How Were Library Open Hours, Children’s Services, and Patron Questions Impacted by a Recession?

In the last few blog entries I’ve done some extrapolations about what library services could look like if we head into an economic downturn. There are a few more metrics I’d like to explore as I think they can paint a broader picture of not only what libraries may face in the future, but also highlight what libraries are currently doing. It’s never a bad idea to have current information at hand for your library advocates.  

What story do library open hours tell us?

Pre-recession, * MA libraries were open an average of 2,536 hours every year, which works out to libraries being open 49 hours each week. During the Great Recession libraries were open an average of 2,467 hours every year, or 47 hours each week. This is a 2.7% reduction in open hours or 2 hours less each week that the library was available for services. At first glance, this doesn’t seem like a very large difference, especially considering that the differences among other metrics were considerably larger. So, what does this mean in terms of the bigger picture?  

Let’s look at those stats in terms of usage. If circulations went up by 12.5% and attendance went up by 32.4% but hours were reduced by 2.7%, that means there were 2 fewer hours for the library staff to accommodate the additional 518 visitors per week and 315 more items they were circulating every week.** Remember that staffing during the Great Recession went down by 2.3%. Having the library open for fewer hours, even if it’s 2 fewer hours each week, is still more of a burden that library staff will have to bear in terms of helping more people in a shorter amount of time. Again, these percentages are not high, but even small numbers trending downward can be impactful in terms of how libraries can accommodate the services their patrons rely on and the potential uptick in patrons needing those services. 

The average of open hours for the most current 3 years we have data for is 2581 hours per year or 50 open hours each week. If we extrapolate the 2.7% reduction in hours experienced in the past recession, that brings the average open hours per week down, once again, by 2 hours per library. I’ve already estimated the increase in circulation would add 441 items and 455 visitors per week, in addition to the circulation and foot traffic that libraries are already receiving. If staffing also goes down 2.3% as it did during the last recession, then we are once again looking at potentially fewer people available during fewer hours to offer services to an increasing number of people who may need an increasing number of items. Are libraries prepared for that? Based on the funding numbers I looked at in my last post, and considering the rising costs of popular items like ebooks, maybe not.  

What about the children?

During the great recession, children’s items circulated on average, about 13.2% more than they did pre-recession. That’s a slightly higher percentage than all library items (including children’s) circulating as a whole. This works out to an extra 134 items every week circulating through children’s departments during the recession.  

Current circulations for children’s items average 168 items per day. Add an additional 13.2% of circulation items on this adds another 22 totaling 190 children’s items circulated each day. Framing that in the weekly terms I used above, circulation desks will experience an uptick of an additional 155 items every week in children’s items alone.

The average number of children participating in summer reading increased by 114 participants, an increase of 35.6%. As someone who ran a children’s department for several years, I can tell you, summer is chaos for children’s departments in libraries. A 35.6% increase of summer reading participation is simultaneously the stuff librarian dreams are made of and also an exceptionally daunting amount of work. “Summer reading” is not just encouraging students to fill out a book list. It is school visits, coordinating prizes, booklist creation to complement that year’s theme, reminding caregivers and kiddos that the summer reading list is optional, and they can read whatever they want. The labor involved in coordinating programming is an additional level of complexity and none of the work I just mentioned starts at the end of the school year. Many librarians start working out the details of summer reading in January/February. And all of this work involves consumables, staff time, program presenters, prizes and more; in other words, money and resources.  

Today, there are considerably fewer summer reading participants than even pre-recession levels. There could be any number of reasons for this; the pandemic comes to mind as a big one, but I’m sure there are other factors at play.**** But even with the low summer reading participation numbers (MA libraries averaged 154 participants over the past 3 years), adding 35.6% to those numbers is still has an additional 55 kids participating in summer reading and the costs, work, and time that go into prepping a summer reading program may need to be scaled up accordingly.  

Got Questions?

Having worked in various positions in libraries I can tell you unequivocally that reference transactions are chronically underreported. That observation makes what I found looking at reference transaction patterns even more intriguing. 

For the purposes of this post, I’ll use reference transactions and patron questions interchangeably.  

The breadth of reference transactions is vast, and the nature of library work is often so hectic that it’s incredibly easy to forget how many people you’ve interacted with in a span of time. So, when considering these numbers, keep in mind that they are probably much smaller than any particular library’s reality. 

Libraries are either not fielding or not recording as many reference transactions in recent years (most likely a combination of both); the average number of reference transactions that have been reported in the last 3 years is 8,934. If we increase that number by 14%, library staff will still be fielding 1251 more questions over the course of a given year. Also keep in mind that while some questions patrons ask can be answered fairly quickly, others can become a bit of a project, including possible follow-ups with the inquiring patron. It would be a mistake to think that a patron question is a matter of taking up a library worker’s time for a minute or two, every time. Again, if we’re looking at potentially fewer open hours, the time patrons can come into the library will be condensed. If we’re looking at fewer staff working, that means the number of people patrons can come to with their questions will also be condensed. All of this equals a busier public services desk, which can potentially lead to more underreporting of statistics because library staff don’t have the time or the bandwidth to to log their reference interactions.  

What might the future hold?

With the statistics I described above, combined with what I’ve explored in the past few posts, a potential picture of MA libraries during an economic downturn is emerging. It is one of a library that is open fewer hours, has fewer staff members, and is likely not funded enough to keep up with rising costs, but is still expected to accommodate an influx of patron visits, patron questions, patron participation, and circulated items.  

None of these tasks come without work that is largely invisible to the general public, and usually stays invisible for good reason. Libraries employ professionals, experts who are highly skilled to get to know their communities, offer exceptional customer service, and tailor their services to their community’s needs. They are trained to make the public-facing work look effortless because that is part of being a professional. This is behind-the-scenes work that isn’t meant for public notice, but it doesn’t lesson the fact that an extraordinary amount of work is being put in to ensure that communities have the services that are most relevant to their members. In order to keep doing that work to the best of their ability, libraries and library workers, need the support that will help keep those services running smoothly. Without that support (support measured in more than just money), the quality of service that patrons are used to will likely suffer and, in some cases, some of the services that patrons are used to will be unsustainable, leading to their elimination. 

How do we avoid, or at least minimize this potential outcome? Talk to your library advocates and let them know what stands to be lost and gained by keeping their library well supported in any season, but especially in the event of a recession. If the data I’ve explored so far demonstrates anything, it’s that people tend to rely more on libraries in tougher economic times and library staff do their best to provide services to their communities, regardless of the circumstances.  

*** I’m using the term juvenile here to refer to children only, not teens. Every library in MA is going to have their own age range they use to make these determinations, but infants to 5th grade (put another way: birth through elementary school) are common limiters. There are separate statistics for teen usage, but they do not go back far enough for me to analyze.  

**** Unfortunately, I don’t have the data to delve into that side-quest (yet….) 

~ Al Hayden, MBLC Library Advisory Specialist