The 2018-19 Budget

California State Library

In this post, we analyze the Governor’s eight California State Library budget proposals totaling $9.7 million in associated augmentations. We begin the post by providing an overview of the State Library and its budget. We then describe and assess the Governor’s proposals and offer associated recommendations.

Overview

State Library Performs Several State-Level Activities. The State Library’s main functions are (1) serving as the central library for state government; (2) collecting, preserving, and publicizing literature and historical items; and (3) providing specialized research services to the Legislature and the Governor.

State Library Also Administers Various Local Assistance Programs. In addition, the State Library passes through state and federal funds to local public libraries for specified purposes and provides related oversight and technical assistance. These local assistance programs fund literacy programs, Internet services, and resource sharing, among other things. In addition, the state has funded various one-time initiatives in recent years, including the Civil Liberties program and an online high school program.

State Library Supported Primarily With State and Federal Funds. Figure 1 shows that the State Library’s total budget in 2017‑18 is $53.5 million. The majority of funding (61 percent) is state General Fund ($32.5 million) with the remainder largely coming from federal funds. About 55 percent of total State Library funding goes toward local library assistance programs, with the remainder going toward state operations.

Local Libraries Are Run and Funded Primarily by Local Governments. In California, local libraries can be operated by counties, cities, special districts, or joint powers authorities. Usually an operator designates a central library to help coordinate activities among all the library branches within the jurisdiction. In 2017‑18, 184 central libraries with 1,250 library branches operated in California. Local libraries’ responsibilities include hiring and managing staff, conducting branch oversight, and managing various programs (for example, offering children’s story time and resume-building workshops). Libraries provide a diverse set of services, depending on the needs of their communities, but most libraries emphasize their role in providing community members with access to information as a core part of their mission. More than 95 percent of local library funding comes from local governments, with very small shares coming from state and federal sources.

Governor Has Eight Budget Proposals Related to the State Library. Figure 2 summarizes the Governor’s eight State Library budget change proposals and provides our associated recommendations. In total, the Governor provides $9.7 million for these proposals in 2018‑19. Of this amount, $3.2 million is ongoing and $6.5 million is one time. We group the proposals into four areas—literacy, Internet connectivity, resource sharing, and oral histories—which we discuss in the next four sections, respectively.

Literacy

Below, we provide background on state funding for the California Library Literacy Services program, describe the Governor’s proposal to augment funding for this program by $2.5 million, assess the proposal, and make associated recommendations.

Background

Local Libraries Receive State Funding to Help More Adults Learn How to Read and Write. In 2017‑18, local libraries are receiving $4.8 million in ongoing non-Proposition 98 General Fund for the California Library Literacy Services program. This program focuses on helping interested adults become literate through one-on-one tutoring provided by community volunteers. Of the state’s 184 central libraries, 106 participated in the program in 2016, serving roughly 20,000 adults taught by 10,000 volunteers. Participating libraries submit annual program reports to the state that contain data about the number of individuals served, their learning gains, and other outcomes (like how many can read a medicine bottle). In addition to literacy programs for adults, some local libraries use local funding for literacy programs that serve children.

Considerable Amount of Other State Funding Supports Literacy. The state also spends a considerable amount of Proposition 98 General Fund for adult literacy programs run by community colleges and schools. The California Community Colleges receives hundreds of millions of dollars in apportionment funding annually for basic skills and English as a second language (ESL) courses. Similarly, the Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) provides $500 million annually for adult education, including literacy and ESL courses. In addition, the state provides considerable funding for K-12 education—most notably, billions of dollars for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) that is focused on ensuring K-12 students are literate and proficient in comprehension and writing. In addition, the state spends millions of dollars on early education and State Preschool in support of child development and preparation for literacy.

Local Libraries Are Not Required to Coordinate Programs With Other Literacy Providers. Encouraging better coordination of adult education providers within each region of the state has been a major legislative effort in recent years. Nonetheless, state law currently only encourages, but does not require, entities receiving adult education funding, such as local libraries, to coordinate with other regional providers. Similarly, state law only encourages, but does not require, entities that provide literacy programs for K-12 students to be a part of school districts’ planning efforts.

