 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||
Lieutenant Governor Guest of Honour at Banff Public Library
Banff's Very Public Library
Librarians' Survey
Home Page
LIBRARIANS' VIEWS ON MEMBERSHIP FEES IN ALBERTA
Survey conducted by Banff Public Library, Summer 2001Principal Investigator: Shelley Mardiros
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Table 1 Funding derived from membership fees (as a percentage of total revenue)
- Table 2 Fee Structure
- Table 3 Variations in annual fee for adult membership (n=59)
- Table 4 Proportion of population served who are library members
- Table 5 Librarians' views on membership fees
- Table 6 Preferred method of compensation for lost membership fee revenue (n=51)
- Discussion
- Table 7 Self-reported membership revenue divided by # of members reported
- Table 8 Self-reported membership revenue divided by population served
- Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Appendix 1 - SURVEY ON MEMBERSHIP FEE REVENUE IN ALBERTA PUBLIC LIBRARIES
- Appendix 2
Abstract
Alberta is the only place in North America where the practice of charging
local residents an annual fee to belong to their public library is nearly
universal. (Public libraries elsewhere in NA are free to local residents,
except in Quebec, where about half of public libraries charge local residents
an annual membership fee.)
We undertook this survey to see whether head librarians in Alberta are
in favour of eliminating membership fees for local residents if replacement
funding is made available, and to examine what mechanism of replacement
funding would be most acceptable. We sent the survey to head librarians
at libraries that met these criteria: serving a population of greater
than 1000, employing at least 1 FTE staff, not school-based. For libraries
with multiple branches, we sent the survey to the library director.
We sent surveys to 85 eligible libraries and received 60 responses, for
a response rate of 70.5%. 91.7% of head librarians are in favour of eliminating
membership fees for local residents if replacement funding is provided.
64.7% of respondents favour an increase in the provincial per capita operating
grant to libraries to compensate for the elimination of local membership
fees. 7.8% supported a grant-per-member, and 7.8% supported direct replacement
of lost revenue.
31.6% of respondents added supplementary unsolicited comments, indicating
their concern with chronic underfunding from the province with respect
to one or more of the following issues: unrecognized population growth;
increased cost of materials, services and salaries; increased technological
costs.
Conclusion: 96.7% of libraries charge an annual membership fee to local
residents. Over 90% of head librarians favour the elimination of membership
fees for local residents if replacement funding is made available, with
most preferring an increase in the per capita grant as the mechanism for
compensating lost revenue. There is also widespread concern among librarians
about chronic underfunding of libraries.
<top>
Introduction
On January 1st, 2000, Banff Public Library (BPL) eliminated library membership
fees for local residents for the first time in the library's history.
In the first year of free membership, library enrollment increased by
40%. By the second year, Banff Town Council approved an increase in the
library's budget to replace the revenue no longer collected through membership
fees.
Banff's initiative, dubbed "Reaching Readers", brought the attention of
the Alberta library community to the fact that Alberta is one of only
two provinces where local residents are charged a fee to belong to their
public library. The other province is Quebec, where about half the public
libraries charge a fee and half do not. In Alberta, the practice is nearly
universal.
While many in the library community applauded the Banff initiative, some
Alberta library boards do not support the notion of free access to the
public library, and others fear that attention to the membership fee issue
will detract from the library community's efforts to increase provincial
funding for basic services in public libraries, which was reduced in 1994
and hasn't been increased since then.
We undertook the present study to determine whether head librarians in
Alberta are in favour of eliminating membership fees if replacement funding
were available.
We also wanted to find out what mechanism librarians favoured for replacing
membership fees if the province provides funding for that purpose, and
we wanted to gather objective information that would be useful in assessing
the suitability of various mechanisms for replacing fees.
<top>
Methods
A one-page 7-question survey (see Appendix 1)
was sent by fax or e-mail to Alberta public libraries that serve a population
of 1,000 or more. School-based libraries and libraries employing less
than one full-time equivalent staff member were not included in the study.
In cases of libraries with multiple branches, such as Edmonton and Calgary
Public Libraries, the survey was sent to the library director.
