Kent Libraries – what’s going on??

Whilst campaigns have been going on up and down the country, it has been a little quiet in Kent over the past few weeks.  However, this does not mean that there is nothing going on.  On the contrary, there’s a lot going on behind the scenes in regard to public libraries across the county.  A consultation will be launched this year on the future for libraries across the county, perhaps as soon as March.  Of course, this is going to take place after there has been a customer satisfaction survey made available in all static libraries (this is going to take place next week by the way so make sure you get to your local library, fill one in and state why the council should protect the library service not dismantle it).  So, what is going on behind the scenes?

Mike Hill, councillor for libraries, recently wrote:

Our vision is for a core of first-class modern libraries supplemented by smaller branch libraries where there is a proven need, and by a comprehensive mobile service to make sure there is widespread access to library services.

We will also explore and encourage the establishment of volunteer run libraries in line with the Big Society concept. Our detailed plans are still being developed and we will be consulting widely with the public this year before any firm decisions are taken.

Hmmm.  So, the ‘Big Society’ is at the heart of the council’s and libraries will be assessed according to ‘proven need’, whatever that might mean.  So, what of Kent’s ‘Big Society’ concept, what does it mean for taxpayers in the county?

The council is even raising some areas of spending, like IT, and a £5 million Big Society Fund is being created for town and village groups to tap into.

£5 million pounds for Big Society projects across the county.  Snip off £1 million of that and you get to have your project plus ensure that the libraries that are being considered for closure (and mark my words, they already know which ones they are going to close) remain open serving their communities as part of their real ‘Big Society’ (as opposed to the fake one imposed on them).  It is also worth pointing out that Kent County Council is taking part in the government’s Future Libraries programme.  According to the DCMS website, Kent is linked with Oxfordshire as part of this programme.  Oxfordshire plan to close 20 of the county’s 43 libraries.

Of course, the consultation is bound to be a sham.  As was revealed in Cambridgeshire, the consultation will merely act as a way for the council to get the changes it wants.  No doubt there will be a choice between a library closure or a volunteer run library, which is effectively no choice at all.  For most people, a volunteer run library is better than no library at all, but it is only marginally so.  Residents should be given the full range of options if it is to be a full and effective consultation.

So what now?  Well, first of all, make sure you get to your local library next week and complete a survey making clear what your views are on potential closures are reductions in service quality.  Make sure you make positive noises about the service as it is now, whilst also expressing your alarm and concern about the council’s intentions.  Secondly, if you want to set up a campaign group to pressure the council, please contact Voices for the Library at contact[at]voicesforthelibrary.org.uk.  We can help promote your campaign, send people in your direction and link you up with other campaigns to share experiences and ensure as effective a campaign as possible.  Furthermore, if you want advice or support in launching a campaign, you can also contact me (my details are via the contact tab at the top of the page).  Whilst I am unable to run a local campaign, I am more than willing to act as a liaison between a Kent campaign and Voices for the Library, as well as help establish a presence online.

Volunteers running libraries

Can volunteers really run public libraries?

Whilst this has been knocking around in the library world for a while, volunteers running libraries seems to be the hot top in the media at the moment.  It would seem that, for some, volunteers present the magic bullet that can prevent library closures and ensure communities have the library provision that they deserve.  However, whilst volunteers play an important role in supporting the delivery of public library services (including advocacy which is vital), they are not a viable alternative to trained, paid staff.  Keeping a library open is only marginally better than having no library at all if the service is solely provided voluntarily.

One of the prime issues with volunteers running services is the lack of skills amongst those that would be in a position to volunteer.  Working in a library now requires a high degree of IT literacy.  You are working with computers all day.  You are expected to be able to employ appropriate search techniques on various Internet search engines (yes, ‘appropriate’ – searching is not about ‘bunging in a few words’, it is a skill to get the right results).  Searching the Internet requires skill.  A skill that, as I have mentioned on here before, even some journalists fail to grasp….naming no names (look it up!).

But it’s not just the point about searching the Internet that is cause for concern, other aspects of the library service require a degree of knowledge that volunteers are simply unable to provide.  Take for example local studies materials.  When I worked in a public library, we had a huge number of local studies materials.  Maps, photographs, newspaper cuttings, countless items of interest to local history researchers and the community.  The biggest problem I found with these materials was a way of making it easy for the public to find the materials they wanted.  For example, we trialled different ways of making the huge number of maps we have searchable.  The system that was employed at the time involved a long list of the various maps that were held.  Yes, they were organised appropriately on the list to ease use, but it wasn’t the easiest way to find what you were looking for and I believed that there were alternative options worth exploring.