Governor’s Proposal

Provides $2.5 Million Ongoing for Literacy Program. The Governor proposes to increase funding for the California Library Literacy Services program from $4.8 million to $7.3 million, an increase of 52 percent. The Governor proposes to allocate the additional funding in several ways. Specifically, the Governor proposes to: (1) increase base funding for each participating local library from $18,000 to $25,000; (2) increase funding for each adult learner served from $85 to $120; and (3) provide $20,000 to each participating library that provides literacy services to children of adult learners. Additionally, the administration estimates costs would increase due to greater library participation, with the number of participating libraries projected to increase from 106 to 125.

Assessment

Substantial State Education Funding for Adult and Child Literacy. In total, the state provides billions of dollars to community colleges, adult education consortia, and school districts to promote adult and child literacy throughout California. In each of these cases, existing state funding formulas are related in some way to literacy or language development. Specifically, the state distributes community college apportionment funding in part based on adult education attainment in the area, AEBG funding is distributed in part based on each consortium’s share of adults in the state who have less than an eighth grade education, and LCFF funding is distributed in part based on the number of English Learners and low-income students in the school district. Under the Governor’s 2018‑19 budget proposal, funding under these formulas is increasing by billions of dollars. The administration has not made a case that an even greater augmentation is warranted specifically for library literacy programs in 2018‑19.

Only Some Existing Literacy Programs Are Coordinated. The main purpose of the adult education consortia is to provide a way to coordinate programs for adults within each region of the state. Due to these efforts, some community colleges and school districts work together to coordinate their literacy programs. Local libraries, however, often are not included or participating in these consortia, with the result that all available adult literacy programs are not always well coordinated. Moreover, local libraries are not required currently to coordinate their literacy programs for children with school districts’ literacy efforts. The Governor’s proposal does nothing to better integrate existing literacy programs.

State Has No Explicit Adult Literacy Goals. Despite the billions of dollars the state provides in total for community colleges and adult education consortia, it currently does not have an overall goal regarding adult literacy. (A few libraries receiving a federal literacy grant establish some library-specific literacy and ESL goals.) Without a state goal, the state does not have a benchmark upon which to assess whether state funding for literacy efforts is resulting in desired outcomes. The Governor’s proposal perpetuates this shortcoming—augmenting funding without setting any associated goals. (Though the state lacks adult literacy goals, it does have literacy and language development expectations for children attending public schools.)

State Has No Policy Regarding How to Share Costs With Local Libraries. The state’s periodic augmentations for the California Library Literacy Services program are not based upon an expectation of local libraries’ cost-sharing. In some years, local libraries cover virtually all costs with their local literacy efforts. In years when the state provides funding or augments funding for the state-sponsored program, the libraries cover a slightly smaller share of total literacy-related costs. Regardless of the state fiscal condition, the vast majority of costs for local libraries’ literacy programs traditionally have been covered by local funds. Coupled with the lack of state goals and regular measurement of progress toward meeting those goals, the additional benefit provided by a small amount of state funding is unclear. Providing $2.5 million in ongoing funding for many other state priorities in 2018‑19 potentially could yield greater public benefit.

Recommendations

Recommend Rejecting Augmentation for the California Library Literacy Services Program. Given (1) the substantial amount of existing state funding for community college and school district literacy programs, (2) the large proposed augmentations for colleges and schools under the Governor’s budget, (3) the notable amount that local libraries already spend on literacy programs using local funding, and (4) more pressing state priorities, we recommend the Legislature reject the Governor’s proposed $2.5 million augmentation in state funding for this program.

