Kim Fender, Director, Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County

House Finance and Appropriations Committee Kim Fender, Director, Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Finance Committee.

I am Kim Fender, Executive Director of the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County and Chair of the Ohio Library Council’s Government Relations Committee. I’m pleased to be here before you during National Library Week, and more specifically on National Library Worker’s Day, to discuss the proposed funding levels for public libraries in the State’s 2012‐ 2013 biennium budget.

My remarks to you today can be summed up in six simple words: Use is up.

Funding is down.

State funding for public libraries has been in steady and sometime precipitous decline for a decade. From 2000 to 2010 the amount of funding my Library received from the State declined by 30%. Over the same time span, the number of items borrowed from my library grew by 23%.

These numbers are just the beginning. We are offering today services that were in their infancy or didn’t even exist 10 years ago. And, these services are costly to offer. Public libraries are one of the few, and in many communities, the only place to offer free, public Internet access. This service is crucial to both traditional library services like research and to newer services like workforce training, unemployment and e‐government. Every time a business or government office switches to online only for job applications or to provide services, we see people coming in our doors.

Often these people are starting with the basics – an email account. Our staff assists with setting up the account and other basic computer skills. While these changes may save money for other government offices, they actually cost us money, in staff, in computer equipment and in bandwidth.

Last week the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority held its Housing Choice Voucher program. For the first time the registration to be in a lottery to be on a waiting list for housing was online only. In planning for this CMHA estimated that 60,000 people would be submitting the pre‐ application. This estimate was based on the 50,000 who submitted the pre‐ application by phone the last time. To apply individuals had to have with

them asset and income information, birthdates and SS#s of everyone living in the household, current mailing address and emergency contact information, etc. To prepare for this CMHA identified organizations in the community with computers for use. There were 21 agencies plus the Library’s 41 locations. Several of the other agencies required you to be disabled or a senior citizen, speak Spanish, or meet some other eligibility requirement, in order to use their computers. All had only one location. We made all of our 680 computers available plus our Homework Center, training rooms, just about anywhere we had a computer we let people use it.

We set aside some computers to be used only for this purpose. We offered evening hours, one of only a handful of agencies to do so. We put all of our resources to helping the CMHA and the residents of Hamilton County through this process. Without our skilled staff, convenient locations and hours, network of computers and Internet access, the CMHA could never have switched to an online only system – saving their agency substantial funds. Section 8 housing is just one example. Daily we see job applicants referred to us by employers requiring all applicants to have an email address and apply online. Often these jobseekers have never used a computer and rarely do they have an email address.

Employers also refer job candidates to our Library for skills training. Our basic computer classes are always full.

Add to this the ever‐growing demand for our basic services and the transition to more and more digital content bringing with it the need to add new formats to our collections and assisting cardholders with using their newest gadgets and you can see that public libraries are busier than ever offering an array of new and changing services. And we’re doing it all with the same level of state funding we received in 1996.

I mentioned earlier the 23% increase in items borrowed from the Library.

This is a huge number. But the number of visits to my library grew even faster, up from 3 million in 2000 to more than 6.4 million in 2010 and on pace to exceed 7 million in 2011. That’s an increase of 110%. And it does not count those who visit our website and may never physically enter one of our libraries.

People are in our libraries in increasing numbers every day. They may be borrowing a book to read or music to listen to or a movie to watch but they may also be using one of our computers to apply for a job or government

assistance. They may be attending a lecture by an author or helping their child prepare for kindergarten by attending a Library pre‐school program.

They may be reading the paper or the latest issue of their favorite magazine.

But with use growing in all areas, I must do everything I can to make sure our doors remain open to all.

We are relieved that the proposed reduction to the Public Library Fund is only 5%. We feared it would be much worse. However, when added to the 30% reduction seen over the past decade, it is a cut that will result in reduced library services statewide. It is simply no longer possible to continue offering our full range and level of services with this additional reduction in funding. As it has so far, the impact will vary from community to community. Staff will lose jobs at some libraries. We’ve already cut staff by 20% at my Library. Hours and whole facilities will close in others; we’ve cut hours by 10%. Some will buy fewer new books or the much‐needed computers will have to wait. Building maintenance will be deferred; we’ve skipped our annual maintenance work twice in the past 3 years. The result will be less library service at a time when it’s most needed.

I also have grave concerns about having permanent law changes affecting library funding outside of this biennium. The provisions in this bill to change the Public Library Fund percentage in future years should be removed from the budget. In these rapidly changing economic times, it is difficult to forecast revenues for the 2012‐2013 biennium much less beyond.

The Library community would prefer to address library funding in future biennium at that time.

We do understand that you cannot spend money you don’t have. Neither can I. Six simple words: Use is up. Funding is down.