The 2019-20 Budget: California State Library Local Assistance Proposals

The 2019‑20 Budget: California State Library Local Assistance Proposals GABRIEL PETEK LEGISLATIVE ANALYST APRIL 2019 In this brief, we analyze the Governor’s proposals to provide one‑time General Fund for two local library initiatives— the Zip Books program and Lunch at the Library. We begin with an overview of the State Library and local libraries in California. We then describe and assess each proposal and offer associated recommendations. OVERVIEW State Library Oversees Both State Programs and libraries can be operated by counties, cities, special Local Initiatives. The State Library’s main functions are districts, or joint powers authorities. Usually the local (1) serving as the central library for state government; government operator designates a central library to (2) collecting, preserving, and publicizing literature and coordinate activities among all the library branches historical items; and (3) providing specialized research within a jurisdiction. In 2018‑19, 185 library jurisdictions services to the Legislature and the Governor. In addition, with 1,119 library branches are operating in California. the State Library passes through state and federal funds Local libraries provide a diverse set of services that are to local libraries for specified purposes and provides influenced by the characteristics of their communities. related oversight and technical assistance. These local Most libraries, however, consider providing patrons with assistance programs fund literacy initiatives, Internet access to information a core part of their mission. More services, and resource sharing, among other things. In than 95 percent of local library funding comes from local 2018‑19, the State Library is receiving $64 million from governments and the remaining 5 percent comes from all fund sources, of which $27 million is for statewide state and federal sources. operations and $37 million is for various local initiatives. Governor Proposes to Fund Two Local Library Of total funding, 67 percent comes from General Fund, Initiatives on a One-Time Basis. The two initiatives 29 percent comes from federal funds, and the remaining are: (1) the Zip Books program and (2) Lunch at the 4 percent comes from various state special funds. Library. Both initiatives received one‑time General Fund Public Libraries Are Run and Funded Primarily appropriations in previous years. The remaining two by Local Governments. In California, local public parts of this brief provide our analysis of each proposal. ZIP BOOKS PROGRAM In this part of the brief, we analyze the Governor’s proposal, assess the proposal, and offer an associated proposal for the Zip Books program. We first provide recommendation. relevant background, then describe the Governor’s analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET BACKGROUND development, and resource preservation. To receive federal funding, the California State Librarian and In this section, we provide background the California Library Services Board develop a on (1) library resource sharing in the state; five‑year LSTA spending plan. Since 2015‑16, the (2) interlibrary loans, a common way libraries share state has been receiving $11.3 million annually in resources; and (3) the Zip Books program, which is LSTA funds, with the funds designated for various considered to be an alternative to interlibrary loans. local library initiatives. Library Resource Sharing Interlibrary Loans California Library Services Act (CLSA) Patrons Can Request Books From Another Establishes Library Resource Sharing as a State Library. Through interlibrary loans, a patron in one Interest. Established in 1977, CLSA declares that local library jurisdiction can request a book or other the state has an interest in ensuring “all people print resource from a library in another jurisdiction. have free and convenient access to all library Historically, interlibrary loans have been one of resources and services that might enrich their the primary ways libraries with fewer resources lives.” To promote equitable access to resources, have met patron demands. According to the State the act aims to ensure libraries are granting their Library, local libraries in California loaned out patrons access to resources available in libraries 3.5 million books and resources in 2016‑17. throughout the state. In establishing this goal, Most Libraries Use International Nonprofit the act also declares libraries are to be locally Organization for Loan Transactions. To controlled and financed, and that any state funding provide outside library resources to patrons, supplement, rather than supplant, local resources. most libraries in California are members of an Resource Sharing Governed by Regional international nonprofit cooperative known as the Cooperatives and Statewide Board. To Online Computer Library Center (OCLC). Under implement CLSA, 177 of the state’s 185 library traditional interlibrary loans, staff at a local library jurisdictions are organized into nine library searches for a requested book through OCLC’s cooperatives. (The remaining 8 library jurisdictions library catalogue. Staff then submit an electronic choose not participate in CLSA, likely because request through OCLC’s online platform to borrow they believe more cost‑effective options exist for the book. If a library is willing to loan the book, giving their patrons access to materials.) The nine the lending library then arranges for delivery either cooperatives provide two key services for member through the mail or a courier