LISU Annual Library Statistics 2000 Featuring Trend Analysis of UK Public and Academic Libraries 1989‐99 Including Public Library Statistics Report No.14

Citation

Line, M.B. (2001), "LISU Annual Library Statistics 2000 Featuring Trend Analysis of UK Public and Academic Libraries 1989‐99 Including Public Library Statistics Report No.14", Library Management, Vol. 22 No. 4/5, pp. 238-247. https://doi.org/10.1108/lm.2001.22.4_5.238.1

Once again the anticipated annual statistical offering from LISU appears, and once again LISU puts us in its debt. “Us” includes not only library administrators, but researchers and teachers, and also publishers and booksellers – and even perhaps a few readers. Collecting so many figures from such a variety of sources, some of them inconsistent from year to year, and not always totally reliable, and presenting them clearly and coherently can hardly be a labour of love, but it is a noble service. The trend analysis is particularly valuable, though weakened by changes in collection by some of the sources; in the case of academic libraries, changes in collecting agencies have made it necessary to restructure the entire presentation.

The picture revealed by the section on Public Library Statistics, which occupies about half the volume, is rather depressing. Between 1992‐93 and 1997‐98 expenditure fell consistently behind the RPI, and did not level out until 1998‐99. This is in spite of a gradual but overall substantial increase in earnings – so allocations must have declined more than expenditure. It is too early to say if the levelling‐out marks the end of the impact of the previous government’s policies on public libraries.

Book expenditure has declined in real terms, the main sufferer being adult fiction. So what has been happening? Has networking raised our hopes beyond what was reasonable? Are libraries spending more on computer‐related activities? It is very hard to answer this from the data; in particular, it is impossible to say how much is being spent on free or subsidised access to the Internet (though perhaps this service is too recently introduced to have shown up in this volume – certainly a 1988 survey showed no‐one using it). We do know that computer expenditure has increased, but this would be expected anyway; income for electronic services has also increased. “Non‐book materials”, which have increased their share, include CD‐ROMs. But we also know that expenditure on staff decreased (absolutely but not proportionately), although one would expect assistance to the public with computer use to be fairly staff‐intensive.

A case can be made for a gentle switch from collections to services, which are becoming relatively more important; but in that case some way needs to be found in future of calculating how much goes on different kinds of service. Without this information the public library picture is very incomplete. In fact, the statistics are concerned almost entirely with inputs, apart from the crude (if necessary) measure of book issues, which have declined along with acquisitions, and of visits, which have declined even more.

One statistic I would like to see, which ought not to be hard to collect, is a “penetration” measure: the proportion of the population that is registered with the library, and, if possible, an estimate of the percentage of registered users that actually used the library during the year.

Some of the data are hard to interpret; raw figures never reveal very much. What is sorely needed is more surveys in a sample of libraries to extend and illuminate the data and answer some of the questions that are begged. There have been some (e.g. Books and the Consumer), but not enough, or regular enough. We really do need to know what is happening in public libraries and why, if we are to prepare for an uncertain future.

Figure 2.4, by the way, has one unmarked trend line: this refers to non‐book materials. And surely several of the tables in Miscellaneous Statistics at the end of the volume ought to be in this section (e.g. Ownership of public library tickets, Figure 6.2)

Academic Library Statistics occupy not much more than a third of the space allocated to public libraries. University and higher education libraries are covered, but not further education colleges. Rather surprisingly, secondary school libraries are included. For universities, the divisions have been changed. “Old” universities are all those incorporated before 1992, thus now including what we have been used to thinking of as the “new” universities created from scratch in the 1950s and 1960s and the former CATs. “New” universities are now mainly the ex‐polytechnics. I have no quarrel with the divisions, but I think the headings could be improved. Because of the necessary changes, trends for universities start with 1991‐92, and those for HE colleges with 1993‐94.

One mildly encouraging feature is that total library expenditure in “old” universities has increased more than institutional expenditure (75 per cent as against 64 per cent). There is nothing else to rejoice about. Book expenditure has dropped – by 26 per cent in “old” universities, by 27 per cent in “new” – relative to the number of students and book prices together. If the increase in the number of books published were taken into account the drop would be greater still. The periodical situation is worse: on the same basis, there were falls of 48 per cent in “old”, 55 per cent in “new”. It is interesting that income fell in “old” institutions by 15 per cent between 1997‐98 and 1998‐99.

Outputs are catered for rather better than for public libraries, though it is strange to find “binding” as one element in “information provision”. Visits per student fell, possibly as a result of electronic access; it is noteworthy, though unsurprising, that expenditure on electronic resources accounted in 1998‐99 for 9 per cent of library expenditure in “old” universities, 15 per cent in “new”. This has been accompanied by huge increases in the number of workstations. Interlibrary document supply (I refuse to call it “interlibrary loans” when most of the transactions are photocopies) peaked in 1995‐96; why, I wonder?

Special Library Statistics are based on small samples, and should be taken as indicative rather than representative. National Library Statistics cover the British Library’s published figures, which usefully include performance measures for the Document Supply Centre. The statistics of the National Libraries of Scotland and Wales seem to have been compiled with a view to minimum comparability. Oddly, this section includes general interlibrary document supply transactions: why not put them in the final section, Miscellaneous Statistics?

Less obvious information in the volume should not be ignored. For example, you can find US: UK exchange rates, serials price projections, demographic profiles of the population and of borrowers (men under‐represented among the latter), the size of the market for books, and UK sales by publisher. Of perennial fascination are the lists of most borrowed authors – though two lists are overwhelmed by one or two authors; Catherine Cookson has 12 of the 20 most borrowed fiction titles (indeed, of the top 14), while R.L. Stine (11) and Roald Dahl (6) dominate the 20 most borrowed children’s fiction titles.

A small point: it would be helpful if future editions had dividers between the main sections, and possibly less prominent dividers between sub‐sections. At the least, it would mean that main sections (in this issue Academic Library Statistics, Miscellaneous Statistics, and the Appendixes) could not begin on a verso.

Any criticisms I have made – which I hope will be seen rather as suggestions for future consideration – are entirely trivial in relation to the outstanding worth of this compilation. Long may LISU’s work continue.