« The Espresso Book Machine | Main | Stirring up local opinion »
December 28, 2006
Keep it simple-- a New Policy for the Public Library Service
Just a new year refreshment of the aims of this blog:
1. Our public libraries need major renewal to restore them to their core service:
- Buildings which are open, clean, welcoming, safe to all
- Stocks of books and other printed material, access to information sources of all kinds, which are up to date, old, wide ranging and relevant to individuals in the local community
- Space and means for private reading and study
2. Local councils need to be cajoled/helped/reminded to undertake this renewal.
3. Central Government needs to take responsibility for making it happen quickly
4. Renewal means substantial investment in book stocks, buildings, equipment and opening hours. Efficiency requires that these funds are found from within the service and not from extra taxes.
- Each individual library should be run as efficiently as a comparable good local independent retail shop would be
- There should be almost no "back office" work - and supply contracts should be rewritten to make this change.
5. The professional management of the library service needs total overhaul and retraining
5. The service belongs to and is paid for by the public. They need to be kept informed of the progress of this renovation in a clear comprehensible and timely manner. There are to be no more secret departments, conferences, meetings or incomprehensible plans
6. All officers of Government, both national and local, who stand in the way of this work will be lampooned, ridiculed and exposed for the destruction they have caused-- unless they make genuine efforts, in which case they will be praised.
7. The situation is very grave.
Posted by Perkins at December 28, 2006 11:17 AM
Comments
"Efficiency requires that these funds are found from within the service and not from extra taxes."
I know this is core to your thinking, but I just thought it worth pointing out that all library services in the country are not funded equally. As gross figures don't seem to be easily available, may I quote the following net expenditure figures for some randomly-chosen library authorities per head of population in 2004/05: (CIPFA Actuals)
Camden - £3.15
Newcastle UT - £2.72
Hartlepool - £2.18
Essex - £1.83
Merton - £1.32
Barnsley - £1.06
Devon - £1.03
South Gloucestershire - £0.93
Is it reasonable to expect efficiencies across the board when some authorities receive less than a third of the funding that others have to deploy?
Just a jolly festive thought.
Posted by: Duchess of Malfi at December 28, 2006 3:43 PM
Of course, Duchess, as always you are right (except that I think these figures should be x10 : Camden is £31.50 and Devon £10.30 per person "net") . However, I observe that those councils with least money often have the best and most used book collections - and those with the most money are the ones which have diversified into all sorts of strange activities. Devon has good book stocks, while Camden has awful ones.
There were two studies earlier in the year that showed that by any measure that could reasonably be used, when comparing library services across the country, more money did not make a library service better. That seems curious, but in fact it makes my point more strongly-- what library authorities need is not more funding, but better management of those funds they have.
Moreover I would be happy to come to any council and show how it is done, as I have often offered on here.
Posted by: Tim at December 28, 2006 9:41 PM
Tim, I don't think we can let Devon of the hook altogether - as far as I am aware they still plan to close 5 libraries (out of 12 proposed closures). This is based on the latest information I could find which was dated the end of November. If anyone knows the current figure perhaps they could post it here.
Cambridgeshire just have announced that they are considering cuts in their mobile library service.
Posted by: Martyn at December 29, 2006 10:56 AM