DO PUBLICLIBRARIES HAVE

A FUTURE?

A One Day SeminarSaturday 23rd October 1999

10.00am to 5.00pmat

The Hong Kong TheatreClement House

London School of EconomicsAldwych, London WC2

Oganised by:Camden Public Libraries Users Group

(CPLUG)

Contents

Preface...................................Ioan Lewis

Public Libraries in...................Frank Westerthe Information Age

Assessing What.....................Richard ProctorLibraries Mean to Users

The London Learning............Jean SykesNetwork Group

Annual Library Statistics........Philip Ramsdale& National Standards forSurveys of Library Users

The Use and Misuse..............Alan Templetonof Statistics

Reading & Reading................Miranda McKearneyAudiences

Best Value Review of.............Keith HeyesSandwell Libraries

What are Friends for..............Robin Yeates

Conclusion.............................Tom Selwyn

1

Preface Ioan Lewis

Vice Chairman CPLUG

This report presents the proceedings of a one-day public seminar held at the London School of Economics

on 23 October 1999 on the subject: 'Do Public Libraries have a Future'. This was organised by the Camden

Public Libraries Users Group to promote informed public debate on library issues in the context of the

London borough of Camden's 'Public Consultation' on its 'Best Value' proposals to close three of its

thirteen local libraries and reduce further overall opening hours. Camden's plans were, of course,

vigorously opposed by library users in a long-running campaign which took us to the brink of seeking a

judicial review. This was only averted when Camden's councillors, by a narrow majority involving

unprecedented cross-party manoeuvring, belatedly and reluctantly agreed to hold a public consultation,

chaired by Tony Travers. This concluded on January 2000 with the recommendation that the minor budget

savings required (£200,000) should be met in other way s, without closing libraries or further reducing

library core services.

Since we believe that, through the contributions of the main speakers and the discussions they provoked,

our LSE Seminar played some role in this result, we think it may be useful for other library users faced

with similar problems to have access to our findings.

We started from our experience that many planners and politicians, unfortunately, tend to evaluate library

performance in rather simplistic accounting terms without regard to the fundamental social, cultural,

educational and even psychological functions which a little careful observation shows libraries perform.

Our seminar was designed to highlight some of these crucial realities which should underlie library

provision. By making available some of the most recent in-depth--as opposed to more superficial opinion

survey --research findings, our invited speakers--who are all well-known specialists on their subjects--

challenged the prevalent myths, opinions, platitudes, and questionable statistics which, alas, are so often

used by politicians and their official advisers in this debate.

We were, of course, aware of fairly widely held conspiracy theories according to which those who

formulate library policy are often believed to be primarily motivated by personal ambition --to say nothing

of other interests--to build huge 'super libraries' by selling off valuable property housing smaller, more

locally accessible local libraries. We were also aware of the astonishing American achievement in San

Francisco of building a brand new library which is an architectural wonder, but unable to contain anything

like its anticipated capacity of books. Indeed, it is reported to have had to hurriedly get rid of 200,000

books which the previous building held. People go there to admire the building not to read the books!

Although such adventures were perhaps a little outside Camden's budget, CPLUG had seen enough not to

totally discount such sceptical assessments of so-called 'best value' projects.

2

For the purposes of our seminar, however, we largely ignored these extraneous motives to focus our

attention on how library development plans might take account of relevant evidence on what libraries

actually mean to those who use them. Neglect of such basic information, it has to be said, is by no means

confined to library planners and those they advise. As an academic social anthropologist I have seen a large

number of so -called 'development projects' in the Third World. In assessing these from time to time, I have

found that a depressing proportion of 'developers' are not really interested in trying to understand the local

context, or what those who are supposed to benefit from development really want. Developers' interests all

too often lie elsewhere--where the money is, and attractive prospects for promotion lie. Often indeed, it

seems that the last thing that planners and developers actually want to know is local opinion and local

aspirations. It is easy to see why this should be so: the more you know about a problem, the more

complicated it seems and the more your actions are constrained by this knowledge--if you treat it seriously.

The material presented here is essentially in the form that it was offered to the seminar: as will be seen,

some speakers relied heavily on diagrams and projections, others followed a more traditional pattern of oral

discourse, and I am grateful to all the participants for sending me copies of their presentations. This record

does not include the lively contributions made by so many people in the audience; nor does it include the

exceptionally stimulating and witty presentation made by Jim Agnew, head of Community Services in

Surrey. This was delivered off--the--cuff and contained such memorable references as that to council

officials who sought career advancement on a basis of 'managing change' (however inappropriate), and to

situations where politicians blundered onto a particularly sensitive public nerve and then went on a on

jumping on it. This, Mr Agnew observed, was not 'smart politics'. Although I regret we do not have Mr

Agnew's own notes, at least those who attended the seminar have a particularly vivid memory of his wise

remarks which many in the audience described as 'inspirational'.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the wonderful support we received from our seminar speakers and

discussion chairmen--most of whom had no previous connexions with CPLUG, but nevertheless readily

responded to invitations to participate. We have also been very lucky in finding informed people who

helped us mere library users to select topics (far from complete, of course) for discussion and identify

appropriate speakers. I am particularly grateful to Frances Hendrix of LASER who, although she could not

come herself, pointed us toward Robin Yates and many others. Equal thanks are due to Jean Sykes, chief

librarian and head of IT at the LSE, and to Barry Bloomfield, formerly of the British Library. I would also

like to acknowledge the support of our two local papers--the Camden New Journal, and the Ham and High-

-as well as to the Evening Standard who, in their different ways all helped to publicise the event. I should

also thank the LSE, from which I retired a few years ago, but whose public functions letting department

nevertheless charged us a reduced fee.

Finally, it has to be recorded that this seminar would never have been successfully staged without the vital

input of Clair Drew, Secretary of CPLUG, and from other officers as well as from Anne Lewis who, up to

the last moment, worked hard to publicise the event. We hope that, although lacking the ensuing

discussion (to some extent captured in Robin Yates' paper), concerned library users may find something of

3

value in these pages. Certainly, the problem of how to finance the locally accessible library services which

the public wants--and expects--seems likely to continue to be a significant issue in local and national

politics for a long time to come.

February 2000.

4

Public Libraries in the Information Age Frank Webster,

Professor of Sociology, University of Birmingham,

The question posed for this seminar is ‘do public libraries have a future?’ The answer, at least at one

level, is obvious: libraries are not set to disappear either in the short, medium or even the longer term.

As institutions there are simply too many of them (over 4000 library sites in the UK), they are far too

popular with the public (well over half the population are members), and they are so very well used

(visiting the library is the fourth most popular pastime in the UK, ahead of visiting the cinema or even

going to a football game) for this to present itself as a serious prospect.

But the simple matter of continuation isn’t my concern here. Institutions do have a remarkable capacity

to perpetuate themselves, even when they have lost the reasons for their being. They may very well

continue as the living dead. In Britain today we have an excess of such zombie institutions -

universities that don’t know what it is they ought to be doing, armies without obvious enemies left to

fight, mutual societies that are no longer know what it is they were founded to do, a House of Lords

which continues to govern though it knows not why.

So I am concerned here, not with the perpetuation of libraries, but with the question, what is their

point? What is it that defines their core being? What is, to adopt the language of the day, their mission?

I think that we need to ask what public libraries are for because, if we don’t, then there is a serious

danger that they will keep going, but in ways which are merely opportunistic responses to

contingencies. This is the classic survivalist strategy, do anything to keep going, even if this subverts

one’s reason for being. As with the young idealist who enters a career to make a contribution, but

finishes up doing the job only for the pay cheque, there is something perverse about such a situation. I

sometimes feel that public libraries have adopted this posture, and this has meant they have been

moved by circumstances in directions that, on reflection, they might not have wished to have taken in

the first place.

