Privatizing Libraries

Citation

Keiser, B.E. (2012), "Privatizing Libraries", Library Management, Vol. 33 No. 6/7, pp. 432-435. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121211266393

Privatizing Libraries by Jane Herrard, Nancy Bolt, and Karen Strege is an ALA Special Report. The study begins with the ALA policy on privatization that expresses the Association's opposition to “the shifting of policymaking and management oversight of library services from the public to the private for‐profit sector” (p. 2).

This slim volume (of 56 pages, including an appendix, bibliography, and index, plus a brief forward and introduction) could have addressed the issue of privatization in a wider context (e.g. services formerly provided exclusively by the government), discussed the nature of community libraries and the need for change, or considered and approaches. It did not. The “substantive” part of the book – four chapters, each approximately ten pages – is limited in terms of scope, models, methodology, and analysis. The authors never question the notion of community libraries and what they should look like in the twenty‐first century.

Where this book offers the most help it is to library directors whose local officials are considering privatization, acknowledging that the library is often the last to know that the wheels are already in motion. (What this says about the library and its staff is worthy of a book in itself.) The report does a good job addressing two questions:

1. 1.

   What should the library/local officials be asking of a firm taking on the responsibility of running a community library?

2. 2.

   What assurances need to be made, and how much of this is a legal (contractual issue)?

In fact, these form the basis of the ALA Checklist for Communities Considering Privatization of Public Libraries, published in 2011 and included in the appendix of Privatizing Libraries.

The forward by Patricia Tumulty, Chair of the ALA Task Force on Privatization, and Marcia Merola, Director, ALA Office of Library Advocacy, put forth four “difficult questions” that local officials must answer as to the impact privatization will have on the community:

1. 1.

   Can a private company maintain the level of public trust that has been earned by the local library?

2. 2.

   Will the library director always make the operational decisions that are in the best interest of the community, even if those decisions reduce or do not contribute to the private company's profit?

3. 3.

   Does the relationship between a public library and its community change when a library is privatized?

4. 4.

   Does a role of the library as a public good change when the library is privatized?

Unfortunately, none of these are fully addressed in this work.

Chapter one of Privatizing Libraries presents an overview of privatization of public libraries, distinguishing the outsourcing of work‐related tasks from the wholesale “shifting of library service from the public to the private sector” (p. 1). In most cases, the “idea for privatization originated with the governing body rather than the library board or staff” (p. 5). According to the authors, reasons for considering privatization center on one of four themes:

1. 1.

   community libraries that have withdrawn from larger district systems need additional expertise in the “start‐up” phase;

2. 2.

   inability to recruit or retain a suitable library director for the community;

3. 3.

   poor opinion of the library administration that the governing body was unable to change; or

4. 4.

   budget constraints.

“As of August 2011, 17 public library systems in five states had contracts with a public management company. An additional six had such contracts but have returned to public management.” (p. 3). In the authors' eyes, communities throughout the US, the UK, and Canada are increasingly considering privatization. With only one company with contracts to manage public libraries, Library Systems & Services (LSSI) becomes the only model considered in this text, taking the brunt of most of the criticism leveled, particularly for not being forthcoming about the percent of profits the company makes on each contract. In defense, the authors do suggest where governing bodies:

• •

  could have formulated better Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to which companies could respond;

• •

  drafted better contracts between the management firm and the governing body that were legally binding, addressing a myriad of issues often overlooked by communities; and

• •

  provided greater oversight through the period covered by the contract.

Chapter two describes how privatization works, drawing from Heather Hill's 2009 dissertation of Outsourcing the Public Library in which she analyzes 30 documents, including RFPs, responses to them, and subsequent contracts for outsourced library management. Hill discovered that most responses to the RFPs were vague and general, with firms often utilizing the same language in their responses to several RFPs for privatizing community libraries. (From the contractor side one might argue that if it worked once, why not try it again.) Jerrard, Bolt, and Strege note that when a specific commitment was requested (e.g. number of hours pen each week), the company agreed and that most contracts contained few performance measures. Hill determined that “in deciding to privatize and thus hire an “expert” in managing libraries, the local government thus relies on the expert to design all plans, strategies, and the contract itself without providing critical input or oversight” (p. 10).

