Public Libraries in the
United States Survey
FISCAL YEAR 2014
August 2017
Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014i

Institute of Museum and Library Services
Dr. Kathryn K. Matthew
Director

About the Institute of Museum and Library Services
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is the primary source of federal support for the nation’s approximately
123,000 libraries and 35,000 museums and related organizations. Our mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advanceinnovation, lifelong learning, and cultural and civic engagement. Our grant making, policy development, and research help libraries
and museums deliver valuable services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive. To learn more, visit www.
imls.gov and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
As part of its mission, IMLS conducts policy research, analysis, and data collection to extend and improve the nation’s museum,library, and information services. IMLS research activities are conducted in ongoing collaboration with state library administrative
agencies; national, state, and regional library and museum organizations; and other relevant agencies and organizations. IMLS
research activities are designed to provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of the status and trends in libraryand museum services and to report timely, useful, and high-quality data to Congress, the states, other policy-makers, practitioners,
data users, and the general public.

Contact Information
Institute of Museum and Library Services
955 L’Enfant Plaza North, SW, Suite 4000
Washington, DC 20024-2135
202-653-IMLS (4657)
https://www.imls.gov

August 2017
This publication is available only on the Web at https://www.imls.gov/publications.
IMLS will provide an audio recording of this publication upon request.
For questions or comments, contact research@imls.gov.

Citation
The Institute of Museum and Library Services. 2017. Public Libraries in the United States Fiscal Year 2014. Washington, DC: The
Institute.
Unless specifically noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without special
permission. Citation of this source is required.

Cover Photos
New Americans (left): The Brooklyn Public Library supports Brooklyn immigrants on their path to citizenship with a New Americans
Corner, where patrons can check out the tools they need to apply for citizenship and ready themselves for the test at our 12-week
prep courses, offered in partnership with the USCIS. Photo credit: Gregg Richards
Choosing Books (middle): The James V. Brown Library’s Storymobile is stocked with the best in age-appropriate books, puppets,
music and puzzles, as well as teacher and classroom resources. Photo credit: James V. Brown Library
BookBike and Library (right): Eric Tarr pulls the BookBike, a 2015 Local Government Innovation Award winning library lending cart,
through the streets of Rochester. Photo credit: Rochester Public Library

Contents

Public Libraries in the United States Survey, Fiscal Year 2014
List of Tables..................................................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................. vii
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................... ix
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................1
Methodology..............................................................................................................................................2
Data and Analysis......................................................................................................................................2
PART ONE: National Overview of Public Library Trends......................................................................................................... 3
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................4
The Great Recession...........................................................................................................................................5
Section 1: Financial Health.................................................................................................................................5
Indicator 1: Total Operating Revenue per Capita...........................................................................................5
Indicator 2: Total Operating Expenditures per Capita.....................................................................................6
Section 2: Resources..........................................................................................................................................7
Indicator 3: Public Library Collections per 1,000 People...............................................................................7
Indicator 4: Public Library Programs per 1,000 People..................................................................................7
Indicator 5: Public-Access Internet Computers per 5,000 People...................................................................7
Section 3: Use...................................................................................................................................................7
Indicator 6: Visits per Capita.......................................................................................................................7
Indicator 7: Circulation per Capita...............................................................................................................8
Indicator 8: Program Attendance per 1,000 People.......................................................................................8
Indicator 9: Public-Access Internet Computer Usage per Capita.....................................................................8
Indicator 10: Reference Transactions per Capita...........................................................................................8
Section 4: Staffing.............................................................................................................................................9
Indicators 11 and 12: Numbers of Full-Time Equivalent Staff per 25,000 People............................................9
Indicator 13: Percentage of Librarians with an ALA-Accredited Master’s Degree...............................................9
Summary of National-Level Estimates...................................................................................................................9PART TWO: Public Library Indicators ................................................................................................................................ 11
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................12
About the Subgroupings....................................................................................................................................13
Section 1: Financial Health...............................................................................................................................14
Overview.................................................................................................................................................14
Indicator 1: Total Operating Revenue per Capita.........................................................................................14
Indicator 2: Total Operating Expenditures per Capita...................................................................................18

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

iii

Contents

Section 2: Resources .......................................................................................................................................22
Overview ................................................................................................................................................22
Indicator 3: Public Library Collections per 1,000 People ............................................................................22
Indicator 4: Public Library Programs per 1,000 People...............................................................................26
Indicator 5: Public-Access Internet Computers per 5,000 People ................................................................30
Section 3: Use ................................................................................................................................................32
Overview ................................................................................................................................................32
Indicator 6: Visits per Capita ....................................................................................................................32
Indicator 7: Circulation per Capita ............................................................................................................36
Indicator 8: Program Attendance per 1,000 People ....................................................................................39
Indicator 9: Public-Access Internet Computer Usage per Capita ..................................................................43
Indicator 10: Reference Transactions per Capita ........................................................................................45
Section 4: Staffing ..........................................................................................................................................47
Overview ................................................................................................................................................47
Indicator 11: Staffing per 25,000 People..................................................................................................47
Indicator 12: Librarians per 25,000 People...............................................................................................50
Indicator 13: Percentage of Librarians with an ALA-Accredited Master’s Degree ............................................52
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix A: About the Public Libraries Survey ...................................................................................................56
Appendix B: Technical Notes ............................................................................................................................58

iv

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

List of Tables

Table 1-A. Percentage Change of Public Library Indicators, FY 2005–2014...........................................................12
Table 1-B. Public Libraries by Locale and Size of Population Served, FY 2014.......................................................13
Table 1-1.1. Revenue per Capita by Source, FY 2005–2014 (in Constant 2014 Dollars).........................................14
Table 1-1.2. Operating Revenue per Capita by Source, Locale, and Population Size, FY 2014
(in Constant 2014 Dollars).......................................................................................................................15
Table 1-2.1. Operating Expenditures per Capita by Type, FY 2005–2014 (in Constant 2014 Dollars).......................19
Table 1-2.2. Operating Expenditures per Capita by Type of Expenditures, Locale, and Population Size, FY 2014.......20
Table 2-3.1. Percentage Changes in Numbers of Materials per 1,000 People by Resource Type, FY 2005–2014.......23
Table 2-3.2. Numbers of Materials per 1,000 People by Type, Locale, and Population Size, FY 2014.......................24
Table 2-4.1. Number of Total Program, Children’s Program, and Young Adult’s Program Offerings
per 1,000 People, FY 2014......................................................................................................................27
Table 3-6.1. Visits per Capita by Locale and Population Size, FY 2014..................................................................33
Table 3-7.1. Total Circulation and Children’s Material Circulation per Capita by Locale and Population Size,
FY 2014.................................................................................................................................................36
Table 3-8.1. Program Attendance per 1,000 People by Type, Locale, and Population Size, FY 2014........................39
Table 3-9.1. Public-Access Internet Computer Usage per Capita by Locale and Population Size, FY 2014................43
Table 3-10.1. Reference Transactions per Capita by Locale and Population Size, FY 2014......................................45
Table 4-11.1. Staffing (FTEs) per 25,000 People by Locale, FY 2010–2014.........................................................48
Table 4-11.2. Staffing (FTEs) per 25,000 People by Population Size, FY 2005–2014............................................49
Table 4-12.1. Public Librarians per 25,000 People by Locale and Population Size, FY 2014..................................50
Table 4-13.1. Percentage of Librarians with an ALA-Accredited Master’s Degree by Locale andPopulation Size, FY 2014.........................................................................................................................52
Table B-1.1. States with Public Libraries with Overlapping Service Areas, FY 2014................................................60
Table B-1.2. Reporting Periods of Public Libraries, FY 2014................................................................................60
Table B-2.1. Urban-Centric Locale Categories......................................................................................................63
Table B-2.2. Regional Designations Used in the PLS, from the Bureau of Economic Analysis...................................64

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014v

List of Figures

Figure ES-1. Total Collection Materials per 1,000 People by Material Type, FY 2005–2014...................................... x
Figure N-1. Public Library Administrative Entities in the United States, FY 2014.....................................................4
Figure N-2. Total Public Library Operating Revenue and Expenditures, FY 2005–2014(in Constant 2014 Dollars).........................................................................................................................6
Figure 1-1.1. Operating Revenue per Capita by Size of Population in Library Legal Service Area, FY 2005–2014(in Constant 2014 Dollars).......................................................................................................................16
Figure 1-1.2. Operating Revenue per Capita by State, FY 2014............................................................................17
Figure 1-2.1. Operating Expenditures per Capita by Expenditure Category, FY 2005–2014(in Constant 2014 Dollars).......................................................................................................................18
Figure 1-2.2. Operating Expenditures per Capita by State, FY 2014......................................................................21
Figure 2-3.1. Total Collection Materials per 1,000 People by Material Type, FY 2005–2014...................................22
Figure 2-3.2. Total Collection Materials per 1,000 People by Size of Population of Library Legal Service Area,
FY 2005–2014.......................................................................................................................................24
Figure 2-3.3. Total Collection Size per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014................................................................25
Figure 2-4.1. Number of Total Program, Children’s Program, and Young Adult’s Program Offerings
per 1,000 People, FY 2005–2014............................................................................................................26
Figure 2-4.2. Number of Program Offerings per 1,000 People by Locale, FY 2010–2014.......................................27
Figure 2-4.3. Number of Program Offerings per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014...................................................28
Figure 2-4.4. Number of Children’s Program Offerings per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014....................................29
Figure 2-4.5. Number of Young Adult’s Program Offerings per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014..............................29
Figure 2-5.1. Number of Public-Access Internet Computers per 5,000 People by Locale, FY 2010–2014.................30
Figure 2-5.2. Number of Public-Access Internet Computers per 5,000 People by State, FY 2014............................31
Figure 3-6.1. Visits per Capita by Size of Population in Library Legal Service Area, FY 2005–2014..........................33
Figure 3-6.2. Visits per Capita by State, FY 2014................................................................................................34
Figure 3-6.3. Percentage Change in Visits per Capita by State, FY 2013–2014......................................................35
Figure 3-7.1. Circulation of Materials per Capita by Locale, FY 2010–2014...........................................................37
Figure 3-7.2. Circulation per Capita by State, FY 2014........................................................................................38
Figure 3-7.3. Circulation of Children’s Materials per Capita by State, FY 2014.......................................................38
Figure 3-8.1. Total Program Attendance per 1,000 People by Size of Population in Library Legal Service Area,
FY 2005–2014 ......................................................................................................................................40
Figure 3-8.2. Total Program Attendance per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014........................................................41

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014vii

List of Figures

Figure 3-8.3. Children’s Program Attendance per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014.................................................41
Figure 3-8.4. Young Adult’s Program Attendance per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014...........................................42
Figure 3-9.1. User Sessions of Public-Access Internet Computers per Capita by Size of Population Library
Legal Service Area, FY 2010–2014...........................................................................................................44
Figure 3-9.2. Change in Public-Access Internet Computer User Sessions per Capita by State, FY 2013–2014..........44
Figure 3-10.1. Reference Transactions per Capita by Locale, FY 2010–2014.........................................................46
Figure 3-10.2. Percentage Change in Reference Transactions per Capita by State, FY 2013–2014..........................46
Figure 4-11.1. Staffing (FTEs) per 25,000 People, FY 2005–2014......................................................................47
Figure 4-12.1. Public Librarians per 25,000 People by Population Size, FY 2005–2014........................................51
Figure 4-12.2. Number of Librarians per 25,000 People by State, FY 2014..........................................................51
Figure 4-13.1. Ratio of Librarians with a Master’s Degree from an ALA-Accredited Master’s Degree Program
to All Librarians by Locale, FY 2010–2014................................................................................................53
Figure 4-13.2. Percentage of Libraries with a Librarian Holding a Master’s Degree from an ALA-Accredited
Master’s Degree Program by State, FY 2014...............................................................................................53

viii

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

Executive Summary

The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is
responsible for providing policymakers, researchers, andthe general public with information about public libraries
in the United States. Public libraries have a long
tradition of serving as community anchors—providing
a wide array of services and resources in communities.
The Public Libraries Survey (PLS), under the Museumand Library Services Act of 2010 administered by
IMLS, collects annual data about the ways in which
public libraries serve their communities. Since 1989,
the PLS has documented the ways that modern public
libraries have responded to an increasingly diverse publicwith broader information needs. This information not
only helps to identify areas of activity and community
engagement but also can uncover opportunities forfurther services and reach.
The PLS is a national census that collects informationfrom public libraries in 50 states, the District ofColumbia, and outlying territories. The data include
library and community characteristics; size and use ofcollections; revenues, expenditures, staff, and operating
hours; and use of programs and technology. PLS data
are useful to researchers, journalists, the public, local
practitioners, and policymakers at the federal, state, andlocal levels for planning, evaluation, and policymaking.

More than 9,300 public libraries and 17,500 outlets1
participated in the fiscal year (FY) 2014 PLS, for a
97.4 percent response rate. This report summarizes thefindings from the 9,070 public libraries and 17,218
outlets in the United States that reported PLS data
in FY 2014 and met the definition of a public librarydeveloped by the Federal and State Cooperative System(FSCS).2 This report builds on the work of previous PLS
annual reports by presenting national FY 2014 estimates
and then examining trends across 13 key indicatorsof the state of public libraries in the United Stateswith 1- and 5-year trends—and, wherever possible,
10-year trends. Examining 10-year trends provides anopportunity to observe how public libraries responded
immediately in the aftermath of the Great Recession thatbegan in December 2007 and ended in June 2009,3 aswell as the transformations that occurred 5 years afterthat major economic event.

Financial Health of Public Libraries
For the past 10 years, the financial health of public
libraries, as indicated by operating revenue andexpenditures, greatly fluctuated. Between FY 2005
and FY 2009, public library operating revenue andexpenditures consistently increased nationally, withIn FY 2014, PLS requested data from 9,305 public libraries and 17,566 outlets. Of those, 10 public libraries and 74 outlets are excluded from the analyses for the FY 2014
report because they were reported as closed or temporarily closed in FY 2014.
2
In FY 2014, 9,295 public libraries and 17,492 outlets were not reported as closed or temporarily closed, a unit response rate of 97.4 percent.
3
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). (2010). Business cycle dating committee announcement. Cambridge, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/
cycles/sept2010.pdf. Business Cycle Dating Committee, NBER. (2010). U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/cycles.
html#announcements
1

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014ix

Executive Summaryan operating revenue increase of 9.8 percent and an
operating expenditures increase of 11.0 percent. In
FY 2009, operating revenue peaked at $12.6 billion,
as did operating expenditures, at $11.9 billion; both
declined dramatically over the next 4 years through FY
2013. The downward trend leveled off in FY 2014:••

Per capita operating revenue was $39.34 ($12.1
billion in total revenue), an increase of 2.0 percent
compared to FY 2013 and the first revenue increasesince FY 2009 (Indicator 1).
Per capita operating expenditures were $36.96($11.3 billion in total operating expenditures),an increase of 2.8 percent compared to FY 2013
(Indicator 2).

Public Library Resources
The FY 2014 PLS data show that the types of resources
offered by public libraries continued to change overthe past 10 years. The most notable change has been
the shift toward providing the public with more accessto electronic media and the decreased emphasis on
acquiring physical media.

Over the past year, public libraries had a 9.3 percent
increase in collection materials that culminatedin 1.2 billion collection materials (3.8 per capita)(Indicator 3). Print materials still composed the
majority of the total collections (66.1 percent)but were supplemented by electronic books(e-books) (18.4 percent), physical and downloadable
audio materials (9.6 percent), and physical anddownloadable video materials (5.8 percent) (Figure ES.1).
In addition, public libraries expanded the numbers ofcultural, recreational, or educational programs offeredto the public, in both absolute and relative terms. In
FY 2014, public libraries offered 4.5 million programs,
a 1-year increase of 4.8 percent and a 10-year increaseof 68.0 percent (Indicator 4). Finally, public-accessInternet computers numbered 285,395 in FY 2014
(Indicator 5). Over the past 10 years, public-accessInternet computers increased 54.6 percent. Thesechanges over the past decade indicate an evolution
in public library services and resources offered tothe public.

Figure ES-1. Total Collection Materials per 1,000 People by Material Type, FY 2005–2014
100.0%
90.0%

1.0%

1.3%

1.4%

1.4%

1.6%

2.0%

4.4%
4.6%

4.9%
4.7%

5.1%
5.0%

5.3%
5.4%

5.4%
5.7%

5.7%
5.9%

3.7%
5.9%
7.0%

7.5%

80.0%

Percentage of Collection

8.7%
5.8%

12.5%

18.4%

5.8%
8.5%

5.8%
9.6%

70.0%
60.0%
50.0%

90.0%

40.0%

89.2%

88.5%

87.9%

87.3%

86.4%

83.4%

78.0%

73.2%

30.0%

66.1%

E-books
Video materials

20.0%

Audio materials

10.0%
0.0%

Collection Materials

Print materials
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

x

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

Executive Summary

Public Library Use
FY 2014 PLS data also reflect a shift in how
communities use public libraries. In-person visits topublic libraries per capita began to increase in the
1990s and peaked in FY 2009, with 5.4 visits per
capita. By FY 2014, in-person visits per capita had
fallen to 4.6 visits per capita, reflecting a 5-year
decrease of 12.0 percent from FY 2010. In the same
5-year span, public libraries saw steady decreases incirculations, use of public-access Internet computers,
and reference transactions.
Conversely, program attendance reached a high of 332
attendees per 1,000 people in FY 2014, representing a
10-year increase of 34.2 percent and a 5-year increaseof 14.2 percent, suggesting increases may be levelingout. Although children’s programs continued to be
the most popular offerings overall in FY 2014, public
libraries saw the biggest increases in young adult’s
program attendance. In FY 2014, public libraries had
the following:•

1.4 billion in-person visits (4.6 visits per capita),
a 2.4 percent decrease compared to FY 2013
(Indicator 6)•

7.5 circulations per capita, a 3.0 percent decrease
compared to FY 2013 (Indicator 7)•

101.9 million attendees at public library programs(332 attendees per 1,000 people), a 5.5 percent
increase compared to FY 2013 (Indicator 8)•

322 million user sessions4 on public-accessInternet computers (1.1 user sessions per capita),
a 3.6 percent decrease compared to FY 2013
(Indicator 9)•

262.7 million reference transactions (0.9 referencetransactions per capita), a 3.6 percent decrease
compared to FY 2013 (Indicator 10)

Public Library Staffing
Trends in public library staffing were similar to thosefor operating revenue and expenditures over the past
10 years. Overall, public library staffing was somewhat
stable between FY 2005 and FY 2009. However, after
the Great Recession, there was a decline in the numberof public library staff. Between FY 2009 and FY 2014,
public library staff decreased 3.9 percent, the numberof librarians decreased 1.4 percent, and the number of

4librarians with a Master of Library Science degree (MLS)
accredited by the American Library Association (ALA)
decreased 2.6 percent. Between FY 2013 and FY 2014,
public libraries began to see staffing numbers stabilize or
decrease slightly after the effects of the Great Recession.
In FY 2014, public libraries had the following:•

138,332 full-time equivalent staff, a 1-yearincrease of 0.8 percent•

11.3 staff members per 25,000 people, a
0.3 percent increase compared to FY 2013
(Indicator 11)•

3.9 librarians per 25,000 people, a 1.0 percent
decrease compared to FY 2013 (Indicator 12)•

2.6 librarians with an ALA-accredited master’s
degree per 25,000 people, a 0.2 percent increase
compared to FY 2013 (Indicator 13)

Conclusion
The FY 2014 PLS data suggest that there has been aslower rate of decrease in financial health and staffingin public libraries since the initial downturn in FY 2009.
Although comparisons between FY 2013 and FY 2014
show slight increases across financial health and staffing
indicators, these indicators remain below FY 2009
levels.
The FY 2014 PLS data also show that public libraries’
resources and uses are evolving as library collections
adapt to changing technology (e.g., e-books). Data also
show libraries responding to the public’s growing needfor programs provided by libraries. The FY 2014 PLS
data show that over the past 5 years, public libraries
transitioned their collections acquisitions from physicalbooks to more e-books and audio and video materials.
Although public use of certain traditional library services
is declining across several usage measures, public use of
programs is increasing.
The FY 2014 PLS annual report’s 13 indicators at thenational, state, and locale levels tell a cohesive andconsistent story: Public libraries continue to respond topatrons’ changing needs by offering different ways offinding and accessing resources, and communities are
beginning to engage differently with public libraries.
These trends demonstrate that public libraries continue
to deliver valuable services that make it possible forcommunities and individuals to thrive.