From public to private provision

To better appreciate the importance of asking afresh what are public libraries for, I want to make two

observations on recent history that have had important consequences for these institutions. The first is

the apparently inexorable shift from public to private provision of goods and services. There are many

reasons for this - Thatcherism, globalisation, the collapse of collectivism -, but what is crucial here is to

acknowledge the rapid advance of what has been called the ‘neo-liberal consensus’ for libraries.

5

The effects are palpable in utilities such as gas, telecommunications and electricity supply where

privatisation and liberalisation have transformed previous services. They are evident too, in higher

education: it is increasingly self-funded, with students defined as ‘customers’ who must take

responsibility for their ‘investment’ in degree programmes. And the effects are clear too in televis ion,

where subscription services advance at the expense of public service broadcasting, where digitalisation

is to be pioneered on the basis of market criteria, and where the BBC is busy re-inventing itself as an

entrepreneur, well capable of matching commercial competition for markets and hard-nosed

management.

The pressures are telling, too, in the library realm. Hence provision from taxation is deeply unpopular.

Budgets are continually reduced, even if the euphemism ‘efficiency savings’ is preferred. The market

model of information dissemination is increasingly that of the Blockbuster video chain: let customers

determine choice of stock, only supply the most popular as measured by issues, and let borrowers pay

on the nail for what it is they want. And it is this model which is in the ascendant.

The shift from public to private supply influences not just libraries’ dissemination of information; it

impacts profoundly what information is generated and made available. Growing commercialisation

means that, more and more, what information is made available depends on what is saleable, and what

people get hinges on what they are prepared (and able) to pay. Of course, this is not a new thing, and

nor is it necessarily to be deplored outright. Publishing, after al l, is a commercial activity, and from it

we have today paperback books that are cheaper in real terms than they have ever been. Nevertheless,

commercialisation has accelerated and deepened its hold over recent decades. Look here, for instance,

at the demis e of the Net Book Agreement, and the resultant hike in the price of academic titles now that

the book trade is more thoroughly marketised than ever, and the established habit of cross-subsidy of

titles is difficult to maintain.

As commercialisation spreads the principle of private provision to every activity in society, so too does

it pose challenging questions for institutions, such as libraries, that are organised on a principle - public

service - that is antipathetic towards it. If libraries don’t ask what it is they are about, then they meet

the challenges of commercialisation unprepared and incapable of doing more than adapting to a

business agenda.

The information revolution

The second factor is the much observed ‘information explosion’. Whatever measure one takes, there

has been an extraordinary growth of information in the present era. Nowadays we have round the clock

television, many more channels than ever, a huge growth in book titles published each year... Above

all, perhaps, we have the development of information and communications technologies , which, in the

form of the internet, heralds an information superhighway which will bring prodigious amounts of

information to all and sundry at the touch of a few keys so long as people are ‘networked’.

6

Association with the latest technologies has an undeniable allure, and there is no denying the fact that

network technologies will have enormous consequences for the library world, so it cannot be surprising

that many a librarian, aware that the profession has something of a dated image and eager to prosper in

unpropitious times, has eagerly endorsed ICTs (and even, in some cases, taken to describing

themselves as ‘information scientists’). Such people look to the day when theirs is a ‘digital library’, an

‘information centre’ with row upon row of computer terminals, and the librarian again has an

appropriate esteem. The problem with this, however, is that librarians may be seizing on ICTs as their

saviour without asking deep questions as to why and on what terms they ought to be doing so.

The attack on public libraries

Commercialisation and technological innovation need to be put alongside three further developments.

The first of these was the sustained attack on the very idea of public libraries put forward in the 1980s

by proponents of the market. The Adam Smith Institute, for instance, forcefully argued in its pamphlet,

Ex Libris, that libraries were an unjust tax levied disproportionately on the poorer sections of society

(who use the library leas t), that fully 80% of their revenue went on salaries, and that these employees

then had the gall to select books for the public rather than to meet the expressed needs of borrowers as

indicated by loan statistics. Private provision, in these terms, was preferable on every count: more

efficient, less élitist, and above all accountable to those who pay for services.

The library profession was never able to offer an adequate response to this attack, not least because

powerful politicians during the Thatcher and Major years openly endorsed it and didn’t hesitate to

make plain their disdain for public libraries, but also because librarians were cowed by continuous cuts

in their budgets. Understandably, this drove the library world into survivalist mode. The message was

keep your head down if you want to keep going. And librarians did just that.

Modernisation

The second change is that the ideological climate has improved for librarians. Chris Smith is the new

minister, he is an enthusiastic supporter of libraries, and the abrasive language of a decade ago has

gone. Librarians at least may feel that they have a sympathetic ear in government. However, the neo-

liberal consensus has remained in place and extends far beyond Westminster. Reductions in book

budgets continue, while the wider informational domain - publishing, broadcasting, electronic services

- has gone on being marketised wherever possible and developed by private companies firmly along

private lines.

7

New Library

The third change has been the willing endorsement by the Blair government of New Library: The

People’s Network, a report actually commissioned by John Major, but one strikingly consonant with

Mr Blair’s concern to be up -t o-date in everything. The dominant refrain of the Blairites is

‘modernisation’, and this, at one with the zeitgeist, is the theme of New Library. The report is up-beat

about libraries - provided that they rid themselves of the old-fashioned fuddy-duddy habits of ‘library

silence’, policing by aged spinsters in Hush Puppies, and, above all, discard an over-reverence for

books which inhibits the take-up of modern electronic technologies. More than this, New Labour

promises additional resources should libraries enter wholeheartedly into the network era, suggesting a

central role in policies of lifelong learning should public librarians equip themselves with computers

that attract those citizens willing to take responsibility for their own, ongoing, retraining. Not

surprisingly, many a librarian has been tempted by this offering. After years of being attacked, it is

understandable that the profession seizes the embrace of those who express some affection.

A Poisoned Chalice?

I would have hoped that the public librarians had thought more about what it was that they were about

before they had endorsed the Blair agenda. As with those in love, critical faculties are too often

suspended. Feeling desired, it is understandable that the library world has welcomed New Labour. But

against this enthusiasm, here I would return to my opening question: what is it that lies at the heart of

public libraries, and how does this relate to ongoing informational trends? From my reading of the

Library Association’s tenets, one principle is central and has been so since the LA’s foundation over a

century ago. This has it that public libraries ought to strive to promote information as a public good -

i.e. access to information should be uninhibited by ability to pay factors, available to citizens free at the

point of delivery, and information should, as far as is possible, be untainted by commercial

considerations. Of course, this is an ideal towards which librarians aspire, though in practice they must

accommodate to day-to-day constraints. Nevertheless, the librarian’s ideal that information is a public

good is one which, like it or not, is at odds with recent history and continuing trends.

Adherence to this principle means, I believe, that public librarians need to highlight problems with the

ongoing commercialisation of the information domain. This will require not only resisting attempts to

levy charges on users. This is an important, if familiar, concern for libraries, and one which needs to be

given attention, particularly since the gravest threat may not be from out -and-out privatisation, but

from incremental and cumulative charges at the margins. But I think too that librarians also need to

keep a close watch on the consequences of commercialisation for the quality of information that is

being generated, as well as the terms on which this is to be made available, and to act accordingly.

Given the enormous growth in information that is nowadays being generated, librarians cannot hope to

provide a fully comprehensive service. Accordingly, they need to make choices, an agonising situation

8

to be in no doubt, but not one that is unprecedented. Librarians have long had to prioritise their

purchases, whether it be Jeffrey Archer rather than Agatha Christie, or Roald Dahl rather than Enid

Blyton. There are processes by which they may be done, and they are never entirely satisfactory, but

they cannot be evaded, not least because, in this day and age, the sheer volume of potential stock means

that such decisions have to be made. In my view, a big problem is that librarians have become so

cowed that they are p repare to evade this responsibility. They too readily retreat to presentation of

‘performance indicators’ which measure popularity in consumerist terms - the Blockbuster way.

