« Camden Libraries Crisis | Main | Madness in Hertfordshire »
December 8, 2006
Correspondence with Michael Clarke
One of my recurring themes is the poor state of the public library service in London. London is one the learning centres of the world- people come from everywhere to do courses, gain qualifications, return to the work place and all the other learning activities one could conceive. Often this means studying in cramped bedsits or noisy small houses at any time of night or day, as paid work permits.
The public library service should be fantastic. It should be a resource for all these needs as well as for an incredibly exciting huge international city, with languages and places of origin that are truly a replay of Babel.
Yet, MORI polling shows that only 18% of Londoners find public libraries relevant to their lives and the figure is falling (fast)
So I chip away at the people responsible in any way I can. Michael Clarke, the director of the London Libraries Development Agency is one recipient of my torrent of anxiety, and so I invited him to write a piece for the blog; here it is. I followed it by entering into correspondence with him, which I have included. I hope others will join in the discussion.
LLDA: London Libraries Development Agency
Michael Clarke (Director)-
Change is never easy. The public library was a 19th century invention designed to offer people from poor backgrounds a means of education and self-improvement. It was resisted by some in the political establishment at the time as a waste of money, but developed as a mass service, with universal provision, through the 20th century. Most people (even those who haven't been into one in years) regard a local library as an asset to the community and something that should be there as of right, hence the big protests whenever even the smallest, least used library is perceived as under threat. It's a good thing that people feel passionately about libraries, particularly those avid users and readers of this blog; but we must also address the need for change in an era when in some areas as many as four fifths of those who pay for the service don't actually use it often.
Books are a fundamental part of the business of libraries. And despite all the doom and gloom there are signs of hope. The growth in reading groups supported by libraries; the turnaround in borrowing rates of children's books as a result of sustained and imaginative work by the Reading Agency and children's librarians; and, though it has caused much controversy on your site, the Whitechapel Idea Store has seen use increase by 400% over the previous two libraries it replaced.
But we recognise that libraries now exist in a much more complex and pressurised world than even twenty years ago: people have vastly greater choice of what to do with their non-work time : multi-channel television, computer games, the web and MP3 players among others compete for leisure time and spending money. Thus the notion of the public library service as a buildings based one needs stretching.
If the BBC hadn't diversified into television in the 30s, expanding what it saw as its remit to fit a changing environment, it probably wouldn't be here now, and the way it has ridden the internet wave is a salutory lesson; it's considerably better positioned than poor old ITV which is now running to catch up. The mode of delivery for the BBC also has kept up with technical developments and public expectation so that you no longer have to make an appointment dictated by the Radio Times to enjoy news, drama or documentaries from the BBC but can download them on to a personal device for use at a time that suits you. You could say that over recent times the BBC has moved from a reference to a lending service.
LLDA is a partnership between London's 33 public library services, 40 higher education institutions and over 70 health libraries. We are working to improve access to books and library stocks (eg What's In London's Libraries?), bring libraries to communities currently under-represented among users (Welcome To Your Library) and make it easier for people to join and use libraries (we will be reporting on feasibility for a single membership card for London very shortly). We would welcome ideas, comments, suggestions and are keen to have a debate, and one which engages those who don't currently use library services as well as those who do. I'd be delighted to speak to readers through this blog or direct by phone or email. See www.llda.org.uk for contact details.
TC- In your paragraph about book use you say that "use in Whitechapel is up 400% "etc
Where are the figures to support this? The CIPFA data shows that book use in Tower Hamlets is down over the five years to 2004-5, although visits are up. But visits include a lot of use which is not library use in their case. The figures also show that the cost per visit has risen to £5.20, which is twice the CPA target..
Tower Hamlets appears to have been far from succesful in the Idea Store programme-- and I understand this is why they currently don't plan any more. So I think it's fair to ask you to elaborate on your data.
MC- Tower Hamlets' own visitor figures showed the increase. I accept it's not all good news but feel we should be positive where things are going in the right direction. Get people in through the doors and you've a chance of getting them to read the books
TCIn all my many years of trying to induce and help people to read and enjoy books (which is horribly more than 30 years)-- I have never ever seen a successful attempt made which works on the lines "Get people through the doors (for some other purpose) and you've a chance of getting them to read books". Have you?
All that I have ever seen is that a building that has lots of books on lots of subjects and people will find something that interests them.