Libraries are asked to report the total number of uses (sessions) of the library’s Internet computers, regardless of the amount of time spent on the computer.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014xi

Introduction

Public libraries provide learning and information
resources for individuals, families, businesses, andnonprofit organizations. Public libraries are community
anchor institutions that create opportunities for peopleof all ages through access to collections of resources andtechnology.
Public libraries support community improvement
by offering adult, youth, and children’s programs
that address the health, education, and workforce
development needs of communities. Libraries
provide access to and assistance with research andinformation needs through knowledgeable, qualified
staff. In communities across the nation, public libraries
complement commercial development activity andprovide attractive neighborhood amenities.
The Public Libraries Survey (PLS) is a nationwide datacollection tool that enables the examination of when,
where, and how library services are changing to meetthe needs of the public. These data, supplied annually
by more than 97 percent of public libraries acrossthe country, provide information that researchers,
policymakers, and practitioners can use in the decisionmaking process about the support and strategic
management of libraries.
This report has two parts: (1) National Overview of
Public Library Trends, and (2) Public Library Indicators.

Part One, National Overview of Public Library Trends,
presents a national-level analysis that aggregates datafrom all 50 states and the District of Columbia toprovide national estimates and trends. This portion of
the report presents an overview of the state of public
libraries in the United States. The financial health of
public libraries, the resources and services they offer,and the ways in which patrons use public libraries are
all examined. Furthermore, this report employs a numberof metrics to describe public libraries. These metrics
use 1-, 5-, and 10-year changes to examine the pastand present state of libraries. Examining 10-year trends
provides an opportunity to observe how public libraries
responded immediately in the aftermath of the GreatRecession that began in December 2007 and ended inJune 2009,1 as well as the transformations that occurred
5 years after that major economic event.
Part Two, Public Library Indicators, provides an overalllevel of performance for key metrics and serves asa gauge to evaluate important changes in public
library use, services, and resources. In most cases,
the indicators are calculated as per capita, per 1,000
people, per 5,000 people, and per 25,000 people;
thus, they provide a way to compare performance acrosslibraries. In addition, results for each indicator are
broken out for examination at the regional, state, andlocale levels. This analysis helps illuminate differencesthat are occurring across the United States. As an
example, operating revenue varies

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). (2010). Business cycle dating committee announcement. Cambridge, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/
cycles/sept2010.pdf. Business Cycle Dating Committee, NBER. (2010). U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/cycles.
html#announcements

1

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 20141

Introduction

across states, regions, and locales. Unlike national
trends, which present one key indication of libraryhealth, subpopulations offer a unique comparison of
public libraries.
Parts One and Two also demonstrate the shifting
environment of public libraries in the United States.
Traditionally, public libraries have been viewed asresources for lending books, audio, and visual materials
to patrons, as well as sources of assistance with researchand other educational needs. However, an examinationof data from the past 5 to 10 years shows that thelandscape of library services is changing. For instance,
the analyses in this report indicate growth in program
offerings to the public, access to Internet computers, anddigital resources. These changes are examined throughout
the report.

Methodology
The PLS is a universe survey, which means that
information is solicited from all public libraries in the
United States. The PLS questionnaire was designed
collaboratively by the Institute of Museum and LibraryServices (IMLS), State Data Coordinators (SDCs), andthe Library Statistics Working Group.
In FY 2014, the PLS survey frame consisted of 9,295
public libraries—9,233 public libraries in 50 states
and the District of Columbia, and 62 public libraries
in outlying areas. Data were collected using WebPLUS(Web Public Library Universe System), an online datacollection tool developed by the U.S. Census Bureau.
After data were collected, data editing and imputation
were performed.
Historically, PLS response rates have been high. In
FY 2014, the unit response rate was 97.4 percent, andthe majority of item-level response rates were above
80 percent.
For a detailed description of the PLS data collection
methodology, see Appendix B.

Data and Analysis
In this report, national estimates are aggregate totals
based on summing data across all public libraries to thenational level. For estimates based on subpopulations,such as state, region, or locale, data are summed up to
the level of the subpopulation. Data are analyzed at thenational, locale, and state levels as well as by population
size. Analyses at the national level are presented by
1-, 5-, and 10-year changes. At subpopulation levels,
comparisons are made for FY 2014 (e.g., between
states).
A public library is established under state laws or
regulations to serve a community, district, or region.
This report summarizes the findings from the 9,070
public libraries and 17,218 outlets in the UnitedStates that reported PLS data in FY 2014 and met thedefinition of a public library developed by the Federal
and State Cooperative System (FSCS).2 Under thisdefinition, a public library must meet, at a minimum,
the following criteria:•

Contains an organized collection of printed or otherlibrary materials, or a combination thereof;•

Has paid staff;•

Has an established schedule in which services ofthe staff are available to the public;•

Has the facilities necessary to support such acollection, staff, and schedule; and•Is supported in whole or in part with public funds.

A community may have one or more individual public
libraries or may be served by a public library system,
which may have a central library and multiple branches
or bookmobiles. Any reference to a public library in thisreport refers to the administrative entity, which may
be a single-outlet library or a multiple-branch librarysystem. References to outlets refer to central libraries,
branch libraries, and bookmobiles.
All calculations and comparisons3 in the PLS report are
based on unrounded estimates. At times, the reader
may find that a calculation, such as a percentagechange, is not identical to the calculation obtainedby using the rounded values shown in the report or
supplemental tables.

In FY 2014, the PLS contained a total of 9,305 records. This included 9,295 public libraries and 17,492 outlets reported PLS data, with an average unit response rate of 97.4
percent. The analyses presented in this report exclude 166 libraries that did not meet the FSCS public library definition, 59 libraries that were in outlying areas, and 10 libraries
that were reported as closed or temporarily closed in FY 2014.
3
Because the PLS is a universe collection, this report does not use statistical tests to measure the statistical significance of differences between subpopulations—a techniquethat is necessary when only a sample of an entire subpopulation is used.
2

2

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART ONE:National Overview of
Public Library Trends

PART ONE:National Overview of Public Library Trends
Introduction
Public libraries are public institutions that provide
valuable resources and services to communities
across the nation. In FY 2014, there were 9,070
public libraries in the United States (Figure N-1).4
The number of public libraries varied by populationand locale. In FY 2014, cities (476) had fewer public
libraries than suburbs (2,286), towns (2,191), andrural areas (4,013).5 Furthermore, most public libraries(76.7 percent) served a population area of fewer than
25,000 people.

In FY 2014, public libraries provided access to
information and services through the 16,559 central
and branch libraries and 659 bookmobiles in the UnitedStates. Approximately 306 million people lived withina public library service area—97.6 percent of the total
population.6 This translates to 3.0 public libraries and5.7 outlets7 for every 100,000 people.
This section presents the analysis of public libraries asa group and as individual entities. Several metrics ofFigure N-1. Public Library Administrative Entities in the United States, FY 2014

Locale CodeCity (n=476)
Suburb (n=2,286)
Town (n=2,191)
Rural (n=4,013)

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

In the FY 2014 PLS, an edit check was implemented for the FSCS flag. If a library reported data that indicated that it met the FSCS definition for a public library, therespondent was notified, and the FSCS flag was modified to reflect the library status.
In the FY 2014 PLS, 104 libraries did not have a locale code and are excluded from locale analyses in this report.
6
In 2014, the U.S. population was 314,107,084. For more information, see http://www.census.gov/popest/.
7
Public libraries attached to an administrative entity, which is either a branch or central library.
4

5

4

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART ONE:National Overview of Public Library Trends
library use and investment are described in aggregate
form, combining information from all libraries into asingle national estimate. These national-level estimatesprovide an overall picture of the use of library resources
and services, including how these measures havechanged over time. Although it is important to examine
how public libraries are doing as a group, aggregatedestimates do not capture differences at the local level.

data. For instance, operating revenue and expenditures
decreased between FY 2009 and FY 2013. However,operating revenue and expenditures have increased overthe past year. Public library staffing also was affectedby the Great Recession. These changes, which are
discussed in greater detail here in Part One, show how
public libraries across the United States and District ofColumbia have changed since the Great Recession.

Part One presents national trends of public libraries in
the United States in FY 2014. At the national level,
there have been drastic changes for public libraries
over the last 5-year and 10-year periods. The evolving
landscape of public libraries is displayed across metrics
used in this report that show the financial health andcondition of library resources, use, and staffing. To
create a full picture of events occurring at the national
level, 1-, 5-, and 10-year changes8 are analyzed.

Section 1: Financial Health

There are many ways to examine the use of public
library resources and services. This report presents
an analysis of public libraries using several metrics.
The first set of metrics provides two key indicatorsof public library investments: operating revenue andoperating expenditures. These indicators help measure
the monetary health of libraries in the United States.
A second set of metrics examines indicators on libraryservices and resources: collections, public library
programs, public-access Internet computers, and thenumber of staff (measured in full-time equivalents). The
third set of metrics analyzes use of public library services
indicators: visits, circulation, program attendance, anduser sessions on public-access Internet computers. Data
are aggregated to the national level for each indicator.
However, Part Two presents the use of public library
resources and services in greater detail, including
analyses at the state, population, and locale levels.

The Great Recession
Between December 2008 and June 2009, the UnitedStates had a recession that impacted the national
economy and the financial health of public libraries.
The Great Recession9—which has changed the financial
operations of public libraries—was a period of declining
economic activity that impacted communities throughout
the United States. Some metrics used in this report stillshow a sluggish recovery compared to pre-recession

Public investments at local, state, and federal levels
allow libraries to provide access to many popular services
and resources. Public libraries direct these revenues
toward support of their local communities through avariety of services and resources. Most library operating
expenditures provide public resources and services,such as the collection of materials for loan, varied
programming, digital access, and knowledgeable staff.
Indicator 1: Total Operating Revenue per Capita
Public library operating revenue was directly impacted
by the Great Recession. After 4 straight years of
declining revenue from FY 2010 to FY 2013, public
libraries had $12.1 billion in revenue10 in FY 2014
(Figure N-2), a 1-year increase of 2.5 percent. Overthe past 10 years, total operating revenue increased
5.1 percent. However, post-recession revenue growthis still sluggish. Although there was a 1-year increase
between FY 2013 and FY 2014, over the past 5 years
there was a small decrease in revenue of 0.8 percent
following a $12.6 billion revenue peak in FY 2009,
after adjusting for inflation.
Of public library revenue in FY 2014, 85.2 percent
came from local government sources. In contrast, only
7.0 percent of revenue, or $849.2 million, was derived
from state government sources—a 1-year decreaseof 3.6 percent. Less than 1 percent of the remaining
share of revenue came from federal government sources($45.6 million), which had a 1-year decrease of 11.9
percent. Finally, approximately $890.7 million ofrevenue was derived from other sources, accounting for
7.4 percent of the total revenue, a 1-year increase of
10.6 percent. Over the past 5 and 10 years, the makeupof the share of revenue sources has changed. The shareof local government revenue increased 4.6 percent overthe past 10 years and 0.4 percent over the past 5 years.

Calculations in this report are based on unrounded estimates. For instance, percentage change is not always identical to the calculation obtained by using the rounded values
shown in the report or supplemental tables.
9
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). (2010). Business cycle dating committee announcement. Cambridge, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/
cycles/sept2010.pdf. Business Cycle Dating Committee, NBER. (2010). U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/cycles.
html#announcements
10
Financial trends reported are adjusted for inflation using a gross domestic product (GDP) deflator. For more information, see Appendix B.
8Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

5

PART ONE:National Overview of Public Library Trends
Figure N-2. Total Public Library Operating Revenue and Expenditures, FY 2005–2014(in Constant 2014 Dollars)$14.0

Dollars (in Billions)

$12.0
$10.0
$8.0
$6.0
$4.0

Library Finances
Operating revenue$2.0

Operating expenditures
$0.0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

In FY 2014, total revenue per capita was $39.34, a
1-year increase of 2.0 percent. However, since the10-year peak in FY 2009, all types of revenue sources
decreased. Over the past 5 years, total operating revenue
per capita decreased 3.6 percent. Local government
revenue per capita (3.2 percent), state government
revenue per capita (4.0 percent), federal government
revenue per capita (21.2 percent), and other sourcesof revenue per capita (6.8 percent) also decreased.
The first increase in total operating revenue occurred
between FY 2013 and FY 2014. Furthermore, although
there was an increase in revenue between FY 2013
and FY 2014, recovery has been slow and has not yetcaught up to revenue during FY 2009, after adjustingfor inflation.
Indicator 2: Total Operating Expenditures per Capita
The Great Recession also affected operating
expenditures for public libraries across the UnitedStates. At the national level, in FY 2014, total operating
expenditures for public libraries were $11.3 billion(Figure N-2), a 1-year increase of 1.5 percent. Over the
past 10 years, total operating expenditures increased
5.7 percent. However, over the past 5 years, operating
expenditures decreased 2.2 percent. Post-recession
total operating expenditures were slow to recover.
Between FY 2009 and FY 2013, total operating
expenditures decreased 6.2 percent. It was only
between FY 2013 and FY 2014 that total operating
expenditures had the first post-recession increase.
The majority of FY 2014 operating expenditures(67.0 percent) went to staffing expenses, which include

6

salaries and benefits. Of those operating expenditures,
public libraries spent $5.6 billion on staff salaries and$2.0 billion on benefits, a 1-year increase of less than
1.0 percent for salaries and of 2.9 percent for benefits.
Library collections accounted for 11.2 percent of total
operating expenses. Public libraries spent $1.3 billion
on collection materials, a 5- and 10-year decrease of
5.7 percent and 10.0 percent, respectively. However, overthe past 10 years, operating expenditures on electronicmaterials increased 109.6 percent, from $130.2 million
in FY 2005 to $273.0 million in FY 2014—accountingfor 21.4 percent of all expenditures for library collections.
Although many collection expenditures decreased after
the Great Recession, expenditures on electronic materials
continued to increase. Over the past 5 years, expenditures
on electronic materials increased 63.0 percent.
In FY 2014, total operating expenditures per capita
were $36.96, a 1-year increase of 2.8 percent. Despite
decreases in total operating expenditures over the past
5 and 10 years, total operating expenditures per capita
increased. Over the past 10 years, total operating
expenditures per capita increased 16.6 percent. Afterthe recession, total operating expenditures per capita
continued to have a smaller increase. Over the past
5 years, total operating expenditures per capita had
a 2.2 percent increase. Not all types of operating
expenditures per capita saw increases over the past
5 years. For instance, expenditures on print materials
per capita had a 13.7 percent decrease, due in part toincreased spending on electronic books.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART ONE:National Overview of Public Library Trends
Section 2: Resources
Indicator 3: Public Library Collections per 1,000 People
Public library collections are developed to meet the
information needs of the communities they serve.
Collections are made up of physical and digitalmaterials, which include print books, e-books, DVDs, anddownloadable audio files. The average collection size
across all public libraries was 127,620 items, including
printed materials, e-books, and audio and video in all
formats. However, collection sizes varied, ranging from
452 items to 25.1 million items. Across all public
libraries, there were 765.5 million volumes of printmaterials, mostly books, and 1.37 million print serial
subscriptions.
With increased accessibility, digital holdings at public
libraries increased over the past 10 years. E-books
provide flexibility and convenience for users and an
opportunity for libraries to leverage cooperatives foraccess. Many cooperatives are shared across libraries.
In some cases, states purchase or license e-books to
be circulated across all public libraries in the state. In
FY 2014, 7,096 public libraries (78.2 percent) held an
average of 23,544 e-books as part of their collection,with libraries’ collections of e-books ranging from zero
to 1,036,312 e-books.
In addition to books, public libraries include audio andvideo materials in their collections, in both physical anddigital/downloadable formats. Among the 8,928 libraries
with audio holdings, the average number of items was
12,497. In the 8,939 libraries with video materials, theaverage number of video materials was 7,485.
Indicator 4: Public Library Programs per 1,000 People
Public libraries are committed to providing opportunities
for learning experiences that educate and inspire people
throughout their lifetime, such as digital learning,summer reading programs, story time for children,and job-related programming for adults. In FY 2014,
public libraries offered 4.5 million programs—a 1-yearincrease of 4.8 percent and a 10-year increase of
68.0 percent. Public library programs also increased
over the past 5 years (19.3 percent). Furthermore,
there were 14.6 programs per 1,000 people, a 1-yearincrease of 4.2 percent. These changes more broadly
indicate a change in the state of library composition.
Although print and physical audio materials have been
decreasing (see Indicator 3), the number of programs
has consistently increased, indicating a demand forin-person opportunities that differ from the traditional
library services, such as lending books to patrons.

Children’s programs made up 57.4 percent of all
program offerings, or a total of 2.6 million programs—
a 1-year increase of 2.1 percent and an 11.4 percent
increase over the past 5 years. This equated to 8.4
children’s program offerings per 1,000 people. In
FY 2014, there were 423,948 programs for young adults
across the nation, with 71.1 percent of libraries (6,451)
providing young adult’s programs. This equated to
9.5 percent of all program offerings, and 1.4 programsfor young adults per 1,000 people.
Indicator 5: Public-Access Internet Computers per 5,000
PeopleA core function of public libraries is to facilitate open
access to resources. Public libraries accomplish this byproviding open access to computers and the Internet,
serving as technology points for communities. In FY
2014, there were 285,395 public-access Internet
computers available in libraries, a 1-year increase of
2.4 percent and a 5-year increase of 16.6 percent. Overthe past 10 years, public-access Internet computers
increased 54.6 percent. This increase resulted in 4.7
computers per 5,000 people in FY 2014—a 10-yearincrease of 44.2 percent and a 5-year increase of
13.3 percent. These changes over the past 5 and 10
years indicate a shift in the public library services andresources offered to the public.

Section 3: Use
Indicator 6: Visits per Capita
In FY 2014, there were 1.4 billion in-person visits topublic libraries across the United States—the equivalentof approximately 3.9 million visits each day (a 1-year
decrease of 2.4 percent). Although this reflects a
10-year increase of 4.8 percent, there has been adecrease in physical visits since a peak in FY 2009.11
For example, over the past 5 years, visits decreased
9.4 percent. In FY 2014, visits per capita were 4.6,
a 1-year decrease of 3.0 percent. Moreover, visits per
capita decreased 12.0 percent over the past 5 years
and 2.2 percent over the past 10 years.
On average, public libraries that had e-books as partof their collection also had higher rates of visits andcirculation. Public libraries with e-books in their collection
had higher rates of visits per capita (average of 4.7)
compared to libraries without e-books (average of 3.4).

It is critical to interpret trends in patron visits with caution. The PLS collects data on the number of in-person visits to public libraries, but it does not collect similar data on
virtual visits.

11

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

7

PART ONE:National Overview of Public Library Trends
There were 171.8 million registered borrowers acrosspublic libraries in the United States. Over the past
5 years, the number of registered borrowers had littlechange, increasing slightly from 171.1 million in
FY 2010 to 171.8 million in FY 2014.
Indicator 7: Circulation per Capita
Public libraries have a variety of collections available forcirculation (i.e., the number of materials that have beenchecked out for use) to the public, including print books,
audio books, DVDs, and e-books. In FY 2014, 2.3 billion
materials were circulated in public libraries. This was a
10-year increase of 12.2 percent. However, over the past
5 years, the number of materials circulated decreased
from 2.5 billion in FY 2010 to 2.3 billion in FY 2014,
resulting in a 6.1 percentage change.
In FY 2014, 817.9 million children’s materials
were circulated in public libraries, accounting for35.4 percent of total collections for circulation. This
represented a 10-year increase of 14.3 percent.
However, over the past 5 years, circulation decreased
2.3 percent. The same changes occurred for children’s
circulation per capita (2.7 items), a 1-year decreaseof 2.6 percent. Although children’s circulation percapita had a 10-year increase of 6.8 percent, over the
past 5 years there was a steady decrease in children’s
circulation per capita, from 2.8 items in FY 2010 to
2.7 items in FY 2014. Total circulation per capita
exhibited the same trends, including a 1-year decreaseof 3.0 percent. Over the past 10 years, total circulation
per capita increased 4.6 percent but decreased
8.8 percent over the past 5 years.
Indicator 8: Program Attendance per 1,000 People
Public libraries serve as valuable learning spaces in theirlocal communities. People go to libraries for speaker
series, tutoring, computer training, story hour, and otheractivities. Although circulation of material decreased overthe past 5 and 10 years, program attendance increased.
In FY 2014, there were 101.9 million attendees12 at
public library programs, a 1-year increase of 5.5 percent.
Over the past 5 and 10 years, program attendance
increased 17.6 percent and 43.9 percent, respectively.
Total attendance per 1,000 people was 332.4—that is,for every 1,000 people in a library service area, there
were approximately 332 patrons who attended a public
library program in FY 2014. Average attendance at library
programs was 22.8 people per program.

