Lessons From Ohio | LJ Feature Story
How Ohio public libraries have counteracted state funding cuts provides insight into the power of independent governance for libraries across the country Sep 15, 2011Over the last 20 years or so, if the success of an Ohio public library initiative was mentioned at a national library conference, it was not uncommon to hear a groan or witness a roll of the eyes from non-Ohioans. Occasionally, a quick often dismissive comment was uttered such as, “Oh, but that’s Ohio; it’s not real life.”
There was some justification for this reaction given the impact of almost a generation of strong state-level funding for all of Ohio’s public libraries. As a result of that strong state funding, Ohio’s public library community was able to turn nation-leading funding (at a state level) into profession-leading facilities, collections, and services. Objective rankings such as LJ’s Index of Public Libraries (“America’s Star Libraries,” LJ 10/1/10, p. 22–31) or Hennen’s American Public Library Ratings (HAPLR) provide hard evidence of how Ohio state funding has resulted in high per capita usage of local public libraries.
There are, of course, many ways to measure public library effectiveness and success. I am a huge proponent of moving from tracking traditional library outputs to tracking community outcomes that are influenced by the presence of strong libraries. But to do that we must become more skilled at linking our strategies and services to outcomes. In the meantime, we can look at what we can measure and see that Ohio libraries are at the head of the pack. I won’t deny that funding is important to our success (no money = no mission!). However, the lesson from Ohio is that our governance structure has been the key to offsetting state cuts. Also, some of the governance characteristics of our public libraries could be duplicated in other states—even when state funding is not as large a factor as it is in Ohio.
So Ohio public library funding is great, right?
What is not so well known by the national library community is that Ohio has experienced a prolonged freeze and/or decline in state funding for public libraries since 2002—just like many of our counterparts from around the nation that receive local support. Strong state funding fueled a rise in the profile and effectiveness of all Ohio libraries. In turn, when major economic downturns began in a sustained way a decade ago, all of the state’s public libraries were at risk. In short, the statewide funding model that paved the way for greatness over the last 20-plus years is no longer reliable for the future.
Statewide, Ohio public libraries have had to rethink political strategy, capitalize upon the state’s unique library governance structure, and mobilize the citizenry to provide new support at the local level. The Ohio library community has taken advantage of some of the unique governance characteristics of our public libraries to leverage local funding options. These governance options may offer modeling opportunities that could—if used strategically and adapted for local/state political and economic realities—positively shape funding for public libraries in other states as well.
The rise of the Ohio model
I’ve been a public library director at four public libraries in three different states. There are definite advantages to what’s become known as the “Ohio model,” although it is more complex than most non-Ohioans might understand. A little background information is in order to appreciate fully the funding highs and lows—yes, lows—that Ohio public libraries have experienced.
For more than a generation, Ohio has had a reputation for providing nation-leading financial support for public libraries thanks to the vision and leadership of former governor Richard Celeste (now president of Colorado College). In the mid-1980s, Ohio approved a tax-reform plan to eliminate intangibles taxes (a personal property tax on intangible assets such as stocks and bonds)—the principle form of statewide funding for public libraries for many years. In exchange, public libraries were earmarked to receive 6.3 percent of the state income taxes. (For context: income taxes were a major source of state revenue but by no means the only source of state revenue.)
Dubbed the Library and Local Government Support Fund (LLGSF), the legislation guaranteed that all Ohio public libraries would receive at least the same amount of annual revenue from the new LLGSF that was received when intangibles taxes were eliminated. Public library funding was predicted to rise as state income tax rose each—or, one hopes, most—years. In addition, an “equalization formula” provision was part of the new LLGSF. Also derived from income taxes, the equalization formula hoped to use excess revenue (what a concept!) to enhance the funding for the lowest-funded libraries in the state.
LLGSF revenue was distributed to each of the 88 counties in Ohio, a majority of which have more than one public library within their boundaries; most developed locally negotiated funding formula agreements to allocate state funds. Nonetheless, some of the early years of this “new” funding formula were contentious, with some libraries suing or threatening to sue neighboring facilities over perceived inequities. Most formula disputes are long resolved, and only on rare occasions do new concerns arise. Reductions in the basic state funding infrastructure could cause these disagreements to return—time will tell.