We asked that the head librarian complete the survey and return it by
fax or e-mail. A reminder phone call was made to libraries that did not
respond within 2 weeks.
The data were collected and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
The data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel's built-in statistical package.
Statistical significance was determined using a one-tailed Student's T-test.
<top>
Results
Of 85 surveys sent to eligible libraries, 60 were returned, for a response
rate of 70.5%. We received a wide variety of answers to questions about
the annual fee for library membership, fee structure, the significance
of membership fee revenue to the library's budget, and the proportion
of each library's community that were members of the library. (Tables
1 to 4)
Libraries that charge a membership fee = 58/60
(96.7%)
|
The libraries were alike in two respects: 58 of the 60 (96.7%) responding libraries do charge local residents an annual membership fee, and 55 of 60 (91.7%) responding librarians are in favour of eliminating the membership fee for local residents if replacement funding were available. (Tables 2 and 5)
If replacement funding were available, would you be in favour of eliminating the membership fee for local residents?
|
When asked what mechanism of provincial funding they would favour in order to compensate libraries for lost membership revenue if membership fees were eliminated, 64.7% of respondents favoured an increase in the per capita operating grant. (Table 6)
Thirty librarians suggested a sum to which the per capita grant (currently $4.03) should be increased to compensate libraries for lost membership revenue. The suggested per capita grant ranged from $5 to $10, and averaged $6.35. One respondent suggested that the per capita increase should equal the average membership fee revenue per capita. A number of librarians pointed out that additional per capita increases were necessary to correct chronic underfunding.
<top>
Discussion
The overwhelming majority (91.7%) of responding librarians are in favour of eliminating membership fees if replacement funding is provided. The replacement of revenue is a key condition for many, perhaps all, of the respondents. Even though the question specified "if replacement funding were available", several respondents qualified their answer with a restatement or expansion of the condition. One respondent added "if funding were available on an on-going basis". Another stated: "we need more than just replacement money. If we substantially increase our membership, which will likely happen if we eliminate the fee, our resources will be further stretched", an observation that was shared by several others. Another answered "yes, but only if it did not jeopardize an increase in funding for everything else." Three librarians replied "no" without amplification. One said "no, I think they can pay a small fee for all the service they receive". One respondent did not provide her own view, but noted that her board was "not necessarily in favour of eliminating the fee." Most librarians simply replied "yes" or "yes!"
The problem of how to replace membership fees through provincial funding is more complicated. Reports in the media over recent months have suggested that an increase of 3 million dollars in provincial library funding would be adequate to replace membership fees.
The 1.5 million dollars in membership fee revenue reported by participants in this study does not include one of the major library systems in Alberta (from whom a reply was not received). Other sources list the membership revenue to this major system at 1.12 million dollars annually. Taken together, and considering unreported revenue from the few other libraries that did not respond or were not eligible, our data suggest that the total revenue that Alberta libraries raise annually through membership fees is indeed in the vicinity of 3 million dollars.
However, simply eliminating membership fees, then distributing provincial funds to libraries to directly replace the revenue that each library previously raised through membership fees, may not be the fairest mechanism for fee replacement. This "direct replacement" method will reward those libraries that collected the most fee revenue from members, which may turn out to be libraries in the most affluent communities, where members can afford higher fees. The two non-fee-charging libraries, as well as libraries that tried to keep fees low, or that distributed a high proportion of free memberships would, in a sense, be penalized by the "direct replacement" method. Moreover, this method doesn't account for the increased costs of serving an increased membership which is likely to result from the elimination of fees.
When asked which mechanism of provincial funding to replace membership revenue they would favour, only 7.8% of respondents to our survey chose direct replacement.
One alternate mechanism for funding is to "introduce a per-member grant to go to individual libraries, based on the number of local residents who belong to the library, adjusted annually." While this "grant per member" method addresses the issue of increased membership, and also accounts for increases over time, it is not without problems.