Children under 18 years of age made up 23.1 percentof the total U.S. population in 2014.13 To meet theneeds of this segment of the population, public libraries
provide programs targeting children and young adults.
In FY 2014, there were 70.1 million attendees at
programs for children, a 1-year increase of 4.0 percent.
Over the past 5 and 10 years, children’s programattendance increased 15.9 percent and 28.6 percent,respectively. Children’s programs at public libraries
are among the most popular of all programs: 68.8
percent of total FY 2014 program attendance was forchildren’s programs. Attendance at children’s programsper 1,000 people was 228.8. There were 6.7 million
attendees at programs for young adults, a 1-yearincrease of 9.2 percent. Young adult attendance had thelargest increase, 36.3 percent, over the past 5 years.
Attendance at young adult’s programs per 1,000 people
was 21.8.
The increase in program attendance shows a larger
picture of the changing state of public libraries in
the United States. Visits to public libraries decreased
over the past 5 and 10 years, yet program attendance
increased. Although less physical content is being
distributed, patrons are still using libraries for lesstraditional services. Furthermore, despite the recession
in 2008, program attendance has consistently
increased—a trend that has been under way since
FY 2004.
Indicator 9: Public-Access Internet Computer Usage per
CapitaAccess to the Internet and computer resources is oneof the many services that public libraries provide.
Many public libraries offer broadband (high-speed
Internet service), which can be accessed through thelibrary-provided computers. In FY 2014, there were322.0 million user sessions on public-access Internet
computers, a 1-year decrease of 3.6 percent and a
5-year decrease of 12.5 percent. Furthermore, there
were 1.1 user sessions per capita, a 1-year decreaseof 4.5 percent.
Indicator 10: Reference Transactions per Capita
Reference transactions are an important service provided
by public libraries. Librarians use their expertise tooffer recommendations and provide instruction orinterpretation to patrons looking for material or otherresources. Librarians and other library staff performed
262.7 million reference transactions in FY 2014, a
1-year decrease of 3.6 percent and 5- and 10-year

The number of attendees is not an accounting of individual people; it may include multiple instances of the same person if that person participated in more than one program.
Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1,
2010, to July 1, 2014. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Release Date: June 2015.

12
13

8

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART ONE:National Overview of Public Library Trends
decreases of 14.9 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively.
This equated to 0.86 reference transactions per capita
and a 3.7 percent decrease over the past year. Over the
past 5 and 10 years, reference transactions per capita
decreased (17.6 percent and 19.1 percent, respectively).

Section 4: Staffing
Indicators 11 and 12: Numbers of Full-Time Equivalent Staff
per 25,000 People
One of the most important assets in public libraries isknowledgeable library staff. Three indicators describe
the current status of library staff: total staff per 25,000
people, full-time equivalent (FTE) librarians per 25,000
people, and percentage of librarians with a Masterof Library Science degree (MLS) accredited by theAmerican Library Association (ALA).
Public library services were supported by 138,332 FTE
staff,14 a 1-year increase of 0.8 percent. Across theUnited States, there were 11.3 FTE staff per 25,000
people, a 10-year decrease of 6.3 percent and adecrease of 9.0 percent when compared to the peakof FY 2007.
FTE librarians (47,194) composed 34.1 percent of total
staff, a 10-year increase of 3.8 percent. There were
4.0 FTE librarians per 25,000 people, a 2.8 percent
decrease since FY 2005.
Indicator 13: Percentage of Librarians with an ALAAccredited Master’s Degree
Two-thirds (67.9 percent) of librarians had an MLS
degree from an ALA-accredited graduate program.
More than half of public libraries (52.6 percent) had
at least one librarian on staff with an ALA-accredited
master’s degree. In contrast, 1.0 percent (just 94 public
libraries across the country) did not have a librarian atall (whether with an MLS degree or not).

Summary of National-Level Estimates
Part One of this report explored national-level estimatesof public library financial health, resources, and services.
Findings indicate an evolving public library system in
the United States. In some cases, FY 2014 showed thefirst increase in finances and services since the GreatRecession. Moreover, patron demands differ comparedto those of the past 5 and 10 years. For instance, public
libraries are seeing a demand for digital versions ofprint materials and program offerings to children andyoung adults. In contrast, many of the traditional library
resources and services continue to trend downward.

14

Since FY 2012, public libraries have begun to stabilize
after the recession. In many cases, public libraries did
not see improvements in financial health until 2014.
Operating revenue for public libraries increased overthe past 1, 5, and 10 years; the majority of revenue
comes from local government sources. However, trends
developed after the Great Recession still continue in2014. Operating revenue has yet to catch up to prerecession levels (revenue saw consistent increases
until the apex of the recession in 2009). Furthermore,
between FY 2009 and FY 2013, operating revenue
decreased. One of the most striking changes is theincrease in the proportion of revenue coming fromlocal governments, as revenue from state and federal
governments declined.
Operating expenditures also had 1- and 10-yearincreases, a possible sign of the improving financial
health of libraries across the United States. However,
over the past 5 years, since FY 2010, operating
expenditures decreased. Much like operating revenue,
operating expenditures have not caught up to prerecession levels. In FY 2009, operating expenditures for
public libraries in the United States were higher thanthose in FY 2014, after adjusting for inflation. In fact,nationally, operating expenditures in public libraries
increased until FY 2014. The majority of operating
expenditures went toward staffing expenses, specificallystaff salaries. Although operating expenditures on
print materials decreased, operating expenditures onelectronic materials consistently increased over the
past 5 and 10 years. Although the recession affected
the operating expenditures on staffing and resources,
operating expenditures on electronic materials continued
because of the demand for digital material.
Overall, collections at public libraries increased over the
past 10 years. However, the number of print materials
at public libraries decreased, whereas access to e-books
increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Thesechanges show an increased demand for digital services
and the changing environment of public libraries.
In-person visits and circulation rates decreased overthe past 5 years. However, circulation rates still show a
10-year increase. The number of user sessions on publicaccess Internet computers also had both a 1- and 5-year
decrease. In contrast to these other metrics of library

Full-time equivalent (FTE) refers to 40 hours of work per week. For example, two people who work a part-time schedule of 20 hours per week are equal to 1.0 FTE.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

9

PART ONE:National Overview of Public Library Trends

use, attendance at programs of all types (e.g., children’s
programs, young adult’s programs, adult’s programs)
continued to increase over the past 10 years.
One of the reasons for the increase in programattendance is the increase in the number of program
offerings to the public. One-, 5-, and 10-year trends
show a continual rise in the number of program offerings.
Specifically, children’s programs, which account forthe majority of program offerings, increased yearly.
Furthermore, the number of public-access Internet
computers increased since FY 2004 and continued
to increase every year.
Finally, despite increases in operating revenue andexpenditures, staffing had very little change over the
past year. Furthermore, staffing levels decreased overthe past 10 years.

10

There is still a high demand for the valuable resources
and services that public libraries provide. The measuresof public library use showed an increase in the demand
for library services over the past 10 years. As the public
continues to invest in the resources provided by public
libraries, it is important that these investments not
only be used to provide concrete resources but also
be directed toward meeting the strong need for digital
resources and trained library staff.
Although there were declines for some metrics in recent
years, the indicators tell a cohesive and consistent story:
People are still using public libraries. The indicators dig
a little deeper into each metric, with additional detail onvariations based on state, population, and locale. The
deeper dive into the 13 public indicators in Part Two
echo the findings from the national analysis presented
in Part One.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators
Introduction
Part Two of the FY 2014 PLS annual report explores
13 public library indicators, first providing FY 2014
summary statistics and then 1-, 5-, and 10-year
percentage changes15 comparing the most recent PLS
data to FY 2013, FY 2010, and FY 2005 PLS data.

Table 1-A presents FY 2014 and percentage change
statistics for each indicator. Part Two also examines eachindicator by locale, population size, and state.

Table 1-A. Percentage Change of Public Library Indicators, FY 2005–2014

Public Library Indicators

FY 2014

1-YearChangeFY 13–14

Indicator 1. Total Operating Revenue per Capita$39.34

2.0%

-3.6%

-2.0%

$0.15

-12.4%-21.2%-28.6%

1.2. Operating Revenue per Capita from State Government

$2.77

3.0%

-4.0%

-28.3%

1.3. Operating Revenue per Capita from Local Government$33.51

1.3%

-3.2%

2.5%

1.4. Operating Revenue per Capita from Other Sources

$2.91

10.0%

-6.8%

-13.7%

1.1. Operating Revenue per Capita from Federal Government

Indicator 2. Total Operating Expenditures per Capita

5-YearChangeFY 10–14

10-Year
Change*FY 05–14$36.96

2.8%

2.2%

16.6%

2.1 Operating Expenditures per Capita on Staffing$24.76

2.5%

2.2%

18.5%

2.2 Operating Expenditures per Capita on Collections

$4.16

2.1%

-1.6%

-0.6%

2.3 Operating Expenditures per Capita on Other Costs

$8.04

4.2%

4.0%

21.8%

3,777.6

8.7%

20.2%

19.6%

-1.7%

Indicator 3: Public Library Collections per 1,000 People
3.1: Books per 1,000 People

2,498.2-8.0%-12.2%

3.2: E-books per 1,000 People

696.9

60.3% 1,021.1%

2,140.1%

3.3: Audio Materials per 1,000 People

364.1

23.6%

96.9%

151.1%

3.4: Video Materials per 1,000 People

218.4

7.5%

22.1%

57.8%

Indicator 4: Public Library Programs per 1,000 People

14.6

4.2%

15.8%

56.7%

4.1: Programs for Children per 1,000 People

8.4

1.6%

8.1%

26.6%

4.2: Programs for Young Adults per 1,000 People

1.4

9.8%

39.8%

—

Indicator 5: Public-Access Internet Computers per 5,000 People

4.7

1.9%

13.3%

44.2%

Indicator 6: Visits per Capita

4.6

-3.0%

-12.0%-2.2%

Indicator 7: Circulation per Capita

7.5

-3.0%

-8.8%

4.6%

2.7

-2.6%

-5.0%

6.7%

7.1: Circulation of Children’s Materials per Capita
Indicator 8: Program Attendance per 1,000 People

332.4

4.9%

14.2%

34.2%

8.1: Children’s Program Attendance per 1,000 People

228.8

3.5%

12.5%

20.0%

8.2: Young Adult’s Program Attendance per 1,000 People

21.8

8.6%

32.4%

—

Indicator 9: Public-Access Internet Computer Usage per Capita

1.1

-4.5%

-15.3%—

Indicator 10: Reference Transactions per Capita

0.9

-3.7%

-17.6%-19.1%

Indicator 11: Staffing per 25,000 People

11.3

0.3%

-3.6%

-6.3%

Indicator 12: Librarians per 25,000 People

3.9

-1.0%

-2.3%

-2.8%

Indicator 13: Percentage of Librarians with an ALA-Accredited Master’s Degree

67.9

1.2%

-0.3%

-0.3%

* Because not all data elements were collected for 10 years, programs for young adults per 1,000 people, young adult’s program attendance per 1,000 people and use of public-accessInternet computers per capita report only 1- and 5-year changes. Calculations are based on unrounded estimates. Percentage change is not always identical to the calculation obtained byusing the rounded values shown in published tables, including tables in this report.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005, 2010, 2013 and 2014.

Calculations in this report are based on unrounded estimates. Percentage change is not always identical to the calculation obtained by using the rounded values shown inpublished tables, including tables presented in this report.

15

12

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators
About the Subgroupings
In Part Two, each of the indicators is not only examinedat the national level but is also based on subgroups:
locale, size of population served,16 and state. Most states
have libraries in each of the locale types. Locale andpopulation size are each separated into four categories(Table 1-B). However, there are differences between

locale and size of the population served. For instance,
not all large population sizes fall into the “city” locale,and similarly, not all small population sizes fall into town
or rural areas. Therefore, it is important to conduct bothanalyses given that operating revenue and expenditure
estimates at the locale level and by population size are
not comparable.

Table 1-B. Public Libraries by Locale and Size of Population Served, FY 2014
LocalePopulation Size Served

City

Suburb

Town

Rural

Total

Very large (> 25,000)

2,252

1,255

270

236

4,013

Large (10,000–25,000)

99

948

685

459

2,191

Medium (2,500–9,999)

64

500

772

950

2,286

Small (< 2,500)

3

9

20

444

476

2,418

2,712

1,747

2,089

8,966

Total
NOTE: Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Population size is measured using the population of the legal service area (LSA). In the PLS, the LSA is the geographic space that a library services. Some states have libraries
with overlapping boundaries; therefore, multiple libraries could serve the same LSA population.

16

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201413

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 1: Financial Health

Section 1: Financial Health
Overview
Public library indicators are a set of metrics that provide a snapshot of the status of the financial health of public
libraries. Most public library services and resources are dependent on how public libraries receive and spend money.
They serve as a gauge of changes in public library use, service, and resources. Indicators in Section 1 are calculated
as per capita estimates, adjusting for population; thus, they provide a way to compare performance across libraries.
Results for each indicator are also broken out by category at the regional, state, and local levels. The analysis that
follows also examines 1-, 5-, and 10-year changes (FY 2013, FY 2010, and FY 2005, respectively, adjusted toconstant 2014 dollars) that paint a picture of the use and health of public libraries in the United States over time.
This section looks at changes in Indicator 1 (operating revenue) and Indicator 2 (operating expenditures) at thenational level over time. The majority of operating expenditures increased over the past year as well as the past 5 and10 years.
Finally, the financial health of public libraries is examined by locale, population size, and state, exploring differencesin FY 2014. The national-level analysis provides a snapshot of the operations of libraries at a macro level, whereas
these detailed analyses show unique differences in library finances. For instance, there was not a 1-year increase intotal operating expenditures for all states.

Indicator 1: Total Operating Revenue per Capita
In FY 2014, public libraries in the United States had $12.1 billion in total operating revenue, or $39.34 per capita.

The types of services, programs, staffing, and collections
offered by public libraries are dependent on the total
operating revenue. Total operating revenue is generated
primarily from four sources: local government, state
government, federal government, and other sources (e.g.,monetary gifts and donations). Historically, the majorityof public library revenue has been generated by local
governments.

Over the past 10 years, state government revenue,
federal government revenue, and other sources ofrevenue decreased (28.3 percent, 28.6 percent, and13.7 percent, respectively), compared to a 2.5 percent
increase in local government revenue (Table 1-1.1).
However, over the past 5 years, operating revenue fromall sources decreased. As a result of these decreases,
local governments have been responsible for contributing
a greater share of the revenue to public libraries.

Table 1-1.1. Revenue per Capita by Source, FY 2005–2014 (in Constant 2014 Dollars)

Revenue per Capita

FY 2014

FY 2013

FY 2010

FY 2005

1-YearChangeFY 13–14

5-YearChangeFY 10–14

10-Year
ChangeFY 05–14

Total$39.34$38.58$40.82$40.14

2.0%

-3.6%

-2.0%

Federal

$0.15

$0.17

$0.19

$0.21

-12.4%-21.2%-28.6%

State

$2.77

$2.69

$2.89

$3.86

3.0%

-4.0%

-28.3%

Local$33.51$33.07$34.63$32.70

1.3%

-3.2%

2.5%

Other

$2.91

$2.64

$3.12

$3.37

10.0%

-6.8%

-13.7%

NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates. Percentage change is not always identical to the calculation obtained by using the rounded values shown in published tables,
including tables presented in this report.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005, 2010, 2013 and 2014.

14

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 1: Financial HealthPublic libraries in the United States had a total revenue
per capita of $39.34 in FY 2014, a 1-year increase of
2.0 percent. There was a 2.0 percent decrease in total
revenue per capita over the past 10 years. However, overthe past 5 years, there was a 3.6 percent decrease intotal operating revenue between FY 2010 ($40.82) andFY 2014 ($39.34).

$33.51 per capita and a 1-year increase of 1.3 percent.
Over the past 10 years, local government revenue
increased 2.5 percent. In FY 2005, local governments
contributed $32.70 per capita, representing 81.4
percent of public libraries’ revenues. However, overthe past 5 years, local government revenue decreased
3.2 percent.

Federal government revenue per capita made up only
0.4 percent of total revenue, equating to $0.15 per
capita in FY 2014, a 1-year decrease of 12.4 percent
from FY 2013. Over the past 5 and 10 years, federal
government revenue per capita decreased 21.2 percent
and 28.6 percent, respectively.

Other sources of revenue made up 7.4 percent of total
revenue, which equated to $2.91 per capita and a 1-yearincrease of 10.0 percent. However, over the past 5 and10 years, other sources of revenue per capita decreased
6.8 percent and 13.7 percent respectively.

State government revenue made up 7.0 percent of total
revenue in FY 2014, equating to $2.77 per capita,
for a 1-year increase of 3.0 percent. Over the past 10
years, state government revenue per capita decreased
28.3 percent, with a 4.0 percent decrease over the
past 5 years.
In FY 2014, local governments provided most of
libraries’ revenue (85.2 percent), which equated toLocale and Population Size Estimates
Total revenue per capita varied by locale (Table 1-1.2).
In FY 2014, libraries in cities and suburbs had
more total revenue per capita ($42.23 and $42.58,
respectively) than libraries in towns ($28.45) andrural areas ($31.62). Libraries across all locale types,
however, increased in total revenue per capita between
FY 2013 and FY 2014. Local revenues accounted
for a larger share of operating revenue for suburbs(87.9 percent) than other locale types.

Table 1-1.2. Operating Revenue per Capita by Source, Locale, and Population Size, FY 2014
(in Constant 2014 Dollars)
Operating Revenue Source

Category

Total

Federal

State

Local

Other

Overall$39.34

$0.15

$2.77

$33.51

$2.91

City

$42.23

$0.21

$2.54

$35.84$3.64

Suburb

$42.58

$0.07

$2.67

$37.42

$2.42

Town

$28.45

$0.18

$3.54

$22.21

$2.53

Rural

$31.62

$0.19

$3.15

$25.22$3.05

Very large (> 25,000)$38.35

$0.15

$2.78

$32.75$2.67

Large (10,000–25,000)$45.47

$0.12

$2.67

$39.24$3.43

Medium (2,500–9,999)$43.23

$0.18

$2.75

$35.28$5.01

Small (< 2,500)$50.58

$0.42

$2.96

$38.84$8.36

LocalePopulation size

NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates; therefore, reported totals may differ due to rounding. Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201415

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 1: Financial Health
Total revenue per capita also varied by population size.
Libraries serving areas with small population sizes had
the highest total revenue per capita ($50.58), whereas
those serving areas of very large population size had
the lowest revenue per capita ($38.35). However, the1-year change was highest for libraries serving very large

populations (2.4 percent) (Figure 1-1.1). Per capita
revenue decreased 0.5 percent for libraries in areas
serving large population sizes. Local revenues accounted
for a larger share of operating revenue for areas withlarge population sizes (86.4 percent) compared to thoseof other sizes.

Figure 1-1.1. Operating Revenue per Capita by Size of Population in Library Legal Service Area,
FY 2005–2014 (in Constant 2014 Dollars)$60.00Dollars (per Capita)$50.00Population of LibraryService Area

$40.00National
Very large(> 25,000)
Large(10,000–25,000)
Medium(2,500–9,999)
Small(< 2,500)$30.00$20.00$10.00

$0.00
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
NOTE: Estimates in the figure use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

16

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 1: Financial HealthState Estimates
Total revenue per capita varied across the 50 states andthe District of Columbia, ranging from $82.24 in theDistrict of Columbia to $17.35 in Mississippi (Figure
1-1.2). Libraries in the majority of states (34) and theDistrict of Columbia increased in total revenue per capita
between FY 2013 and FY 2014. Libraries in 23 states
had a 1-year decrease in total revenue per capita.
Libraries in the District of Columbia had the largest
1-year increase (18.8 percent) compared to libraries in
New Hampshire, which had the largest 1-year decrease
in total revenue per capita of 13.4 percent.