service. According to libraries: (1) they foster communication between staff at the State Library, the time from requesting a member libraries by supporting video conferencing, book from another library to receiving it can range conference calls, and other platforms; and (2) they from two to four weeks. When the patron is finished fund the cost to transport and deliver books and with the book, the borrowing library returns it. other resources between member libraries. The State No Longer Explicitly Funds Interlibrary cooperatives are overseen by the State Library and Loans, Though Some CLSA Funds Available California Library Services Board. Since 2016‑17, for Delivery Costs. Prior to 2011‑12, the bulk of the state has provided $3.6 million ongoing General state funds for resource sharing was to reimburse Fund for CLSA, as well as one‑time funding for local libraries in the state that were “net lenders” various special initiatives. Figure 1 shows a map of (that is, libraries that loaned more resources the current regional library cooperatives. than they borrowed). Due to the state’s poor Federal Government Funds Local Libraries budget condition, the state eliminated funding for Through the Library Services and Technology interlibrary loans in 2011‑12. Though the state no Act (LSTA). The federal LSTA program has a longer explicitly funds interlibrary loans, the state’s broader scope than CLSA. It provides grants for nine cooperatives use a significant portion of their coordination and resource sharing, as well as current ongoing CLSA allocations to transport promoting literacy and lifelong learning, professional books and materials between member libraries. 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET Other Costs Funded From Local Resources OCLC. Libraries are also responsible for paying their and Patrons. Though some state funding is staff, including the staff time taken to process loan available to cover delivery costs, historically libraries requests. According to staff at the State Library, have had to cover a portion of interlibrary loan costs libraries typically shift a portion of these costs onto using their local resources. For example, libraries patrons by charging certain service fees. must pay annual membership fees to participate in Figure 1 Local Libraries Are Organized Into Nine Regional Cooperatives Borders of Regional Cooperatives (and Number of Library Jurisdiction Members), 2018-19 NorthNet (41 Libraries) 49‑99 (6 Libraries) San Joaquin Valley Pacific Library (10 Libraries) Partnership (33 Libraries) Inland (19 Libraries) Black Gold (7 Libraries)a Southern California (38 Libraries) Santiago (10 Libraries) Serra (13 Libraries) a Includes Santa Paula Public LIbrary, which is located in Ventura County. www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET Zip Books PROPOSAL Instead of Borrowing a Book, a Library Can Provides $1 Million One-Time General Fund Purchase It Through Amazon. The Zip Books for Zip Books Program. The proposal would program began as an alternative to interlibrary provide a third year of one‑time state funding loans for local libraries in rural areas where delivery through CLSA for the program. According to might be especially expensive. Under the Zip the administration, $900,000 would be used for Books program, patrons may request books that purchasing an estimated 60,000 books. The book libraries purchase through Amazon. In these cases, purchases would be on behalf of patrons at the Amazon delivers the books directly to the patron. existing 68 library jurisdictions participating in the After completing a book, a patron gives it to the program. In addition, the administration submitted a library. The library can either keep the book, give list of another 29 library jurisdictions that it believes it to another library, or sell it. The program began could potentially begin participating in the program as a pilot in 2011 in Butte County (using federal in 2019‑20. The remaining $100,000 would cover LSTA funds) but has since expanded. According NorthNet’s administrative costs. to staff at the State Library, 68 library jurisdictions (37 percent) currently participate in the program. ASSESSMENT Book Purchases Covered From Federal and State Funding. Under the program, local Administration Cites Two Key Statewide libraries establish a line of credit with Amazon to Benefits of Zip Books Program. First, the purchase books. The State Library then pays the administration notes that Zip Books is less associated bills using federal and state funds. time‑consuming for library staff to process than From 2011‑12 through 2017‑18, the program traditional interlibrary loans. According to an received a total of $1.7 million in federal LSTA independent 2016 evaluation of the Zip Books funds. In 2016‑17, the California Library Services pilot, staff takes around 22 minutes to process Board decided to expand the program—providing a Zip Books request, compared to 78 minutes it with $1 million in one‑time state CLSA funds. for an interlibrary loan request. According to the The State Librarian tasked NorthNet, the state’s administration, these time savings reduce staff northern‑most cooperative, with managing these costs from $33 for each interlibrary loan transaction funds. In 2018‑19, no federal LSTA funding was to $9.50 for each Zip Book transaction. The designated for the program, but the state provided administration concludes from this information another $1 million one‑time CLSA funds for that Zip Books is a less expensive approach additional book purchases. NorthNet has retained for facilitating access to