The “good old days”
Initially, library funding soared. The earliest years of the new funding model were very kind to public libraries. So much so that by the time an economic downturn occurred in the early 1990s, state legislators reduced the public library earmark income tax revenue from 6.3 percent to 5.7 percent—a move they felt was justified because many libraries had built up substantial carryover fund balances. Still, funding remained strong particularly in the “high-tech” (what we thought was “high tech”) and pre-Y2K period leading up to the current millennium. How strong? Very strong—for three successive years in the late 1990s, state funding for public libraries increased by double digits. Don’t let anyone fool you—there really were “good old days”!
This period of strong state funding occurred before Ohio instituted term limits for state legislators. The long-tenured General Assembly of Ohio state government (state representatives and senators) had the institutional history and policy understanding that the state funding plan for public libraries was constructed to see them through the ebb and flow of the business cycle. At the top of the cycle, libraries could not only cover annual operating costs, they could accumulate and carry over excess funds in order to withstand economic troughs. In lean years, libraries could draw upon such fund balance as “rainy day funds” to meet “down year” operating needs.
The Ohio Revised Code also enabled public libraries to use state funding for all types of expenditures: operating, staff, technology, collections, and even facilities. While many states offer (or have offered) statewide support for public libraries, no other state provided almost all operating funds for all independent public libraries. (A noted exception is Hawaii’s public libraries, which are all part of the Hawaii State Public Library System, i.e., funding is distributed to a single governmental entity rather than a collection of local independent libraries.)
The overhaul of the Ohio model
Many aspects of the Ohio funding compact changed in subsequent years as term limits took hold (state policy–level institutional knowledge waned) and state revenue dipped, was frozen, and then unfortunately crashed from 2009 through present day. Changing tax policy also caused further reexamination of the LLGSF and its viability for long-term stability. Granted, with the great recession of 2008, the notion of long-term funding stability seems like an improbability in these “new normal” times. Nonetheless, the Ohio Library Council (OLC), our very effective statewide professional organization, spearheaded a strategic and proactive policy to change the LLGSF when a (phased) five-year plan was enacted by our General Assembly to reduce state income tax collection by 21 percent. It was widely anticipated that LLGSF revenue—indexed to income tax only—would also drop 21 percent.
In 2008, OLC and member libraries convinced the General Assembly to replace the LLGSF with a new Public Library Fund (PLF). The PLF indexed public library funding to 2.22 percent of all state tax revenue, not solely income tax. Champagne toasts were short-lived as the same General Assembly reduced the PLF allocation to 1.97 percent of tax revenue in 2009. With further reductions and shifting of expenditures, the next biennium state budget (July 2011 through June 2013) is projected to fund public libraries with approximately 1.67 percent of the state’s total tax revenue.
As the chart on this page illustrates, the trajectory for state support of Ohio public libraries has dramatically turned. After years of economic strength, Ohio, like many states, has fallen on tough economic times. Projections for 2011 indicate that public libraries will receive approximately the same level of funding as in 1997—the same as 14 years ago!
Setting loose 251 independent entities
Ohio’s state funding difficulties have seemed, at times, insurmountable. However, there are unique organizational and legal characteristics of Ohio’s public libraries that have been used to lessen the impact of state funding losses. These characteristics provide modeling opportunities for other states—and possible ways for local public libraries to play to their strengths.
First, many may not realize that all 251 public libraries in Ohio are independent entities—they are independently governed by their respective library boards. The six publicly funded types of libraries are school district, county district, municipal, county, township, and association. The names of the governmental libraries indicate the entity that 1) formed the library, 2) serves as the appointing authority for the trustees, and 3) serves as the taxing authority for each of the five governmental types of libraries. (Association libraries are unique from the other governmental forms of public libraries in Ohio. While a bit more complicated, they technically enjoy and benefit from the same independent governance structure.)
In 2004, Saul Amdursky articulated many of the benefits of greater independence for libraries (“The Case for Consolidation,” LJ 2/1/04, p. 38–40). From my perspective, the obvious benefits include independent institutional freedom from the larger political subdivision agenda that may not always be consistent with the library agenda (e.g., locating new branches where the library believes customers will be best served); authority and autonomy to make decisions that the library deems to be in the best interests of customers (e.g., try getting a city council to buy-in to an expanded marketing staff!); and self-determination and speed in responding to strategic opportunities in a timely fashion.
