Although this work and its predecessors have been appearing since the mid‐1970s, it is worth reminding ourselves of the difference between it and the CIPFA Actuals and CIPFA Estimates published annually by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Statistical Information Service. Although both give details of UK public library statistics, the CIPFA works include non‐financial data such as staff establishments, floor space of library area, stock issues, population and details of the authority’s busiest library. The LISU document under review is “a simple and immediate statement of expenditure and expenditure intentions by local authorities” according to its Introduction, compiled with the intention of assisting “public librarians to compare their own spending expectations with other authorities, and with recent history”. How does the book under review go about becoming such a statement?
Following a Commentary, more of which later, there are 30 pages of summary tables which, for each authority in the UK, give total library expenditure and total materials expenditure (split into book and audio‐visual), staffing numbers and number of service points, together with hours open per week. These summary figures are given for 1997‐98 Actuals, 1998‐99 Original Estimates, 1998‐99 Actuals and 1999‐2000 Estimates, together with a percentage change from 1997‐98 to 1999‐2000, a per capita figure and an expression of each 1999‐2000 budget figure as a percentage of the total expenditure of that library authority. This section is followed by individual authority tables which give all the information submitted by each council.
How are these figures derived and how accurate are they? Forms are issued to each authority and we are told that there was an 83 per cent response rate, with a particularly good return being obtained from English unitary councils which, given that many were newly formed during the period under review, is a tribute to their staff. The editor tells us that some replies were not received in time due to councils closing their accounts after LISU’s deadline and that, therefore, “the next survey will be undertaken slightly later in the year”. With regard to accuracy, the writer of this review checked the figures for his own service and found them to have been correctly transcribed.
The Commentary, which forms a 12‐page introductory management summary, informs the reader that, after allowance for inflation, “total library expenditure [in UK] was down in real terms by around 0.7 per cent”. However, this figure is significantly worse in the English counties and in Scotland, where library authorities generally experienced a decrease in their budgets before any consideration of the cumulative effect of inflation. The Commentary also includes summary tables by “type of authority” which calculate percentage changes per sector from year to year.