books. Second, the about 10 percent of the one‑time CLSA funds for administration believes that Zip Books provide its associated administrative costs. patrons of rural libraries improved access to Other Costs Supported by Library Budgets. resources. As discussed below, we have concerns While the state covers the bulk of Zip Book with both the administration’s fiscal analysis and costs, local libraries are responsible for covering overall Zip Books proposal. certain remaining costs from their local resources. Generating Savings Is a Poor Rationale for For example, libraries pay an annual Amazon More State Funding. The administration’s fiscal membership fee, currently $119. The membership analysis has two notable shortcomings. First, fee grants libraries access to Amazon purchases the administration’s analysis focuses on only and also covers the cost of delivery in most cases. one factor—staff time—while omitting other key In addition, as is the case with interlibrary loans, cost considerations—notably, the cost of books, libraries are responsible for paying staff time delivery, and operating fees (such as annual OCLC devoted to processing Zip Book requests. or Amazon membership fees). The cost to purchase books is particularly important when comparing resource sharing options, as this cost is avoided under traditional interlibrary loans. Because the 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET administration has not provided the data required to lacks sufficient information to assess the extent do a complete cost‑benefit analysis, the Legislature of the problem, whether the current Zip Books cannot yet determine if Zip Books is more program is adequately targeted, or whether adding cost‑effective than other resource‑sharing options. more jurisdictions to the program is warranted. Second, even if a comprehensive fiscal analysis Expenditure Data Also Has Not Yet Been were to demonstrate savings associated with Zip Provided for the Program. As part of our review Books, local libraries presumably could use the of the Governor’s proposal, we requested the savings freed up from reducing reliance on existing State Library provide program expenditures for the resource‑sharing mechanisms to fund an expansion past few years. This data request had two main of Zip Books. In this case, libraries would not need purposes: (1) to confirm that the program has additional state General Fund support. spent all of its previous state appropriations, and Administration’s Fiscal Analysis Omits Other (2) to gauge whether the administration’s spending Options Available to Reduce Delivery Costs. The projections for 2019‑20 (60,000 book purchases administration’s analysis also compares Zip Books at an average cost of $15) are reasonable. To date, only with interlibrary loans. Libraries, however, have neither the State Library nor the administration has other options for resource sharing. For example, been able to provide this information. some local libraries are connected to regional online catalogues and courier services that can result RECOMMENDATION in lower delivery costs. In addition, some library cooperatives are expanding the use of electronic Task Administration With Preparing a More resources. Though requiring digital readers, Fully Developed Proposal. Given the Governor’s these electronic materials can be sent to member current proposal is not fully developed, the libraries without the expense of transporting Legislature could invite the administration to submit physical copies. We believe any proposal to reduce an improved proposal next January, as part of resource‑sharing costs and expand access to rural the 2020‑21 Governor’s budget. Alternatively, if libraries should examine these alternatives. the Legislature still desires to provide $1 million in one‑time state funding for local library resource Proposal Does Not Consider Local Resources sharing in 2019‑20, it could condition release of the Available to Cover Book Purchases. The funds on the administration, in consultation with administration also did not provide an analysis the State Librarian, submitting an improved plan by of available local resources to cover Zip Book November 1, 2019. To ensure legislative oversight, costs. We believe these resources should be a key provisional budget language could direct the consideration, as most libraries regularly purchase Department of Finance to provide 30‑day notification print and electronic materials as part of their to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee prior operating budgets. In 2016‑17 (the most recent to releasing the funds. Under either of these data available), libraries that currently participate approaches, we recommend the improved plan: in the Zip Books program spent a combined $19 million on new materials, including $10 million • Identify specific resource challenges facing specifically on print materials. These ongoing specific rural libraries. amounts are much larger than the one‑time General • Include a fiscal analysis comparing all available Fund appropriation proposed by the administration. resource‑sharing options for these libraries. Zip Books Might Benefit Rural Communities, • Provide at least three years of past funding but Further Analysis Is Needed. Though the and spending data for the program, administration indicates that Zip Books could accounting for all applicable fund sources. improve access to books and resources for patrons • Set forth expectations for improved access in rural communities, it has not analyzed which rural and explain how progress toward meeting libraries currently are