The authors of Privatizing Libraries use Chapter three to take a closer look at five case studies – two libraries under private management, one that was under private management but reverted to public, and two that considered privatization but rejected it. The authors conducted “multiple interviews” and used “performance indicators” to compare the privatized libraries with comparable libraries in the same state (i.e. serving a similar demographic), plus statewide averages. In each case, the authors describe the situation that led to the decision to engage a private library management firm (or not), how the RFP and contracting process was managed, presenting comments on the specific case and advice to others who may find themselves in similar circumstances.

In all cases, LSSI appears to have tried to employ existing staff. When specified in the contract, LSSI worked to assure that employees' health and retirement benefits were adequately addressed as they shifted from being government to private employment status, though at least in one case the city and county had to make up for missed payments. (The governing body had not required the pension contributions to be made for staff by LSSI in the contract.) When staffing plans were requested of LSSI, they included statements that repeated verbatim, sometimes for years (e.g. moving staff from “back‐room operations to direct patron service whenever possible, […] training staff, […] and increasing diversity, maturity, skill mix, and educational level of staff when possible”).

The contracts contained no budget detail, just total operating expense. Is this the responsibility of the firm, or the agency contracting the service? If specifics were required in order to gain the contract – and oversight of the budget maintained throughout the life of the contract to assure that the firm adhered to the terms of the contract (or provided reasonable explanations for any deviation) – then they were included in the proposal. In fact, LSSI delivered on the promises made in terms of collection development decisions being made by local directors in the community and not at LSSI headquarters.

Privatized library statistics in terms of materials held, library visits, and items lent, were compared with a library serving a population of similar size and the average for the state. By these measures, the privatized libraries did more poorly than either the comparable library or state average. However, these are simply counts as opposed to outcomes as measures of performance; more research is required in this regard. In terms of remedying the initial challenge that led communities to consider privatization, LSSI delivered. For example:

• •

  Finney County, KS, had difficulties finding and keeping a library director; LSSI hired two directors and “provided interim directors between hires,” so the county was never without a qualified library director while LSSI was in charge.

• •

  The public library in Jackson‐Madison Country, TN, had not been able to purchase new books or materials. LSSI increased the percent of budget devoted to collection development from below 10 to 20 percent, as specified in the contract. LSSI “improved and expanded the public access computers in JMCL, as well, using grant money and other funding sources to add computers and move stations.”

• •

  The City of Calabasas public library was unhappy with the quality of library services provided to its community by the Los Angeles County library and hired LSSI to build its initial collection when it withdrew from the LA county system, hire and train new staff, install a new computer system, provide equipment, supplies, and furnishings. “Ultimately, the library moved into its own building – thanks in great part to an $8.2 million grant from the state. The library director hired by LSSI contributed significantly to drafting the grant proposal.”

Dartmouth, MA, faced a budget crunch in 2007 and 2008, so the city select board examined outsourcing some services would save the town money. They established a Privatization Study Group that prepared a report “that focused entirely on the possibility of library management outsourcing, even though they had not discussed the issue with the library director or board. The report prominently mentioned LSSI as a possible contractor and included the FAQ from LSSI about the benefits of their service to the town and even a sample RFP that could be used […] The study group did not seek information from […] the library board before preparing and presenting their report.” (p. 28). The library director prepared a response, pointing to specific cost saving measures already underway and highlighting other costs associated with Massachusetts' library law and union contracts. In the end, among other cost‐cutting measures taken, the library board decided not to renew the library director's contract, keeping the position open for a year. When the assistant director refused to assume the role of director, the assistant director's position was eliminated, with a library director position created at a lower salary.

Chapter 4 outlines the key issues for libraries facing privatization, what the library, staff, and community can expect, and what they can do should the process of drafting an RFP, reviewing proposals, and executing a contract begin. If you think that your governing body might be displeased with your library operations in any way, read this book. Don't wait to hear that an RFP has been issued for privatizing your library before picking it up. There are things that you can and should be doing now to avoid reaching this point. Unfortunately, this volume does not address them all.