Even with the so-called risks of independent governance that Amdursky mentioned (e.g., ultimate patron satisfaction surveys—the tax levy; additional support service functions like human resources and IT services typically performed by a parent-government entity such as a city or county, etc.), the benefits can be substantial. (I would also separate “independent governance” from “the case for consolidation” that Amdursky links and is much more controversial for the library community.) They have proven to be just so in Ohio, particularly over the last couple of years.
The biggest benefit
In Ohio, the principal benefit from independent governance beyond those mentioned is the ability for public libraries to supplement state funding with local operating levies. Most important, the Ohio Revised Code stipulates that once the public library Board of Trustees has voted (two-thirds margin needed) to place a levy issue on the ballot, the appointing/taxing authority shall—not may—adopt a resolution to place the issue before the electors of the library’s political subdivision. In essence, public library boards have de facto/direct authority to place levy and bond issues on the ballot. This combination of independent governance and permissive levy/ballot authorization has formed the basis for Ohio libraries’ current strategy to counteract reduced state funding.
Other states like Missouri and Kentucky may have a large number of independent public library districts, but not state has the combination of all libraries with independent governance and the permissive language to set tax rates for voter consideration. Indiana’s public libraries are municipal corporations with independent governance, but they do not have tax authority to go directly to the voters for operating levy referenda.
Through the middle of the last decade, fewer than 25 percent of Ohio’s public libraries had supplemented state funding with local levy support. The remaining number relied solely on state funding. In just the last five to seven years, that number has exploded—today almost 65 percent have levy support in addition to state funding.
According to various reports and analysis commissioned by OLC, the success rates of library levies have actually increased during the great recession that began in 2008. From 1980 to 2007, the success rate of levies was approximately 70 percent (see PDF at ow.ly/6bCcl). Over the last three years, with many, many more libraries submitting levy questions to their respective local electorate, the success rate has hovered at 80 percent! This is better than LJ’s reported national success rate for public library operating levies (“Library Referenda 2010: Vote of Confidence,” LJ 4/1/11, p. 46–51).
Clearly, Ohio libraries have a phenomenal success rate for levy approval when given the opportunity to ask voters directly for support (see www.olc.org/gr_Levies.asp). The “Ohio advantage” is illuminated in LJ’s decade-long analysis of public library levies. From 2001 through 2008, the number of public libraries placing issues on the ballot was 53. In 2009, the number grew to 123, and it ballooned to 220 libraries in 2010. Of the 220 operating levies placed on the ballot nationally in 2010, 65—30 percent—were from Ohio public libraries.
Haves and have nots persist
One major drawback in the movement toward local levies in Ohio, even with the existence of favorable governance characteristics, is that some Ohio communities lack either (or both) the critical mass of local property values, or the voter resolve and/or community support to pass a local library levy. Even in our local county, where six independent libraries provide top-notch service, one library made seven attempts to pass its first levy before finally being successful in November 2010. Another local library passed a levy a few years ago upon the first try—by a margin of 80 percent favorable. These examples parallel voter attitudes and voting patterns in local school districts in Ohio and nationwide.
Local public library levies in Ohio were once viewed as “supplemental” funding—above and beyond the base funding provided by the State of Ohio. Today, 35 percent of our public library districts derive the majority of their funding from local levies. This means that libraries unable to pass local levies have truly become marginalized, creating a landscape of “haves and have nots” not seen since the mid 1980s, just after the state funding model was adopted.
Some Ohio library leaders also worry that local levy success will fuel even more cuts at the state level. It’s a legitimate concern when state politicians are making major reductions in other line items or eliminating programs in their entirety. Given the choice, Ohio libraries would have preferred to maintain robust state funding—changing state policy/philosophy has necessitated the move to local levy funding.
