In assessing the efficiency of library funding distribution in Lancaster County, the Libraries Task Force recently solicited a survey of 15 library directors from throughout the county. The survey’s objective was to gauge the need for changes in the Library System’s central budget. Results of the survey reflected a common perception that the System needs to minimize administrative overhead spending while maximizing dollars spent on direct services.
Survey responses were recorded anonymously.
When asked about the System’s Administrative Budget of $302,324, 57.1% of respondents said that the amount should be decreased while 42.9% said that it should remain the same. “Salaries should be evaluated in light of local library and average resident’s salary levels,” one director asserted, “Decreases are appropriate, especially in this budget situation.”
Another director suggested that “their rent is too high—[they] need to move to less luxurious quarters.”
The strongest consensus came regarding the $271,408 Business Information Services Budget, of which 92.9% of respondents called for a decrease. “Eliminate expensive little-used databases,” One director recommended, “Eliminate or charge for business presentations around [the county]. This activity provides no benefit to my library’s service area.”
71.4% of those surveyed said that the $579,131 Collection Development & Technical Services Budget should be decreased. One respondent called for the “elimination of 3 staff positions to reflect the dramatic decrease in libraries’ collection budgets.”
The $762,541 Information Technology Budget and the $150,579 Youth Services Budget were both reviewed favorably by most respondents. 71.4% said that the IT Budget should remain the same. Regarding Youth Services, 28.6% said that funding should be increased, 57.1% said it should remain the same, and only 14.3% said that the amount should be reduced.
The $181,472 Special Services Budget—which covers the bookmobile and programs at the prison and Youth Intervention Center—received a mixed response. 42.9% said it should remain, 35.7% said it should decrease, and 21.4% said it should increase. One director advised that the bookmobile program be “re-evaluated,” noting that “demand seems to be dropping.” Another director, however, asserted that “the bookmobile should have a bigger budget to include materials and increased hours.”
An e-mail message from Susan Hauer, representing the views of the System’s management team, responded to the survey with the following statement:
The Library System was and is a good strategy for providing centralized services for Lancaster County. The economy of scale that is offered through system wide services such as collection purchasing, a union catalog for resources sharing, network and telecommunications capabilities and many other services is proven to be efficient and effective. The System will continue to research efficiencies in order to remain committed to excellence in countywide library services.
The message also noted that individual suggestions “will be taken under consideration.”
