“Can I ask you to do some analysis on the comments in this post from Public Library News:

http://publiclibrariesnews.blogspot.com/2011/02/521-libraries-460-buildings-and-61.html#comments

The thesis is along the lines that the last time library budgets were at the levels of the current budget cuts was about 2001 – yet we had roughly the same number of libraries – if authorities in the past have managed roughly the same number of libraries on the same levels of the budget cuts, why do they now have to close libraries?

The same principle could be applied to other council services, what levels were there of service the last time the budget was at the level of the current cuts, and what levels of service are being proposed now — if there is any difference what exactly is the justification given by the council, can it be justified, or are we looking at an argument that says look, are these reductions in service ideological.”

I would agree that we’re probably looking at the provision level is 1960s if 500 close. There are strong suggestions that there should be volunteer libraries. Volunteer libraries were last in vogue (due to desperation and, largely, unsuccessful from what I can see after a first year or two) in the 1940s. Then there is the suggestion put forward that we should charge for public library membership. This would take us back to, charitably, the late nineteeth century.

The argument that ICT and book costs have fallen (and so inflation doesn’t come into the overall picture) is not a strong one for the reason that our big costs are not books and ICT.

Very roughly, in a well-run authority, the big cost as far as I can see (50%) is staffing. The second biggest cost (25%) is heating and lighting. Wage increases were close to average inflation (a few years above, a few more years just below) for the last ten years, heating is way above. 25% is books and everything else.

Now, someone will think aha! That’s shocking! Less than a quarter spent on books! However, this is where the magic of libraries is – each book is borrowed perhaps 30 times (fiction more, non-fiction less) so you’re getting a tremendous multipler there. Without the staff and the other necessary costs, there would be no multiplier and, more importantly, no way to get at the books.

Note I am entirely leaving aside the other uses of the library here – community meeting place, advice surgeries, etc – that also depend on paying for the building and people to keep it open.

With regard to the argument why we can’t provide a 2003 level of service with a 25% budget cut (I looked up RPI and did some calculations – and I reckon it’s 2003) we were in 2010 pretty much (minus perhaps 100 libraries) offering the same service at the same prices as 2003. There’s been no big increase that I can see in spend in the intervening period.

So, take away 25% of today’s budget and there’s sadly no 25% waste to cut. It’s not going to be an easy fix unless we look at the magical cure-all of people working for free. This may work in the most prosperous areas and if one has a spectacular good team but it is not going to work as well in other cases.

It’s worth pointing out at this point that private industry looks at a couple of percent savings per year. 25% would be considered slash and burn there and there is insufficient evidence (at least to gamble the fate of public libraries with) that it would not be slash and burn for ourselves either.

That is my view at the moment from nearly two decades of public library experience. I love the job, what we do and the difference we make. I am, however, open to persuasion to other points of view. I hope others would be open to persuasion to my view as well.

In terms of England as a whole:

“if we speculate that the UK budget for libraries for 2011-12 will be 25% less than it was in 2010/11, then the answer is as follows. In 2010/11 we spent £1,093m. In 2000/1 we spent £791m, which is actually 27.8% less. At that time there were 4,600 libraries. If we believe the current projections, there will be about 4,000 at the end of 2010/11. Inflation in this field hasn’t been that much during the decade, in fact book prices have gone down slightly and IT prices have gone down by a lot.”
http://www.goodlibraryguide.com/blog/archives/2011/02/what_should_the.html#comments

My next question was when (what year) were levels of library service in England last below 4000. From a recent email to CILIP’s library and archives office:

“I did manage to find statistics going back to the base year of 1995-96 on LISU which seem to indicate a total of 5113 service points:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/dis/lisu/list97/publib97.html

It takes a bit of drilling down to find, but before this we at this point appear to be in the Dark Ages.

I’ve just had a thought, the 1964 Act laid down the standard that everyone with the exception of rural areas should live within 1 mile of a library[1]. Presumably there would then have been some research at that point into public library provision in England. There are a few reports mentioned in the second hearing to the Bill[2] – probably the place to start looking.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Where_It_Is_Mine/The_Modern_History_of_Public_Libraries_in_England
[2] http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1964/jun/30/public-libraries-and-museums-bill “

My best theory at this point is to say that the last major library building period was the 60s, so perhaps this was the point at which libraries first rose above 4000.

In other words, there is a question as to whether the current Conservative Government has taken the libraries back to where it was in the 1960s. 50 years of progress wiped out in a year – and people are asking is it ideological? Authorities have actually in the past maintained more libraries at the same budget levels.