Libraries are in trouble, but few people seem to be talking about it. In his June 2024 article "The Quiet Crisis Facing U.S. Public Libraries," Tim Coates gives a quick summary of the situation, revealing that the number of library visits has not only not returned to pre-pandemic levels, but also that this number has been declining for over a decade:
"According to most recent data from the Institute of Museum and Library services annual Public Library Survey, released earlier this month, gate counts at U.S. public libraries (that is, in-person visits) rose in 2022 over 2021. Overall, however, physical library visits—which have been in a troubling decline for more than a decade—remain dramatically lower than before the pandemic. IMLS counted about 671 million physical visits in 2022 vs. roughly 1.25 billion in 2019, the year before the pandemic shutdowns. And over the last decade, the average number of library visits per user per year has fallen by nearly half (49.1%)."
But Tim Coates thinks there is an answer. It is possible that the decline in library visitors is related to the decline in the number of print books held in libraries. I can certainly tell that my library seems to have weeded half their collection. (Each shelf is only 1/4 to 1/2 full.) Additionally, I read my library's annual report--typically posted on each library's website--and it seems that my library system admits to stocking below the number of books recommended (per square foot) by the state. But Coates has the numbers to back up library patrons' anecdotal evidence:
"Also of concern, the IMLS data show a continuing drop in the number of print books held in U.S. library collections. In 2022 there were 162 million fewer books on U.S. library shelves than in 2010, a roughly 20% decline."
Possibly the drop in books is related trend a few years ago to empty library shelves to 1/3 to 1/2 full to combat "browsing fatigue." The idea is that fewer books in the collection will mean circulation goes up because patrons do not feel overwhelmed by rows of crammed bookshelves. And they have more space to place front-facing titles in the manner of bookstores. Though since wait times tend to be very high on new books and bestsellers, I wonder if some libraries could not invest in getting more copies of those. I admit not everyone is looking for an eight-year-old midlist title and I accept that libraries do not want to be seen as "book repositories" for classics and older works. Yet wouldn't patrons be happier if they didn't have to wait three months for a popular title?
While libraries have been crying, "More than books!" for years in an effort to get more people in the door, Coates argues that library visitors are not actually there for the programs and other services. This may seem counterintuitive to people used to touting the magnificence of how the library can perform all one's needs these days--from acting as a soup kitchen to providing a notary to doing passports. But he has the numbers to back this assertion up, as well.
In the latest Freckle report (released in June 2024 but reporting numbers from 2022), Coates reveals that ~80% of respondents reported using the public library to read or borrow books. Other options like seeking information, attending an event or a program, or even using WiFi, using a printer, or borrowing a movie are all reported as under 10% on the bar graph. Even if we consider that the pandemic might have affected these numbers (for instance, maybe people felt comfortable borrowing books curbside but not attending programs, or maybe they stopped borrowing movies because they all started paying for streaming services during lockdowns), the data suggests that the public mostly uses libraries to borrow books--despite libraries' best efforts to market their myriad non-book services.
Of course, the door count cannot be the only metric of a library's success. Nor can numbers. Many libraries started offering increased digital options during the pandemic, which means that they could very well be serving patrons who now seldom have the need to set foot in a library building. Additionally, even if very few people attend library programs, those programs might still have an important impact. Even if only eight people attend a resume writing workshop, for instance, that could mean eight people now have a job, thanks to the library. A bar graph cannot measure a success like that.
Still, I find Coates' numbers intriguing because it has long been my personal belief that the public largely associates libraries with books and that people go to the library primarily for books. Movies and books with libraries almost all depict libraries as either 1) repositories of archives for research or 2) magical wonderlands for readers. They do not typically note that the protagonist likes to do yoga there or that it is open mic night. And of all the people I know who go to the library, not one has ever said they have attended a program there (except for the few people I've dragged along with me). Indeed, many programs require registration, so they are maxing out at 15-20 people, anyway. And programs are not run all day, while books certainly are available all day. Of course more people check out books than go to programs.
When I talk about libraries on the blog, the number one reason book bloggers give for not going to the library more is that their library does not have the books they want. The collection is too small. Their libraries are not getting enough new books or bestsellers. They find it easier to just buy the books. These are avid readers--the type of person one would likely think would be the Ideal Library Patron--but they don't go to the library because it is not meeting their needs. Their book needs.
Although I know many libraries badly want to be seen as more than books, I have yet to hear anyone earnestly explain that they gave up on the library because it needs a bigger concert series or a karate club. People who want concerts or karate that badly tend to become members of a concert hall or a karate studio. Other places are meeting their non-book needs because they do those things more regularly than a library does. On the other hand, there are no other organizations that routinely provide free, equitable access to books. Books are still the core of the library's services and no doubt the first thing that comes to mind when one says the word "library."
This has become a controversial take, but I do firmly believe that libraries are still all about the books--despite the evident embarrassment some libraries feel about that. But maybe there is no need for embarrassment at all. Maybe the news that print is dead and reading passe has been false all along. The numbers here seem to suggest that many library goers agree--and that they really, really want books. So maybe it's worth a try. What would happen in libraries spent more on books? Would more readers return to the library? Would foot traffic increase? We may never know because very few library leaders seem worried about this trend. But it's worth consideration.
Do you think libraries should focus more on books? Or do you love the other services libraries provide?
No comments:
Post a Comment