An obvious problem is evident to anyone who carefully studies the Public Library Statistics report produced annually by Alberta Community Development: there does not appear to be a common method of determining membership that is used by all libraries in the province. In our survey, we attempted to elicit consistent statistics on membership by asking question #4: "How many individuals acquired or renewed membership in your library during the year 2000?" However, an analysis of survey answers to questions #1 (revenue), #3 (fee structure), and #4 (members) reveals inconsistencies in the way some libraries reported their statistics. Some libraries reported a higher number of members than is reflected in their revenue, suggesting that either a high number of free memberships is provided, or perhaps unrenewed members are included on the membership role. One library reported membership numbers that are too low to account for the revenue it reported from membership fees. A number of libraries that offer family rates can't accurately report how many individuals are cardholders. Seven libraries did not report membership figures at all. One librarian specifically noted that her library's conversion to Dynix during 2000 resulted in membership figures that "do not make much sense compared to our previous system". The limitations of the Dynix online catalogue are familiar to the Banff Public Library: the program does not distinguish between active and expired memberships. In order to accurately track the effect of fee elimination on its membership enrollment, BPL found it necessary to keep a manual count of its membership statistics after converting to Dynix in April, 2000.
Table 7 summarizes an analysis of the statistics reported by the 53 librarians who answered both question #1 (membership fee revenue) and #4 (number of members). The number of members reported for each library was divided into the membership revenue reported for that library.
While only 25% of libraries reported membership revenue of less than $3.73 per member, this group of libraries represents 76.5% of reported library members. The second quartile of libraries, with reported revenue of between $3.73 and $5.01 per member, represents 10% of library members, while the third quartile represents 8% of members, and the quartile reporting the highest per-member income represents only 5.8% of library members.
At first glance, it may seem that a replacement grant of $3.73 per member (the average per-member revenue) would be fair, but it is important to note that such a sum would be insufficient to replace the lost revenue experienced by 75% of libraries, even if those libraries represent only 23.5% of library members. Moreover, the problem of accurately and consistently tracking individual enrollment in libraries would have to be addressed and resolved. In our survey, only 7.8% of respondents favoured the grant-per-member method of compensation.
Nearly 65% of those who answered question #7 would prefer that loss of membership fee revenue be compensated by increasing the provincial per capita grant (which currently stands at $4.03). A number of survey respondents added notes and, in two cases, letters, indicating that an increase in provincial funding is necessary to address increased technological costs, increased population, and higher costs of living that have increasingly stretched library budgets since 1986, when the per capita grant was $4.04 -- 1¢ more than in 2001. Some respondents explicitly stated that the per capita increase they suggested represented only the increase needed to compensate for lost membership fee revenue, while others seemed to include in their suggested per capita rate an additional increase to address other funding shortfalls. Answers to this portion of the question are therefore difficult to interpret.
Two respondents suggested that the per capita increase to compensate for membership revenue loss should reflect the average per capita membership revenue that libraries currently collect. Our analysis shows that libraries collected, on average, $1.54 in membership revenue per capita served. (The population a library serves includes its surrounding community, not simply library members.)
Table 8 summarizes an analysis of the statistics reported by the 57 librarians who answered both question #1 (membership fee revenue) and #5 (population served). The population of the area that each library serves was divided into the membership revenue reported for that library.
If the province were to raise the per capita library services grant by $1.54 to compensate for eliminating membership fees (and not including a per capita increase to address increased library costs since 1986), then 52% of libraries would be fully compensated for the loss of membership revenue, and 68% of libraries, representing 92% of the population served by reporting libraries, would be compensated within $1,000 of lost revenue. If the province raised the per capita grant to $1.86, then 75% of libraries, representing 95% of the population served, would be fully compensated for loss of membership fee revenue.
According to the most recent statistics published by Alberta Community Development, the total Alberta population served by public libraries is 2,709,522. A per capita increase of $1.54 to compensate for the elimination of membership fees would cost the province only 4.1 million dollars. A per capita increase of $1.86 would cost a little over 5 million dollars.