Librarians should take courage in their convictions, arguing that, as gatekeepers with finite budgets,

then they must discriminate in what is stocked. They will have procedures to effect this, and these

ought to be transparent, but librarians should insist that consumer demand is only one dimension of this

process.

But, it will be insisted, doesn’t the internet make all such angst redundant? In these days of electronic

communications, the idea of a library being limited by space is an anachronism. Nowadays, we may

order what we will whenever it is most convenient, so there may be no fear of censorship by an élite of

gatekeepers.

There are so many problems with this. The most obvious, that there is an enormous disparity between

the principle and those who have access to the internet, is being addressed by librarians in their rush to

stock their institutions with computers. Yet that isn’t my major concern. Much more compelling is that

so very much of the information explosion with which librarians are trying to come to terms results in

an evasion of the need to discriminate between the quality of a hugely inflated information repository.

What I am trying to highlight here is the problem public libraries face, in ‘buying’ into the information

revolution in hopes that it will reveal them to be ‘modern’, that they risk uncritically accepting the

information that comes available on its own terms. And those terms are overwhelmingly commercial!

One consequence is that a great deal of the information revolution manifests itself as information

garbage. This statement runs quite counter to conventional wisdom, but it is nonetheless salutary.

Think, for instance, of the contribution of Rupert Murdoch to the ‘information age’. One cannot but

concede that it has been enormous. But think too of the quality of his contribution. Murdoch owns a

large proportion of the British press and a big slice of world television, yet everywhere his influence

has been pernicious, leading to a concentration on sensationalism , sport, escapism - disinformation of

the first order. To say this isn’t to suggest that there is no part for entertainment in society, but an

informed people cannot have this to the exclusion of all else, something Mr Murdoch seems

determined to provide.

Yet this is precisely what commercialisation is leading towards. Enthusiasts for the internet posit an era

in which anything is available to everyone, but this is to turn a blind eye to reality. I would not want to

deny that the internet offers a virtuoso form of information delivery, but reflection shows that what

information it does offer is highly variable in terms of quality. Moreover, the better information on the

9

internet comes overwhelmingly from non-commecial sources such as universities, charitable and

government agencies. I fear that cannot see this continuing for much longer. Universities, especially

academic staff, do have deep-rooted commitments towards the open supply of ideas, but will faculty

continue to put their courses on the net when these become increasingly a tradeable resource? Distance

learning is beginning to come a significant income generator for higher education, and as such it will

come increasingly something for which to be charged.

In addition, though it is the case that, at present, the internet is being offered to users on favourable

terms, from both connecting companies and information suppliers, one must be suspicious about the

longer term. Commercialisation is a close attendant of electronic communications. Like the drug

dealers, internet providers realise the value of supplying free samples up front. Once hooked, then the

price may well start to spiral. The fear is that, by then, libraries will be signed up into deals from which

they cannot readily disentangle.

In sum, I would advise our public libraries to beware the hype of the new technologies, to be suspicious

of the increased commercialisation of information, and to hold hard to the ideal of information as a

public good.

Frank Webster,

Professor of Sociology,

Department of Cultural Studies and Sociology,

University of Birmingham,

Edgbaston,

BIRMINGHAM, B15 2TT

October 1999

10

Assessing what libraries mean to users.

Richard Proctor, BA FLA

Sheffield University Department of Information Studies

Centre for the Public Library in the Information Age

Paper given at a One Day Seminar, Saturday October 23 1999 “Do Public Libraries have a Future”

organised by Camden Public libraries Users Group

I want to start this morning with the question that Frank Webster posed a few minutes ago. ‘What is

the point of public libraries?’

The curious (and wonderful) thing about public libraries is that even people who don’t use them are

still convinced they have a point.

When I was a library manager with Sheffield Libraries several times libraries I managed were

threatened with closure. And it wasn’t uncommon to get a petition of 5000 or more signatures to keep

open a library with only 500 regular users.

So there’s something about libraries that makes people think they are worth keeping. But what is it?

And how do we know if it’s something important enough to spend large amounts of public money on

them?

I hope in the next 20 minutes to do two things.

First I want to talk briefly about ways we’ve been assessing what libraries mean to users at Sheffield

University. And, secondly, I want to let you see some of the results of our most recent research. I

hope it will give you some food for thought about what public libraries mean to users.

For my last eight years as a senior public library manager I was a heavy user of library statistics and I

learnt one thing very quickly. Statistics are far better at describing things than they are at explaining

things. For instance they may tell you that your library is issuing fewer books than the library down

11

the road, or that it’s dearer to run, BUT THEY DON’T EXPLAIN WHY. They don’t give you

reasons.

Far too many library authorities today are in thrall to league tables of statistics. And, for me, taking

decisions to change or cut services on the basis of statistics is rather like a doctor treating a patient’s

symptoms without bothering to identify the disease.

But, unfortunately, rows of figures and bar charts are what the politicians, at the moment, treat as

convincing evidence of failure or success.

What we have to do - and its a difficult challenge - is to get policy makers to recognise that statistics

only tell them part of the story. Yes, statistics are excellent at describing things, but they can’t describe

the value of things. They can’t describe the significance of things. And by themselves they cannot

begin to suggest reasons for things.

Reducing a public library to columns of figures is rather like trying to describe a human body by listing

the chemicals that make it up.

The Research Report New Measures for the New Library, which we published last year, (Linley and

Usherwood 1998) proposes a radical new approach to measuring value of libraries. It uses a method

called the social audit technique, which has been used before in other disciplines but never applied to

libraries. It’s an approach which assesses the benefits of a service rather than simply trying to measure

its outputs - the quantity of service you get for your money. It relies on evidence provided by all the

different stakeholders in the service to make a judgement about success or failure.

The Social Audit approach asks first ‘what is the local authority trying to achieve through its libraries?

Does it want them, for instance to help alleviate poverty, regenerate a community, improve literacy,

reduce depressive illness or simply keep as many people as possible entertained. It isn’t that much of a

radical idea to suggest that you can’t decide how well you are doing unless you know what it is you are

setting out to do in the first place. The next step is then to measure how well the library is doing

against those objectives.

If your library has more copies of Kafka than Katherine Cookson then is that something to be proud of

or not? If your library is expensive to run, is that something to be corrected or not? The answer is, you

can’t say unless you know what it is you are setting out to achieve in the first place.

The Social Audit approach also recognises that if you are comparing services you are never comparing

like with like. All sorts of differences will affect the comparison. Your library’s priorities may be

different form another’s. Your users may be different. Your loan period may be different. Even your

geography may be different. All of these can affect results.

12

Our second approach to assessing the value of publ ic libraries has been to look at the actual behaviour

of library users. That’s because we believe that finding out what library users do and why they do it is

a better indicator of what’s important to them than just asking what they think about the service.

People may tell you one thing but do another.

I’ll give you an example. A few years ago a brand new library opened in Sheffield. And as a result, a

smaller, very inadequate library a mile away was scheduled for closure. Well there were petitions,

there were public meetings, and 90% of the users said they couldn’t afford to travel to the new library.

So we put in four new mobile stops. Six months later we had to close them because almost no-one

was using them. People were travelling to the new library a mile away. So what people tell you

doesn’t always give you reliable answers either.