unable to fulfill patrons’ book those expectations would be tracked over the requests due to insufficient resources and high next few years. delivery costs. Without this analysis, the Legislature www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET LUNCH AT THE LIBRARY In this part of the brief, we analyze the intended to account for these operators’ higher Governor’s proposal for the Lunch at the Library administrative costs). program. We first provide relevant background, Summer Programs Have Three Key then describe the Governor’s proposal, assess the Differences From the National School Lunch proposal, and offer an associated recommendation. Program. First, whereas only schools provide meals during the academic year, many more BACKGROUND organizations—including local government agencies and nonprofit organizations—are eligible to provide In this section, we provide background on (1) the summer meals. Second, students are not required federal government’s summer meals program and to demonstrate eligibility to receive a summer meal. (2) Lunch at the Library, which aims to increase Instead, organizations can provide summer meals library participation in the federal meals program. to any individual under the age of 18 at an eligible site. Eligible sites are those located in areas where Federal Summer Meal Programs at least 50 percent of students qualify for a free or Longstanding Federal Program Subsidizes reduced‑price lunch during the school year. Third, School Lunches for Students From Low-Income all meals provided at eligible sites are free. Households. Established in 1946, the National Summer Program Received $46 Million School Lunch Program provides public school Federal Funding in 2016-17. Of this amount, children free or reduced‑price lunches while $25 million covered meals provided by 351 school they attend school. Under the program, the districts (roughly one‑third of all districts) at 2,390 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) sites, with $21 million covering meals provided by reimburses schools for providing meals that 199 local agencies, nonprofit organizations, and meet certain nutrition standards. To qualify for a other providers at 2,571 sites. The state provided subsidized lunch, a child’s household must meet a small General Fund match ($2 million) to the certain income thresholds. To qualify for a free federal funding, which increased the reimbursement lunch, students must be from households that have rate for each summer meal slightly. Altogether, incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal 16.2 million summer meals were provided in poverty level ($27,014 for a family of three). To 2016‑17—an average of 419,00 meals per summer qualify for a reduced‑price lunch, students must be day. from households earning at or below 185 percent Participation in Summer Program Is Notably of the federal poverty level ($38,443 for a family of Lower Than in Fall Through Spring. Because three). In 2017‑18, public school districts, together students are required to attend school during the with some private schools, operated the program, academic year, virtually all eligible students receive providing meals to a total of 3.7 million students subsidized meals during that period. By contrast, (60 percent of all K‑12 students) in California. only a portion of eligible students are accessing Federal Programs Also Provide Children free meals during the summer. In the summer of Free Meals in the Summer. To ensure low‑income 2017, average daily participation in California’s students have access to nutritious meals during summer program was less than 20 percent of daily the summer when they are not enrolled in school, participation during the 2016‑17 academic year. USDA also reimburses states for providing According to the Food Research and Action Center free summer meals. For school districts, the (a nonprofit organization), participation is even reimbursement rates for summer meals are the lower nationally, with average summer participation same as those provided during the school year. 15 percent of participation during the fall through For summer‑only meal operators, reimbursements spring. Experts have suggested several reasons for rates are slightly higher (with the higher rates likely the lower participation, including lack of awareness 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET of the summer program, limited number of sites in PROPOSAL certain areas, and lack of sufficient incentive for students to travel to the nearest summer meal site. Proposes $1 Million One-Time General Fund for Lunch at the Library. As Figure 2 shows, Lunch at the Library about two‑thirds of the proposed amount would support grants for program start‑up costs at new Lunch at the Library Program Aims to library sites and summer enrichment programs. Increase Local Library Involvement With The remaining funds would support outreach Summer Meal Program. Initiated in 2013, Lunch activities, including program staff time and travel at the Library was established as a partnership with to conferences. Program staff anticipate these the California Library Association (an association activities would add around 25 new Lunch at of California local libraries) and the California the Library sites. Staff anticipate increasing the Summer Meal Coalition (a multisector group number of summer meals served through the dedicated to increasing summer meal participation). Lunch at the Library program by 10 percent to The program’s two main goals are increasing the 15 percent (adding an estimated roughly 30,000 to number of libraries