If Legislature Does Augment Funding, Recommend Taking Several Associated Actions. Were the Legislature nonetheless to choose to augment state funding for the program, we recommend it require participating libraries to coordinate their literacy funding (from local, state, and federal sources) with both other adult education providers in their region and their local school districts. Specifically, we recommend that consortia and libraries be required to document that libraries participate in their adult education regional consortia as a condition of receiving library literacy funding. With regard to providing state funding for libraries to provide literacy services to children, we similarly recommend that school districts and libraries be required to document that they collaborate in their literacy efforts. Additionally, we recommend the state set an adult literacy goal and establish associated performance measurements, so that it may track whether the state program is helping to achieve the core desired objective. In tandem, we recommend participating libraries report three factors: (1) total funding for their literacy programs, broken down by fund source and broken down for adult and child programs; (2) other funding being used within their region for literacy programs; and (3) the literacy gains of participating adults and children. We also recommend the Legislature consider establishing a cost-sharing agreement with libraries moving forward.

Internet Connectivity

Below, we provide background on how local libraries obtain Internet connectivity, describe the Governor’s four Internet-related library proposals, assess each of those proposals, and make associated recommendations.

Background

State Contracts With Nonprofit Entity to Provide Internet Backbone to Education Segments. The state pays for schools, the California Community Colleges, the California State University, the University of California, and local libraries to access a high-speed Internet backbone managed by a nonprofit entity, the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC). The ongoing annual cost for each educational segment to access the CENIC-managed backbone traditionally has been $4.5 million. Local libraries are treated as one segment for CENIC billing purposes. The libraries’ portion of the backbone cost is covered equally by state General Fund and the California Teleconnect Fund (each pay $2.25 million). The $4.5 million annual charge does not cover the ongoing service costs for Internet connectivity between library sites and the backbone, nor does it cover one-time infrastructure costs of connecting library sites to the backbone.

State Still in Process of Connecting Local Libraries to Internet Backbone. In 2014‑15, local libraries began the process of connecting to the CENIC-managed backbone. Central libraries function as “hubs,” generally connecting to the backbone first, then branches connect to their hubs. As of March 2018, 120 of the state’s 184 central libraries were connected to the backbone, and as many as 14 central libraries are considering connecting in 2018‑19. Of the state’s 1,125 library branches, 500 are connected to the backbone, 232 are in the process of connecting, and 90 are considering connecting in 2018‑19. The remaining 303 sites use other Internet providers. To assist local libraries in connecting to the CENIC-managed backbone, the state has provided $6 million in one-time grant funding since 2014‑15. The $6 million has been distributed to libraries with several stipulations. Specifically, central libraries could receive up to $30,000 each, and branches associated with the central library could receive $15,000 each for up to four branches (totaling maximum funding for a central library and its branches of $90,000). In addition, libraries with more resources have been required to match state funding. The administration indicates that to date, local libraries have contributed a $7.6 million match to connect to the backbone.

Local Libraries Receive Other Internet Discounts. In addition to state funding for infrastructure costs to connect to the CENIC-managed backbone, local libraries are eligible for certain discounts to help them pay their monthly Internet service charges. Most notably, the federal E-Rate program covers up to 90 percent of libraries’ service costs, depending on the number of students receiving federally subsidized free and reduced-priced meals in the region. The state’s California Teleconnect Fund covers 50 percent of remaining costs after accounting for E-Rate discounts. For schools and libraries that do not apply for E-Rate, the CTF covers 50 percent of costs after assuming the average E-Rate coverage of 70 percent.

State Provides Funding to Library Group to Help Coordinate Internet Procurement and Payments. Beginning in 2015‑16, the state began providing the State Library with $225,000 annually to contract with the nonprofit library consortium Califa—a group working on behalf of more than 220 libraries (including school libraries and local central libraries). The State Library contracts with Califa to coordinate various tasks related to CENIC. Specifically, Califa (1) serves as the billing agent for libraries connecting to the CENIC-managed backbone, (2) helps prepare bundled requests for Internet service discounts, and (3) helps process E-Rate reimbursements.