Most recently our research has been looking at what actually happens when people can’t get to their

local library service any more, either because it’s been closed or because its opening hours have been

cut (Proctor, Lee and Reilly 1999)

We identified three authorities intending to close libraries. And we found another, the London

Borough of Ealing, intending to make significant cuts its opening hours. We surveyed users before the

cuts, and again nine months after the cuts. Our idea was to find out how important libraries were to

them. What had they done to find an alternative service? And what were they missing most about the

service they had lost?

I want to let you see some of our findings. My talk this morning really isn’t intended to be about

library closures, but the people affected by closures, I think, have something important to tell us about

what the public library means to its users.

THE IMPACT OF CLOSURES ON LIBRARY USE

Between 9% and 30% of adult users were no longer using a public library.

Between 18% and 66% of young children were no longer using a public library

People unable to get to a local library use the public library less:

Inconvenience

Fear of not getting books back on time

Books too heavy to carry with shopping.

Comment Library authorities are fooling themselves if they think that they can replace the loss of a

local library. There will always be casualties, and they will be some of the most vulnerable people in

the community - those who are least mobile - the poor, the young and the very elderly.

THE IMPACT OF CUTS IN OPENING HOURS ON LIBRARY USE

13

Up to 4% of users stopped using the service. (cuts of up to 29% inc. Friday a pension day).

Almost all remaining users stayed loyal to their own library. People who initially went elsewhere

drifted back.

Most people used the library less

Loss of spontaneous use

Inconvenient hours

Fear of fines

Comment: People will try their very hardest to keep using their local library because the local library

gives them something quite distinctive - something a library further away cannot give them. Our

research showed what this is:

In the short time I have, I am going to miss out the obvious lists things people missed like access to

reading matter and information. I think we can take that as read. But there were other things that are

not quite as easy for statistics to show:

WHAT LIBRARIES MEAN TO USERS

Social/Community value

“Pleasant, helpful staff…meeting friends…”

‘Grandmas came with under-fives...There was a really nice community feel to the library...Everyone

got on.

The elderly...mothers and young children...it was the only place you could meet and sit down”

“It was a meeting place for local people”

“We are not at home in our new library [outside the community]...local events aren’t advertised and

we haven’t got to know the librarians...”

“now there’s no focal point for village information”

“Close affinity of people in a small community who were anxious to help [each other]

Comment. This research endorses a finding of the Social Audit research - that is, the importance of

the local library as a focal point for a specific community. It strengthens the community, it help s to

hold it together, it gives it pride and worth, and it has the potential to be the information hub of the

community.

Quality of Life

14

“An excuse to get out of the house”

“Having a place to meet, relax and sit down”

“It helped me from becoming depressed”

“Something different to do on a dreary day”

“Reading keeps my mind active…it’s limited now”

“Social loss, information for living alone”

“It was a lifeline…no friends or relatives”

“I still get a kick out of it…I’ve learnt so much from the library…”

“Keeping in touch”

“They made you feel important…they knew your name and looked out for books…”

“Real personal service…we loved to discuss authors”

Comment: The comments above perhaps help to explain why people visited their local library so

frequently and why they showed such intense loyalty to it. 52% to 67% of our respondents visited their

library weekly or more often. In previous research it was even higher. (Usherwood, Proctor, and

Sobczyk 1996) You may feel it’s over the top to call a visit to the library a life-saving experience, but

for many lonely and depressed people it is. The problem seems to be that this experience is very much

related to having a library in your own community.

Let’s move on now to look at what the public library can mean for children.

We got our evidence here from both parents and teachers. We interviewed teachers in six

schools affected by library closures and sent questionnaires out through primary school children

to over 1000 parents.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE FINDINGS:

Parents and teachers missed

Parent = (P) Teacher = (T)

The social value of library visits.

“…they could make relations with safe adults...without me hovering” (P)

“For the smaller ones it was...a social event really” (T)

“The staff knew the names of the children” (T)

“[It} made them more aware of other people in the community... gave them more respect for the

elderly...” (T)

15

“Borrowing books involved them in local amenities” (P)

“[We met]...other parents and children...it’s not a social event now”

“Libraries teach them how to interact with older people and other children...”

OHP The Library’s Educational value

“The breadth and variety of reading material” (T)

“No point of reference for schoolwork now” (P)

“They won’t get into the reading habit...” (P)

“it enables them to have a wider scope for their reading” (T)

“they will not get introduced to...information skills...” (T)

“Walking to the library taught her road safety” (P)

Independence and Choice

“[in] Waterstones it’s too stressful. ...he can’t have half a dozen books spread around him like he would

do in a library…if he bends something by accident I’ll have to buy it. (P)

“Finding a book…borrowing it…remembering to take it back…taking care of it because it belongs to

the library…these were the skills we were trying to build in.” (T)

“Libraries teach you how to choose, how to learn...” (P)

“it taught him independence…he misses choosing his own books” (P)

“They lose that experience of ‘I will choose for myself’. They could decide on whatever they liked and

that was important” (T)

“[they] could previously go to the library on their own. Now they can’t (P)

The Involvement of Parents

Parents went to the local library with their children

Class visits overcame lack of parental support

Summary of Research Findings

• The local library encourages a sense of community. It gives its users a sense of worth and a

feeling of belonging.

• The local library has a therapeutic role, keeping minds active and helping to reduce boredom,

loneliness and depression

16

• The local library is the information ‘hub’ of the community. Users are active in making it a

‘multi-directional’ information junction.

• The local library is an irreplaceable resource for children. Schools cannot replace what is lost

when a library closes

• For young children the local library visit encourages independence, a sense of responsibility, an

ability to make choices, constructive relationships with adults, and social self-confidence.

Conclusion

This seminar is about the future of public libraries. I believe our research suggests that there is

something quite distinctive about a local building based service that, for very many people, can’t be

replaced by any other form of provision.

The words ‘computer’ and ‘information technology’ didn’t figure very large in my presentation this

morning. Frank, in his talk, if I interpret him correctly, told public libraries to beware of computer

salesmen bearing gifts. That’s a good piece of advice, but I do believe that the future of public libraries

is inextricably tied up with enhancing public access to information technology. But we mustn’t throw

out the baby with the bath water.

Yes we need to build the New Library Network that the Government are prepared to help fund, but the

future of public libraries is also about keeping the present network relevant, open and accessible.

NB:

I’ll tell you a true story. A Director of Libraries I knew once had a very very large pile of manure

delivered to his home. It was tipped out right onto his front drive. It was 1½ metres high, and 4 metres

in diameter. If he’d had the right measuring instruments he could also have determined its exact

temperature, weight, consistency and even what the horses had had for breakfast.

But none of those instruments could have told him why the pile of manure was there. Or whether it

was a good thing or a bad thing to have. His wife might have ordered it for their large garden. A good

thing. On the other hand a colleague with a grievance might have ordered it out of malice. A BAD

thing. It was the latter.

So, in different ways over the last five years at Sheffield University we have invested a lot of time and

expertise in trying to assess what public libraries mean to users. I’ve included details of different

reports and studies in the handout.

References:

17

Linley, R. & Usherwood, B. (1998) New Measures for the New Library: A Social Audit of Public

Libraries University of Sheffield: Centre for the Public Library in the Information Society (British

Library Research and Innovation Centre Report No. 89)

Proctor, R., Lee, H. & Reilly, R. (1998) Access to Public Libraries. The Impact of Opening Hours

reductions and Closures 1986-1996/7 The University of Sheffield: Centre for the Public Library in the

Information So ciety (British Library Research & Innovation Centre Report No. 90)

Usherwood, R.C., Proctor, R. & Sobczyk, G. (1996) What do people do when their public library

service closes down? An investigation into the impact of the Sheffield Libraries Strike. London:

British Library Research and Development Department (BLRDD Report No. 6224)

For further information or queries about the content of this paper, please e-mail

r.proctor@sheffield.ac.uk Phone 0114 222 2646

© Richard Proctor 1999

18

Sheffield University Department of Information Studies.

