No, Libraries Are Not Obsolete–But They Could Be

When I first started book blogging, many bloggers were excited about the public library. They would share their favorite resources, talk about how much they appreciated library services, and generally spread library love. Many bloggers even seemed to be library workers. Over the years, however, I have seen enthusiasm for public libraries diminish. Often online narratives stress only the limitations of library services, or gloss over libraries as something we all “know about already” and should not talk up too much. Worse, however, I have even met library workers who seem discouraged about the state of public libraries.

Such subdued responses to the public library seem particularly odd in the book blogosphere, since so many book also tend to be library lovers. And it also seems odd when considered in light of the much-lauded 2019 Gallup survey showing that more Americans visited the library each year than visited the movies, sporting events, museums, and national parks. So I was intrigued when I read that one report actually contradicted the narrative that libraries are doing well, and suggested instead that library visits have been declining.

In April 2020, Publishers Weekly interviewed Tim Coates, author of the 2020 Freckle Report, which found a 25% decrease in the use of library services since 2011. In the interview, Coates mentions that the 2019 Gallup poll results did not match the statistics provided by the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS); Gallup reported people visiting libraries 10.5 times a year, while the IMLS data reported people visiting only 4.1 times a year. Coates investigated and concluded that library visits really are declining and suggested that, to reverse the trend, libraries should focus on maintaining a robust print collection–still considered the backbone of most public libraries.

Interestingly, though the 2020 Freckle Report was based on data taken pre-pandemic, the 2021 Freckle Report (according to Publishers Weekly) offered a similar assessment. The 2021 report took data from the pandemic, including a rise in reading and in digital reading, but still found that library visits are declining. And it still recommended attempting to reverse the trend by investing in the print collection, arguing that e-books are a poor value for libraries considering their high costs and limited licensing agreements. (You can read more about e-book pricings for libraries here.) Coates also argued that investing in digital resources will further reduce the number of visits to library buildings (though, of course, one could counter-argue that the door count is not the only metric for success here).

Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of data on precisely what is happening with libraries–how often people use them, why they use them, if their attitude towards using them has changed, and so on. But I was intrigued by Coates’ argument for more of an emphasis on print materials, since I have argued myself that libraries seem plagued by an identity crisis. Are they food pantries? Conference centers? Recreation centers? Social services? My own belief is that libraries are still primarily associated by the public with books, and that libraries should emphasize their collections and work with partners instead of trying to duplicate services already offered by other local organizations. For me, though, emphasizing the collection could also include expanding digital access, even as I recognize that it is true that e-book licenses for libraries are often prohibitively expensive.

While I do celebrate all the great work libraries do, and have often used the catchphrase, “Libraries are more than books!” I still think that most people go to the library for books and computer access, and not particularly to attend yoga class or to hold meetings. This is only my own anecdotal experience, but the people at my local library who attend programs are all the same limited crowd, and even most book bloggers I have chatted with seem to use the library to borrow materials more than for anything else. So it makes sense to me that growing a relevant print (and digital) collection would perhaps draw more people back to the public library. In fact, the number one complaint I see from book bloggers is that their local library does not carry the books they want.

So this 2016 article in the Atlantic, which also found a decrease in library usage in the U.S, seemed to me to be the key to the issue. It reports that a 2012 report by the IMLS found that library usage is linked to funding. Libraries with more funding had more usage. That makes sense. Libraries with more funding can offer more–more books, more staff, more hours, more programs. People are more likely to use a resource that provides them with what they are looking for. All the bloggers who said they stopped going to their local library because of its small collection seem to be validating this data.

Of course, public library funding has been in jeopardy for years. Much of it disappeared during the 2009 recession (the effects of which the 2012 report referenced above no doubt captured). And much of it never returned, even as prices for everything have risen. But the idea that library usage might be linked to funding, and might even be tied to a robust materials collection, is one that can offer hope because it gives a way forward. Libraries do not have to offer limited hours, limited staffing, and limited books and programs. They could offer more, if the public made it a priority to fund them. Let’s just hope that our elected officials agree, before libraries really do become obsolete–not because they are not still needed, but because we have set them up to fail by neglecting to provide them with the necessary resources.