(29) had a 1-year increase in state government revenue
per capita between FY 2013 to FY 2014. Libraries
in Montana had the largest increase (101.5 percent),
whereas libraries in Washington had the largest decrease(75.2 percent).
Local government revenue per capita varied amongstates, from as high as $80.58 (District of Columbia)
to as low as $12.02 (Mississippi).17 Between FY 2013
and FY 2014, libraries in 18 states increased in local
government revenue per capita, and libraries in 31
states and the District of Columbia increased in local
government revenue per capita. Libraries in the Districtof Columbia had the largest increase in local government
revenue per capita (20.4 percent), whereas libraries in
New Hampshire had the largest decrease (13.1 percent).

Federal government revenue per capita varied acrossstates, from $1.78 in Alaska to $0.00 in Arkansas.
Libraries in the majority of states (33) and theDistrict of Columbia had a 1-year decrease in federal
government revenue per capita, ranging from 3.1
percent in Vermont to 100.0 percent in Arkansas.
In contrast, libraries in 17 states had a 1-year increasein federal government revenue per capita. For example,
libraries in Iowa had a 1,322.7 percent increase
between FY 2013 and FY 2014.

Other sources of revenue per capita also differed acrossstates, ranging from $0.27 in the District of Columbia
to $9.89 in New York. Libraries in the majority of states(31) had a 1-year increase in other sources of revenue percapita, ranging from 0.4 percent in Illinois to 50.1 percent
in New York. Libraries in 18 states and the District ofColumbia had a 1-year decrease in other sources ofrevenue per capita. Libraries in the District of Columbia
had the largest decrease in other sources of revenue percapita (60.3 percent) between FY 2013 and FY 2014.

State government revenue per capita ranged from
$29.94 in Ohio to less than $1.00 in 22 states and theDistrict of Columbia. Libraries in the majority of states

Figure 1-1.2. Operating Revenue per Capita by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD
IA

NE

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

PA
IL

UT

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

AR

SC
AL

NJ
DE
MD

DC

Revenue per Capita$50.00 or more (14 states + DC)

GA$40.00 to $49.99 (6 states)

LA

AK

RI
CT

NC

TN

MS

NH
MA

NY

MI

ME

$30.00 to $39.99 (13 states)FL$20.00 to $29.99 (14 states)
Less than $20.00 (3 states)

HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

17

In FY 2014, Hawaii reported local government revenue with state government revenue. Local government revenue was reported as $0.00.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201417

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 1: Financial HealthIndicator 2: Total Operating Expenditures per Capita
In FY 2014, total operating expenditures per capita were $36.96, a 1-year increase of 2.8 percent.

Indicator 2 examines the operating expenditures used
to pay for staffing, collections, and other needs. Public
libraries use operating expenditures to pay for library
resources, staffing, special projects, and other needs.
These operating expenditures are directly tied to alibrary’s operating revenue. Taken together, the two
metrics—operating expenditures and revenue—indicate
the health of a library. There are three main types ofoperating expenses: collection (e.g., print materials,
electronic materials, and other materials), staffing (e.g.,salaries and benefits), and other operating expenditures(all other expenditures not reported under collection
or staffing expenses). For example, other expenditures
may include binding, supplies, repair or replacementof existing furnishings and equipment, and costs ofcomputer hardware and software used to support library
operations or to link to external networks, such as theInternet.
The majority of library expenses are associated withstaffing expenditures, which account for 67.0 percentof the total library operating expenditures. Collection
and other operating expenditures make up the remaining
amount (11.2 percent and 21.8 percent, respectively).
Whereas total operating expenditures increased overtime, the proportions spent on various expenditurecategories generally stayed the same (Figure 1-2.1).

Figure 1-2.1. Operating Expenditures per Capita by Expenditure Category, FY 2005–2014(in Constant 2014 Dollars)$40.00$35.00Dollars (per Capita)$30.00$25.00$31.69$4.18$6.60$33.27
$4.38

$7.03

$34.98
$4.60

$7.45

$36.96$36.41$36.88$36.18$35.83$35.47$35.96

$4.67

$4.41

$4.22

$4.09

$4.03

$4.07

$7.81

$7.90

$7.73

$7.74

$7.45

$7.72

$8.04

$23.93$24.56$24.23$24.00$23.99$24.17$24.76$4.16$20.00$15.00$10.00$20.90$21.87$22.94

Operating Expenditures
Collection expenditures
Other operating
expenditures$5.00

Staff expenditures
$0.00

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates; therefore, reported totals may differ due to rounding.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

18

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 1: Financial HealthIn FY 2014, total operating expenditures per capita were
$36.96, a 1-year increase of 2.8 percent. However, overthe past 10 years, total operating expenditures had a
16.6 percent increase (Table 1-2.1). Staff expendituresand other expenditures also increased over the past
10 years (18.5 percent and 21.8 percent, respectively),
whereas collection expenditures had slightly less than a
1.0 percent decrease. The past 5 years showed similarchanges, in which staff expenditures and other operating
expenditures increased (2.2 percent and 4.0 percent,respectively) and collection expenditures decreased(1.6 percent).
In FY 2014, staff expenditures per capita, which
include salary and benefits, were $24.76, a 1-yearincrease of 2.5 percent. Salary expenditures per capita
were $18.15, and benefits per capita were $6.61 in
FY 2014, both increasing from FY 2013 (1.8 percent
and 4.2 percent, respectively).
Salary expenses made up 73.3 percent of total staff
expenditures. However, benefits, as part of staff
expenditures, increased over the past 10 years. In
FY 2014, benefits expenses made up 26.7 percent
of total staff expenditures, compared to only 22.4
percent in FY 2005.
Collection expenditures include expenditures on printmaterials (e.g., books, serial subscriptions, government
documents), electronic materials (e.g., e-books,
downloadable audio and video materials, databases),and other materials (e.g., microform, physical audio andvideo materials). The majority of collection expenditures
were devoted to print materials (58.9 percent). The
remaining amount was divided between electronicmaterials (21.4 percent) and other materials (19.6
percent). These proportions have shifted since FY 2003,
with more collection expenditures devoted to electronic
and other materials.18
In FY 2014, collection expenditures per capita were
$4.16, a 1-year increase of 2.1 percent (Table 1-2.1).
Within collection expenditures per capita, print materials
expenditures per capita were $2.45 in FY 2014, a
1-year decrease of 0.5 percent. Collection expenditures
on electronic materials per capita were $0.89 in FY
2014, a 1-year increase of 13.5 percent. Moreover,
over the past 5- and 10-years, electronic expenditures
had large increases (70.2 percent and 131.3 percent,respectively). Collection expenditures on other materials(e.g., physical non-print) per capita were $0.82 in
FY 2014, a 1-year decrease of 0.8 percent.
Other operating expenditures include all otherexpenditures not reported under staff or collection
expenditures. These other expenditures include expenses
such as binding, supplies, repair or replacement ofexisting furnishings and equipment, and costs ofcomputer hardware and software used to support library
operations or to link to external networks, including theInternet. In FY 2014, other operating expenditures per
capita were $8.04 in FY 2014, a 1-year increase of
4.2 percent.

Table 1-2.1. Operating Expenditures per Capita by Type, FY 2005–2014 (in Constant 2014 Dollars)

Category

FY 2014

FY 2013

FY 2010

FY 2005

1-YearChangeFY 13–14

5-YearChangeFY 10–14

10-Year
ChangeFY 05–14

Total$36.96$35.96$36.18$31.69

2.8%

2.2%

16.6%

Staff

$24.76$24.17$24.23$20.90

2.5%

2.2%

18.5%

Salary$18.15$17.83$18.23$16.21

1.8%

-0.4%

12.0%

Benefits

$6.61

$6.34

$6.00

$4.69

4.2%

10.1%

40.9%

Collection

$4.16

$4.07

$4.22

$4.18

2.1%

-1.6%

-0.6%

Print materials

$2.45

$2.46

$2.84

$3.04

-0.5%

-13.7%-19.4%

Electronic materials

$0.89

$0.79

$0.52

$0.39

13.5%

70.2%

131.3%

Other
Other

$0.82

$0.82

$0.86

$0.76

-0.8%

-5.3%

7.6%

$8.04

$7.72

$7.73

$6.60

4.2%

4.0%

21.8%

NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates. Percentage change is not always identical to the calculation obtained by using the rounded values shown in publishedtables, including tables presented in this report.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005, 2010, 2013 and 2014.

18

Data on electronic expenditures are available for FY 2003 through FY 2014. See Public Libraries in the United States Survey: Fiscal Year 2011.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

19

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 1: Financial Health
Locale and Population Size Estimates
Total operating expenditures per capita varied acrosslocales (Table 1-2.2). Libraries in cities and suburbs had
more total operating expenditures per capita ($39.89
and $39.96, respectively) than libraries in towns($26.73) and rural areas ($29.24). This relationshipwas consistent regardless of the type of expenditure.
All libraries had a 1-year decrease in total operating
expenditures per capita across all locales.
Operating expenditures per capita on print materials
were consistent with the findings for collection
expenditures. Libraries in cities and suburbs had more
operating expenditures on print materials ($2.45 and$2.64, respectively) than libraries in towns ($2.01)
and rural areas ($2.31). In addition, libraries in rural
areas and towns had a 1-year increase in print material
expenditures per capita (1.7 percent and 1.4 percent,respectively) compared to libraries in suburbs, which had
a 1.8 percent decrease. Libraries in cities did not change
between FY 2013 and FY 2014.
Operating expenditures per capita on electronic materials
varied across locales. In FY 2014, libraries in cities andsuburbs spent approximately twice as much on electronicmaterials per capita ($1.05 and $1.01, respectively) as
libraries in towns ($0.44) and rural areas ($0.49). Alllibraries saw increases in electronic expenditures per
capita across all locales between FY 2013 and 2014.
Total operating expenditures per capita also varied acrosspopulation size (Table 1-2.2). Libraries serving small
population sizes had the highest operating expenditures
per capita ($47.64), whereas those serving areas withvery large population sizes had the lowest per capita
operating expenditures ($36.05). Between FY 2013 andFY 2014, all libraries saw decreases in total operating
expenditures per capita across all population sizes.
Per capita operating expenditures on staffing, however,accounted for a smaller share of overall operating
expenditures at libraries serving small population size
areas (59.2 percent) than libraries serving areas withmore than 2,500 people.
As with collection expenditures, libraries serving small
population sizes had more print materials expenditures
per capita compared to those serving all other population
sizes; the amount spent on print materials decreased
with increasing population size. The opposite was thecase with operating expenditures on electronic materials:
Libraries with very large population service areas
reported larger per capita operating expenditures onthese materials ($0.93), and those with small population
service areas reported the lowest ($0.49).

Table 1-2.2. Operating Expenditures per Capita by Type of Expenditures, Locale, and Population Size, FY 2014
Collections
Print
Materials

Electronic
Materials

Other
OperatingExpenditures

Category

Total

Staff

Total
Collection

Overall$36.96$24.76

$4.16

$2.45

$0.89

$8.04

City

$39.89$27.18

$4.30

$2.45

$1.05

$8.42

Suburb

$39.96$26.76

$4.59

$2.64

$1.01

$8.60

Town

$26.73$17.61

$3.02

$2.01

$0.44

$6.10

Rural

$29.24$18.56

$3.46

$2.31

$0.49

$7.22

Very large (> 25,000)$36.05$24.20

$4.06

$2.32

$0.93

$7.79

Large (10,000–25,000)$42.48$28.85

$4.55

$2.93

$0.73

$9.07

Medium (2,500–9,999)$40.70$26.35

$4.76

$3.32

$0.51

$9.59

Small (< 2,500)$47.64$28.21

$6.27

$4.71

$0.49

$13.16

LocalePopulation size

NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates; therefore, reported totals may differ due to rounding. Estimates in the figure use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

20

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 1: Financial HealthState Estimates
Total operating expenditures per capita varied acrossstates, from $16.35 in Mississippi to $82.43 in theDistrict of Columbia (Figure 1-2.2). Libraries in the
majority of states (45) and the District of Columbia
had a 1-year increase in total operating expenditures
per capita. Between FY 2013 and FY 2014, libraries
in the District of Columbia had the largest increase(22.2 percent), whereas libraries in New Hampshire had
the largest decrease in total operating expenditures per
capita (12.4 percent).

$11.00 in Mississippi. Libraries in the majority of states(45) and the District of Columbia had a 1-year increasein staff expenditures. The greatest increase occurred in
the District of Columbia (21.3 percent). The greatest
decrease was in New Hampshire (12.7 percent).
Collection expenditures per capita varied across states,
ranging from $8.41 in Ohio to $1.49 in Mississippi.
Libraries in the majority of states (36) had a 1-yearincrease in collection expenditures per capita. The
largest increase between FY 2013 and FY 2014 wasin Hawaii (18.6 percent), and the largest decrease wasin New Hampshire (15.5 percent).

Staff expenditures per capita also varied across states,19
ranging from $58.70 in the District of Columbia to

Figure 1-2.2. Operating Expenditures per Capita by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD
NE

PA
OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IL

UT

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

AR

SC
AL

MD

DC

Operating Expenditures per Capita$50.00 or more (11 states + DC)

GA$40.00 to $49.99 (7 states)

LA

AK

NJ
DE

RI
CT

NC

TN

MS

NH
MA

NY

IA

ME

$30.00 to $39.99 (14 states)FL$20.00 to $29.99 (13 states)
Less than $20.00 (5 states)

HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Not all expenditure data are shown in this report. Information on these data can be found in the Supplementary Tables Public Libraries Survey Fiscal Year 2014 (https://www.
imls.gov/sites/default/files/fy2014_pls_tables.pdf)

19

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201421

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 2: Resources

Section 2: Resources
Overview
This section contains indicators related to resources and services that are provided by public libraries. These resource
indicators include a public library’s collection (e.g., books, e-books, audio materials, video materials, and databases),
program offerings, and public-access Internet computers.
This section first explores collection materials, some of the fundamental building blocks of public libraries.
Subsequently, this section looks at program offerings to children and young adults, which increased over the last 5
and 10 years. Finally, this section explores public-access Internet computers, which are increasingly made available
to patrons who lack access to web-connected computers. Internet access has become necessary for everything frominformation access to job applications to requesting public services.

Indicator 3: Public Library Collections per 1,000 People
In FY 2014, more than 1 billion materials were available to the public through public library collections, or 3,777.6 materials
per 1,000 people.

Patrons rely heavily on public libraries for access to a
wealth of collectible materials, such as educational andrecreational books. These collections consist of printmaterials (e.g., books), physical non-print materials (e.g.,physical audio and videos), and digital materials (e.g.,
e-books and audio/video downloadable materials). The
collections, which are the foundation of public libraries,
give many people the opportunity to read books, listen
to music, and watch videos that otherwise would beinaccessible.

In FY 2014, more than 1 billion materials were available
to the public through public library collections, which
included 765.5 million print materials, 213.5 million
e-books, 111.6 million audio materials, and 66.9 million
video materials. The majority of library collections
comprise print materials, which made up 66.1 percent
of all collection materials in FY 2014. The remaining
collection comprised e-books (18.4 percent), physicaland downloadable audio materials (9.6 percent), andphysical and downloadable video materials (5.8 percent)(Figure 2-3.1).

Figure 2-3.1. Total Collection Materials per 1,000 People by Material Type, FY 2005–2014
100.0%
90.0%

1.0%

1.3%

1.4%

1.4%

1.6%

2.0%

4.4%
4.6%

4.9%
4.7%

5.1%
5.0%

5.3%
5.4%

5.4%
5.7%

5.7%
5.9%

3.7%
5.9%
7.0%

7.5%

80.0%

Percentage of Collection

8.7%
5.8%

12.5%

18.4%

5.8%
8.5%

5.8%
9.6%

70.0%
60.0%
50.0%

90.0%

40.0%

89.2%

88.5%

87.9%

87.3%

86.4%

83.4%

78.0%

73.2%

30.0%

66.1%

E-books
Video materials

20.0%

Audio materials

10.0%
0.0%

Collection Materials

Print materials
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates; therefore, reported totals may differ due to rounding.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

22

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 2: Resources
In FY 2014, total collection materials per 1,000 people
comprised 3,777.6 items, a 1-year increase of 8.7 percent
from FY 2013 (Table 2-3.1). There was a 20.2 percent
increase in total collections per 1,000 people between
FY 2010 and FY 2014 and a 19.6 percent increase
between FY 2005 and FY 2014.
Print materials consist of print books (non-serial
publications bound in hard and soft covers) andgovernment documents. In FY 2014, print materials
per 1,000 people comprised 2,498.2 items, a 1-year
decrease of 1.7 percent from FY 2013. Over the past
5 years, there was an 8.0 percent decrease in printmaterials per 1,000 people; over the past 10 years,
a 12.2 percent decrease.
E-books are digital documents that can be lent to users
on portable devices. In FY 2014, there were 696.9
e-books per 1,000 people, a 1-year increase of 60.3
percent from FY 2013. Between FY 2005 and FY 2014,
there was a 2,140.1 percent increase in e-books per
1,000 people. E-books per 1,000 people also had a
5-year increase of 1,021.1 percent. The large increase
was due in part to digital demand.

Audio materials are circulated sound recordings,
such as music and audio books. In FY 2014, audio
materials comprised 364.1 items per 1,000 people,
a 1-year increase of 23.6 percent from FY 2013. Overthe past 5 and 10 years, audio materials per 1,000
people had large increases (96.9 percent and 151.1
percent, respectively). PLS also reports audio materials
separately as physical audio materials (e.g., compact
discs) and downloadable audio materials (e.g., mp3
files). First reported in PLS in FY 2010, downloadable
audio materials (59.2 percent) make up the majority ofaudio materials in FY 2014, with 215.7 items per 1,000
people, a 1-year increase of 52.2 percent. Physical audio
materials comprised 148.4 items per 1,000 people in
FY 2014, a 1-year decrease of 2.9 percent.
In FY 2014, there were 218.4 video materials per
1,000 people, a 1-year increase of 7.5 percent fromFY 2013. Video materials are also reported separately
as physical video materials (e.g., DVDs, VHS tapes)
and downloadable video materials (first reported in
FY 2010). The majority of video materials (92.0 percent)are physical video materials. In FY 2014, there were
200.9 physical and 17.5 downloadable video materials
per 1,000 people.

Table 2-3.1. Percentage Changes in Numbers of Materials per 1,000 People by Resource Type, FY 2005–2014

Resource per 1,000 People

FY 2014

FY 2013

FY 2010

FY 2005

1-YearChangeFY 13–14

5-YearChangeFY 10–14

10-Year
ChangeFY 05–14

Collection materials

3,777.6

3,474.5

3,142.0

3,158.2

8.7%

20.2%

19.6%

Print materials

2,498.2

2,541.9

2,716.1

2,843.7

-1.7%

-8.0%

-12.2%

E-books

696.9

434.7

62.2

31.1

60.3% 1,021.1% 2,140.1%

Audio materials

364.1

294.7

185.0

145.0

23.6%

96.9%

151.1%

Video materials

218.4

203.2

178.8

138.4

7.5%

22.1%

57.8%

NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates. Percentage change is not always identical to the calculation obtained by using the rounded values shown in publishedtables, including tables presented in this report.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005, 2010, 2013 and 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201423

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 2: Resources
Locale and Population Size Estimates
Total collection size per 1,000 people varied acrosslocales. Regardless of the type of material, libraries
in rural areas had the most materials (7,156.3 total
per capita), followed by towns (4,926.4 total per
capita), suburbs (3,355.1 total per capita), and cities(2,888.7 total per capita) (Table 2-3.2). Libraries insuburbs, towns, and rural areas had a 1-year decreasein collection size (9.1 percent, 21.3 percent, and17.4 percent, respectively) per 1,000 people. Only
libraries in cities had a 1-year increase (7.1 percent).

Total collection size per 1,000 people also varied bypopulation size, regardless of type of material; libraries
that served smaller populations had far more materials
per person compared to libraries that served larger
populations. All libraries had a 1-year increase in totalcollection size per 1,000 people across all population
sizes (Figure 2-3.2).