I decided to try out some different tools that were available on the Internet to make it easier for staff to locate materials.  One of the first things I tried was a Zoho Wiki.  The plan was that just by putting in simple search terms, staff would be able to locate all the materials linked to a particular area of the local community – this would make it quicker and easier for the public.  Unfortunately, I never got to complete my plan (I left to start a new job elsewhere), but I think it could have worked with some tweaking.

Now, I don’t want to tar all those in the voluntary sector with the same brush, but how many volunteers are there who have the knowledge to be able to establish a wiki and adapt it for the purposes outlined?  Sure, I bet there are a few people able to volunteer who could do it (like I said, I don’t want to tar all volunteers with the same brush), but are there enough to staff and man the number of libraries that are being lined up for closure across the UK unless local communities step in?  Of course not.  Is there a large, ready supply of tech savvy people out of work who are happy to volunteer their services to keep their library open?  No.  Are there dedicated members of the community frightened at the prospect of their local library closing and are prepared to do whatever they can to keep it open?  Yes.  But they shouldn’t be forced into keeping libraries open on the back of fear and bullying from local councils.  Surely this is the Big Society being proposed not the Bullied Society?

But this isn’t about being ‘anti-volunteers’.  This is the reality for community libraries:

Four years ago, Buckinghamshire County Council closed eight of its libraries. Two of these, including Little Chalfont, have kept going as volunteer-run community libraries, offering a comprehensive library service. Last November, a further 14 were told that they must become community libraries or face closure, leaving only 9 council-run libraries in the county.

Now LCCL is being held up around the country as the model of the future of our libraries, which places Brooks at the eye of the storm. Librarians from all over the country are beating a path to his door, wanting to know how this small community managed to save their library.

But be under no illusion. This was not simply a matter of a few volunteers taking over the jobs previously done by professional library staff. The original terms from Bucks County Council were that the library had to be provided at NO COST to the Council. The community had to raise enough money to pay for the rent of the existing building, charges for IT equipment, supplies such as bar codes, and a management fee to the Council. They also had to choose whether to pay the council an annual fee (£7k to rent existing stock, or to create their own stock from scratch through donations. (They chose the latter path.)

In all, their running costs amount to some £20k pa – money which is raised from a mixture of public donations, grants, library revenues (i.e. fines), and letting out the building to other community groups.

The volunteer staff, between them, have to provide not only basic librarian skills but Financial Management, Health and Safety, Staff Management, Stock Procurement, Building Maintenance, Data Protection, and a host of other managerial functions.

Jim Brooks, Chairman of the Friends of Little Chalfont Community Library, is angry that Councils are holding LCCL up as the blueprint to be used, willy nilly, elsewhere. He strongly believes that a check list of key criteria must be met in order for a community library such as theirs to be viable.

“Where communities meet these criteria, we are happy to give them all the help we can. But where they don’t, councils must understand, it’s a non-starter.”

Volunteer run libraries are not the answer to a long-term, sustainable library service.  They are a stay of execution and nothing more.  If a council near you is threatening to close your library unless the community has the volunteers and the will to do so, fight them all the way.  This is their responsibility, not yours.  The danger is that if councils force this to happen, we will result in a two tier library system.  One for those in large urban areas run by paid professionals and one for those in small rural areas staffed by untrained volunteers.  Now tell me, is this what David Cameron means when he calls for a ‘fairer society’?

Cambridge and how to stitch up a public consultation…..

Be
wary of library consultations…..

I guess this is going to be common place over the coming months, councils using dubious surveys to back up their arguments for handing over
libraries to local communities who are ill-equipped to provide the comprehensive service that is required. Take this news from Cambridge:

Plans to use self-service technology and volunteer labour to limit library
closures have won some support. More than two-thirds of survey
respondents – around 3,900 out of 5,600 – said they thought
adopting new working methods and reducing the number of paid staff was a good idea if it stopped branches from being shut. The analysis is based on a consultation which took place in
Cambridgeshire in the second half of last year, the results of
which have just been released. Nearly half the respondents – 48 per cent – said they would volunteer in libraries and 1,800 have
already registered their interest in helping out.