Governor’s Proposals

Provides $3 Million One Time to Increase Internet Capacity at Local Library Hubs. The Governor provides funding to replace or upgrade infrastructure at local library Internet hubs to allow them to handle more library branch users. Specifically, the funding could be used for infrastructure upgrades (typically additional fiber with greater Internet speeds), equipment that can accommodate more users at higher speeds, and other costs associated with the upgrades (for example, new internet routers). The Governor indicates that libraries plan to begin a process in July 2018 to determine whether they will upgrade from 1 gigabyte of speed to 10 gigabytes of speed. Any funding not used to increase Internet capacity and speeds at hubs could be used to help connect libraries not already connected to the backbone. Funding would be prioritized for local libraries in areas of the state with the highest concentrations of students receiving federally subsidized free and reduced-priced meals. Local libraries with greater resources would be required to provide a match. The Governor was unable to provide an estimate of how many hubs or branches are expected to benefit from the proposal.

Provides $2 Million One Time for Internet Equipment Grants. The Governor provides an additional $2 million for Internet Equipment Grants to help local libraries cover the one-time costs of initially connecting their infrastructure to the CENIC backbone. The Governor indicates that the new funding would be used to connect library branches that did not connect previously because of the four library branch cap, as well as provide funding to other jurisdictions and branches that wish to connect. Califa’s preliminary estimate is that 14 central libraries and 90 branches are interested in connecting their infrastructure to the CENIC backbone in 2018‑19. It expects to have final estimates later this spring.

Provides $350,000 Ongoing for Increases in CENIC Costs. The administration indicates that CENIC “inadvertently misquoted” the costs of the State Library’s contract beginning in 2014‑15 (the first year of the contract). This resulted in an ongoing shortfall in the State Library’s payment to CENIC for access to the backbone. Specifically, the administration indicates the original contract cost estimate did not include telecommunication surcharges and taxes, such as for the Lifeline Program, the California Teleconnect Fund, and the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program. During the initial years of the contract, the administration indicates CENIC has covered these costs on behalf of the State Library. Beginning in 2018‑19, the Governor proposes the State Library begin paying $163,000 for the surcharges and taxes. (The total cost for surcharges and taxes is $326,000—the other half is covered by the California Teleconnect Fund). The Governor also proposes the State Library pay an additional $100,000 for cost increases associated with backbone services—specifically to fund more staff at CENIC. (The total cost for the staff increase is $200,000, with the other half of the cost covered by the California Teleconnect Fund.) Lastly, the Governor proposes to have the State Library give CENIC $87,000 annually as a General Fund cushion for potential tax and surcharge increases. The administration indicates that this cushion is needed because historical trends have shown that taxes and surcharges are likely to increase. All these changes combined bring the annual costs of accessing the CENIC backbone for local libraries from $4.5 million to $5.1 million ($2.6 million GF and $2.5 million California Teleconnect Fund).

Provides $138,000 Ongoing for a New Position at the State Library to Oversee Local Library Internet. The Governor funds a new full-time Library Programs Consultant at the State Library, who would perform various tasks associated with the CENIC effort. The administration indicates that the position’s primary responsibility would be to help libraries obtain Internet services discounts. Other responsibilities would include (1) providing general oversight of the project and its partners, (2) generating data about library connectivity and producing related reports, and (3) developing a strategy for broadband execution at libraries. Currently, one State Library employee is dedicated partly to overseeing the CENIC effort and partly to overseeing federal grants.

Assessment and Recommendations

Proposal to Increase Local Library Hub Speeds Lacks Justification. The administration to date has been unable to identify how many local library hubs would upgrade their infrastructure capacity to accommodate more library branches and at what cost. Moreover, the Governor’s proposal indicates that library hubs may use the funding to increase capacity tenfold (from 1 gigabits of speed to 10 gigabits of speed). We have serious concerns about increasing capacity to these levels without evidence of how much capacity is actually needed at libraries. The state has had recent disconcerting experiences paying for capacity upgrades without first reviewing evidence of capacity needs. Most notably, an audit examining recent capacity upgrades to schools found schools increased bandwidth tenfold without sufficient justification.