It’s plausible to opine that the strength of state funding over 20 years has engendered such support for, use of, and reverence for Ohio’s public libraries, that the state funding cuts of the last decade actually propelled local levies to the highest level of success in the history of Ohio. And, true enough, we had our successes to point to when describing what could be lost. Library supporters overwhelmed members of our general assembly when additional 30 percent decreases were recommended in 2009 (beyond the reduction caused from lower state revenue—indexed for the PLF). It took just two days for our customers to send almost 40,000 emails to our former governor when he proposed that action. Members of the General Assembly faced a similar onslaught, and the cuts were ultimately adjusted to 11 percent.
Logistically, libraries in other states without the governance structure and administrative authority to submit ballot questions directly to their electorate are subject to the political priorities of their respective parent government. Ohio libraries bypass the political maze and divisive funding proceedings typically found in city council/county commission deliberations. Keep in mind that with the authority to place levies on the ballot, libraries must also be politically savvy, able to create an emotional connection to voters, AND raise the funds for political campaigns.
Why we are all Ohio
So what are the national lessons from Ohio’s experiences? Clearly, independent governance, a strong united lobbying effort, and permissive levy submission authority are assets. Admittedly, obtaining independent status is not easy, as public libraries in Louisville, KY, Jefferson County, CO, and Denver have realized. Yet it is possible, since as of 2004, according to Amdursky, 17 states had given permission for local public libraries to be taxing authorities. A notable success story was the transformation of the Fort Collins Public Library, CO, to the Poudre River Library District in 2006. The success of the many independent library districts in suburban Chicago is a regional example of why it is worth the effort to pursue independent governance for public libraries. Many of the independent district libraries in this region boast per capita support well in excess of $100.
The Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) reports the percentage of libraries in each state that are districts, and while technically accurate, it is difficult to capture library governance nuance in a single spreadsheet. While not east to obtain, more robust and descriptive reporting of governance models could be very useful to local public library groups striving for independent governance and to state associations attempting to influence and promote the creation of more favorable governance rules for public libraries in all states.
Advocacy and lobbying—telling our story—must always be a priority. There are superb advocacy examples in our profession, but sadly, too many public library advocacy efforts are either not effective, or nonexistent. (Library boards are known for creating or maintaining status quo committees to oversee operational issues. In my opinion, these are not nearly as important as a board “advocacy committee.”) Nothing serves to unite a public library community like a threat to statewide funding when every library will be substantially impacted by cuts.
Ohio has made advocacy and lobbying a priority for years through our state association, and it has paid dividends at both the state and local level. Our statewide efforts have yielded local benefits. Paying attention to, and constantly striving to improve administrative and governance language can be a long and arduous task, but as the Ohio example illustrates, the benefits can be enormous. And they can be modified and restructured when political and economic realities change.
State public opinion surveys repeatedly find that Ohio libraries rank as one of the state’s greatest public assets and, most important, an asset that should be one of the last to receive funding cuts (see pdf of “The Ohio Poll” by the University of Cincinnati). This sentiment is the direct result of years of successful advocacy and adaptation to evolving political landscapes. The next generation of Ohio library leaders is poised to maintain this legacy by capitalizing on our governance structure, our well-oiled statewide network, and our ability to adapt to meet the challenges of the new economy.
Fortunately, our profession freely shares our success stories and best practices. Together, we can learn from one another, forge ahead to meet our unique challenges, and position public libraries for even greater viability.
| Author Information |
| Patrick Losinski is Executive Director of the Columbus Metropolitan Library, OH, LJ's 2010 Library of the Year |
SAVE THE DATE: December 5-6, 2011
Join LJ for the third annual Directors’ Summit to be held at Columbus Metropolitan Library, headed by Executive Director Patrick Losinski. Following up on previous summits on fundraising and marketing, this event will address how libraries can garner support by moving from traditional library statistics like circulation and visits to outcome-based or evidence-based data.
What are the outcomes that a community values? How do we determine those goals and develop needed services? What is the impact the library has on those who use it? How do we measure impact? Ultimately, how do libraries improve the lives of users and communities and tell their stories in ways that will motivate public funding and support as well as private fundraising?
The subject is one Losinski refers to in his article “Lessons from Ohio,” above: “We must become more skilled at linking our strategies and services to [community] outcomes,” he says. As with previous summits, we’ll look at how other fields have moved from outputs to outcomes, with cases studies from hospitals and higher ed; we’ll have breakouts with experts who can help us implement the process; and we’ll have keynotes from nonlibrarians like Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
