« More astonishing revelations from the public library chat room | Main | Press Release from the London Borough of Hillingdon »
August 23, 2008
Losses of Stock in public libraries
The Bookseller has a headline about Kent County Council losing 200 thousand pounds of books. (Despite their rather surprising spelling)
This is an important subject. Realistically public libraries lose at least as many and actually a great deal more books than an equivalent book retailer. Not only is there the level of theft by staff and customers that, sadly, has to be anticipated, but there is also a significant loss of stock when library readers fail to return books they have borrowed. The only mitigating factor is that because libraries generally, regrettably, have less desirable stock less will be pinched for resale.
The difference between retailers and public libraries in how they handle this is also important. Retailers are forced to take the matter extremely seriously, simply because it is a prominent feature in whatever accounting procedure they use; lost stock has to be replaced and that process is expensive; no one insures stock losses. Public libraries, however, in my experience, tend to avoid the subject because revelations, like the one about Kent featured by the Bookseller are bad publicity and bad politics.
However if you believe, as I do, that the heart of the problem of the UK public library service is the quality of the stock on offer in each public library, and that the purchase of it and funding of those acquisitions is the central financial question to be addressed, then 'stock loss' has to be a crucial figure.
In fact, by my calculation, many councils do not even spend enough money to replace the valuable stock they lose, let alone add to it in the way that good collection management and a constant flow of high quality and relevant publishing demands.
In 1999-2000 I had the opportunity to calculate in detail how much needed to be spent on stock in Westminster in order to maintain a high standard of front list and back list stock in their 13 libraries. The calculation showed that out of a total budget, then, of 9m about 2.5- 3m should be spent on books. By doing that i said at the time that the libraries would increase in popularity probably by about 50%. The expenditure on books at that time, in Westminster was about 800k, but at that time about 2m was spent on the various processes under the heading 'bibliogaphic service' - so I argued that over 2-3 years it would be better to reduce the bib service cost and spend the money on books. I have no idea how well the plan progressed, although it was certainly successful for a while.
I know now, from the results of the work in Hillingdon, about which some announcements will soon be made, that the increase in use and popularity, if Westminster had come near to doing what I said, would have been far far greater than 50%.
If only Library authorities had conducted Best Value Reviews as they were intended at that time in a proper and rigorous manner, now we would have a thriving and healthy public library service. But they were scornful, generally, and avoided the questions rather than answering them, and there has barely been any improvement at all. In many places the library service is worse than it was then.
Posted by Perkins at August 23, 2008 6:12 PM
Comments
In Brighton and Hove, the amount of thefts mean that most branch libraries no longer have CDs. It was not worth the expense of replacing them.
Posted by: Christopher Hawtree at August 25, 2008 3:47 PM
"Realistically public libraries lose at least as many and actually a great deal more books than an equivalent book retailer"
Please don't compare chalk with cheese.
"Not only is there the level of theft by staff and customers that, sadly, has to be anticipated"
Slandering we public librarians as thieves? Nice. We'll all want to work with you now.
If only we could all be like those nice bookshop people who would never steal anything.
Posted by: A Public Librarian at August 26, 2008 8:09 PM
At least 60% of theft in shops- not just book shops, all shops-- is by staff. But bookshops lose a lot of stock through theft
I'm not trying to be nice, I'm telling what I know.
I don't know details for public libraries, but I conjecture the same will be true. Libraries should know this kind of thing, is my point. They need to.
Posted by: perkins at August 26, 2008 10:25 PM
Most books are stolen from our libraries by the public ... with the full connivance of librarians.
Excellent, cherished books in good condition, costing the taxpayer far more than the face-price to get on the shelves in the first place, are regularly "stolen" from communal use for 20 or 30p!
Posted by: No Brain at August 27, 2008 2:08 PM
The Pillage Continues...
Cardiff City Council are planning to sell off some of the rarest and most interesting books in its Central Library - up to 18,000 volumes - because the Council claims it cannot afford to look after them. The books earmarked for possible sale include early atlases, incunabula (ie books printed before 1500) private press publications, books with special bindings, limited editions and rare book collections, including a substantial collection of scarce political tracts from the Civil War and rare books on natural history and geography. It is estimated that some of the books will sell for up to £40,000 each.
Dr Wyn James, a member of the rapidly formed action group to prevent the sale, who is also secretary of Cardiff Welsh Bibliographical Society, told the BBC:
"In the past the council has not invested in these books and did not include them on the electronic catalogue, which means that the majority of people did not know they were there.
"But rather than ensuring that these valuable collections be catalogued, and exploiting these assets in a way that would substantially enhance Cardiff's prestige as a city of culture and learning, the council has decided to sell them."
The full story is on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7593883.stm
Posted by: Martyn at September 2, 2008 4:55 PM
Waltham Forest has another approach to stock loss;in 2006-7 they contrived to lose the major part of the stock at Central Library by pulping it. The whole affair was glossed over despite being an abuse of process and unauthorised disposal of Council assets.Nobody was disciplined nor was the matter reported to the District Auditor.Just good old corruption.
Oh, and they also closed a branch library without telling anyone.
Good to know that Waltham Forest is to be involved in the "Cultural Olympics"in 4 years time.
Backhander,anyone?
Posted by: postumus at September 6, 2008 10:11 PM