Table 2-3.2. Numbers of Materials per 1,000 People by Type, Locale, and Population Size, FY 2014

Category

Total

Overall

Print Materials Electronic Books

Audio Materials

Video Materials

3,777.6

2,498.2

696.9

364.1

218.4

2,888.7

2,364.6

154.7

187.8

181.7

LocaleCity
Suburb3,355.1

2,295.7

497.1

334.3

227.9

Town

4,926.4

2,763.9

1,406.3

537.2

218.9

Rural

7,156.3

3,509.6

2,463.3

875.7

307.7

2,834.9

2,154.8

267.2

225.5

187.4

Large (10,000–25,000)

6,446.2

3,554.5

1,829.2

742.3

320.1

Medium (2,500–9,999)

11,220.2

4,991.8

4,313.6

1,469.8

444.9

Small (< 2,500)

24,915.0

10,516.5

9,979.8

3,543.8

874.9

Population size
Very large (> 25,000)

NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates; therefore, reported totals may differ due to rounding. Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Figure 2-3.2. Total Collection Materials per 1,000 People by Size of Populationof Library Legal Service Area, FY 2005–2014
Total Collection Materials per 1,000 People

25,000.0

20,000.0
Population of LibraryService Area

15,000.0

National
Very large(> 25,000)
Large(10,000–25,000)
Medium(2,500–9,999)
Small(< 2,500)

10,000.0

5,000.0

0.0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
NOTE: Estimates in the figure use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

24

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 2: ResourcesState Estimates
Total collection size per 1,000 people varied by state,
ranging from 14,104.0 items in Wisconsin to 1,810.0
items in Georgia (Figure 2-3.3). Libraries in the majorityof states (37) and the District of Columbia had a 1-yearincrease in total collection size per 1,000 people. The
largest increase occurred in Tennessee (163.9 percent);
the largest decrease, in New Hampshire (5.7 percent).

and Alaska—had 1-year decreases (20.0 percent and1.9 percent, respectively) in e-books per 1,000 people.
E-books also varied by state, ranging from 8,222.9 items
in Wisconsin to 16.4 items per 1,000 people in Hawaii.
Audio materials per 1,000 people varied across states,
ranging from 2,186.8 items in Wisconsin to 73.7 items
in Mississippi. Libraries in 42 states experienced a
1-year increase in audio materials per 1,000 people.
Libraries in Tennessee experienced the largest 1-yearincrease in audio material per 1,000 people (902.4
percent), whereas libraries in Virginia experienced thelargest decrease (7.0 percent).

Print materials per 1,000 people also varied by state,
ranging from 5,202.2 items in Maine to 1,234.4 items
in Arizona. Libraries in the majority of states (40) andthe District of Columbia had 1-year decrease in printmaterials per 1,000 people. The largest decrease was in
New Hampshire (16.3 percent), and the largest increase
was in Georgia (6.4 percent).

Finally, video materials per 1,000 people varied acrossstates, ranging from 502.5 items in Ohio to 86.0 items
in Georgia. Libraries in 44 states had a 1-year increasein number of video materials per 1,000 people. The
largest increase occurred in Tennessee (73.8 percent),
whereas the largest decrease was in South Dakota(10.0 percent).

Conversely, libraries in all but two states had a 1-yearincrease in e-books per 1,000 people. Libraries inTennessee had the largest 1-year increase (15,915.5
percent), whereas libraries in only two states—Missouri

Figure 2-3.3. Total Collection Size per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD

PA
IL

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IA

NE
UT

OK

NM

WV

MO

NJ
DE
MD

RI
CT
DC

NC

TN
AR

SC
MS

TX

VA

KY

AL

NH
MA

NY

GA

Total Collection Size per 1,000 People
More than 6,500.0 (7 states)
4,500.0 to 6,500.0 (15 states)

LA2,500.0 to 4,499.9 (19 states + DC)

AKFL

Fewer than 2,500.0 (9 states)

HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201425

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 2: Resources
Indicator 4: Public Library Programs per 1,000 People
In FY 2014, there were 4.5 million library programs in the United States; of these, 2.6 million programs were for children,and 423,948 were for young adults.

Public libraries offer cultural, recreational, andeducational programs for children (under age 12),young adults (ages 12 to 18), and adults (over the ageof 18). Generally, these programs are designed to meeta specific social or community need. For instance, public
libraries may offer live readings of children’s books
or adult computer training classes. The PLS collects
information about program offerings to these groups.
Data on program offerings for adults are included in
total program offerings rather than collected separately.
In FY 2014, there were 14.6 program offerings per
1,000 people, a 1-year increase of 4.2 percent fromFY 2013 (Figure 2-4.1). Over the past 10 years, the total
program offerings had a 56.7 percent increase from
9.3 in FY 2005 to 14.6 in FY 2014. Total programs per
1,000 people also had a 15.8 percent increase over the
past 5 years.

In FY 2014, libraries across the United States offered
2.6 million children’s programs, equivalent to 8.4
programs per 1,000 people. Between FY 2013 andFY 2014, there was a 1.6 percent increase in children’s
programs. Since FY 2005, children’s programs per
1,000 people have consistently increased each year.
Over the past 5 years, there has been an 8.1 percent
increase in children’s program offerings.
Finally, 423,948 young adult’s programs were offered inlibraries across the United States in FY 2014, equivalent
to 1.4 programs per 1,000 people and a 9.8 percent
increase from FY 2013.20 Over the past 5 years, there
was a 39.8 percent increase in young adult’s programsper 1,000 people.
Locale and Population Size Estimates
In FY 2014, the number of total program offerings per
1,000 people varied across locale and population size
(Table 2-4.1). Libraries in rural areas (21.0) had moretotal program offerings per 1,000 people than libraries
in suburbs (15.1), towns (15.1), and cities (12.2).

Figure 2-4.1. Number of Total Program, Children’s Program, and Young Adult’s Program
Offerings per 1,000 People, FY 2005–2014

Number of Programs per 1,000 People

16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
Types of Programs

6.0

All programs

4.0

Children’s
programs

2.0

Young adult’s
programs

0.0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
NOTE: Data on young adult’s programs were not collected until FY 2009, and therefore, 10-year trends are not available.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

20

Data for young adult’s programs were not available for FY 2005.

26

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 2: Resources
Libraries serving small population sizes had moretotal program offerings per 1,000 people (55.5) thanlibraries serving other population sizes. Libraries servingvery large population areas reported the fewest (12.1)
programs per 1,000 people.

in suburbs had the largest 1-year increase (6.0 percent),
followed by libraries in rural areas (5.8 percent), towns(3.4 percent), and cities (1.9 percent) (Figure 2-4.2). The
largest 1-year increase was observed in libraries serving
small population size areas (8.8 percent), followed bythose serving medium and large population sizes (5.0
percent); the smallest 1-year increase was reported bylibraries serving very large populations (3.8 percent).

All libraries had a 1-year increase across locales, a trendthat has remained consistent since FY 2011. Libraries

Table 2-4.1. Number of Total Program, Children’s Program, and Young Adult’s Program
Offerings per 1,000 People, FY 2014

Category

Total ProgramsChildren’s Programs

Young Adult’s Programs

14.6

8.4

1.4

City

12.2

6.8

1.3

Suburb

15.1

8.4

1.4

Town

15.1

9.6

1.3

Rural

21.0

12.6

1.6

Very large (> 25,000)

12.1

6.9

1.2

Large (10,000–25,000)

24.6

14.4

2.3

Medium (2,500–9,999)

32.3

19.1

2.5

Small (< 2,500)

55.5

32.9

4.0

Overall
LocalePopulation size

NOTE: Total programs does not equal the sum of children’s programs and young adult’s programs. Instead, total programs may include other state-specific program data notcollected or reported by the PLS. Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Figure 2-4.2. Number of Program Offerings per 1,000 People by Locale, FY 2010–2014 21
22.0

Total Programs per 1,000 People

20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0

Locale8.0

National

6.0

City

4.0

Suburb
Town

2.0

Rural

0.0
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2014.

21

A 5-year trend is shown in the graph because locale data are not available in PLS data for a 10-year trend.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201427

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 2: ResourcesState Estimates
The number of total program offerings per 1,000 people
varied across the 50 states and the District of Columbia,
ranging from 6.5 programs in Georgia to 42.1 programs
in New Hampshire (Figure 2-4.3). Libraries in 44 states
and the District of Columbia exhibited a 1-year increasein the number of total program offerings per 1,000
people. The largest increase occurred in the Districtof Columbia (30.9 percent). Libraries in six states
had 1-year decreases in the number of total programsper 1,000 people: Ohio (0.4 percent), Oklahoma(2.9 percent), Indiana (3.6 percent), New Hampshire(4.9 percent), Illinois (12.4 percent), and Montana(15.4 percent).

in the number of children’s program offerings per
1,000 people. Libraries in the District of Columbia
had the largest increase in children’s program offerings(22.0 percent). Libraries in 16 states saw decreases inchildren’s program offerings, ranging from a 0.8 percent
decrease in Delaware to a 13.1 percent decrease in
Illinois.
Young adult’s program offerings per 1,000 people varied
across the United States as well, ranging from 0.4 in
Nevada to 3.9 in Wyoming (Figure 2-4.5). Libraries in
the majority of states (43) and the District of Columbia
exhibited a 1-year increase in the number of young
adult’s program offerings per 1,000 people. Libraries in
Washington had the largest increase between FY 2013
and FY 2014 (105.9 percent). Libraries in seven states
had 1-year decreases in young adult’s program offerings,
ranging from 2.9 percent in Illinois to 9.8 percent in
Hawaii.

The number of children’s program offerings per 1,000
people ranged from 3.9 in Georgia to 26.0 in Vermont(Figure 2-4.4). Libraries in the majority of states (34)and the District of Columbia exhibited a 1-year increase

Figure 2-4.3. Number of Program Offerings per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD

PA
IL

UT

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IA

NE

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

AR

SC
AL

MD

RI
CT
DC

Total Offerings per 1,000 People
More than 25.0 (6 states)

GA

20.0 to 25.0 (10 states + DC)

LA

AK

NJ
DE

NC

TN

MS

NH
MA

NY

15.0 to 19.9 (9 states)FL

10.0 to 14.9 (17 states)
Fewer than 10.0 (8 states)

HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

28

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 2: Resources
Figure 2-4.4. Number of Children’s Program Offerings per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY

WI

SD

PA
IL

UT

KS

Children’s Program Offerings per
1,000 People

SC
MS

DC

NC

AR

TX

MD

VA

KY
TN

OK

NM

WV

MO

RI
CT

NJ
DE

OH

IN

CO

CA

AZ

MI

IA

NE

NV

NH
MA

NY

AL

GA

More than 20.0 (2 states)

LA

15.0 to 20.0 (6 states)AK

10.0 to 14.9 (15 states + DC)

FL

Fewer than 10.0 (27 states)

HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Figure 2-4.5. Number of Young Adult’s Program Offerings per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014

WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD

PA
IL

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IA

NE
UT

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

AR

SC
AL

GA

MD

DC

Young Adult’s Program Offerings
per 1,000 People
More than 3.0 (1 state)

LA

AK

NJ
DE

RI
CT

NC

TN

MS

NH
MA

NY

2.0 to 3.0 (13 states + DC)FL

1.0 to 1.9 (24 states)
Fewer than 1.0 (12 states)

HI
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201429

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 2: Resources
Indicator 5: Public-Access Internet Computers per 5,000 People
In FY 2014, there were 285,395 public-access Internet computers, or 4.7 per 5,000 people, a 1.9 percent increase
from FY 2013.
Most public libraries offer patrons public-access Internet
computers, which are especially helpful to individuals
who do not own a personal computer or smartphone.
Public-access Internet computers are used for a varietyof purposes, such as research, job searching, andwriting. This indicator analyzes the number of publicaccess Internet computers per 5,000 people to provide
a better understanding of computer availability in U.S.
public libraries.

Locale and Population Size Estimates
The number of public-access Internet computers per
5,000 people varied across locales (Figure 2-5.1).
Libraries in rural areas (7.7) had more public-accessInternet computers per 5,000 people than libraries intowns (5.1), cities (4.3), and suburbs (4.1). Between
FY 2013 and FY 2014, all libraries had a 1-yearincrease in public-access Internet computers per 5,000
people across all locales.

In FY 2014, public libraries reported 285,395 publicaccess Internet computers, a net increase of 6,662
from FY 2013. There were 4.7 public-access Internet
computers per 5,000 people in FY 2014, a 1.9 percent
increase from FY 2013. Between FY 2005 and FY 2014,
public-access Internet computers per 5,000 people
increased 44.2 percent. In the past 5 years, publicaccess Internet computers per 1,000 people increased
13.3 percent.

In FY 2014, there were nearly six times as many
public-access Internet computers per 5,000 people inlibraries serving the smallest population area (23.7 per
5,000 people) as there were in libraries serving thelargest population area (4.0 per 5,000 people). Libraries
serving areas with medium-sized populations reported
9.4 public-access Internet computers per 5,000 people,
whereas those in large population service areas reported
6.2 per 5,000 people. All libraries had a 1-year increasein the number of public-access Internet computers per
5,000 people across population sizes.

Public-Access Internet Computers per 5,000 People

Figure 2-5.1. Number of Public-Access Internet Computers per 5,000 People by Locale, FY 2010–2014 22
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
Locale3.0

National
City

2.0

Suburb
Town

1.0

Rural
0.0
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2014.

22

A 5-year trend is shown in the graph because locale data are not available in PLS data for a 10-year trend.

30

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 2: ResourcesState Estimates
The number of public-access Internet computers per
5,000 people varied across states, ranging from 9.5
in Nebraska to 1.9 in Hawaii (Figure 2-5.2). Libraries
in the majority of states (30) had a 1-year increasein the number of public-access Internet computers per
5,000 people. The largest increase was in North Dakota(13.1 percent), whereas the largest decrease was in
New Hampshire (12.5 percent).

Figure 2-5.2. Number of Public-Access Internet Computers per 5,000 People by State, FY 2014

WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD

PA
IL

UT

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IA

NE

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

AR

SC
AL

RI
CT

NJ
DE
MD

DC

NC

TN

MS

NH
MA

NY

GA

Public-Access Internet Computersper 5,000 People
More than 6.0 (18 states + DC)
4.6 to 6.0 (14 states)

LA

4.0 to 4.5 (9 states)

AKFL

Fewer than 4.0 (9 states)

HI
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201431

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use

Section 3: Use
Overview
Section 3 focuses on the use of public libraries. Each indicator provides a detailed look at how public libraries areused by the people they serve. Indicator 6 examines visits per capita, and Indicator 7 measures circulation per capita,
both of which provide quantifiable measures of library use. Indicator 8 looks at total program attendance, young
adult’s program attendance, and children’s program attendance. Unlike many of the other metrics in this section,
which indicate 1-, 5-, and 10-year decreases, all types of program attendance increased over all measured periods oftime. Finally, Indicator 9 examines the use of public-access Internet computers per capita, and Indicator 10 looks atreference transactions per capita.
Indicators in this section are calculated per capita and per 1,000 people, as appropriate due to the scale of thenumbers. For instance, Indicator 8 calculates program attendance per 1,000 people because the value per capita isvery small. Much like the indicators discussed in Sections 1 and 2, the indicators in this section were analyzed at thenational, state, and locale levels as well as by population size. Furthermore, 1-, 5-, and 10-year changes are presented
at the national level.

Indicator 6: Visits per Capita
In FY 2014, libraries had 1.42 billion visits, which equated to 4.6 visits per capita, a 1-year decrease of 3.0 percent.

Patron visits are a useful metric for understanding thephysical utilization of public libraries. For instance,
patrons may visit public libraries to check out books,
attend programs, or use public-access Internet
computers. Public library visits encompass the total
number of people who physically entered a public
library.23 Visits per capita is the ratio of the total
number of visits to a public library to the total numberof individuals within the legal service area of the
public library.

In FY 2014, there were 1.42 billion visits to public
libraries, a decrease of 35.41 million visits (2.4 percent)from FY 2013. Furthermore, visits per capita was 4.6,
a decrease of 3.0 percent from FY 2013 and a 2.2
percent decrease over the past 10 years. However,
over the past 5 years, visits decreased 12.0 percent.

This metric is based on a count of the number of people who entered a public library (i.e., foot traffic into the building). Counts are not based on individual people but, rather,
the number of visits that a library records, regardless of whether or not a person previously visited the library.

23

32

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Locale and Population Size Estimates
Visits per capita did not vary greatly across locale.
Libraries in suburbs (5.0) had slightly more visits per
capita than libraries in other locales (Table 3-6.1). Alllibraries had a 1-year decrease between FY 2013 andFY 2014 across all locales.

Across population size, more visits per capita occurred inless populated areas. Libraries serving small population
sizes had the highest number of visits per capita (6.8),
whereas those serving very large population areas had
the lowest per capita visits (4.4). All libraries, however,
had a 1-year decrease in per capita visits between
FY 2013 and FY 2014 across all population sizes(Figure 3-6.1).

Table 3-6.1. Visits per Capita by Locale and PopulationSize, FY 2014

Category

Visits per Capita

Overall

4.6

LocaleCity

4.5

Suburb

5.0

Town

4.3

Rural

4.2

Population size
Very large (> 25,000)

4.4

Large (10,000–25,000)

5.9Medium (2,500–9,999)

6.3

Small (< 2,500)

6.8

NOTE: Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey,
Fiscal Year 2014.

Figure 3-6.1. Visits per Capita by Size of Population in Library Legal Service Area,
FY 2005–2014
8.0
7.0

Visits per Capita

6.0
Population of LibraryService Area

5.0

National
Very large(> 25,000)
Large(10,000–25,000)
Medium(2,500–9,999)
Small(< 2,500)

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal year
NOTE: Estimates in the figure use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201433

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
State Estimates
Visits per capita varied across states, ranging from 7.2
in Ohio to 2.9 in Georgia (Figure 3 6.2).

with a 63.8 percent increase) posted increases in thenumber of visits per capita in FY 2014 compared to
FY 2013. The majority of states (42) reported decreased
per capita visits in FY 2014 versus FY 2013, with
New Hampshire reporting the largest decrease of
15.2 percent (Figure 3-6.3).

One-year changes in per capita visits also varied greatly.
Nine states and the District of Columbia (the highest,

Figure 3-6.2. Visits per Capita by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD
NE

PA
OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IL

UT

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

AR

SC
AL

MD

DC

Visits per Capita
More than 7.0 (1 state)

GA

6.0 to 7.0 (10 states + DC)

LA

AK

NJ
DE

RI
CT

NC

TN

MS

NH
MA

NY

IA

ME

4.0 to 5.9 (25 states)FL

Fewer than 4.0 (14 states)

HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

34

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Despite the range in visits, libraries in the majority ofstates (42) had 1-year decreases in visits per capita(Figure 3 6.3). New Hampshire had the largest decreasein visits per capita (15.2 percent), whereas the Districtof Columbia had the largest increase (63.8 percent).

State Abbreviation

Figure 3-6.3. Percentage Change in Visits per Capita by State, FY 2013–2014
DC
AL
AR
AK
DE
LA
MT
NM
VT
WY
KY
CO
AZ
MA
RI
SC
ME
CA
GA
NJ
KS
NC
TX
MO
ND
ID
WA
PA
MD
TN
VA
IL
MN
OR
WV
IN
NY
NV
NE
OK
OH
IA
MI
CT
MS
SD
WI
FL
UT
HI
NH -15.2%-20.0%

63.8%
5.7%
3.8%
3.4%
2.3%
2.3%
1.0%
0.7%
0.3%
-0.1%
-0.7%
-0.8%
-1.2%
-1.3%
-1.5%
-1.6%
-1.7%
-1.7%
-2.0%
-2.2%
-2.4%
-2.5%
-2.6%
-2.6%
-2.7%
-2.7%
-2.8%
-2.9%
-3.3%
-3.3%
-3.4%
-3.6%
-3.7%
-4.1%
-4.1%
-4.1%
-4.3%
-4.5%
-4.5%
-4.5%
-4.6%
-5.0%
-5.1%
-5.1%
-5.2%
-5.4%
-5.5%
-5.6%
-6.1%
-6.2%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Change in Visits per Capita
NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates. Percentage change is not always identical to the calculation obtained by using the rounded values
shown in published tables, including tables presented in this report.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201435

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Indicator 7: Circulation per Capita
Circulation per capita was 7.5 in FY 2014, a 1-year decrease of 3.0 percent.

