Public Library Materials Fund and Budget Survey 2000‐02

Citation

Duckett, B. (2002), "Public Library Materials Fund and Budget Survey 2000‐02", Library Review, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 311-312. https://doi.org/10.1108/lr.2002.51.6.311.5

It was amusing to see how eagerly this book, with its decidedly unsnappy title and utilitarian spiral binding, was snatched from my grasp! Who better, I reasoned, to give an opinion than he who provides the library’s data, who has custody over the materials funds, and who is line manager to she who has to use this data for project submissions, Best Value portfolios, and performance measurement? (Not that these figures are intended as performance indicators; the introduction usefully tells us to consult CIPFA Actuals and CIPFA Estimates for per capita expenditure.) The eagerness was due to see how well, or how badly, our library compared to other libraries. Where were we in the bookfund league? How had spending levels changed? And were opening hours up or down? I can’t say whether or not the need for up‐to‐date, reliable and accurate figures is more important than ever before, but important they certainly are. LISU are to be commended on getting this annual publication out a mere four months after starting to gather data, and in achieving an 85 per cent response rate to the questionnaires on which the information is based.

Details of expenditure and forecast budgets for 2000‐2002 are featured under headings for total library expenditure, total materials expenditure, and expenditure on books and audio‐visual materials. In addition there are figures for total staff, professional staff, service points and hours open (though not expenditure on these as implied in the book’s title and accompanying blurb). Data on these topics are presented in three different sections: there is a commentary by type of authority including percentage changes by sector; summary tables by topic sub‐divided by local authority; and, conversely, tables for every local authority sub‐divided by topic. Authorities are arranged by type: London boroughs, metropolitan districts, English unitary authorities, English counties, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The layout and page design are good, and the figures commendably legible – no cramped or crabbed statistics these! I must admit to finding the plethora of types of local authority bewildering, but know that to those to whom it matters, talk of “unitaries”, “boroughs” and “counties” comes easily enough. More to my taste are the overall trends in the Commentary section; how I wish they were fuller! One problem my library data inputter and users have is the difficulty of comparing like with like, thus, expenditure on CD‐ROM and on‐line provision may come out of an IT budget, or newspapers and periodicals may include subscriptions to items which other libraries deal with as standing orders and therefore pay for as books. But overall, this compilation of comparative data will be welcomed by library managers, the book trade, and students of the public library.