Executive Summary
The groundwork for this study was presented to the Utah State Library Division in 2005, by Joe G. Baker, Ph.D., (Southern Utah University), Steven D. Decker, MLS, (Cedar City Public Library), and Douglas Abrams, MLS, Ph.D., (the liaison representing the Utah State Library Division). The preliminary work reviewed data from different states and communities in regard to the economic impact of public libraries. From that review, several scenarios were presented through which Utah could embark on a study to produce findings appropriate for Utah.
Borrowing an explanation from the 2005 study:
“The committee was given information that related to statewide studies conducted in Pennsylvania (1998), Florida (2000 and 2004), New York (2004), South Carolina (2005), and the cities of Carlsbad, CA (2005) and St. Louis, MO (1998). Each jurisdiction has reported positive returns on monies spent for library service. St. Louis reports a return of $4 for each $1 spent (direct benefit); South Carolina reports a total benefit of $4.48 ($2.86 in direct benefits and $1.62 in indirect benefits); New York boasts that for each $1 of state aid, library users receive “approximately $13 in services” (total); Florida indicates a total return of $6.54 per $1dollar expended.”
A survey, based on South Carolina’s model, was developed for Utah. It addressed quality of life issues, impacts of libraries on educational, business and investment information, a demographic of respondents, questions related to perceived personal dollar value benefits of services, and the value of various library services.
Deliverables for this study include a projected total estimated ROI (Return on Investment) value for Utah public library services.
ROI is defined as:
(Economic value of library services – Library budget) / Library budget
The source of these values is explained under “Methodology.” Based on information extrapolated by the methodologies explained, this pilot study reports report asserts an estimated ROI of $7.35. That is, $7.35 of value is derived from each dollar invested in Utah public libraries.
This study also contains a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis. Such an analysis was not part of the deliverables under which the researcher worked. However, some matters became apparent and warranted a brief statement. As with any such analysis, items categorized into each SWOT category may be considered somewhat subjective. This study suggests the following:
• Strengths: Quality of life issues and educational opportunities.
• Weaknesses: Weak or ineffective efforts that target those seeking business or investment information or help for job seekers; use of library staff by information seekers of educational, investment or business information.
• Opportunities: Marketing efforts to overcome weaknesses, including information intended to enhance job productivity and performance.
• Threats: Library competitors both direct (bookstores, online book sellers, the Internet, and media) and informal (information from friends, relatives, or co-workers).


Methodology
Several steps were taken to assure accuracy and appropriate measurement of ROI value for Utah libraries. It should be noted that the researcher is not an econometrician, but is well versed in the studies completed by other entities. South Carolina’s example was used as a basis for Utah’s survey tool.
A demographic question was inserted into the survey. This question required an answer. This approach has generated at least one incident of criticism. The potential respondent stated she did not complete the survey because her salary-range information was too personal. Yet, the demographic information requested was deemed necessary and proper to gain information and perspective about the respondents. Another potential survey taker suggested an open-text comment box. This was also considered when designing the survey. It was rejected because of the inability to quantify textual responses.
Appendix A indicates specific ROI calculations. Values were assigned thus:
• Library Budget: Total amount of expenditures ($84,097,790) reported in 2007 by Utah public libraries, plus the annual cost ($520,000) of PIONEER: Utah’s Online Library (public access version). PIONEER is included because it is universally accessible at or through Utah’s public libraries, though the payment for the service is budgeted through the Utah State Library Division. The value of PIONEER is calculated by multiplying views* (805,732) by the average dollar amount respondents indicated they would be willing to pay in response to, “What would you be willing to pay to ACCESS SPECIAL DATABASES ONLINE at the LIBRARY, or at HOME?”
• Value of Circulation Transactions: Total circulation transactions (32,142,615) as reported by Utah public libraries in 2007 multiplied by the average dollar value of the New York Times Best Seller lists for hard cover fiction, hard cover non-fiction, trade paperback fiction, and paperback nonfiction on January 2, 2009. (This figure is believed to be conservative. It excludes high cost items like academic books, non-books such as books-on-CD, DVD, and other high cost items. Likewise it excluded lower cost materials like mass market paperbacks).
• Value of Interlibrary Loan Transactions: Transactions reported (23,088) as “received” by Utah public libraries in 2007. Transaction cost is attributed to the average dollar value of a book as explained above.
• Value of Magazine and Newspaper Subscriptions: Total number of periodical subscriptions (15,726) reported by Utah public libraries in 2007 multiplied by the average one year periodical subscription rate as evidenced by Cedar City Public Library’s EBSCO annual periodical subscription list.
• Adult Program Value: Attendance at young adult and adult programs (111,223) as reported by Utah public libraries in 2007 multiplied by the average dollar value of survey responses to, “What would you be willing to pay to ATTEND ADULT PROGRAMS or CLASSES at the LIBRARY?”
• Children’s Programs Value: Attendance at children’s programs (638,920) as reported by Utah public libraries in 2007 multiplied by the average dollar value of survey responses to, “What would you be willing to pay to have YOUR CHILDREN ATTEND CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS at the LIBRARY?”
• Computer Access Value: Total computer accesses (2,422,897) reported by Utah public libraries in 2007 multiplied by the average dollar value of survey responses to, “What would you be willing to pay to USE COMPUTERS and INTERNET ACCESS at the LIBRARY?”
• Database Access Value: Number of local databases (505) as reported by Utah public libraries in 2007 multiplied by $1,465.55, which is the average dollar value per local data base calculated by dividing the expenditures on materials in electronic format ($740,105) by the number of local databases ($740,105/505=$1465.55). (PIONEER calculated separately).
• Reference Question Value: Number of reference questions (3,963,674) reported by Utah public libraries in 2007 multiplied by the average dollar value of survey response to, “What would you be willing to pay to have REFERENCE QUESTIONS ANSWERED and RECEIVE ASSISTANCE at the LIBRARY?”
• PIONEER Value: Defined in first bullet, above.
• Economic Value of Service is the total value of services derived by the sum of the above calculations.
Therefore, an estimated ROI is determined by the calculated economic value of service (the sum of all factors bulleted above), less the total expenditures of all Utah libraries in 2007. That figure is then divided by the total expenditures of all Utah libraries in 2007 – the same number that was subtracted.
The survey was open to the public from December 22, 2008 through January 15, 2009. There were 283 respondents to the survey. Notification of the survey opportunity was accomplished through e-mail, a ULN posting, a press release to all Utah newspapers, a press release to most college campus newspapers, a press release to radio and television stations, and special notice by Amanda Dickson on her KSL Radio program. A direct link to the survey was attached to all e-mails. Press releases directed potential respondents to http://library.utah.gov – the website of the Utah State Library Division, who graciously sponsored a link to the survey. Judging from the timing of responses, those who received an invitation by direct e-mail were most likely to respond to the survey. There is no evidence that the press releases to media had significant, if any, impact.
Low total numbers of respondents to this “Pilot Study” may be of concern. However, the calculated ROI estimate does reflect a figure within the anticipated range, and appears to be in harmony with similar studies in other jurisdictions. Further, Utah’s high library usage, as compared to usage in neighboring states, may increase the “value” residents attribute to library service. Finally, libraries have received media attention, as of late, related to the increase of library use during economic downturns. Whether or not this data is reflected in the values respondents placed on library service is undetermined.
A copy of the survey and the response totals is attached in the appendices.