serving as summer meal sites 40,000 meals). and increasing summer enrichment opportunities for students. Lunch at the Library is currently ASSESSMENT administered by two California Library Association managers, with the managers devoting 30 percent Summer Food Insecurity Is a Salient Issue. of their time to the program. In addition, one staff According to Feeding America, a nonprofit person at the State Library monitors the grant and organization that annually analyzes federal census oversees the program. data, 19 percent of Californians under the age of Program Primarily Supports Start-Up Costs, 18 reported being food insecure in 2016. Food Outreach, and Enrichment Services. Because insecurity rates tend to be higher in inland counties the federal summer meal program supports the than the coast, with rates ranging from 33 percent cost of providing meals to students, Lunch at the in Imperial County to 13 percent in Alameda Library focuses on other services and initiatives County. While these data do not indicate what that support summer meal sites. Specifically, the time of year children experience food insecurity, program funds: (1) training and technical support to food insecurity might increase during the summer library staff to help them establish their libraries as months when school is not in session. summer meal sites; (2) library learning, enrichment, and youth development opportunities that wrap around the summer meal program; and (3) library Figure 2 resources at other community summer meal sites. Lunch at the Library Budget Proposal Program Funded Through Mix of One-Time One-Time State General Fund, 2019-20 Fund Sources. According to program staff, Lunch (In Thousands) at the Library was initially funded with private Proposed Expenditures Amount grants. Over the past three years, the program also has received $241,500 in total one‑time Local library grantsa $675 federal LSTA funds. In 2018‑19, the state provided Program staff 210 Conference travel and supplies 25 $1 million one‑time General Fund for the program. Overhead 90 Program Currently Has Relatively Small Total $1,000 Impact. During the summer of 2018, the program a For start-up costs at new library sites and enrichment programs. reported providing 287,769 summer meals and snacks at 191 sites. These meals reflect a tiny share of free summer meals provided in California. www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET Focusing Efforts Solely on Adding Library coordination with the California Department of Sites Is a Very Narrow Approach to Increasing Education to develop an improved plan. The Participation. Though summer meal programs improved plan could be submitted for consideration likely are undersubscribed for several reasons, the next January, as part of the 2020‑21 Governor’s Governor focuses on addressing only one factor— budget. Alternatively, the Legislature could provide insufficient sites. Other factors, however, such as $1 million in one‑time state funding in 2019‑20 but lack of awareness and outreach, could be equally condition release of the funds on receipt of important contributors to low summer participation. an improved plan. Under this second option, Even were the administration to demonstrate that provisional budget language could require the adding more sites would be the most cost‑effective administration to submit a revised plan to the Joint approach for increasing summer participation, Legislative Budget Committee by November 1, the state would be limiting potential success of 2019, with a 30‑day review period. Whether the initiative by focusing solely on library sites. submitted this year or next year, we recommend Presumably, the optimal sites to deliver summer the improved plan: meals vary depending on the local community. • Include a comparative analysis of different Likely Negligible Impact on Student strategies to improve summer meal Outcomes. One expressed objective of more participation, such as comparing a public summer enrichment programs is to improve awareness campaign with start‑up funding for student learning. The state, however, already a new summer reading enrichment program. provides schools with tens of billions of dollars on • Prioritize funds for areas of the state with an ongoing basis to improve student outcomes. higher food insecurity or lower summer meal The added benefit of expanding summer reading participation than the statewide average. programs at libraries using some portion of • If applicable, invite participation from all types $1 million in one‑time funding is likely negligible. of eligible summer meal operators, including both libraries and schools, in the identified RECOMMENDATION target areas of the state. Direct State Library, in Consultation With the • Set expectations for what is to be achieved California Department of Education, to Submit with the additional state funding and explain Improved Proposal. If the Legislature desires to how results will be measured, tracked, and address child food insecurity in expanded ways, reported. with a particular focus on addressing hunger These improvements to the plan would be during the summer months, we recommend it intended to ensure that state funding is well aligned take a somewhat different approach than the with a clear state objective and is being used in a administration. Specifically, we recommend the transparent and effective manner. Legislature direct the State Library to work in LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Jason Constantouros and reviewed by Jennifer Kuhn Pacella. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE