The Good Library Blog

Tim,
These figures are a national disgrace.
Unfortunately, I don't have any power or authority
to do anything to change the situation.
Though, just like that little old ant,
Thought, he could move a rubber tree plant.
I have HIGH HOPES, someone, somewhere, will see sense and do as you ask.

I only have very crude tools to work with, but I think it is worth factoring in something for inflation, and then looking at the change in expenditure.

A B C D E F
1995/6 £603 3.5
1996/7 £707 2.4 £624 £83 13%
1997/8 £719 3.1 £724 -£5 -1%
1998/9 £748 3.4 £741 £7 1%
1999/0 £777 1.5 £773 £4 0%
2000/1 £835 3 £789 £46 6%
2001/2 £890 1.8 £860 £30 3%
2002/3 £965 1.7 £906 £59 7%
2003/4 £980 2.9 £981 -£1 0%
2004/5 £1,021 3 £1,008 £13 1%
2005/6 £1,111 2.8 £1,052 £59 6%
2006/7 £1,145 £1,142 £3 0%
(apologies to the Duchess for the layout of this table-- I can't improve it, but if you read carefully it is possible to see the point she is making. Funding has been generally at or above inflation. There have been no serious cuts. Tim)

A = Year
B = Expenditure on Library Services
C = RPI
D = Previous Year Expenditure + RPI increase
E = Difference Above / Below Inflation
F = % increase / decrease beyond inflation

That having been done, I am very unhappy about the % expenditure on books figures, and those figures certainly do need hammering home.

I have repeated these figures on my own blog; I don't get many readers, but I figure every little helps.

http://www.velcro-city.co.uk/uk-libraries-update/

Tim,
The Armchair Anarchist is doing his best to support you.
I checked out his blog...
Well worth a read!

Where do you get your figures from Tim? I have in front of me the Public Library Materials Fund and Budget Survey 2005 - 2007, published by LISU. Page 4, table 3 Total Library Expenditure for England, 2005/06 actual - 756,430,000 (your figue £1.111m); page 9, table 10 Book Expenditure, 2005/06 actual - 66,322,000, thats 8.8% (your figure 5.8%). I am more than happy to be shown the error of my ways but you are very good at quoting figures without detailed provenance.

James, I have picked this up late on Thursday evening. I'll explain the difference between the two sets of figures in the morning. But I use "Gross" revenue expenditure which includes income, where LISU use "Net" expenditure which does not. I think that's right because the income from rentals is part of what library authorities have to spend. But I'll go into more detail in the morning. The figures before 2005 are all from CIPFA- remember that LISU are predicting estimates from a sample of authorities for 2005/6 and 2006/7, so the key figure is not the total of their sample but the predicted percentage change from the previous year. Believe me that while I am quite capable of making mistakes, I certainly don't make the figures up. .Tim

James

Thanks again for your comment yesterday, it gives me the opportunity to make a number of points- and then I'll answer the question you asked!

1. Figures for the performance and cost of the public library service should be clear, timely, relevant and transparent. They are none of these.
2. They should also be freely available to the public in a form which is easy to understand. They aren't
3. CIPFA figures are always published too long after the events they describe to be useful management information.
4. The Minister has a legal obligation to "obtain such information as is required to superintend the service". He doesn't do this.
5. Specifically about costs: A library authority has two sources of revenue budget: that which is given directly by the council (this is called the "Net" cost); and that which is obtained by various incomes: fines, fees, charges etc. The sum of these is plus the council revenue grant is the "Gross".cost This is the total available for the council to allocate to various activities in the provision of the public library service. The Gross cost is in effect what the public pay (as revenue: there is also a capital cost of the service for capital items).
6. LISU produce two annual reports. The first is an analysis of historical trends. I find it difficult to understand. The second is an analysis of current budgets that have been prepared by councils. I find it almost impossible to understand. In the past year Neilsen Bookdata have contributed to sponsorship of the compilation of this report. I hope they help make it a much clearer document.
7. So! The last available CIPFA figures are for 2004/5. From that table I deduce that the total Gross expenditure of library authorities in England was £1,021m. I have calculated this by adding together the net expenditure (which is given) and the total income (which is only given per head of population). I have also calculated the total expenditure on "books and pamphlets" in England, which is only given in 4 separate headings per head of population. I calculate this to be £75.2m. Therefore I have calculated that this represents 7.4% of Gross funds.
8. The LISU "materials report" of September estimates how expenditure in 2005/6 and 2006/7 will compare to actual expenditure in 2004/5. Table 2 tells me that "total" expenditure for 2005/6 for England will be 5.6% more than 2004/5 and for 2006/7 will be 3.4% more than 2005/6. From these two estimates I calculate total gross expenditure to rise to £1,111m and £1,145m in those two years (I hardly think it will have fallen to £756m- as your figure suggests- I think that figure must be LISU's sample). Table 9 tells me that in those two years book spending in England will fall by 0.9% and then a further 0.3%- as predicted by council budgets. This makes book expenditure around £74m in the two years. You are right -- I did make a mistake, I reduced the second year by 3% instead of 0.3%.. Nevertheless this makes the two percentages for 2005/6 an 2006/7 to be 6.7% and 6.5% respectively. I apologise for this and have changed the figures in the previous entry.

I don't think that adjustment diminishes the degree of outrage- does it?