« The end of the lending library in London | Main | Reflections on step 3 »
January 23, 2007
Step 3 - two policy proposals
In my last step (step 2 below) I deduced that if libraries are to improve there are three groups of people whose needs must be addressed by new government library policy
1. The public: We have to understand and listen to what make libraries useful for them in all their requirements and stages of life, we have to understand how that changes in time, if it does; and we have to know how it varies from area to area and community to community. We have to know how, successfully, to address their needs. We have to involve the public in the operation at both local and national level. And we have to report to them clearly and in a timely and helpful way how the service is performing and what they can expect from it
2. Councillors appointed to have responsibilty for the service: we have to give them access and understanding to the library needs of their local community; we have to help them understand the efficient operation of libraries to meet those needs and the requirements of the staff. We have to help them understand the connection between money spent and service given. We have to provide them with management and performance data that they can share with and account to the public in a simple, consistent, clear and timely manner. We have to allow them to manage and direct their own operations and involve them in the creation and operation of national plans
3. Those staff who work with the public in the libraries: we have to make sure we hear their needs and listen to them and that they are trained to give service to the public in response to the need. We have to ensure that they have the stock of books and other collections, the building fabric and furniture and other equipment that is needed to provide a compehensive, welcoming and efficient service. We have to involve them in the execution of local and national plans,
For the first group (the public) the Government should use a neutral consumer association (or several competing associations) to provide data to councils. It should be continuous and provide regular updates and trends and the information it produces should be available to local councillors so they can understand small local communities. It should incorporate daily performance data for each library and each library authority in the service. Its output should be such that the public has free access to it and can understand it. Its data should be on freely accessible national web based database. And it should publicise its findings. (This will replace CIPFA, LISU, PLUS and the public library standards and most council internal reporting).
For the second two groups (councillors and front line staff) the Government should provide appropriate competely new training schemes and support networks. (These will replace all existing training and accreditation arrangements and I shall describe them more fully later). This, I believe, needs to be a radical departure.
These are 2 new policy proposals which are a new endeavour to sustain the service in the future
Posted by Tim Coates at January 23, 2007 5:46 PM
Comments
I'm sorry that is complete nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you're proposing. This wonderful consumer association will, every day, collate performance information from 149 different library authorities and some 4,000+ branches and publish the data live on a web database? Do you have ANY IDEA how much that would cost to set up and keep running? And as for "replacing CIPFA, LISU, PLUS, Library Standards and most council internal reporting" - well, I could laugh till I cried. CIPFA (and its commercial arm IPF) only spends a small proportion of its time on public library issues - have a look at its website sometime. LISU covers far more than just public libraries, although I know that is the only thing that interests you at the moment. Library Standards are already going, and being replaced by a whole new Council performance framework - read the local government white paper. And I think every authorities' Auditors would have something to say about changing reporting arrangements.
Training for Councillors and frontline staff. What a hoot! Government doesn't provide ANY training now, we pay for it ourselves - do you really imagine the Treasury is going to cough up millions to train staff?
Sorry. Grumpy this morning.
Posted by: Duchess of Malfi at January 25, 2007 10:44 AM
Duchess
Thank you!!
I have to answer those
1. I don't think it would cost very much to poll 4,000 library management systems to put on a website each night. It's normal practice nowadays. The internet has made it easy- although many retailers have been doing it for years (even this humble blog receives data from over 3,000 sites all over the worlds each day and presents a neat set of graphs and tables with all the information one could need about what is going on)
2. In the case of CIPFA and LISU, of course I only meant the public library part of what they do. after the CIPFA fiasco last week one could hardly claim the work they do could not be improved upom
3. I have read the Governmment white paper and I agree with most of what it says-- and particularly the elements David Lammy quotes about libraries in the community. I said when it cam out that, in terms of libraries, the key is to help individual local libraries become more responsive to their own particular local communities- and that is exactly what I am seeking through the liberation of front line staff. The hard part is getting the library management hierarchy to relinquish control over what has always been their territory
4. There has to be training and, of course, it must be paid out of local government library funds. There are no others.
I'm told that there are a lot of councils (but not yours) who pay CILIP costs for members. That saving would help
I don't think you are being grumpy-- I'm suggesting some new ideas which are unfamiliar-- but I have thought about them and it is very important to debate them! Tim
Posted by: Tim at January 25, 2007 12:39 PM