Although our survey did not address library funding issues other than membership fees, nearly one-third of survey respondents made reference to the problem of chronic underfunding from the province. They were particularly concerned that population figures be annually updated, and that the per capita grant - which, at $4.03, is the same as it was in 1987 - be adjusted to reflect year 2001 costs. Not only has the cost of salaries, books, and other materials and services increased dramatically since 1987, but the costs of providing electronic information are geometrically higher.
If the province were to raise the per capita funding to $7.75 ($1.86 for membership fee elimination and a matching amount to address increased library costs), as well as increase per capita funding to regional library systems, and support access to new forms of electronic information, the total cost might approach 14 million dollars, double the current provincial budget for libraries. In the context of Alberta's prosperity, many library supporters would consider the sum a much-warranted investment in Alberta's future, given the incalculable value of literacy and access to knowledge and information that public libraries facilitate.
In this survey, we didn't ask what percentage of the libraries' budgets are funded through tax dollars, but statistics available elsewhere confirm that the bulk of library support comes from municipal tax dollars, while a lesser amount comes from the province. In this survey, membership fees account for an average of only 6.9% of operating revenue. Other non-tax revenue, such as fines and donations, contribute a similarly small proportion of the budget. According to the statistics reported in our survey, the average rate of enrollment in libraries in Alberta is 30.9%; thus, while Albertans are providing the bulk of funding to libraries through their municipal and provincial taxes, two-thirds of tax-payers do not enjoying borrowing privileges at their local public library.
<top>
Conclusion
Two results were clear from this survey. Nearly every library in Alberta charges local residents an annual fee for library membership, and over 90% of librarians responding to our survey would abolish that fee if funding permitted.
A majority of respondents favoured an increase in the per capita operating grant as a mechanism for compensating libraries for lost revenue if library membership fees are eliminated. According to the revenue and population statistics reported by respondents, an increase of $1.86 per capita would be sufficient to compensate for revenue lost by 75% of libraries, representing 95% of the population served by public libraries.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Max Hamon for assisting with data collection and data entry, and to Michael Shuster for assistance with statistical analysis.
Appendix 1
SURVEY ON MEMBERSHIP FEE REVENUE IN ALBERTA PUBLIC LIBRARIES
1.) How much revenue did your library raise through membership fees (not including non-resident fees) in the year 2000?
2.) What percentage of your total operating revenue do membership fees (as reported in question 1) represent?
3.) What was your year 2000 membership fee structure for local residents? (e.g. adult $5.00; seniors and youths $3.00; children under 12 free)
4.) How many individuals acquired or renewed membership in your library during the year 2000?
5.) What was the population of the area served by your library in 2000? (and what is your source for this population figure? e.g. 1996 Canada census, 2000 town census, etc.)
6.) If replacement funding were available, would you be in favour of eliminating the membership fee for local residents?
7.) What mechanism of increased provincial funding would you favour to compensate libraries for lost membership revenue if membership fees were eliminated?
___ Increase per capita operating grant (currently $4.03. Increase to how much?)
___ Introduce a per member grant to go to individual libraries, based on the number of local residents who belong to the library, adjusted annually. (how much?)
___ Directly replace lost revenue based on the local membership fee revenue raised by each library prior to the library's elimination of membership fees?
____ Other (specify:)
____ Don't know.
8.) Name of library___________________________________
9.) Name of head librarian answering survey__________________________
<top>
Appendix 2
Questionnaires were sent in error to 3 school libraries and to 19 libraries with less than 1 FTE staff. Their responses to the principal questions were not significantly different from those libraries that were included in the study though the response rate itself was significantly lower:
Comparison of responses by eligible and ineligible libraries |
|||
Ineligible libraries |
Eligible Libraries |
P |
|
Response rate |
47.4% |
70.6% |
0.028 |
Proportion of members to population served |
27.4% |
30.87% |
0.220 (NS) |
Funding derived from membership as a percentage of total budget (average) |
7% |
6.95% |
0.487 (NS) |
Charge for adult membership |
$8.67 |
$10.35 |
0.140 (NS) |
In favour of eliminating membership fee |
100% |
91.7% |
0.188 (NS) |
<top>