Reject $3 Million for Capacity Upgrades and Revisit When Data From Needs Assessment Becomes Available. We recommend the Legislature reject the proposal to provide funding to local library hubs to upgrade their Internet capacity. Instead, we recommend the Legislature first have libraries conduct an Internet capacity needs assessment, which they already plan to begin undertaking in July 2018. As part of this assessment, we recommend the Legislature require documentation of the current Internet capacity at hubs and trends in use over the past few years. If the assessment justifies the need for certain faster speeds at certain libraries, the administration could develop a better corresponding budget proposal and submit for the Legislature’s consideration next year (or a later year if the data from the needs assessment is not yet available for consideration in 2019‑20).

Withhold Recommendation to Provide $2 Million for Equipment to Connect to CENIC. We recommend withholding funding for this request until Califa has collected final counts of the number of libraries that wish to connect to the CENIC-managed backbone in 2018‑19. Once the final count is available later this spring, the Legislature will have a better sense of associated costs and could make a final budget decision as part of budget closeout.

Withhold Recommendation on $350,000 Augmentation for CENIC Contract Pending Information. We have a number of concerns with this proposal. First, we have concerns that CENIC contract costs are being increased for the libraries while being held flat at $4.5 million for the California State University and University of California, which could be using the CENIC-managed backbone much more intensively than the libraries. Second, we are concerned as to why the costs of the contract were initially misquoted by CENIC given the Legislature used that information in determining whether to fund the project. Additionally, we are concerned with the Governor’s proposed “cushion,” as the state could be providing funding that is not needed to cover contract costs. With these concerns in mind, we recommend the Legislature direct the administration to report during spring hearings on why surcharge costs were not included in the original CENIC contract. Furthermore, we recommend directing the administration to provide data estimating the amount taxes and surcharges are likely to increase in 2018‑19. If the cost appears reasonable, we recommend providing the associated funding explicitly as part of the CENIC contract.

Request Further Justification for New Position at State Library. Some justification may exist for funding a new position or part of a new position at the State Library to oversee Internet-related activities. However, a portion of an existing position at the State Library and staff at Califa already perform some of the duties being proposed for the new position. To ensure that more staff time at the State Library is warranted, we recommend the Legislature request that the administration come back with more detailed justification for the new position. Specifically, the Legislature could request the administration and State Library to document the current workload of its existing staff as well as the workload of existing Califa-contracted staff and better explain the specific added workload beyond all existing State Library, Califa, and CENIC Internet-related work.

Resource Sharing

Below, we provide background on certain ways that local libraries obtain and share library materials, describe the Governor’s proposal to provide $1.5 million in one-time funding for more materials and sharing of those materials, assess the proposal, and make associated recommendations.

Background

Federal Program Provides Grants That Can Be Used for Local Libraries to Purchase and Deliver Books. The federal Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) is a program administered by the State Library that provides grants to libraries for local initiatives. Since 2011‑12, the State Library has awarded about $300,000 total in LSTA funding to local libraries for the “Zip Books” program. When a local library does not carry a book, Zip Books allows library patrons to request books at their local library and the library purchases the book from Amazon. Amazon then sends the book directly to library patrons’ homes. Patrons then bring the book back to their local library, where the library can add it to their collection, send it to another library to keep in their collection, or sell it. (The administration indicates that 75 percent of books are kept in library collections.) The State Library indicates the program allows patrons better access to books, especially for those who live in rural areas where sending a book from one library to another library (also known as Interlibrary Loan) is often costly and time consuming. Currently, 55 library jurisdictions in the state use Zip Books.

State Program Provides Grants to Local Libraries to Encourage Resource Sharing and Purchasing. The state facilitates resource sharing between libraries through the California Library Services Act (CSLA) program. The CLSA has a board that determines specific funding allocations for local libraries each year. The program commonly funds the interlibrary loan program, which reimburses libraries for sending books to one another. It also provides funding for digital resource sharing and other initiatives to improve resource sharing between local libraries. In 2016‑17, the state nearly doubled ongoing funding for the program, from $1.9 million to $3.6 million.

