In 2009 the Charleston Observatory conducted a survey of 835 libraries across 61 countries to determine the effects of the current economic downturn on library budgets and also to examine how decreasing or stagnant budgets are likely to be absorbed. The survey largely confirmed what anecdotal evidence has already suggested: Library budgets are indeed declining or remaining static across all sectors. Furthermore–and of particular interest to the STM publishing world–many libraries will choose to absorb budgetary cutbacks by spending less on resources rather than cutting staff, services, or infrastructure.

When reviewing survey results it is important to identify the demographics that may play a role. Libraries from all economic sectors participated in the survey. Government libraries and those from the public sector make up 14.1% of the sample while corporate libraries represent just 9.1%. It is, of course, no surprise that academic libraries represented the majority (76.8%) of respondents and university libraries in particular comprised nearly two-thirds of the sample. Libraries of varying size were represented and classified into three sizes with 11.3% of respondents from small libraries, having up to 4,999 users, 47.6% designated medium, with 5,000–39,999 users, and 41.1% of respondents hailing from large libraries with 40,000 users or more. The survey included libraries from 61 countries with 62% of responses coming from the United States. The UK had the next largest participation with more than 12%. However, the survey was conducted only in English, accounting for some of the under-representation of other populations. With a few noted exceptions, survey answers were surprisingly consistent across all demographics.

Libraries were asked to compare their 2009 budget with that of 2008. They were then asked to project budget changes for 2010 and 2011. Inflation rates may vary widely across multiple countries, so respondents were to use absolute figures. More than 80% of respondents reported that 2009 budgets were the same or reduced from the previous year. Academic libraries were the most significantly effected as more than 43% of respondents in that sector (compared with about 36% in other sectors) reported a decrease in budget from the previous year. A significant percent of libraries, 24.6% in the corporate sector and 27% in both the academic and public/government sectors, reported sizable budget decreases of more than 10% from the previous year. It is widely recognized that inflation in the publishing industry moves at a faster pace than the general inflation rate. Consequently, even static budgets represent a true decrease in resources as costs will rise even if budgets do not. The picture for 2010 looks much the same. Not until 2011 do predictions begin to show some more optimism with around 30% expecting budget increases. It is clear that corporate libraries expect to pull out of this economic situation more quickly, as more than 15% of the corporate sample predicts budget increases of more than 10% in 2011.

The decrease in library budgets is no revelation. The real point of interest is the likely ways in which spending will change as a result of the budgetary pinch. Participants were asked to project their spending patterns for the next two years by comparing planned spending to current spending in four categories: services, infrastructure, staffing, and resources. The resulting picture is complex but it does seem clear that libraries will be making the most significant changes to their resource spending.

Nearly 40% of respondents reported that they will decrease spending on information resources. The flip side is that more than 60% will increase or maintain spending in this area. However, this statistic can be a bit misleading. Maintaining current spending may still entail resource cuts and small increases may only cover inflation. Only 5.2% of respondents projected increases in resource spending large enough to amount to real growth in the library’s collection. These statistics are only half of the puzzle, as the term “information resources” represents a wide array of content including books, monographs, journals, and databases. Journal subscriptions (print, electronic and both) account for a significant percentage of resource spending, with more than 42% in academic and corporate sectors and roughly 33% in the public sector. With such a large portion of the resource budget being spent on journals, it is reasonable to expect cuts in that area. According to the report, print only journals are the most likely to be cut, followed by print books and monographs. Electronic formats, especially e-books, are more protected and librarians exhibit a strong preference for moving toward a more digital model.

Most libraries hope to absorb budgetary cuts by reduced spending on information resources, but there are likely to be some cuts to services and infrastructure as well. Where cuts are planned in this area, the favored approach is to scale back operating hours or inquiry desk support rather than tabling planned building or IT projects. Technology upgrades are apt to be a priority if librarians are focusing on a digital future.

The survey suggests that libraries will be doing their best not to make staffing cuts, but there will be some casualties. Respondents reported that they are more likely to freeze hiring rather than resort to layoffs or reducing staff salaries and hours. A very small number of libraries are planning staffing cuts. That threat is highest for large academic libraries in the UK.

It is easy to focus on the losses in this economic downturn, but many library managers are trying to highlight the positive. Although most respondents don’t anticipate a quick recovery, they do agree that the budget crunch will force thoughtful decisions and serious consideration of different operational models. The survey report contains a section of commentary directly from the library managers. These comments allude to a sense of perseverance. The focus is not on maintaining the traditional library model but on finding ways to be flexible and adapt to circumstances, allowing for sustainability in whatever form emerges. There are several comments relating to publisher pricing and a general understanding that libraries are not the only organizations that will need to adapt. As one librarian from a medium-sized public university library in the USA put it, “Vendors and publishers need to be as flexible and creative in their thinking as libraries are having to be.” Necessity, after all, is the mother of invention.

For the complete survey findings, visit http://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/research/ciber/charleston-survey.pdf