Well, reading that it certainly seems to suggest that libraries run by volunteers has a lot of support, but does it really? Well, no. The key phrase in this report is, of course, ‘adopting new working methods and reducing the number of paid staff was a good idea if it stopped branches from being shut‘. In other words, they aren’t supportive of volunteers running libraries as such, only if it prevents library closure ie if all other avenues have been
explored. It seems like Cambridge haven’t really provided their local community with an option. Essentially, it boils down to ‘we are either going to close your libraries or let groups of volunteers operate them’. What a choice! Well, I’d rather have small woodland animals run my library than have no library at all, but that doesn’t mean I want small woodland
animals running my library. Upon reading the consultationreport with the questionnaire that they used to get the views of library users, it is fairly obvious what their aim
was….so much so it seems little point even bothering to consult.
Take these two questions for example:

12. Thinking about library services in 5-10 years time, which of the following scenarios most appeal to you? (Please tick all that apply)

• Fewer, bigger better libraries
• Library services mostly digital – e.g. downloadable e-books
• Library services mostly digital – e.g. downloadable e-audio books
• Library services mostly digital – e.g. more information online
• Library buildings also used as community meeting places – for community groups, exhibitions and other activities
• Other public services sharing library building

How about improving existing libraries? Oh, of course, that won’t be an option as they have already decided to close some and don’t want people to oppose the closures. And then we have this question:
Q13. We are proposing to put self-service machines into all our libraries, reducing the number of paid staff, and recruiting volunteers to help deliver the service. This way of working has the potential to save money without closing any libraries. Do you think:

• This is a good idea if it prevents library closure
• You would rather see fewer libraries but fully run by paid staff
• Didn’t answer /couldn’t commit to one or the other

Again, what options are provided here? It seems that the suggestion is you either have volunteers or less libraries. No middle way, no third option. Either prevent library closure by taking on more volunteers or accept library closures and have paid staff. These are not
options. They simply ensure that however people respond, the council gets the answer it wants (ever was it thus): fewer staff or fewer buildings. Either way, the library (and by extension the community) suffers. Library users and community groups up and down the country need to take very great care when engaging in the consultations. If they aren’t making acceptable suggestions, complain about it. Write to your council and demand they conduct a proper consultation rather than some flim-flam that’ll give them the results that they want. This is about what you want not them. They are elected to represent you, they are not elected to tell you what is best for you. The Cambridge consultation is just the start…more manipulation from other councils is sure to come.

Library Usage Increases

Library usage is on the rise...

There’s a headline you don’t see very often!  Yep, another statty type post I’m afraid, kinda sums up my week really.  Anyway, I’ve been digging a bit further into the library statistics provided by CIPFA and found some more interesting results.  Most interesting of all are the statistics related to library usage.  Often library usage statistics simply refer to the numbers of people walking through the door.  However, this does not take into account the increasing numbers of people who search the catalogue from home, reserve items or renew books they have on loan, borrow ebooks or eaudiobooks, consult reference resources like the Encyclopaedia Britannica – all things that once required a library visit but can now be achieved virtually.  So, with that in mind, here are the overall figures for library usage for the past four years:

2006/7 – 401,332,115

2007/8 – 404,677,184

2008/9 – 438,480,469

2009/10 – 441,721,165

Yep, library usage has grown by 40 million in just 4 years, not bad going eh?  Yes, I know, this combines physical visits with virtual visits and is perhaps misleading but, as we all know, many of the online visits have replaced the previous need to visit the library (ie for book renewals, reservations etc) so I think it is fair to combine the two.

A good indication of this change in usage can also be identified in the number of requests for items.  Again, worth keeping in mind that it is now much easier to reserve items than ever before now you can do so from home:

2006-07 – 10,917,385

2007-08 – 12,026,938

2008-09 – 13,629,479

2009-10 – 15,025,060

Unsurprisingly given the ease with which people can now look items up on the library catalogue and reserve as appropriate.  Certainly it indicates, as I have repeatedly argued, that people are changing the way people interact with their library but, crucially, they are interacting with their library and more so than ever.

However, this change in usage does bring to mind a number of questions.  If, as appears to be the trend at the moment, libraries are devolved to local communities and handed over to the voluntary sector, what will happen to the IT part of the service?  Who is going to ensure that those staffing the library have the skills to deliver the level of service that is required?  I am not denigrating those that do volunteer but one wonders, where are all these highly computer literate volunteers going to come from?  How are local communities and volunteer groups going to ensure that not only are their IT skills up-to-date, but that they also provide the equipment and variety of online services that current users require?  Maybe I am misjudging the types of people who are likely to take over these services, but I do not see how they can possibly maintain these aspects of the service without sizeable funding.

I guess this all stems from the belief that libraries are all about issuing books and the only skills required are those needed to put books on shelves when they are returned, and stamped when they go out.  Never mind the need to deal with complex queries that require advanced skills in Internet usage (it isn’t just a case of first result on Google you know!).  Never mind the ability to provide a wealth of services online (including ebooks and digital collections).  I’ve not seen a single person outline how these services will be provided by volunteers and local communities, perhaps because these services will no longer be provided.  Given the figures provided above, it rather demonstrates how little people at the top understand both how libraries work and what libraries users expect from them.