The Centre for the Public Library and Information in Society

The Value of Public libraries

Related research at Sheffield University 1996-1999

Research Reports

Evans, M.K., Jones, K. & Usherwood, B. (1999)

Assessment tools for quality management in public libraries London: British Library Research and

Innovation Centre (BLRIC Report No. 155)

Linley, R. & Usherwood, B. (1998) New Measures for the New Library: A Social Audit of Public

Libraries University of Sheffield: Centre for the Public Library in the Information Society (British

Library Research and Innovation Centre Report No. 89)

Proctor, R., Lee, H. & Reilly, R. (1998) Access to Public Libraries. The Impact of Opening Hours

reductions and Closures 1986-1996/7 The University of Sheffield: Centre for the Public Library in the

Information Society (British Library Research & Innovation Centre Report No. 90)

Simmons, S. & Proctor, R. (1998) People, Politics and Hard Decisions. An Investigation into the

Management of Public Library Closures. The University of Sheffield: Centre for the Public Library in

the Information Society (British Library Research & Innovation Centre Report No. 132)

Usherwood, R.C. (1997) The Future of Public Libraries. London: British Library Research and

Innovation Centre (Information UK Outlooks no. 23)

Usherwood, R.C., Proctor, R. & Sobczyk, G. (1996) What do people do when their public library

service closes down? An investigation into the impact of the Sheffield Libraries Strike. London:

British Library Research and Development Department (BLRDD Report No. 6224)

Current Research Projects

‘Low Achievers Lifelong Learners” An investigation into the impact of public libraries on educational

disadvantage. LIC funded project. Reports October 2000. Research Associate: Craig Bartle

“Checking the Books:” The Value and Impact of Public Library Book Reading. LIC funded project.

Reports September 2000. Research Associate Jackie Toyne

Masters Dissertations

19

Christine, R. (1997) The special needs child in transition. An investigation into the availability and

use of special needs material by the child before and after the transfer from primary to secondary

school. MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

David, R.S.G. (1998) Libraries and learning: An evaluation of open learning in Sheffield and

Rotherham Public Libraries. MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Geater, D. (1996) Pursuing quality in a library service; the use and abuse of charters, standards and

mission statements. MSc in Information Management, University of Sheffield

Godfrey, H. (1999) An investigation into the use of public libraries for learning. MA in

Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Hamilton, A. (1997) A study of the impact of li brary services on the lives of elderly people in

residential homes: an evaluation and comparison of library service provision to residential homes in

three authorities. MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Harvey, P. (1999) The people's network? An evaluation of internet access in public libraries

thoughout a survey of public libraries challenge fund awards and a case study of provision in

Derbyshire. MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Hunter, J.F. (1998) The effectiveness of mobile library provision in urban communities which have

lost local static libraries: A case study. MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Linville, A.L. (1998) The management, use and development of spoken word cassette collections in

public libraries: A case study. MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Newport, K. (1998) The impact of homework centres in Sheffield Public Libraries: An investigation

into library provision for children. MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Northam, J. (1999) The Sheffield children's book award: an investigation into its impact and

effectiveness MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Parkin, M. (1999) Investigation into the effects on user behaviour and impact on the community of

the closure and subsequent re-opening of Stannington public library MA in Librarianship, University of

Sheffield

Qureshi, N. (1999) The impact and value of the public library service in easing rural deprivation MA

in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Raven, C.M. (1998) An evaluation of the extent to which branch libraries may contribute to

community regeneration through information technology MA in Librarianship, University of

Sheffield

Reilly, R. (1997) The impact of Sheffield public library closures on young children. MA in

Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Robertson, S.J. (1998) User feedback as a qualitative performance indicator: Two case studies. MA

in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

20

Rodgers, W.A. (1998) Central lending library communit ies: A case study investigating the use and

perception of central lending library services in Sheffield. MA in Librarianship, University of

Sheffield

Sisson, F. (1997) Children’s library design: does the location of the children’s department in relation

to the main adult library affect the interaction between the child and the library? MA in Librarianship,

University of Sheffield

Stone, E. (1999) The impact of public library use on the educational attainment of primary school

children. MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Taylor, C. (1999) An investigation into the experience of reading imaginative literature, and the

benefits that this may have for it's readers. MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Ton, N . (1997) The currency of fiction in public libraries: the impact of funding reductions MA in

Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Wilton, E. (1999) There are better places to go' - An investigation into teenage reading and public

library use in Horsham and Crawley. MA in Librarianship, University of Sheffield

Whittaker, S.P. (1998) Do public libraries need ‘Friends’? An evaluation of the importance and

influence of Friends of library groups in Sheffield and Rotherham MA in Librarianship, University of

Sheffield.

21

The London Learning Network Group

Jean Sykes, Librarian and Director of Information Services,

London School of Economics

The London Learning Network Group (LLNG) was set up in April 1999 on the initiative of the M25

Consortium of Higher Education Libraries. The guiding principle of the group, which has a

representative on it from each of a range of information providing sectors in London, is to investigate

ways in which these various sectors can work together in support of lifelong learning in London.

The members of LLNG represent the following London constituencies, with one member for each

except the public libraries, for whom there are two representatives on the group:

• M25 Consortium of Higher Education Libraries (Chief Librarians of the 39 university and HE

college libraries in the M25 area)

• ALCL (Association of London Chief Librarians, being the chief public librarians of the 33 London

boroughs)

• GLAN (Greater London Archives Network, consisting of local authority archivists in the London

area)

• SEMS (South East Museums Service, covering local museum curators)

• Further Education Colleges (one person on the LLNG represents the chief librarians and directors

of IT of the London FE Colleges)

• LASER (Development and Networking Agency which supports libraries in the South East,

particularly public libraries)

• LMN (London Metropolitan Network, a consortium of 30 universities in the London area through

which the institutions get connected to the Joint Academic Network and the internet)

The LLNG, of which I am chair, meets about every 6 weeks and has identified its aims and objectives

as follows:

1. To investigate ways of working together across sectors in London in support of lifelong learning

2. To identify suitable London-wide bodies to influence

3. To liaise with appropriate national bodies in the field of lifelong learning

4. To identify lifelong learning needs in London which could benefit from cross-sectoral

collaboration

5. To develop possible network infrastructure models for the London learning community

6. To identify, submit, or support appropriate lifelong learning project proposals in London

7. To explore a range of funding possibilities for collaborative proposals

8. To report regularly to the Group’s constituencies and to seek feedback from them

22

9. To disseminate information about the work of the Group

It is worth trying to put LLNG’s aims and efforts into the national context of lifelong learning first,

given that there are a large and rather confusing number of governmental initiatives in this area. For

example, there is CALL (Community Access to Lifelong Learning), a programme of funding for

England under the auspices of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, to be distributed by NOF

(New Opportunities Fund). Included in the funds which NOF will distribute will be £200 million for

network infrastructure in community grids for learning and the public library network, £50 million for

content creation and digitisation of learning materials, and £20 million for ICT (Information and

Communications Technology) training for public l ibrarians. The CALL initiatives themselves fit into a

wider set of lifelong learning strategies which is being spearheaded by the Department for Education

and Employment. This includes the Capitalisation Modernisation Fund to raise school standards and

modernise the skills of the workforce through ICT Centres; the University for Industry’s Learning

Centres which will help companies to develop their staff in ICT; the flagship National Grid for

Learning initiative, which aims to link every school to the internet by 2002; and many more.

