« Misuse of language in the library service | Main | MacSyrup »
February 12, 2008
Bad Stock, Bad Libraries
The Bookseller's excellent report this week on CIPFA figures is full again of stories about how libraries these days do lots of other things apart from hold collections of 'materials' for people to read and use.
Very few people in the public would understand why librarians think it is more important to spend resources to 'reach out' to people by 'engaging' with them - than it is to spend that money on books and things to read.
In fact the truth is that it is much more useful to people to have the books they want rather than to be offered some 'learning experience in a public library' . Where funds are limited in public service, efficiency means focussing expenditure very specifically on the public requirement and not on peripheral 'nice to do's'
The Audit Commission, in 2002 identified that there was real problem of efficient use of the £1.2bn spent on public libraries. Without a greater investment in stock, they said, the judgement was that spending was inefficient. This was evident for their analysis of a whole number of council 'Best Value Reviews'.
The report 'Who's in Charge' in 2004, elaborated on how to correct this inefficency which was then recognised by Gerald Kaufman's Select Committee in 2005 who said 'The public library service has a long overdue need to overhaul its efficiency .. and that expenditure on books should take priority over other projects and expenditure.
Andrew McIntosh, who was then the Minister, encapsulated the need in a prject which he called 'Better Stock Better Libraries.' There was some disagreement about the scope of the work-- it mght be £40m or it might be £200m - but there was universal, if grudging, acceptance that this work and its consequences were necessary. The money that could be released is needed to be spent - of course- in part on additional book acquisitions. The unspoken opposite of 'Better Stock, better Libraries meant that a failure to address the questions properly can only lead to 'Bad Stock, Bad Libraries'.
Of course BSBL has now collapsed and most certainly it has lost sight of its origins and it purposes. That silent number within councils who were hoping that it would help them solve the problems have been let down. Where they said 'This is the only the horse in the race' they now search the stable in vain.
Stock in libraries is the most important thing-- alongside the buildings and the access through opening hours.
Few councillors are alerted to the danger of allowing their stock collections to dwindle to the point of exctinction.. they need to be.. It is not advocation of the library service that is needed -- but advcation of Better Stock, Better Buildings and Better Hours that will make Better Libraries.
Posted by Perkins at February 12, 2008 9:26 AM
Comments
One MLA comment was that "over the last three years, visits have held steady at just over the 288 million mark". This interpretation doesn't correlate with the summary from the Bookseller which reports:
"The overall pattern is one of declining numbers both in general usage and specifically in book-borrowing, with a drop nationally of 1.4% in visits, down to 337.3 million, and book issues falling 2.6% overall to 314.7 million."
I wonder if anyone from CIPFA reads this blog - and could explain why the annual Library stats cannot be made freely available to the public? The LISU stats always were available for public scrutiny - whereas the CIPFA stats are only available at a cost.
The Bookseller article also quotes a spokesman from Norwich Library as saying:
"About 84% of our fiction and 75% of our non-fiction is on the shelf in the library on the day of publication."
Well done Norwich, I hope other Library authorities are already on the phone to ask for a few tips!
Posted by: Martyn at February 12, 2008 12:46 PM