Public libraries circulate a variety of materials, fromphysical books to e-books, videos, and music. Circulationof materials is an important element for libraries,
states, and stakeholders in assessing library utilization.
Circulation of materials measures the number of libraryloans to patrons. In this report, both total circulation andchildren’s circulation are examined.
In FY 2014, total circulation per capita was 7.5, a1-year decrease of 3.0 percent from FY 2013. Overthe most recent 5 years, circulation decreased 8.8
percent, but the longer term 10-year trend indicatesthat circulation increased 4.6 percent since FY 2005.
In FY 2014, circulation of children’s materials per
capita was 2.7, a 2.6 percent decrease from FY 2013.
Over the past 5 years, circulation of children’s materials
decreased 5.0 percent. However, over the past 10 years,

circulation of children’s materials per capita increased
6.8 percent, from 2.5 in FY 2005 to 2.7 in FY 2014.
Locale and Population Size Estimates
Circulation per capita varied across locales, with similar
patterns noted for all materials and for children’smaterials. Libraries in suburbs (8.6) and cities (7.4)
had more circulation per capita than libraries in rural
areas (6.0) and towns (5.8) (Table 3-7.1).
Across population sizes, libraries serving areas withsmall population sizes had slightly higher circulation
per capita compared to those serving larger areas for
all materials and for children’s materials. For instance,
libraries serving areas with small populations had thehighest total circulation per capita (8.7), whereas thosein areas with very large populations had the lowest total
circulation per capita (7.4).

Table 3-7.1. Total Circulation and Children’s Material Circulation per Capita by Locale and Population Size,
FY 2014

Category

Total Circulation per Capita

Children’s Materials per Capita

7.5

2.7

City

7.4

2.5

Suburb

8.6

3.2

Town

5.8

1.9

Rural

6.0

2.0

Very large (> 25,000)

7.4

2.6

Large (10,000–25,000)

8.1

2.9

Medium (2,500–9,999)

8.0

2.7

Small (< 2,500)

8.7

2.9

Overall
LocalePopulation size

NOTE: Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

36

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
All libraries had a 1-year decrease in circulation percapita across all locales (Figure 3-7.1), as well as acrossall population sizes.

percent), whereas the District of Columbia (14.7) had
the largest increase.
Children’s circulation per capita varied across states,
ranging from 5.5 in Utah to 0.8 in Mississippi(Figure 3-7.3). Libraries in 35 states had a decrease inchildren’s circulation per capita. New Hampshire had
the largest decrease (18.5 percent), whereas the Districtof Columbia had the largest increase (28.5 percent).

State Estimates
Total circulation per capita varied across states, ranging
from 15.9 in Ohio to 2.7 in Mississippi (Figure 3-7.2).
Libraries in 41 states had 1-year decreases in total
circulation per capita. The largest decrease in total
circulation per capita was in South Dakota (20.0

Figure 3-7.1. Circulation of Materials per Capita by Locale, FY 2010–2014 24
12.0

Circulation per Capita

10.0

8.0

6.0
LocaleNational

4.0

City
Suburb

2.0

Town
Rural

0.0
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

24

A 5-year trend is shown in the graph because locale data are not available in PLS data for a 10-year trend.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201437

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Figure 3-7.2. Circulation per Capita by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY

WI

SD

PA
IL

UT

KS

Circulation per Capita

SC
MS

DC

NC

AR

TX

MD

VA

KY
TN

OK

NM

WV

MO

RI
CT

NJ
DE

OH

IN

CO

CA

AZ

MI

IA

NE

NV

NH
MA

NY

AL

More than 11.0 (6 states)

GA

9.0 to 11.0 (11 states)

LA

7.0 to 8.9 (10 states)

AK

5.0 to 6.9 (15 states + DC)

FL

Fewer than 5.0 (8 states)

HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Figure 3-7.3. Circulation of Children’s Materials per Capita by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD

PA
IL

UT

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IA

NE

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

AR

SC
AL

NJ
DE
MD

RI
CT
DC

NC

TN

MS

NH
MA

NY

GA

Circulation of Children’s Materials per Capita
More than 5.0 (2 states)
3.0 to 5.0 (20 states)

LA

1.0 to 2.9 (27 states + DC)
Fewer than 1.0 (1 state)

AK

FL
HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

38

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Indicator 8: Program Attendance per 1,000 People
Program attendance per 1,000 people was 332.4 in FY 2014, a 1-year increase of 4.9 percent.

Public libraries offer patrons a variety of programs.
Attendance is an important measure that can help
libraries determine the success of programs offered andhelp them plan future programs. Public library programattendance per 1,000 people is the main measure,with additional detail for children’s program attendance(patrons under the age of 12) and young adult’s programattendance (i.e., patrons between the ages of 12 and 18).
In FY 2014, total program attendance per 1,000
people was 332.4, a 1-year increase of 4.9 percent.
Total program attendance increased consistently overthe past 10 years by about 4.0 percent each year.
Similarly, children’s program attendance was 228.8
per 1,000 people in FY 2014, a 1-year increase of 3.5
percent from FY 2013 and a 10-year increase of about
1.9 percent each year.
Historically, young adult’s program attendance has been
far lower than children’s program attendance.

In FY 2014, young adult’s program attendance per
1,000 people was 21.8, a 1-year increase of 8.6 percent.
Over the past 5 years, there was a 32.4 percent increasein young adult’s program attendance per 1,000 people.25
Locale and Population Size Estimates
Total program attendance per 1,000 people varied
widely across locale (Table 3-8.1). For instance,
libraries in rural areas (370.4) had more total programattendance per 1,000 people compared to libraries inother locales. A similar pattern is seen for children’s
program attendance per 1,000 people by locale.
However, young adult’s program attendance per 1,000
people did not vary substantially across locales.
Libraries in suburbs (23.9) had only slightly higher
young adult’s program attendance per 1,000 people
than those in other locale types. All libraries had a
1-year increase in total program attendance, children’s
program attendance, and young adult’s programattendance per 1,000 people across all locales.

Table 3-8.1. Program Attendance per 1,000 People by Type, Locale, and Population Size, FY 2014
Program Attendance per 1,000 People

Category

Total

Children’s

Young Adult’sOverall

332.4

228.8

21.8

297.0

199.0

20.9

LocaleCity
Suburb

356.4

244.4

23.9

Town

328.9

239.3

19.9

Rural

370.4

257.7

20.0

Very large (> 25,000)

296.6

204.4

20.2

Large (10,000–25,000)

499.9

346.5

31.5

Population size

Medium (2,500–9,999)

557.5

380.0

29.1

Small (< 2,500)

809.2

527.9

44.3

NOTE: Total program attendance does not equal the sum of children’s program attendance and young adult’s program attendance. Instead, total program attendance may include
other state-specific attendance data not collected or reported by the PLS. Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

25

Data for young adult’s program attendance were not available for FY 2005.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201439

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Total program attendance and children’s programattendance per 1,000 people varied across population
sizes; libraries serving smaller populations hadgreater attendance per 1,000 people on both of these
indicators (Table 3-8.1). For instance, libraries serving
areas with small populations had the highest programattendance per 1,000 people (809.2) and children’s
program attendance per 1,000 people (527.9), withboth indicators decreasing in size to the lowest levels
shown for libraries serving very large population sizes.
Young adult’s program attendance per 1,000 people
for libraries serving the smallest population size wasmore than twice as high as for libraries serving thelargest population size. In addition, all libraries acrossall service population sizes had 1-year increases in total
program attendance, children’s program attendance,and young adult’s program attendance per 1,000 people(Figure 3-8.1).

State Estimates
Total program attendance per 1,000 people varied
across states, ranging from 657.4 in Vermont to 181.4
in Georgia (Figure 3-8.2). Libraries in 41 states andthe District of Columbia had increases in total programattendance per 1,000 people. The largest increase
occurred in Delaware (23.0 percent). In contrast, only
libraries in nine states saw decreases in total programattendance per 1,000 people. The largest decrease wasin New Hampshire (7.8 percent).
Children’s program attendance per 1,000 people varied
across states, ranging from 500.2 in Wyoming to 141.7
in Hawaii—a difference of more than 300 per 1,000
people (Figure 3-8.3). Libraries in 36 states and theDistrict of Columbia had increases in children’s programattendance per 1,000 people. The largest increase
occurred in Delaware (42.2 percent), whereas the largest
decreases occurred in New Hampshire (12.2 percent).

Figure 3-8.1. Total Program Attendance per 1,000 People by Size of Population in
Library Legal Service Area, FY 2005–2014
Total Program Attendance per 1,000 People

900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0

Population of Library Service Area
National

300.0

Very large (> 25,000)

200.0

Large (10,000–25,000)
Medium (2,500–9,999)

100.0

Small (< 2,500)

0.0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
NOTE: Total program attendance may include state specific attendance data not collected or reported by the PLS. Estimates in the figure use the unduplicatedpopulation.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

40

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Figure 3-8.2. Total Program Attendance per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY

WI

SD

PA
IL

UT

KS

SC
MS

DC

NC

AR

TX

MD

VA

KY
TN

OK

NM

WV

MO

RI
CT

NJ
DE

OH

IN

CO

CA

AZ

MI

IA

NE

NV

NH
MA

NY

Total Program Attendance per 1,000 People

GA

AL

More than 450.0 (14 states)
350.0 to 450.0 (13 states + DC)

LA

250.0 to 349.9 (12 states)

AK

Fewer than 250.0 (11 states)FL
HI

NOTE: Total program attendance may include state specific attendance data not collected or reported by the PLS.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Figure 3-8.3. Children’s Program Attendance per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD

PA
IL

UT

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IA

NE

OK

NM

WV

MO

NJ
DE
MD

RI
CT
DC

NC

TN
AR

SC
MS

TX

VA

KY

AL

NH
MA

NY

GA

Children’s Program Attendance per 1,000 People
More than 350.0 (7 states)
250.0 to 350.0 (15 states + DC)

LA

150.0 to 249.9 (23 states)

AKFL

Fewer than 150.0 (5 states)

HI
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201441

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Young adult’s program attendance per 1,000 people
varied across states, ranging from 59.7 in Wyoming to
8.7 in Nevada (Figure 3-8.4). Libraries in 41 states andthe District of Columbia had increases in young adult’s

program attendance per 1,000 people. The largest
increase occurred in Delaware (87.9 percent), and thelargest decrease was in Hawaii (12.7 percent).

Figure 3-8.4. Young Adult’s Program Attendance per 1,000 People by State, FY 2014

WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD
IA

NE

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

PA
IL

UT

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

NC

TN
AR

SC
MS

AL

NJ
DE
MD

RI
CT
DC

Young Adult’s Program Attendance
per 1,000 People
More than 30.0 (14 states)

GA

25.0 to 30.0 (7 states)

LA

AK

NH
MA

NY

MI

20.0 to 24.9 (11 states + DC)

FL

15.0 to 19.9 (11 states)
Fewer than 15.0 (7 states)

HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

42

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Indicator 9: Public-Access Internet Computer Usage per Capita
In FY 2014, there were 322.0 million user sessions on public-access Internet computers in public libraries, resulting in
1.1 user sessions per capita, a 1-year decrease of 4.5 percent.

Public-access Internet computers are an important toolthat libraries offer to patrons. Public-access Internet
computers26 give individuals the ability to write, doresearch, and perform job searches, and the computersprovide access to those who are unable to afford apersonal computer. Measuring computer usage helps
libraries, states, and stakeholders determine the need forcomputers in a library or, more broadly, across a state.
In FY 2014, there were 322.0 million user sessions,or 1.1 sessions per capita, a 1-year decrease of
4.5 percent. Public libraries also had a 5-year decreaseof 15.3 percent in public-access Internet computers per
capita between FY 2010 and FY 2014.
Locale and Population Size Estimates
Public-access Internet computer usage per capita did
not vary across locale (Table 3-9.1). Despite the lack ofvariation, libraries in all locales had a 1-year increase incomputer usage per capita from FY 2013 to FY 2014.

Public-access Internet computer usage per capita varied
across population size, with libraries serving smallerareas having higher computer usage per capita (1.8),
compared to libraries serving larger population areas(medium, large, and very large), which reported between
1.0 and 1.2 public-access Internet computer uses per
capita (Figure 3-9.1).
State Estimates
Public-access Internet computer usage per capita
also varied across states, ranging from 1.9 in South
Dakota to 0.5 in Hawaii (Figure 3-9.2). Libraries in the
majority of states (41) saw a 1-year decrease in publicaccess Internet computer use per capita. The largest
decrease occurred in Vermont (24.9 percent). Libraries
in nine states and the District of Columbia had a 1-yearincrease, with the greatest increase occurring in Montana(25.7 percent) between FY 2013 and FY 2014.

Table 3-9.1. Public-Access Internet Computer Usage per Capita by Locale and Population Size, FY 2014

Category

Public-Access Internet Computer Usage per Capita

Overall

1.1

LocaleCity

1.1

Suburb

1.0

Town

0.9

Rural

1.0

Population size
Very large (> 25,000)

1.0

Large (10,000–25,000)

1.1Medium (2,500–9,999)

1.2

Small (< 2,500)

1.8

NOTE: Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

26

Public-access Internet computer usage does not include patrons using Wi-Fi.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201443

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use

Public-Access Internet Computer Usage per Capita

Figure 3-9.1. User Sessions of Public-Access Internet Computers per Capita by Sizeof Population Library Legal Service Area, FY 2010–2014 27
2.5

2.0

1.5

Population of Library Service Area

1.0

National
Very large (> 25,000)
0.5

Large (10,000–25,000)
Medium (2,500–9,999)
Small (< 2,500)

0.0
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
NOTE: Estimates in the figure use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2014.

Figure 3-9.2. Change in Public-Access Internet Computer User Sessions per Capita by State, FY 2013–2014
WA
ND

MT

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD
IA

NE

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

PA
IL

UT

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

AR

SC
AL

DC

Percent Increase and Decrease per Capita
Increase less than or equal
to 10.0% (6 states)

FL
HI

MD

RI
CT

Increase more than 10.0% (3 states + DC)

GA

LA

AK

NJ
DE

NC

TN

MS

NH
MA

NY

MI

ME

Decrease less than or equal
to 10.0% (34 states)
Decrease more than 10.0% (7 states)

NOTE: In FY 2014, every state had a positive or negative change. No state had a 0.0 percentage change. Calculations are based on unrounded estimates. Percentage change is
not always identical to the calculation obtained by using the rounded values shown in published tables, including tables presented in this report.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014.

27

Data for user sessions of public-access Internet computers were not available prior to FY 2006.

44

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Indicator 10: Reference Transactions per Capita
In FY 2014, there were 262.7 million reference transactions at public libraries, or 0.9 reference transactions per capita,a 1-year decrease of 3.7 percent.

A reference transaction is an information contactthat involves the knowledge, use, recommendations,interpretation, or instruction in the use of one ormore information sources by a library staff member.
Reference transactions can range from very simple
to highly complex requests, and include information
and referral services. Information sources include
printed and non-printed materials, machine-readable
databases, catalogs and other holdings, records, and—through communication or referral—other libraries andinstitutions and people inside and outside the library.
The request may come from an adult, a young adult,
or a child; may occur in person; or may be submittedby phone, facsimile, mail, or electronic mail or througha live or networked electronic reference service. The
reference transaction metric measures the demand anduse of expertise of the public library staff to address
information needs in the community.
In FY 2014, there were 262.7 million referencetransactions, or 0.9 per capita, a 1-year decrease of
3.7 percent. Over the past 5 and 10 years, referencetransactions per capita decreased (17.6 percent and19.1 percent, respectively).

Locale and Population Size Estimates
There was little variation in reference transactions per
capita across locale (Table 3-10.1), with an averageof 0.9 reference transactions per capita. Libraries inrural areas and towns, however, reported slightly lower
reference transactions per capita (0.6). There was very
little variation in reference transactions per capita by
the population size of library service areas.
All libraries had a 1-year decrease across all locales
and population sizes between FY 2013 and FY 2014
(Figure 3-10.1).
State Estimates
Reference transactions per capita did vary acrossstates, ranging from 1.7 in Ohio to 0.3 in West Virginia(Figure 3-10.2). Libraries in 17 states and the District ofColumbia saw a 1-year increase in reference transactions
per capita, with the largest increase occurring in New
Mexico (18.9 percent). Libraries in 33 states saw a
1-year decrease in reference transactions per capita;
North Carolina had the largest decrease (27.4 percent).

Table 3-10.1. Reference Transactions per Capita by Locale and Population Size, FY 2014

Category

Reference Transactions per Capita

Overall

0.9

LocaleCity

0.9

Suburb

0.9

Town

0.6

Rural

0.6

Population size
Very large (> 25,000)

0.9

Large (10,000–25,000)

0.8Medium (2,500–9,999)

0.8

Small (< 2,500)

0.9

NOTE: Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201445

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 3: Use
Figure 3-10.1. Reference Transactions per Capita by Locale, FY 2010–2014 28

Reference Transacations per Capita

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6

LocaleNational

0.4

City
Suburb

0.2

Town
Rural

0.0
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2014.

Figure 3-10.2. Percentage Change in Reference Transactions per Capita by State, FY 2013–2014

WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD

PA
IL

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IA

NE
UT

OK

NM

WV

MO

NC

TN
AR

SC
MS

TX

VA

KY

AL

NH
MA

NY

GA

NJ
DE
MD

RI
CT
DC

Change in Reference Transactions per Capita
Increase more than 10.0% (3 states)
5.0% to 10.0% increase (4 states)
Increase less than 5.0% (10 states + DC)

LADecrease less than 5.0% (18 states)

AK

FL
HI

5.0% to 10.0% decrease (7 states)
Decrease more than 10.0% (8 states)

NOTE: In FY 2014, every state had a positive or negative change. No state had a 0.0 percentage change. Calculations are based on unrounded estimates. Percentage change
is not always identical to the calculation obtained by using the rounded values shown in published tables, including tables presented in this report.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014.

28

A 5-year trend is shown in the graph because locale data are not available in PLS data for a 10-year trend.

46

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 4: Staffing

Section 4: Staffing
Overview
This section contains indicators related to public library staffing. Public library staff help to ensure that the facilities,
resources, and services are accessible, available, and well managed. Moreover, beyond collection development andresource management, library staff help address information needs by providing programs, answering reference
questions, and supporting research.
In the PLS, public library staff is measured in FTEs and consists of three categories: librarians, ALA-MLS librarians (asa subset of all librarians), and other paid staff. Indicators associated with public library staffing are staff per 25,000
people, public librarians per 25,000 people, and the distribution and ratio of public librarians with ALA-accredited
master’s degrees. These metrics indicate the number of professionals in library and information sciences. Data are
examined using 1-, 5-, and 10-year changes at the national level. All indicators are further analyzed using a crosssectional analysis at the state level and by population size and locale.

Indicator 11: Staffing per 25,000 People
In FY 2014, there were 11.3 staff per 25,000 people.

Library staff perform the important tasks of serving
patrons and providing general library support. Public
library staff consist of librarians (both those with andwithout ALA-accredited master’s degrees) and other paid
support staff (including paraprofessionals, information
technology specialists, operations managers, andmaintenance staff). The PLS collects data on staff as
FTE; therefore, data may contain decimal places because
they include part-time staff.

In FY 2014, total staff per 25,000 people was 11.3, andthis figure did not change from FY 2013 (Figure 4-11.1).
However, the number of librarians per 25,000 people
was 3.9, a 1-year decrease of 1.0 percent from FY
2013. The number of other paid staff per 25,000 people
was 7.4, a 1-year increase of 1.0 percent. Over the past
5 and 10 years, the number of staff per 25,000 people
decreased.

Figure 4-11.1. Staffing (FTEs) per 25,000 People, FY 2005–2014
14.0

Staffing (FTEs) per 25,000 People

12.1

12.0
10.0

1.3

2.7

12.2
1.3

2.7

12.4

12.3

12.2

1.3

1.3

1.3

2.8

2.8

2.8

11.7
1.3

2.7

11.4

11.3

11.3

11.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.2

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.6

8.0

Staffing Type
Librarian without
ALA-accredited
master’s degree

6.0
4.0

8.1

8.2

8.4

8.3

8.1

7.8

7.5

7.4

7.4

7.4

2.0

Librarian with
ALA-accredited
master’s degree
Other paid staff

0.0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates; therefore, reported totals may differ due to rounding.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201447

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 4: Staffing
Locale Estimates
The total number of staff per 25,000 people varied
across locales (Table 4-11.1). Libraries in rural areas(12.0) had slightly more total staff per 25,000 people
compared to libraries in suburbs (11.7), cities (11.0),
and towns (10.5). Between FY 2013 and FY 2014,

libraries in cities and rural areas had a 1-year increases(2.1 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively), whereas
libraries in suburbs had a 1.1 percent decrease. There
was a decrease of less than 1.0 percent in the total
number of staff per 25,000 for libraries in towns
between FY 2013 and FY 2014.