The danger is that with so many initiatives going on, some sponsored by the DCMS and others by the

DfEE, there will be wasteful duplication of effort. Or, worse, incompatibility of systems, which will

make difficult if not impossible the ultimate dream of seamless interaction between networks in order

to support the full flow of information between the sectors. Surely we want information content and

learning materials created for any one network, eg the schools network, to be equally accessible to the

general public via the public library network and community grids, to the workforce through the ICT

Centres and the UfI Learning Centres, and to FE Colleges and HE institutions via the Joint Academic

Network. This will only be achievable is there is joined-up thinking backed up by joined-up

technology.

Given the complexity of the national scene in regard to lifelong learning initiatives, it is more than

likely that the delivery of the results will be approached on a regional level. Already many of the

Regional Development Agencies are beginning to pull together the threads across the various sectors in

their regions. But in London we face a more difficult situation. Not only does London not have an

RDA, but it is the nation’s capital and a major international city as well as a large region in its own

right. There are a number of bodies working to pave the way for the establishment of the Mayor’s

office and to influence its cultural agenda. The LLNG wishes to add its voice too in support of lifelong

learning in the capital.

So what has the LLNG achieved so far since its establishment in April 1999? It has identified, written

to, and received contact names for, a wide range of London-wide bodies which we think will be

important players in developing and sustaining lifelong learning in London. For example, the London

Development Partnership, the Government Office for London, the London Research Centre, the

London Cultural Strategy Group, and the London Higher Education Consort ium. The Group members

23

have also spent some time getting to know one another and exchanging information about our various

sectors, because we have not worked together before. We have set up four task forces to do more

focused work and feed back ideas to the parent group. Each task force is chaired by a member of the

LLNG but draws for its membership more widely across the sectors, so that in all there are upwards of

forty people (university, FE college and public librarians and IT directors; health sector librarians;

museum curators; and local authority archivists) involved in LLNG and its four task forces.

The task forces have been set up to explore in detail a range of issues which will underpin lifelong

learning and for which funding under the various initiatives described above may be available. The

task forces are:

• Content creation and digitisation. This group is investigating suitable materials and learning

packages across the sectors which could be digitised and made accessible across the network.

• Information skills training. This task force is looking at ways of identifying training in the

handling of electronic information which could be used for librarians in all kinds of library,

archivists, and museum curators alike.

• Network infrastructure. This group is working out various models for connecting the various

constituencies to the internet in a seamless way, with a strong possibility that using the LMN as the

basis for connecting all the non-HE sectors may prove to be the most achievable and cost-effective

model of all.

• Resource discovery and document delivery. This task force is investigating possibilities for

putting more information online (eg more automated catalogues, guides, subject search tools,

collection descriptions, all on the web for internet access) which can describe the rich information

resources in the London area. And secondly, the group will be looking for ways of co-operating

over the delivery of the actual materials to the user/enquirer, whether by traditional interlending

means or by electronic delivery to the user’s desktop.

LLNG is holding its first major dissemination event, a seminar entitled Lifelong Learning in London,

at the Royal College of Physicians on Friday 10 December 1999. The seminar, which is aimed at

senior staff from the various constituencies represented in LLNG, together with some specially invited

guests from the London-wide bodies which we hope to influence, has two purposes. One is to

disseminate information about the work of LLNG so far and the general lifelong learning context both

nationally and in London. The other is to seek ideas and input from the delegates, by means of

breakout sessions, which will help to inform the LLNG Action Plan for 2000. There will be two

keynote speakers, one talking about lifelong learning nationally and the other in the London context.

The four LLNG task force leaders will talk about the work of their groups. There will be three

demonstrations of existing online information resources, one each in the HE library, public library and

FE college sectors, which exemplify the kind of initiative which could be expanded to cover all the

sectors. And finally the delegates will be divided into four groups to discuss different themes at

breakout sessions, followed by a plenary feedback and discussion session at the end.

24

So in 2000 the LLNG will move into its second phase, taking with it the ideas that will have emerged

from the seminar in December together with the investigatory work being done by the task forces.

There will be further surveys, no doubt, to find out from the various information providing sectors what

already exists to support lifelong learning and how some of it can be knitted together across the

network; what the gaps are that some projects might attempt to fill; and whether there are cross-sectoral

initiatives for which the Group could submit proposals for government funding. There will be more

exchanges of information about our various sectors, and more dissemination about our activities. Not

least, there will be more effort to gain credibility and influence with the London bodies which are

likely to play a major part in lifelong learning in London, in order to ensure a place in the scheme of

things for cross -sectoral collaboration between the London libraries, IT infrastructures, archives, and

Museums which we represent.

25

Annual Library Statistics and National

Standards for Surveys of Library Users

Phillip Ramsdale

Executive Director, Institute of Public Finance

The overheads that illustrated Philip’s talk and discussion with Alan Templeton, the next speaker, are

unfortunately not currently available in electronic format.

26

The Use and Misuse of Statistics

Alan Templeton

Treasurer CPLUG

There are three kinds of lies:

lies, damned lies and statistics.

We have all heard and, perhaps, used Disraeli's sweeping assertion. It is, of course, a gross slander of

the many institutions dedicated to producing the means for us to measure change within given areas of

activity. It is certainly true that some of those institutions (the TUC, the CBI, the Inst.of Directors etc.)

have a point of view to put forward. However, in general, all the bodies regularly publishing statistics

have a vested interest in maintaining their long term credibility. This can only be ensured by taking

great care to publish accurate figures.

So, if all these institutions are dedicated to providing accurate data, why is Disraeli's statement so often

repeated?

Like all sayings that have stood the test of time, there is core of truth in the assertion. But, Disraeli was

a consummate politician and it would be expecting too much for him to be completely unbiased in his

pronouncements. The practice of adversarial politics results in factual distortion almost automatically.

Politicians have justly earned the low credibility that the statistics gatherers wish to avoid. So, as

Disraeli is in no position to object, perhaps we can improve the accuracy of his statement for him. For

example:

There are three kinds of lies:

lies, damned lies and statistics quoted by politicians.

We have, of course, changed the meaning of the saying in a way that is worthy of any working

politician. Nevertheless, the modification is a step closer to the situation which usually exits. Namely,

the statistics are not the lies. It is the use of the statistics which strains / breaks the bounds of veracity.

Obviously, it is not necessary to be a politician to be passionately committed to a certain viewpoint.

However, most of us can afford to take into account more than the short term gains and losses which

dominate political life. We do not have to pay the price of poor credibility for an illusory short term

advantage.

Thus, if long term credibility is of value, it is necessary to guard against the inappropriate use of data.

This, unfortunately, does involve a certain amount of thought and research. When deadlines are in

27

danger of being exceeded, it is very tempting to dispense with these. It is only too easy to take the risk

of possibly generating a misleading document.

Turning now to a specific example.

In the London Borough of Camden, there is an argument in progress about the future of its library

service. This long running disagreement has produced much heat and is a prime example of a situation

requiring the ultra careful handling of statistical information. The Camden Library Service was

subjected to a "Best Value Review" and a report was issued in February 1999 which contained a

comparative analysis of the service with respect to that of other Inner London boroughs. This analysis

was based on CIPFA data and drew the following conclusions:

CAMDEN's CLAIMED INNER LONDON

LIBRARY RANKING 1997/98

third highest total expenditure

eighth highest spender on books

above average number of libraries

third highest number of staff

As a major requirement of the government's "Best Value" programme is that "a rigorous comparative

approach" should be used in formulating a strategy, one may be forgiven for supposing that concrete

proof had been provided that Camden's library service was overfunded and overstaffed.

A 28 year history of cost cutting did not seem to have achieved anything in this respect.

This picture was not recognizable to people in Camden. The popular perception was of a library service

which was overstretched, with a demoralized staff and which was living from hand to mouth.

28

Popular perception may not be a rigorous statistical yardstick by which to judge performance.