If the figures in Tower Hamlets are as good as you say, and I'm sure they mujst be, why don't you and Tower Hamlets let everybody see them in some detail?
MC Re your point about getting people through the door - yes I do know some examples. One for instance is The Gate, in Newham, which was specifically designed to bring a library and council service centre together, which has produced some interesting results. Customers for the service centre may have to wait for around 30 minutes to see a specialist and, because of the design of the building, it's possible for them to read books or magazines and use the computers, opportunities which many take up. Also, in Croydon, parents bringing infants to the Baby Rhymetimes sessions are actively encouraged to borrow books; and a performance event we were involved with in Islington specifically targeted children who weren't avid library users and encouraged them to read more and borrow more.
TCn those three boroughs book lending in public libraries is in decline. In Croydon it looks like a man falling off the white cliffs of Dover.So do you have any figures to support these initiatives? Perhaps if the libraries were in better shape these children who you describe as "not avid library users" would be. My thesis is that library authorities are good if they run good libraries-- that's what they are paid for
Posted by Tim Coates at December 8, 2006 11:27 AM
Comments
This reminds me of the rural school in upstate New York my son went to briefly. I've never seen more pencils and stickers: every single thing the kids did was rewarded with some little prize. There was no sense whatsoever that children might actually become engaged in history, science, or reading. If those who run libraries see books as the equivalent of greens or vitamin pills, no wonder things are in the state they are. Perhaps the books brigade should put together a Christmas reading list of really pleasurable books they'd recommend to CILIP board members--and I would love to hear from the many librarians who read this blog about their own reading and favorite books.
Posted by: Karen Christensen at December 9, 2006 11:02 AM
Dear Mr. Coates, it would be helpful if you could quote some up to date statistics. Of course, IPF publish stats two years in arrears but its relatively easy to get current details from the authorities themselves. Continuing to quote old stats could lead readers to think that more up to date details don't tell the story you would like them to.
Posted by: see-beng ng at December 11, 2006 10:59 PM
Yes, I agree; but I can't get up to date statistics from these councils or any others. That's why I was urging Michael Clarke, who was quoting them and presumably in his role does have access to regular data, to give us more of the information he has.
We will see data for 2005-6 in January. However I agree with you that the information should be more frequent and more up to date and then everybody would be in a position to see more clearly what is happening.
Posted by: Tim at December 12, 2006 9:03 AM
So which London Councils have you approached?
Posted by: see-beng ng at December 12, 2006 7:44 PM
There are quite a few London Boroughs who don't respond to my approaches, for all kinds of reasons. I think it's better for me not to give names. There are others, like Haringey, for example who generally will give me their figures, if I ask.
However if councils would like to post their basic current performance on say a monthly or a quarterly basis, on here, then I will be happy to put figures on this site. (or perhaps the LLDA will?)
I am particularly interested in book issue figures and especially those for children's books where many councils are showing good increases.
Posted by: Tim at December 12, 2006 11:08 PM
Why can't you name authorities that you have approached for satistics and been turned down by? You seem happy to name authorities for other reasons, even to the extent of naming individual officers.
Posted by: see-beng ng at December 17, 2006 10:59 AM
Because in this instance I could irritate council officers without need. I am not a journalist and there is no reason why a council should respond to approaches I make; and quite often if information has not yet been presented to councillors then officers are reluctant to make it available to members of the public, especially if they are not residents in the borough. There are fights worth taking on, even if one loses, but this, in my view isn't one of them. Remember we are just about to see detailed information for 2005-6, and that will give plenty to review.
However if you work or live in a london borough, See-beng ng, then I would be happy to approach your council again and report what information I can find. Where do you live?
tim
Posted by: tim at December 17, 2006 12:55 PM
Quite an interesting article. I live in Tower Hamlets and have spent the past week in the Whitechapel Idea Store revising for accountancy exams. I like the building and I think it's approachable and accessible. I went there thinking it was a library, but it isn't, its a community/youth centre, which isn't a bad thing, but when you are informed there is no quiet area for study, you wonder if priorites are wrong. I have sat there and struggled to concentrate as teenages shout and flirt, chasing each other round, as the librarians (!?, perhaps storekeeper?) ignore the noise and browse the internet and use their mobiles.
Posted by: Pauk at February 17, 2007 6:42 PM