Table 4-11.1. Staffing (FTEs) per 25,000 People by Locale, FY 2010–2014 29

LocaleNational

City

Suburb

Town

Rural

1-Year Change
FY 13–14

5-Year Change
FY 10–14

Staff type

FY 2014

FY 2013

FY 2010

Total staff

11.3

11.3

11.7

0.3%

-3.6%

Librarians

3.9

3.9

3.9

-1.0%

-2.3%

Other paid staff

7.4

7.4

7.8

1.0%

-4.3%

Total staff

11.0

10.8

11.2

2.1%

-1.3%

Librarians

3.2

3.2

3.3

-1.7%

-2.3%

Other paid staff

7.8

7.5

7.9

3.8%

-0.8%

Total staff

11.7

11.8

12.6

-1.1%

-7.0%

Librarians

3.9

4.0

4.2

-1.6%

-5.2%

Other paid staff

7.7

7.8

8.4

-0.9%

-8.1%

Total staff

10.5

10.5

10.8

0.2%

-2.4%

Librarians

4.1

4.1

4.1

0.8%

2.0%

Other paid staff

6.3

6.4

6.7

-0.2%

-5.0%

Total staff

12.0

11.8

11.9

1.2%

0.7%

Librarians

5.5

5.5

5.1

-0.9%

8.0%

Other paid staff

6.5

6.3

6.8

3.0%

-4.7%

NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates; therefore, reported totals may differ due to rounding.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2010, 2013 and 2014.

29

A 5-year trend is shown in the table because locale data are not available in PLS data for a 10-year trend.

48

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 4: Staffing
Population Size Estimates
The total number of staff per 25,000 people varied
across population size (Table 4-11.2). In fact, libraries
serving smaller population sizes had more total staff per
25,000 than libraries serving larger population sizes. Alllibraries had a 1-year decrease between FY 2013 and FY
2014 across all population sizes.
State Estimates
The total number of staff per 25,000 people varied
across states, ranging from 21.6 in the District ofColumbia to 6.6 in Georgia. Libraries in 26 states andthe District of Columbia saw a 1-year increase in the
total number of staff per 25,000 people. The largest
increase occurred in Arizona (7.2 percent). Libraries in
24 states saw a 1-year decrease in the total number ofstaff per 25,000 people, with the largest decrease in
Mississippi (17.8 percent).

The number of librarian staff varied across states,
ranging from 10.2 in New Hampshire to 1.4 in Georgia.
Libraries in 29 states saw a 1-year increase in thenumber of librarian staff per 25,000 people, with thelargest increase occurring in Arizona (8.3). The largest
decrease occurred in Pennsylvania (15.8 percent).
In addition, the number of other paid staff varied acrossstates, ranging from 16.0 in the District of Columbia
to 2.6 in Mississippi. Libraries in 25 states and theDistrict of Columbia saw a 1-year increase in the numberof other paid staff per 25,000 people. New York (9.9
percent) had the largest increase, whereas Mississippi(32.1 percent) had the largest decrease.

Table 4-11.2. Staffing (FTEs) per 25,000 People by Population Size, FY 2005–2014

Population
size

Staff type

National

Total staff

11.3

11.3

11.7

Librarians

3.9

3.9

3.9

Very Large(> 25,000)
Large(10,000–
25,000)Medium(2,500–10,000)Small(< 2,500)

1-YearChangeFY 13–14

5-YearChangeFY 10–14

10-Year
ChangeFY 05–14

12.1

0.3%

-3.6%

-6.3%

4.0

-1.0%

-2.3%

-2.8%

FY 2014 FY 2013 FY 2010 FY 2005

Other paid staff

7.4

7.4

7.8

8.1

1.0%

-4.3%

-8.1%

Total staff

10.5

10.4

10.9

11.5

0.5%

-4.1%

-8.3%

Librarians

3.2

3.3

3.3

3.4

-1.2%

-2.9%

-4.9%

Other paid staff

7.3

7.2

7.6

8.1

1.3%

-4.6%

-9.7%

Total staff

14.7

14.8

14.8

14.2

-0.5%

-1.0%

3.3%

Librarians

6.1

6.1

5.9

5.6

-0.6%

2.8%

9.6%

Other paid staff

8.6

8.6

8.9

8.6

-0.4%

-3.4%

-0.8%

Total staff

16.5

16.5

16.7

15.8

-0.1%

-1.2%

4.4%

Librarians

8.3

8.3

8.3

7.8

0.2%

-0.2%

6.2%

Other paid staff

8.3

8.3

8.4

8.1

-0.6%

-2.2%

2.5%

Total staff

23.5

23.3

23.5

20.9

0.7%

0.1%

12.5%

Librarians

16.3

16.3

16.3

15.2

-0.2%

0.1%

6.9%

Other paid staff

7.2

7.1

7.2

5.7

2.6%

0.2%

27.3%

NOTE: Calculations are based on unrounded estimates. Percentage change is not always identical to the calculation obtained by using the rounded values shown in publishedtables, including tables presented in this report. Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005, 2010, 2013 and 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201449

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 4: Staffing
Indicator 12: Librarians per 25,000 People
There were 3.9 librarians per 25,000 people in FY 2014, a 1-year decrease of 1.0 percent.

In a public library, a librarian is a staff member who
has special training and skills in the theoretical orscientific aspects of library work. The “librarians per
25,000 people” metric measures how many librarians
are available per 25,000 people in a library service
area. This metric helps determine whether enoughspecialized staff are available to address the needs of the
population. The number of librarians per 25,000 people
was 3.9 in FY 2014, a 1-year decrease of 1.0 percent.
Furthermore, the number of librarians per 25,000 people
had a 10-year decrease of 2.8 percent and a 5-year
decrease of 2.3 percent.
Locale and Population Size Estimates
The number of librarians per 25,000 people varied
across locale: city (3.2), suburb (3.9), town (4.1), andrural areas (5.5). All libraries had a 1-year decrease.
The number of librarians per 25,000 people also varied
across population sizes (Table 4-12.1). Libraries serving

small populations (16.3) had more librarians per 25,000
people than libraries serving medium-sized populations(8.3), libraries serving large populations (6.1), and thoseserving very large populations (3.2).
Libraries serving medium populations saw a 1-yearincrease (0.2 percent), whereas libraries serving small,large, and very large populations saw a 1-year decrease(0.2 percent, 0.6 percent, and 1.2 percent, respectively)(Figure 4-12.1).
State Estimates
Librarian staff varied across states, ranging from 10.2 in
New Hampshire to 1.4 Georgia (Figure 4-12.2). Libraries
in 29 states saw a 1-year increase in librarian per
25,000 people, with the largest increase occurring in
Arizona (8.3 percent) and the largest decrease occurringin Pennsylvania (15.8 percent).

Table 4-12.1. Public Librarians per 25,000 People by Locale and Population Size, FY 2014

Category

Librarians per 25,000 People

Overall

3.9

LocaleCity

3.2

Suburb

3.9

Town

4.1

Rural

5.5

Population size
Very large (> 25,000)

3.2

Large (10,000–25,000)

6.1

Medium (2,500–9,999)

8.3

Small (< 2,500)

16.3

NOTE: Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

50

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 4: Staffing
Figure 4-12.1. Public Librarians per 25,000 People by Population Size, FY 2005–2014

Librarians per 25,000 People

25.0

20.0
Population of LibraryService Area

15.0

National
Very large(> 25,000)
Large(10,000–25,000)
Medium(2,500–9,999)
Small(< 2,500)

10.0

5.0

0.0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
NOTE: Estimates in the figure use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014.

Figure 4-12.2. Number of Librarians per 25,000 People by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY
NV

WI

SD

PA
IL

UT

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IA

NE

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

AR

SC
AL

NJ
DE
MD

RI
CT
DC

NC

TN

MS

NH
MA

NY

GA

Librarians per 25,000 People
More than 6.0 (11 states)
4.6 to 6.0 (13 states + DC)LA

3.0 to 4.5 (16 states)
Fewer than 3.0 (10 states)

AK

FL
HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201451

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 4: Staffing
Indicator 13: Percentage of Librarians with an ALA-Accredited Master’s Degree
More than half of all public libraries had an ALA-accredited master’s degree public librarian on staff.

Librarians with an ALA-accredited master’s degree
typically have expertise in managing collections, serving
as leaders in their public library or state, and taking onother responsibilities that require an MLS degree. In FY
2014, more than two-thirds (67.9 percent) of librarians
had an ALA-accredited master’s degree. This represented
a slight decrease over the past 5 and 10 years of lessthan 1.0 percent, but a 1.2 percent increase over the
past year.
In FY 2014, more than half (52.6 percent) of all public
libraries had a librarian with an ALA-accredited master’s
degree. However, only 1 percent of public libraries (94)
did not have a librarian.
Locale and Population Size Estimates
The ratio of librarians with an ALA-accredited master’s
degree varied across locales (Figure 4-13.1) andpopulation sizes (Table 4-13.1). Public libraries in cities
had a higher percentage of ALA-MLS librarians (86.7
percent) than libraries in suburbs (77.3 percent), towns(41.7 percent), and rural areas (29.4 percent).
Nearly all (98.7 percent) public libraries in cities had
at least one librarian with an ALA-accredited master’s
degree, compared to 87.4 percent of public libraries
in suburbs, 57.4 percent in towns and 24.6 percent inrural areas.

Similarly, libraries serving very large populations had
a higher percentage of ALA-MLS librarians (78.6
percent) than libraries serving large populations (59.9
percent), medium populations (32.5 percent), and small
populations (10.1 percent).
In FY 2014, 95.1 percent of very large populations had
at least one ALA-MLS librarian. In contrast, 77.7 percent
of libraries serving large populations, 40.7 percent oflibraries serving medium populations, and 11.1 percent
of libraries serving small populations had at least one
ALA-MLS librarian.
State Estimates
The ratio of ALA-accredited master’s degree librarians
varied across states, ranging from 100.0 percent in theDistrict of Columbia and Georgia to 20.7 percent in
Mississippi (Figure 4-13.2). Libraries in 27 states saw
a 1-year increase in the ratio of ALA-MLS librarians
between FY 2013 and FY 2014. Pennsylvania (15.3
percent) had the largest increase, whereas New Jersey(14.2 percent) had the largest decrease. In the Districtof Columbia and Georgia, the ratio of ALA-MLS librarians
did not change between FY 2013 and FY 2014.

Table 4-13.1. Percentage of Librarians with an ALA-Accredited Master’s Degree
by Locale and Population Size, FY 2014

Category

Percentage of Librarians with ALA-MLS

Overall

67.9

LocaleCity

86.7

Suburb

77.3

Town

41.7

Rural

29.4

Population size
Very large (> 25,000)

78.6

Large (10,000–25,000)

59.9

Medium (2,500–9,999)

32.5

Small (< 2,500)

10.1

NOTE: Estimates in the table use the unduplicated population.
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

52

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

PART TWO:
Public Library Indicators | Section 4: Staffing

Ratio of ALA-Accredited Master's Degree Librarians

Figure 4-13.1. Ratio of Librarians with a Master’s Degree from an ALA-Accredited Master’s Degree Program
to All Librarians by Locale, FY 2010–2014 30
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
Locale40.0%

National

30.0%

City
Suburb

20.0%

Town

10.0%

Rural

0.0%
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Year
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2014.

Figure 4-13.2. Percentage of Libraries with a Librarian Holding a Master’s Degree from an
ALA-Accredited Master’s Degree Program by State, FY 2014
WA
ND

MT

ME

VT

OR

MN
ID
WY

NV

WI

SD

PA
IL

OH

IN

CO

CA

KS

AZ

MI

IA

NE

UT

OK

NM

WV

MO

TX

VA

KY

AR

SC
AL

NJ
DE
MD

RI
CT
DC

NC

TN

MS

NH
MA

NY

GA

Libraries with ALA-Accredited Master’s Degree
Librarians
75.0% to 100.0% (15 states + DC)
50.0% to 74.9% (13 states)

LA

25.0% to 49.9% (20 states)

AKFL

0.0% to 24.9% (2 states)

HI

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

30

A 5-year trend is shown in the graph because locale data are not available in PLS data for a 10-year trend.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201453

APPENDICES:
Appendix A. About the Public Libraries Survey
Appendix B. Technical Notes

APPENDIX A:
About the Public Libraries Survey
Appendix A: About the Public Libraries Survey
About the Public Libraries Survey
The PLS is a voluntary survey conducted annually by
IMLS. IMLS collects these data under the mandate in
the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010, as statedin Section 210. The U.S. Census Bureau is the datacollection agent for IMLS. The FY 2014 survey is the27th in the series.

History of the Public Libraries Survey
In 1985, the National Center for Education Statistics(NCES) and the ALA conducted a pilot project in
15 states to assess the feasibility of a federal-state
cooperative program for the collection of public librarydata. The project was jointly funded by NCES and the
U.S. Department of Education’s former Library Programs
office. In 1987, the project’s final report recommended
the development of a nationwide data collection system.
The Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School
Improvement Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-297)
tasked NCES with developing a voluntary FSCS for theannual collection of public library data.1 To carry out
this mandate, a task force was formed by NCES andthe National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science, and the FSCS was established in 1988.
The first survey report in this series, Public Libraries in
50 States and the District of Columbia: 1989, which
includes data from 8,699 public libraries in 50 states
and the District of Columbia, was released by NCES
in 1991. Since then, a data file and survey report
have been released annually. The states have always
submitted their data electronically via customized,
personal computer survey software through FY 2004 andvia a web-based application beginning in FY 2005.
The Museum and Library Services Act transferred the
Library Programs office, including the library statistics
program, from the Department of Education to IMLS. On
October 1, 2007, the survey was transferred from NCES
to IMLS. The FY 2006 survey was collected by NCES
and released by IMLS. The FY 2014 survey is the eighth
PLS data collection released by IMLS.

Survey Purpose and Data Items Included in This
Report
The PLS provides a national census of public libraries
and their public service outlets (see the “Key Library
Terminology” section of this report). These data

are useful to federal, state, and local policymakers;
library and public policy researchers; and the public,
journalists, and others. This report provides summary
information about public libraries in the 50 states andthe District of Columbia for FY 2014.2 It covers service
measures such as number of uses (sessions) of public
Internet computers, number of Internet computers usedby the general public, reference transactions, interlibraryloans, circulation, library visits, children’s programattendance, and circulation of children’s materials.
This report also includes information about collection
size, staffing, operating revenue and expenditures, typeof legal basis, and number and type of public libraryservice outlets. This report is based on the final data file.
Appendix B, Note 1 provides detailed information about
the data and methods for FY 2014.

Congressional Authorization
Two separate laws cover the protection of theconfidentiality of individually identifiable informationcollected by the IMLS—the Privacy Act of 1974 andthe E-Government Act of 2002. The Guidelines for
Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,
Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by
the IMLS were prepared under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001,
Section 515(b). IMLS collects these data as authorized
by its congressional mandate, the Museum and LibraryServices Act of 2010, as stated in 20 U.S.C. Section
9108 (Policy research, analysis, data collection, anddissemination):

20 U.S.C. Section 9108. Policy research,
analysis, data collection, and dissemination(a) In general
The Director shall annually conduct policy research,
analysis, and data collection to extend and improve the
Nation’s museum, library, and information services.
(b) Requirements
The policy research, analysis, and data collection shallbe conducted in ongoing collaboration (as determined
appropriate by the Director), and in consultation, with—(1) State library administrative agencies;(2) National, State, and regional library andmuseum organizations;(3) Other relevant agencies and organizations.

The Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-297) was superseded by the National Education Statistics Act of 1994
(P.L. 103-382) and, more recently, by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002.
The fiscal year reporting period varied among states and among local jurisdictions in some states. Please see “Reporting Period” in Appendix B, Note 1, for more information.

1

2

56

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

APPENDIX A:
About the Public Libraries Survey(c) Objectives
The policy research, analysis, and data collection shallbe used to—(1) Identify national needs for and trends inmuseum, library, and information services;(2) Measure and report on the impact andeffectiveness of museum, library, and information
services throughout the United States, including theimpact of Federal programs authorized under thischapter;(3) Identify best practices; and(4) Develop plans to improve museum, library,and information services of the United States andto strengthen national, State, local, regional, andinternational communications and cooperative
networks.
(d) Dissemination
Each year, the Director shall widely disseminate,
as appropriate to accomplish the objectives undersubsection (c), the results of the policy research,
analysis, and data collection carried out under thissection.
IMLS library survey activities will be designed to address
high-priority library data needs; provide consistent,
reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of thestatus and trends of State and public libraries; andreport timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S.
Congress, the States, other education policymakers,
practitioners, data users, and the general public.

Key Library Terminology3
Public library. A public library is an entity that isestablished under state-enabling laws or regulations toserve a community, district, or region, and that provides
at least the following: (1) an organized collection of
printed or other library materials, or a combination
thereof; (2) paid staff; (3) an established schedule inwhich services of the staff are available to the public;(4) the facilities necessary to support such a collection,
staff, and schedule; and (5) support in whole or in partwith public funds.

Administrative entity. An administrative entity is theagency that is legally established under local or state law
to provide public library service to the population of a
local jurisdiction. The administrative entity may have asingle public library service outlet, or it may have morethan one public library service outlet. (Note: In thisreport, the term public library means an administrative
entity.)Public library service outlet. Public libraries may haveone or more outlets that provide direct services tothe public. This report includes information on three
types of public library service outlets: central library
outlets, branch library outlets, and bookmobile outlets.
Information on a fourth type of outlet, books-by-mailonly outlets, was collected but omitted from this reportbecause these outlets are not open to the public.

Supplemental Tables
As a supplement to this report, IMLS has provided
47 tables to make available additional data about thefindings in this report. These tables offer both nationaland state-level statistics for variables presented in thisreport, as well as for additional variables found in the
PLS data files. Tables 1 through 1B provide overview
data by state about the number of public libraries
and the population of the legal service areas. Tables 2through 31 appear in sets of two each. The base tablein each set (Tables 2 through 31) displays data for thenation as a whole and for each of the 50 states and theDistrict of Columbia. The “A” table in each set displays
the same data by 11 ranges of population of legal service
area. Tables 32 through 35 include data about public
library size. Tables 36 through 47 provide state rankingson key variables. The supplemental tables are available
online only at www.imls.gov.

Survey Questionnaire and Data Elements
The questionnaire for the PLS is developed inpartnership between IMLS and its stakeholders in thelibrary community, specifically the Library Statistics
Working Group and the SDCs. The questionnaire
used in the FY 2014 survey is published in the data
documentation, Data File Documentation: Public
Libraries Survey: Fiscal Year 2014, available atwww.imls.gov. In addition to the survey, the data
documentation provides definitions of items, including
those used in this report.

More detailed definitions of the terms used in this report can be found in the data documentation, Data File Documentation: Public Libraries Survey: Fiscal Year 2014. The data
documentation is available for download from the IMLS website: www.imls.gov.

3

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

57

APPENDIX B:
Technical Notes
Appendix B: Technical Notes
Note 1. Public Libraries Survey, FY 2014
Survey Universe
The PLS is a universe survey. Unlike sample surveys,
which collect data from a portion of the population,
universe surveys collect data from the entire population.
In FY 2014, the survey frame consisted of 9,295 public
libraries (9,233 public libraries in the 50 states andthe District of Columbia and 62 public libraries in the
outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands), as identified by state library agencies. The
frame consisted of all libraries that were not reported
as closed in the prior year (e.g., FY 2013), plus any
changes registered with IMLS outside of the prior datacollection period. States reported changes to the frame
as part of the FY 2014 data collection. Coverage andother forms of non-sampling errors are discussed in the
Non-sampling Errors section below.
The survey frame includes 166 public libraries that do
not meet all the criteria outlined in the FSCS Public
Library Definition (see item 203 of the “Administrative
Entity” definitions for the criteria). Military libraries thatprovide public library service and libraries that serve
residents of institutions are not included in the survey
frame. The FY 2014 public-use data file also includes
10 records for public libraries that were closed or
temporarily closed in FY 2014, but these are generally
not considered to be part of the survey frame.
Data Collection
The FY 2014 PLS began collecting data from states,
50 states, the District of Columbia, and outlying
territories in December 2014. States were placed into
one of three reporting groups (with survey due datesof April 8, July 29, or August 19, 2015) based on
their fiscal cycle or claim of extraordinary reporting
hardship. State data coordinators–were contacted byemail and asked to report their data over the Internet
via WebPLUS, a Web-based application developed by
the Census Bureau (the data collection agent). Editfollow-up was completed in late 2015. The editing
process is described in the “Editing” subsection below.
The survey was conducted in English.
Survey Response
Unit response. A total of 9,053 of 9,295 public libraries
in the survey frame responded to the FY 2014 PLS,1 fora unit response rate of 97.4 percent. Unit respondents

are defined as public libraries for which the populationof the legal service area and at least three of the five
following items are reported: total number of paid
employees, total operating revenue, total operating
expenditures, total number of print materials, andtotal circulation.2 All response rates calculated using
American Association for Public Opinion Research(AAPOR) Response Rate #2.
Total response. The base for calculating response rates toindividual survey items is the total number of libraries inthe survey frame, including unit nonrespondents.
Data file and reported numbers of public libraries. PLS data
files and publication tables report different numbers of
public libraries. Public libraries in outlying areas andlibraries that do not meet FSCS public library definitions
are treated differently between the data files andpublication tables, as follows:1.