However, in the long term, it does seem to be able to make fairly accurate judgments on those things of

which it has direct experience. In the UK, the close experience proviso is definitely met by local library

services.

Therefore, the obvious question was:

Why was the "Best Value" analysis so much at variance with peoples' experience?

There is one overwhelming peculiarity about Camden and its neighbour, Westminster. This is the gross

disparity between the resident population and the daytime population. The flood of commuters into

these central London boroughs is one of the capital's well known phenomena. The commuters are

generators of wealth for the firms in the boroughs and, at the same time, are a difficult problem for the

local authorities trying to provide services for them. One of those statutory services is a library service.

Careful reading of the "Best Value" report suggested that the resident population of Camden may have

been consistently used in the analysis. Reference to the base CIPFA data very quickly confirmed this.

Investigating the effect of adding the incoming workers to the residents to obtain the correct customer

base, changes the analysis in the following way (from enclosed charts):

Camden library user base increased by 67%

Therefore:

Net cost of Camden's library service per head of population reduced by 40%

Camden's expenditure on books per head of population reduced by 40%

Population per library service point increased by 67%

Camden library staff per head of population reduced by 40%

The group of authorities which Camden has used for its comparisons, i.e. the 12 Inner London

boroughs (excluding the City), all experience a change in population size between day and night. It is

therefore necessary to recalculate each borough's published figures and the group average levels in

order to obtain the ranking of Camden within the whole group. When this task is completed, the

Camden assessment becomes stark (see following page). Unfortunately, decision making has been

based on the optimistic rankings and this has the effect of heavily biasing those decisions. Thus,

problems which are clearly visible and are not in dispute have been perpetuated and deepened.

29

The moral of this tale is that the users / interpreters of statistics have a duty to use the basic data with

care. It is not sufficient to simply state that the methods used in an analysis are the same as are used

elsewhere, unless there is certainty that those methods are truly applicable to the particular case. To

ignore this requirement is to risk misleading the reader and justifying Disraeli's comment. Even worse,

the task of managing future developments becomes more of a game of chance. Specifically, the future

of a group of public libraries would become less controlled and, probably, less desirable.

RE-EXAMINATION OF CAMDEN’S INNER LONDON 1997/98 LIBRARY RANKING

Claimed Alternative Ranking Ranking Total third ninth Expenditure highest highest Expenditure eighth tenth On Books highest highest Number of above average Libraries average Number above average Of Staff average

30

Comment by Phillip Ramsdale: The large increase in population during the day within some inner

London boroughs such as Westminster and Camden could possibly be considered as a justification for

the provision of additional financial support . However, if additional money is given to these boroughs,

the same argument could be used for reducing the rate support grant to other local authorities.

Response from Alan Templeton: The logic of the argument is irrefutable. However, the government

has defined the population for which library services have to be pr ovided and it is not an allowable

option for a large part of that population (the commuters) to be ignored. There is no doubt that the

residents of Westminster, Camden and, perhaps, Islington suffer a disproportionate drain on resources

as a result of the commuter influx. Other boroughs in inner London have much smaller changes in

population during the day (see bar charts in paper).

The population increase in the 2/3 critical London boroughs is provided from the whole of the south

east region. As a result, the percentage change in population during the day in any of the "donor" local

authorities is relatively small. Thus, although an adjustment of central government funding to more

closely match the required resource allocation would make a considerable dif ference to the 2/3 critical

boroughs, it would have only a marginal impact elsewhere. Probably not worth adjusting for.

It is true that the heated arguments taking place within many local authorities about the level of library

provision appear to derive from a lack of available money. In this respect, Jim Agnew's seminar

presentation put the whole debate into the real world context.

Library budgets are a tiny fraction of the overall expenditure of any local authority. But, people are

passionately interested in this particular service as they believe that it provides a cornerstone in the

social, cultural and educational life of the community. They therefore react forcibly when they suspect

that they are to be deprived of that service.

Mature consideration by local council leaders of available options must surely lead to the "Surrey

conclusion" that it is politically better to give the people what they want, at small cost, rather than

engage in a long battle with those they have been elected to serve. There must be more deserving

causes than a library closure programme on which to stake one's political career .

Of course, if councillors are supplied with inaccurate or incomplete information, there is a danger that

the wrong decision will be made anyway.

31

32

Reading & reading audiences

Miranda McKearney

Organisations who neglect their core audiences do so at their peril, and for some years there was a

danger that libraries were neglecting their readers, particularly adult readers of imaginative literature.

The emphasis was all on information provision and in recent years on ICT. This was not a good idea, as

any marketing person will tell you.

At the heart of what most people want from a library is access to books - I talked yesterday to the head

of DCM S's Libraries Development Branch who had been doing a seminar with young people, couldn't

get them enthused at all about community information and so on, but they lit up once they started to

talk about books, teenage reading groups etc.

There are an awful lot of readers using libraries for accessing a good read, with a quite breathtaking

level of transactions.

16.7 million people borrow books at least monthly

Libraries loan 501 million books a year

It’s easy when contemplating gloomy news of cuts to forget just how significant this level of activity is.

Book issues may be falling, but they still represent remarkable levels of activity. If you compare library

loans of fiction with the number of novels sold through the book trade you begin to get a feel for the

scale of the library operation:

52% of books borrowed from libraries are fiction - 262m

80m are purchased each year

It is possible to claim that libraries are the UK's most significant providers of the reading experience. A

great many key constituencies are interested in readers, whether as citizens, customers, learners, and as

the National Year of Reading showed, they have become a concern of central government. So this is

vital ground for libraries to lay claim to.

If they claim this key cultural role of supporting and developing readers, they can place themselves

very centrally on the agendas of other sectors. I was recently involved in a piece of mapping research

commissioned by The Arts Council of England which looked at the relationship between l ibraries and

other sectors. At first the whole picture was extremely confusing. (Missing acetate) But if you shift the

focus of this map to centre on the reader things become much clearer. Libraries' purpose is to serve

individual users, and most people us ing libraries still do so as readers. The confusing map suddenly

becomes much clearer once you put the end user, the reader, at the heart of things.

33

In relation to readers libraries can claim a completely unique and central role. When the map is

redrawn in this way it becomes clear that other sectors wanting to work with readers cannot ignore this

central role. The public and the private sectors can reap many benefits by working in partnership with

libraries and their readers.

The public library service is a national service delivered on a local basis. It offers the reach of a

strategic national inclusive and democratic cultural agency reinforced by local knowledge. This is a

rare and powerful combination within the cultural sector.

Let's look at the qual itative and quantitative evidence for this central role. Libraries deliver the reading experience through an unrivalled network of community sites -

4020 library sites,

684 mobiles

17466 service points in prisons, hospitals etc.

They are extremely well us ed And they reach a broad spectrum of users AB 22% etc. Looked at qualitatively, libraries have a special relationship with readers.

All this work makes an important contribution to national life. Libraries stand to attract heavyweight

support and heavyweight funding if they can demonstrate to policy makers just what a key contribution

it is.

So how are libraries working with readers? There is a whole new movement, particularly with adult

readers which is beginning to make a real impact. This is called reader development. This bit of jargon

has penetrated even central government thinking and the DCMS has just announced that the focus of

the Wolfson Fund is being switched from funding IT library initiatives to reader development projects.

What is reader development?

NEW PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURES

Working from the confident basis that libraries' work with readers is hugely important, how can this

core work be used as the basis for partnerships and innovate outreach work with key national players?

During the National Year of Reading two new organisations came into being which have been doing

interesting work. If you work in public libraries you're probably aware of a growing interest in the

potential of library development agencies. Central government is certainly interested - Chris Smith

launched the feasibility study for a regional model - the London Library Development Agency, last

autumn and the post of Director has just been filled.

