

5.9

5

148

6.5

0.3

4.5

1.1

5.4

10

166

5.5

0.3

4.8

1.0

4.5

25

94

5.8

0.3

4.5

1.0

4.1

50

55

5.9

0.2

4.2

0.9

4.3

100

47

5.7

0.2

3.6

0.8

3.9

250

19

5.9

0.2

4.4

0.9

4.5

Overall

954

6.1

0.3

4.5

1.0

5.3

Table 4.15  Median figures for libraries spending $22 to $26.99 per capita

This basically confirms what we’ve already seen, slicing the libraries differently.

5. State by State

This longest chapter, roughly half the book, breaks down libraries within a state in four different tables. The first table shows that Fourbuck is one of 142 libraries in its size category (out of 740 New York libraries considered in the book).

$ per cap

Count

Circ/c

PC/c

Ben/c

BenR

$82+

148

14.0

2.0

$292

1.0

$61-$81

80

12.3

1.4

$247

3.5

$46-$60

71

11.8

1.8

$257

4.9

$38-$45

64

11.1

1.2

$209

5.3

$32-$37

55

8.8

1.2

$192

5.4

$27-$31

73

7.3

1.1

$157

5.4

$22-$26

74

6.4

0.9

$134

5.6

$17-$21

65

4.9

0.7

$120

6.2

$12-$16

70

3.9

0.6

$93

6.5

$5-$11

40

2.4

0.5

$71

7.3

Overall

740

8.3

1.1

$172

5.1

Table 5.134  New York median per capita metrics by expenditures per capita [LSA column removed)

Compared to all 74 New York libraries with $22 to $26.99 per capita funding, circulation is on the high side and PC usage is on the low side, with overall benefits a little above the median and benefit ratio a little below. Could Fourbuck offer better programs, longer hours, a fresher collection, more PCs and—don’t forget—the high-value services that don’t show up on this simplistic analysis if it had, say, $37 per capita funding (an extra $117,000, roughly)? Based on everything else in this book, it’s fair to suggest that Fourbuck would still give the community at least $4 in benefits for every $1 in expenditures—and probably $5, given the New York picture.

6. Benefit Ratios

Fourbuck is one of 1,299 libraries with benefit ratios between 5.00 and 5.99. That group, 15% of the libraries considered in the book, serves 12% of the people. Fourbuck doesn’t meet any of the suggested robust criteria for library usage—ten circulations per capita, one program attendance per capita, one reference transaction, five visits and two PC uses—but it’s close on circulation.

LSA

Count

Circ/c

Att/c

Ref/c

Vis/c

PC/c

0

117

7.3

0.4

0.4

5.7

1.6

1

244

6.8

0.5

0.4

5.0

1.2

2

208

6.5

0.3

0.4

4.8

1.2

5

238

6.9

0.3

0.4

4.8

1.0

10

247

6.9

0.3

0.5

5.1

0.9

25

119

8.3

0.3

0.6

5.2

0.9

50

51

5.5

0.2

0.5

4.0

0.9

100

47

5.1

0.2

0.6

3.9

1.0

250

28

8.7

0.2

1.0

5.8

1.1

Overall

1,299

6.9

0.3

0.5

5.0

1.1

Table 6.18 Median per capita metrics by size of library

Fourbuck’s a bit above average for circulation for this size library, below on all other service metrics.

$ per cap

Count

Circ/c

Att/c

Ref/c

Vis/c

PC/c

$82+

25

25.7

1.4

1.9

19.3

5.4

$61-$81

60

20.3

0.9

1.2

12.3

2.9

$46-$60

117

15.5

0.7

0.8

8.9

2.0

$38-$45

138

11.8

0.5

0.7

7.7

1.5

$32-$37

148

8.7

0.4

0.6

6.2

1.4

$27-$31

166

8.4

0.4

0.5

5.4

1.1

$22-$26

176

6.4

0.3

0.5

4.6

1.0

$17-$21

166

5.2

0.2

0.4

3.9

0.9

$12-$16

173

3.7

0.2

0.3

2.9

0.7

$5-$11

130

2.1

0.1

0.2

1.6

0.5

Table 6.19 Median per capita metrics by expenses per capita

Summing Up

Appendix A shows something mildly interesting: For libraries with $140 to $164.99 benefit per capita serving 10,000 to 24,999 people, the median per capita circulation is 8.77, nearly identical to Fourbuck’s 8.81.

Fourbuck could use better funding—to stay open longer hours, to add more computers, to add more and better programs, and probably to improve the collection. The library could also almost certainly use funding for less countable improvements: job center, teen area, adult literacy programs, micropublishing support, maybe a makerspace.

Based on the data in this book, there’s strong reason to believe better funding will yield nearly proportional better benefits. The benefit ratio might drop into the $4 range and that might be a good thing—the library’s clearly an excellent steward of public funds.

Worth Doing?

I’ll repeat the offer to send out review PDF copies if you’re wondering whether this might make sense. A review could be email back to me (positive or negative, doesn’t matter) or a post elsewhere. Reviewers can (and probably should) also request their library’s data line.

To date, I’ve received very limited feedback based on an earlier version of this commentary and my other posts, not on the book itself. That feedback is not promising: It suggests I’m wasting my time and libraries’ attention with a result that nobody else can make sense of. If that’s generally true, I’ll shut down the project. On the other hand, if 10% of libraries would find a refined version (most likely based on the last section of this essay) useful, I’d definitely proceed. So far, less than 0.1% of public libraries have shown any interest, and that’s a clear message as well.

Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, Volume 12, Number 6, Whole # 150, ISSN 1534-0937, a journal of libraries, policy, technology and media, is written and produced irregularly by Walt Crawford.

Comments should be sent to waltcrawford@gmail.com. Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large is copyright © 2012 by Walt Crawford: Some rights reserved.

All original material in this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0 or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.

URL: citesandinsights.info/civ12i6.pdf