Libraries that do not meet FSCS public librarydefinitions are included on the data files but
excluded from publication tables and national
totals.

2.

Responding public libraries in outlying areas
are, whenever possible, included in both thedata files and publication tables; however,national totals in publication tables include
only the 50 states and the District of Columbia,
and exclude outlying areas and libraries that do
not meet the FSCS public library definition.

3.

Nonresponding public libraries in outlying
areas are included in data files but not in the
publication tables or national totals.

4.

Due to low response rates and missing data,
Puerto Rico’s responding public libraries areincluded in the data files but excluded frompublication tables.

Reporting period. The FY 2014 PLS requested data forstate fiscal year 2014. Most state fiscal years encompass
either a calendar year or July to June. In some states,
the FY reporting period varies among local jurisdictions.
These states are listed in the “Other” column in Table
B-1.2. Regardless, most public libraries provided data
for at least a 12-month period. The FY starting date andending date of each public library are included on thedata file.

Including American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico.
Note: Some individual survey items, such as population of legal service area, service outlets, and type of legal basis have a 100.0 percent response rate because the state libraryagency provided these data for all public libraries in their state.

1
2

58

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

APPENDIX B:
Technical Notes
Calculations Included in the Tables
Selected tables include per capita values for someitems and “per 1,000 population” or “per 5,000
population” values for others. Scales (per capita, per
1,000, etc.) were selected to provide the clearest
display of differences across categories in the data.
The calculations are based on the total, unduplicatedpopulation of legal service areas (instead of the total
population of legal service areas) to eliminate duplicative
reporting as a result of overlapping service areas. The
state population estimate was not used as
the basis for the calculations because some states
have unserved populations. See the “Population items”
subsection below for more information.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire used in the FY 2014 survey ispublished in the data documentation, Data File
Documentation Public Libraries Survey: Fiscal Year2014, available at www.imls.gov. In addition to thesurvey, the data documentation provides definitions of
items, including those used in this report. A few key
survey items are discussed next.
Library visits and reference transactions. Public libraries
reported annual library visits and annual referencetransactions based on actual counts, if available.
Otherwise, annual estimates were provided based onlibrary visits and reference transaction activity during atypical week in October, multiplied by 52.
Population items. The PLS has three population items:(1) Population of Legal Service Area for each public
library, (2) Total Unduplicated Population of Legal
Service Areas for each state, and (3) State Total
Population Estimate. The population data are provided
by the state library agency. The methods of calculationof the first two items vary among states, and the state
reporting periods also vary. The Total UnduplicatedPopulation of Legal Service Areas does not include
unserved areas and may vary from data provided bysources using standard methodology (e.g., the Census
Bureau).
The total Population of Legal Service Area for all
public libraries in a state may exceed the state’s Total
Unduplicated Population of Legal Service Areas or theState Total Population Estimate. This happens in statesin which there are overlaps in population of legal service
areas served by individual libraries, resulting in the same
population being counted twice. Twenty-nine states had
such overlapping service areas in FY 2012 (Table B-1.1).

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

To enable meaningful state comparisons using total
Population of Legal Service Area data (for example, thenumber of print materials per capita), the Populationof Legal Service Area data were adjusted to eliminate
duplicative reporting as a result of overlapping service
areas. The Public Library Data File includes a derived,
unduplicated Population of Legal Service Area value
for each library for this purpose (the variable is called
POPU_UND). This value was prorated for each library
by calculating the ratio of a library’s Population of Legal
Service Area (POPU_LSA) to the state’s total Populationof Legal Service Area (POPU_UND) and applying theratio to the state’s Total Unduplicated Population of
Legal Service Areas (POPU-UND). The latter item
(POPU_UND) is a single, state-reported figure found in
the Public Library State Summary/State Characteristics
Data File.)
Paid, Full-Time-Equivalent Staff. Paid staff were reported
in FTEs. To ensure comparable data, 40 hours was set
as the measure of full-time employment (for example,
60 hours per week of part-time work by employees in astaff category divided by the 40-hour measure equals
1.50 FTEs). FTE data were reported to two decimal
places (rounded to one decimal place in the tables).
Caveats for Data Use
The data include imputations, at the unit and item
levels, for nonresponding libraries. See the “Imputation”
section on the next page for a discussion of theimputation methodology. Comparisons to data prior to
FY 1992 should be made with caution because earlier
data do not include imputations for nonresponse, andthe percentage of libraries responding to a given item
varied widely among the states.
State data comparisons should be made with caution
because of differences in reporting periods (Table B-1.2)
and adherence to survey definitions. The definitions
used by some states in collecting data from their public
libraries may not be consistent with the PLS definitions.
The District of Columbia, although not a state, is
included in this report. Special care should be used incomparing data for a city to those for a state. Caution
also should be used in comparing Hawaii’s data to thoseof other states because all public library data in Hawaii
are reported under one entity, the Hawaii State Public
Library System.

59

APPENDIX B:
Technical Notes
Table B-1.1. States with Public Libraries with Overlapping Service Areas, FY 2014
Arkansas

Massachusetts

Pennsylvania

Arizona

Michigan

Rhode Island

California

Minnesota

South Dakota

Colorado

Mississippi

Tennessee

Connecticut

Montana

Texas

FloridaNebraska

Utah

Iowa

New Hampshire

Vermont

Indiana

New Jersey

Virginia

Louisiana

New York

Puerto Rico

Maine

Ohio

SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Public Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2014.

Table B-1.2. Reporting Periods of Public Libraries, FY 2014
July 2013 throughJune 2014

January 2014 throughDecember 2014

October 2013 throughSeptember 2014

Other1

Arizona

Arkansas

Alabama

Alaska2

California

Colorado

District of Columbia

Illinois3

Connecticut

Indiana

FloridaMaine4

DelawareKansasIdaho

Michigan5

GeorgiaLouisiana

Mississippi

Missouri6

Hawaii

Minnesota

American Samoa

Nebraska7

Iowa

New Jersey

Guam

New Hampshire8

KentuckyNorth Dakota

New York9

Maryland

Ohio

Pennsylvania8

Massachusetts

South Dakota

Texas10Montana

Washington

Utah8

NevadaWisconsin

Vermont7

New Mexico

Puerto Rico

North Carolina
Oklahoma
OregonRhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
The reporting period varies among localities for the states in this column; however, each public library provided data for a 12-month period.
2
January 2013 to June 2014
3
October 2012 to June 2014
4
April 2013 to December 2014
5
December 2012 to September 2014
6
October 2012 to October 2014
7
January 2013 to December 2014
8
July 2013 to December 2014
9March 2013 to December 201410
February 2013 to December 2014
SOURCE: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Survey of Public Libraries in the United States, Fiscal Year 2014.
1

60

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

APPENDIX B:
Technical Notes
Editing
State level. The respondent generates an edit reportfollowing direct data entry or import of their data
into WebPLUS. The edit report, which may be viewed
on-screen or printed, is used to identify and correct
any errors, and to confirm the accuracy of data thatgenerated edit warnings but required no change, before
the final file is submitted to the Census Bureau.
In the FY 2014 PLS, four types of edit checks were
performed:
1.

Relational edit checks;2.

Out-of-range edit checks;

3.

Arithmetic edit checks; and4.

Blank, zero, or invalid data edit checks.

For more information on edit checks, see the PLS
FY 2014 Data Documentation.
The WebPLUS application generates state summary
tables (showing state totals for all numeric data items)
and single-library tables (showing data for individual
public libraries in a state). State item response tables
also are generated. Respondents were encouraged
to review the tables for data quality issues before
submitting their data to IMLS. State data submissions
also included a signed form from the Chief Officer of theState Library Agency certifying the accuracy of the data.
National level. The Census Bureau and IMLS, working
closely with the PLS SDCs, reviewed and edited the statedata submissions.
Imputation
Imputation is a procedure for estimating a value for a
specific data item in which the response is missing. Thissection describes the imputation methods that were used
to fill in the missing data items for the FY 2014 survey
year. In total, 42 items were imputed.
The responding and nonresponding libraries were
sorted into imputation cells based on OBE (Bureau
of Economic Analysis; formerly Office of BusinessEconomics) region code and the size of the population.
Each state is assigned an OBE region code (e.g., 01–
New England [CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT]). The cumulativeroot frequency method3 was used to determine theimputation cells.
The imputation for nonresponding libraries was performed
using the data calculated from respondents in theirimputation cells. Item imputation was performed on3each record with nonresponsive variables. Following aredescriptions of each imputation method used for the PLS.
Imputations were performed in two stages. In thefirst stage, imputations were carried out for nearly all
missing values using the following methods: prior year
times mean growth rate, adjusted cell mean, cell mean,prior year ratio, cell median ratio, direct substitution ofprior year data, cell median, and special imputations.
In the second stage, imputed values were adjusted forsome missing values (based on the variable) using thefollowing methods: obtained value by relationship of
total to detail items, raking, special imputations, andconsistency checks.
Non-sampling Errors
Because all units in the universe are surveyed, thedata are not subject to sampling error; however, they
are subject to non-sampling errors, such as errors in
response, nonresponse errors, coverage errors arisingfrom an incomplete listing of public libraries, coding
errors, or processing errors.
Every effort is made to mitigate such errors. The editing
efforts described above are designed to decrease thenumber of errors resulting from inaccurate responses
or processing problems. Imputation lessens the effectof nonresponse. Efforts are made to obtain complete
listings of public libraries from the state library agencies.
Although such efforts are made, some non-sampling
errors likely remain in the data.
Undercoverage errors are estimated to be minimal
because states are incentivized to register new libraries
with IMLS to access discounts provided through the
Universal Service Schools and Libraries Program(more commonly known as E-rate), as well as otherbenefits afforded to public libraries (e.g., Tech Soup).
Overcoverage occurs when libraries are not reported
as closed. In addition, overcoverage will occur if data
users do not account for libraries in the dataset that do
not meet the definition of a public library developed by
the FSCS.
Measurement errors are associated with data entry errors,significant structure changes, and complex concepts.
There are no formal studies that estimate bias andvariance due to measurement errors for PLS.
Unit nonresponse, which is measured at the librarylevel, has minimal bias due to high response rates in
the 50 states, but there may be high nonresponse bias
in outlying territories due to non-reporting.

For more information on cumulative root frequency method, see Cochran, W. (1977). Sampling techniques, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

61

APPENDIX B:
Technical Notes
Item nonresponse rates were generally low. Bias due
to item nonresponse bias may be higher for items thatare consistently missing data from certain libraries
and outlets over multiple years. Newly added items are
subject to higher rates of item nonresponse.

In addition to per capita analyses, trends in services
are sometimes examined by the number of visitors.
Examination of both per capita and per visitor trends
provides a measure of the role that public libraries playin their communities at large.

Processing errors are considered average for PLS
administrative data collection because no reported data
values are changed during data processing. Processing
errors exist in edit check and imputation processes anddepend on the quality of prior years’ data.

LocaleFederal agencies use a variety of ways to classify
community types. In this report, libraries are classified
using a system of locale codes developed by NCES.
Working with the U.S. Census Bureau, NCES revisedthese codes by using improved geocoding technology andthe 2010 Office of Management and Budget definitionsof metropolitan statistical areas.5 Thus, locale codes rely
on proximity to an urbanized area, rather than population
size and county boundaries.

Efforts are being made to mitigate such errors and toobtain complete listings of public libraries from state
library administrative agencies. Imputation lessens
the effect of non-response bias. Editing was designed
to decrease the number of errors due to inaccurate
responses or processing problems.
Note: Errors in response to the audio and video
downloadables data were confirmed by some states.
The data were incorrectly reported as “units” instead of“titles.” The incorrect data for these states were deleted
from the data files.

Note 2. Commonly Used Measures
This report presents statistics for metrics related to
aspects of financial, operational, and service activities
in public libraries in the United States. National-levelsummaries of these metrics are presented for FY 2014,
and 5- and 10-year trends are presented for many
metrics from FY 2004 through FY 2014. Some data
elements, such as the number of young adult’s program
offerings, were added to the survey after FY 2004. Overthe past 5 years (between FY 2010 and FY 2014),
trend analyses were performed for these metrics. In theindicators, metrics are also broken out and presented bystate, region, or locale.
Per Capita
Many items presented in this report are measured per
capita. Per capita is the measure of an item divided by
the unduplicated population of the legal service area.4
Per capita metrics control for population changes overtime and allow for standardized comparison of metrics.
In some cases, items are measured per 1,000, 5,000,
and 25,000 people for illustration purposes. As with per
capita, these measures help standardize comparisonsover time.

Beginning with the FY 2008 data file, locale codes
were added to the PLS outlet and administrative entity
datasets. Locale codes identify general characteristics
about where a public library is situated. The codes
allow users to quickly identify which library outlets andadministrative entities are located in cities, suburbs,
towns, or rural areas. The locale codes are based on theproximity of an address to an urbanized area, defined asa densely settled core with densely settled, surrounding
areas.
The locale code system classifies a territory into four
major categories: urban, suburban, town, and rural(Table B-2.1). Each category has three subcategories.
For urban and suburban areas, gradations are based on
population size: large, medium, or small. Towns and rural
areas are subcategorized based on their distance froman urbanized area: fringe, distant, or remote. The coding
methodology was developed by the Census Bureau asa way to identify the location of public schools for the
Common Core of Data, a survey collected by NCES.
These 12 locale codes provide a new way to analyze
library services in the United States. By incorporating
objective measures of rurality and urbanicity into thedata files, researchers and practitioners can benchmark
services in a fundamentally different way by basing
comparisons on community attributes as well as theattributes of the libraries themselves. In other words,
library services in rural, remote areas can now becompared to library services in other rural, remote areas
within the same state or across the country by using astandardized rurality/urbanicity metric that is applied

Details about the unduplicated population can be found in the data documentation, Data File Documentation: Public Libraries Survey: Fiscal year 2011, available at www.imls.gov.
The Office of Management and Budget delineates geographic entities for metropolitan and metropolitan statistical areas for use by federal agencies in collecting, tabulating, andpublishing federal statistics. To learn about the designation, see the notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 123, pp. 37246–39052, published June 28, 2010.

4
5

62

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

APPENDIX B:
Technical Notes
Table B-2.1. Urban-Centric Locale Categories

City
Large: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population of 250,000 or more
Midsize: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 250,000 and
greater than or equal to 100,000
Small: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 100,000

SuburbLarge: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population of 250,000 or more
Midsize: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 250,000 and
greater than or equal to 100,000
Small: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 100,000

Town
Fringe: Territory inside an urban cluster that is less than or equal to 10 miles from an urbanized area
Distant: Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 10 miles and less than or equal to 35 miles froman urbanized area
Remote: Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 35 miles from an urbanized area

Rural
Fringe: Census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural
territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an urban cluster
Distant: Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from anurbanized area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from anurban cluster
Remote: Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area and is also more than
10 miles from an urban cluster
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data, Identification of Locale Codes, from https://nces.ed.gov/
programs/edge/geographicLocale.aspx.

consistently to each library in the country. Once
communities of interest have been selected, comparisons
can be made to any data that are available in the
PLS, whether they are related to aspects of finance,
operations, or service.
As of FY 2008, each library outlet and administrative
entity in the PLS was assigned one of the 12 locale
codes. Starting with the FY 2009 survey data files,
bookmobiles and books-by-mail-only outlets wereassigned locale codes.6

6

Geographic Region
Analyses in this report are also presented by geographic
region. The PLS uses the geographic regionalclassification developed by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, which is composed of nine geographic regions:
New England, Mid-East, Great Lakes, Plains, Southeast,
Southwest, Rocky Mountains, Far West, and outlying
areas (Table B-2.2). For the purpose of this report,
outlying areas are not included in the analyses.

In FY 2014, there 104 administrative entities that were not recoded with a locale code.

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

63

APPENDIX B:
Technical Notes
Table B-2.2. Regional Designations Used in the PLS, from the Bureau of Economic Analysis

RegionStatesNew England

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont

Mid-East

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania

Great Lakes

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin

PlainsIowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

Southeast

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia

Southwest

Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

Rocky Mountains

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming

Far West

Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington

Outlying Areas

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands

Full-Time Equivalent
In analyses of the workforce, information on employment
is classified according to FTE status. FTE is a unit thatmeasures the workload of an employed person. It is used
to aid in comparisons of workload across contexts. An
FTE of 1.0 indicates that the person is the equivalent of64

a full-time worker, who usually works 40 hours per week.
An FTE of 0.5 indicates a person who works half time. If
a library reports that it has 2.0 FTEs, it may be referring
to two full-time employees or four part-time employees(each of whom works approximately 20 hours per week).

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 2014

APPENDIX B:
Technical Notes
Note 3. Adjusting for Inflation: Financial Indicators and Calculations
For financial trends that report dollar amounts over time, such as 5- and 10-year revenue trends, metrics are
represented in constant dollars. Constant dollars are an adjusted value of currency that accounts for inflation.
We use this adjustment to compare monetary values from one period to another. For FY 2014 analyses, inflation
was accounted for using a GDP deflator,7 as shown in Equation B-3.1:

GDP DEFLATOR=NOMINAL GDP
REAL GDP

X 100(B-3.1)

In general, a real value is one in which the effects of inflation have been taken into account, and a nominal value is
one in which the effects have not. Thus, the real GDP is the value of all the goods and services produced in the UnitedStates expressed relative to a base year, and the nominal GDP is the value of the same goods and services expressed incurrent prices.
To calculate the value in constant dollars for a target year, multiply a value from a base year by a ratio of the GDP
deflators from the base year and the target year. For example, to calculate the amount of revenue from the year 2004
in 2014 constant dollars, multiply the original value of revenue in 2002 by the ratio of the deflators from year 2014
to 2004 (see Equation B-3.2).

VALUE (constant2014 dollars)

7= VALUE

2004

X

GDP DEFLATOR 2014
GDP DEFLATOR 2004

(B-3.2)

Information on the U.S. GDP was obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov).

Public Libraries Survey | Fiscal Year 201465

Acknowledgments
Many individuals made important contributions to this report. The Institute of Museum and Library Services is gratefulto the many staff members who contributed to this report, including: Matthew Birnbaum, Lisa Frehill, Marisa Pelczar,
and Ben Sweezy. We are also grateful to the team from the American Institutes for Research for producing this report,
which includes the following individuals: Christopher A. Cody, Jiashan Cui, Kathryn Low, Katie Mallory, Patrick Stark,
Celeste Stone, Aaron Testoff, and Tzu-Jou Wan.
IMLS also extends sincere gratitude to the Chief Officers, State Data Coordinators, other State Library Administrative
Agency staff, and public library directors and their staff who provided the data for this report. Their diligent efforts
result in a national data resource with an exceptionally high response rate, year after year.
IMLS would like to extend a special thank you to members of the survey advisory group for their help in managing thesurvey process. The Library Statistics Working Group (LSWG) is a vital part of the survey team. Their time and effort
has helped make this report a more valuable resource to the library community and the public.
Library Statistics Working Group Members
Stacey Aldrich, State Librarian, Hawaii State Public Library System
Jay Bank, State Data Coordinator, State Library of Kentucky
Mike Crandall, Principal Research Scientist, University of Washington
Michael Golrick, State Data Coordinator, State Library of Louisiana
Linda Hofschire, Director of Library Research Service, Colorado State Library
Amanda Johnson, State Data Coordinator, State Library of North Carolina
Martha Kyrillidou, Director of Statistics and Service Quality, Association of Research Libraries
Jennifer Nelson, State Librarian/Director of State Library Services, Minnesota Department of Education
Annie Norman, State Librarian and Director, Delaware Division of Libraries
James Ritter, State Librarian, Maine Library Commission
Kathy Rosa, Director, Office for Research and Statistics, American Library Association
Mark Smith, Director and Librarian, Texas State Library and Archives Commission
Katrice Stewart, State Data Coordinator, State Library of Florida