These development agencies, LaunchPad and The Reading Partnership cover advocacy, partnership

34

projects, research, policy and national library promotions, they have different areas of focus.

LaunchPad concentrates on profiling libraries' with children and The Reading Partnership on libraries'

work with adult readers. are some of the things they've been doing in the last 18 months.

• The ASDA Big Read

• Waterstone's and libraries survey of the nation's reading habits

• The Reading Safari - national summer reading challenge for children

• Public Libraries & Readers - a new advocacy pack

• Kick Off! - a male reading promotion with Random House

• An advocacy campaign showcasing libraries' reader development work

• Industry briefings for publishers on how to penetrate the opaque library world

They have rapidly demonstrated the power of the library development agency approach. LaunchPad,

for instance, took a £25,000 grant from the Year of Reading and with it developed a £500,000

Reaching Parents campaign - a library outreach programme in partnership with ASDA, Random

House, Ford and Lon don Transport.

I'll talk a little more about the ASDA relationship because it has important implications for how

libraries can use the reader relationship to broker partnerships with major national organisations.

The main focus of the ASDA/public library partnership was a massive two week reading promotion,

aimed at supporting families in developing their children's reading, awareness of the creative world of

books. ASDA put up £250,000 which funded library outreach work reaching 6million shoppers each

week.

The ASDA Big Read involved all 227 stores working with their local library service. ASDA staff were

trained in storytelling, and the fortnight's promotion involved 450 storyteller visits to stores, 120

mobiles in car parks and 1000 ASDA & library staff. 2 million “busy parents" reading advice leaflets

were distributed. Activity ranged from Scottish Ballet dancing out stories in Livingstone to Estelle

Morris MP visiting a Birmingham store.

The person at ASDA Head Office running The Big Read said 'like many companies we are always

looking for ways to work with the community. Because of the Year of Reading we were interested in

teaming up with libraries but needed a way to work with them nationally. LaunchPad offered the

chance to work with a small team who understood commercial priorities but who could also put us in

touch with the whole library network. That was very appealing. Our involvement with libraries has

shown us how to provide an ideal route to reaching the community".

In the run up to all this, ASDA staff were trained in story reading and exposed to the inspiration of

professional storytellers, although we've concentrated on story reading skills. This was to raise their

awareness of the spoken word and reading as parents in their own right, so p ersonal development from

35

a corporate perspective. It is also to enable them to link back to the community through the library and

many will be taking part in library storytimes. This has turned out to be a crucial piece of development

work as it has produced a very simple mechanism by which business volunteers can work with

libraries.

Why did ASDA get involved? We went in through their Corporate PR Department -we'd picked up

news of a talk an ASDA person had done to a library conference, challenging libraries to look at the

retail sector for lessons on being user friendly, growing book sales etc.

Then months later we got to present to the full Home and Leisure and Marketing team, we

took our least likely looking librarians, including salsa dancing Trish from the LA. We guessed the

right buttons to press and we weren't right on all of them but we were right on enough.

Corporate PR - community contributions social responsibility I back to basics

Corporate PR - Year of Reading

Staff development - personal an d in the community

Book sales

Access to the library audience.

This meant that we accessed three pots of money - colleague development, corporate PR' home and

leisure

Sitting between the entire public library system and the whole of ASDA is not a comfortable

experience, but we found that although the whole reader development approach takes a lot of

explaining, it also really captures the imagination of the commercial sector. There was lots we weren't

able to do with ASDA for logistical reasons, but they were captivated by the breadth of our

presentation which they thought was really imaginative. They loved, even if they couldn't do, the idea

of book recommendations nestling in the fruit section - Oranges are not the Only Fruit or the Hungry

Caterpillar in with the vegetables. And the idea of their Catalina Voucher incentive card triggering a

book recommendation through certain purchases.

If libraries have a future then partnerships is one of the areas that must be developed. I believe they're a

powerful advocacy tool, and that through partnerships of this kind libraries can access funding, raise

their profile, shift that obdurate image, make friends in high places.

Libraries are the readers champion - as Terence Blacker said in the Independent "1t has been left to

librarians, the unsung heroes of the book scene, to counteract the idle snootiness of the literary

establishment." and reading can be at the heart of these partnerships.

36

Best Value Review of Sandwell Library Service

Keith Heyes, Chief Librarian, Sandwell Libraries

General background.

“What do Users Want?”

In Sandwell, following extensive consultation, we identified that Users want everything: that is all the

existing core services improved and a whole range of new services introduced, using the new ICT

technologies.

We then decided that the role of members and officers should therefore be to give them everything they

require.

The Review in Sandwell was undertaken against a backdrop of potential £350,000 budget cut,

including a real cut of £100,000 to the book fund.

Following the review the whole £350,000 was re-instated.

Sandwell has the average number of libraries for its CIPFA Family Group i.e. 19 and 2 mobiles,

following two library closures two years ago.

The Review addressed the iss ue of fewer, better libraries but rejected it in Sandwell because we only

had the average number and because of the expected loss of library use. People would not travel.

The consultation did not seek to lead people in any particular direction or to any preconceived set of

options.

Methodology.

The Review was conducted by a Working Group of staff volunteers from all levels and areas of the

service. They did much of the work and wrote up the outcomes and issues.

Consultation.

Consultation was extensive, including 4,000 individuals (users, non-users, lapsed users) and 140

institutions (local schools, Citizen’s Advice Bureau, Health Authority etc) and library staff.

37

Extensive consultation by and with Library User Groups and Federation of Library User Groups was

also a key feature.

Consultation methods included:

C Surveys, CIPFA, street surveys, telephone and postal. (open questions)

C Open Meetings, in non library venues, throughout the Borough

C Comments Books, during review and over the last three years

C Focus Groups, e.g. staff focus group facilitated externally

C Complaints, Comments Compliments scheme, during review and summary of last three years

C Literature search, other library reviews and national and regional context.

C Staff did the consultation and were directly involved at all stages including writing it up.

C Some User Groups helped with the street survey and other aspects of the consultation.

Outcomes of consultation, “What do Users want?”.

Vital issue was local access. People would accept any standard of service if it was kept local. People

would not travel.

Evidence of previous closures in Sandwell is that library users had stopped using libraries altogether,

because they could or would not travel to other libraries. We developed a computer model that could

predict the impact on library membership of closing any particular library. This evidence convinced

Members that library closures would be counter-productive.

Convergence on all key issues from staff, users, non-users, elected members and national government:

C improve existing core services e.g. bookstock, range, breadth and depth.

C increased bookfund to at least CIPFA Family average.

C improve access to new ICT services, not at expense of other core services

C importance of educational and lifelong learning role of libraries

C continuing and growing importance of reading and literacy

C importance of information role of libraries

C importance of local access to libraries

C requirement for a Central Library for the Borough, but not at the expense of local libraries

C extended opening hours, re -instating previous reductions

C Improved levels of front line staffing and improved training and development

C improved marketing of services

C new dedicated centre for the Archives service.

38

Changes delivered so far within existing target budgets.

C Extended midweek opening hours at two libraries and extended Saturday opening at three

other libraries

C Increased levels of front line staffing, (via management and support savings)

C modest bookfund increase

C ICT training and taster courses for older people

C Free Internet access at all 19 libraries

C Major lobbying and council support for new central library, new Archives site and increased

bookfund

C Launch of new learning centres at all libraries early inj new year

Outcome conclusions

Major shift within the Council in terms of the image and profile of the library service.

Re-affirmation of the importance of libraries and the vital importance of local access.

Access is the fundamental issue for older and younger people.

No budget cuts over last three year period, and non predicted.

Clear focus and priorities for the next few years.

Rea