Governor’s Proposal

Provides $1.5 Million One-Time Augmentation for CLSA Program. The Governor augments the CLSA program for one year, from $3.6 million to $5.1 million (42 percent). He proposes the State Library use the augmentation to fund two initiatives:

• $1 Million One Time to Purchase and Deliver Books. The Governor indicates that the funding would be used for the Zip Books program and would allow about 60,000 Zip Book purchases for local libraries located in the Central Coast, Central Valley, Long Beach, and Hayward.

• $450,000 One Time to Digitally Connect Several Libraries’ Catalogues. The Governor provides funding to a consortium of Northern California libraries to connect their digital catalogues. The library consortium includes 28 counties representing 41 library jurisdictions, including Modoc, Lassen, Marin, and Sacramento. Connecting multiple libraries’ digital catalogues allows patrons that live within the boundaries of one library system to view the catalogues of other library systems. The patron can then order the book online from the other library systems (possibly accessing the books either in digital or physical format). Several library systems already connect their digital catalogues in this way, including the San Joaquin and Bay Area library systems.

Assessment and Recommendation

Unclear That Projects Provide a Statewide Benefit, Recommend Rejecting. Purchasing Zip Books for certain libraries and connecting the digital catalogues of Northern California libraries provide some benefit to certain libraries, but they do not provide obvious statewide benefit. Additionally, the state recently doubled CSLA grant funding for library resource sharing. If the CLSA board were to view the administration’s proposed projects as the top priorities among all library jurisdictions, the board could fund those priorities using existing CLSA funds. For these reasons, we recommend the Legislature reject the proposals.

Oral Histories

Below, we provide background on the state’s oral histories program, describe the Governor’s proposal to augment the program by $250,000, assess the proposal, and make an associated recommendation.

Background

Program Creates Oral Histories of Prominent Californians in State Government. The Legislature established the State Government Oral History Program in 1985. It houses the program at the California State Archives within the California Secretary of State’s office. The goal of the program is to interview individuals that have significantly influenced state government, transcribe those interviews, and make them available to the public. In recent years, some interviews also have been filmed. More than 200 interviews are available on the State Archives website and include interviews with former members of the state Legislature, constitutional officers, agency and department heads, and others who have shaped public policy. For example, former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and former Governor Edmund Brown Sr. have been interviewed.

State Contracts Out for Production. Oral histories are carried out through contracts with oral history programs at several participating universities. According to those that have produced histories recently, costs average $10,000 per oral history. Costs are related to background research, production, and preparing transcriptions. The Secretary of State earmarked some of its general purpose funding for the Oral History Program until the early 2000s. Since that time, the State Library has used some federal funds to produce histories and universities have donated some oral histories they have produced to the state.

Governor’s Proposal

Provides $250,000 Ongoing for Oral Histories Program. Of the $250,000, the Governor provides (1) $150,000 for the State Library to contract for production of about 15 new oral histories per year, (2) $70,000 to produce about seven new oral histories on video per year, and (3) $30,000 to store the files and to convert analog recordings to digital files. The program would be in partnership with the State Archivist, who would chair a committee to select interviewees.

Assessment and Recommendation

Preservation of State History Part of State Library’s Mission. One of the more clearly defined roles of the State Library’s is preservation of California history. To this end, the State Library collects and maintains various artifacts related to California history. A program to preserve oral histories of prominent Californians is consistent with this role.

Recommend Modifying to Make Program Limited Term and Adding Reporting Requirement. If the Legislature decides that the Oral Histories Program is a high priority in 2018‑19, we suggest making the program limited term and monitoring the program over the next few years to ensure it meets legislative expectations. We also recommend the Legislature require the committee led by the State Archivist to submit an annual report that contains information describing who was interviewed each year, plans for future interviews, and the itemized costs of each interview.