Roy Clare on the London Libraries Change Programme
Posted by: Alan Gibbons in UncategorizedThe London Libraries Change Programme has stirred up vigorous debate over the future of London’s libraries. I invited Roy Clare CBE, Chief Executive of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council to submit an article to the blog and the Campaign for the Book Newsletter.
I would like to throw this forum open to readers’ contributions. Over to you.
Improving library services
People have high aspirations for their local library services. The MLA provides a range of ‘best practice’ resources to help local authorities’ make their limited funds go as far as possible.
A number of recent, high-profile cases involving library authorities outside London have highlighted the role of the MLA. We have been able to ensure that short-term savings are underpinned by sound, modern strategies, aimed at ensuring a high quality service is maintained for people and communities.
The best library services have shown that much can be done locally, but there is evidence that more can be achieved when authorities work together. Partnership has benefits for the public in terms of improved services; and is needed in any case in the difficult financial environment.
An example of our work is the lead we have given to The London Library Change Programme (LLCP). This project started from the premise that costs and service quality currently varies widely across London; there is frequently little or no correlation between the two.
Local authorities are statutorily responsible for delivering comprehensive and efficient library services. The LLCP does not make decisions about boroughs’ library services on their behalf. Individual local services will continue to look different, because they will continue to be democratically accountable and designed according to local need, in consultation with local people and communities.
The LLCP has focused on so-called ‘back of house’ functions. These have vital implications for the quality and range of customer-facing services. The next phase is to implement recommendations to bring all boroughs’ services up to ‘best practice’ standards.
For example, we know that many library services still don’t operate automated stock management systems; and we know that these have an important role in offering customers automated self-issue, and in helping to improve overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
In an era of round the clock library services, we are also working to develop on-line services. At present, library users can order their books at any time of the day or night, but the consumer cannot access the Inter-Library database so the on-line catalogue is limited. As a result the loans system is staff-intensive and overly reliant on the knowledge of individuals.
Progress in this area depends on some matters that are beyond the scope of the LLCP. But we can already foresee an expansion of the habit of sharing of back-office functions. Of course, this is already happening to a limit extent, for example through the London Libraries Consortium, which includes over a third of London boroughs.
The outcomes of these projects will result in centralised back-office services around requests and a unified approach to stock management and procurement. This will enable the library user to get books more quickly while costs can be contained. Employing ‘best practice’ in deployment of staff will improve productivity, value for money, and ultimately, the customer experience, as demonstrated in library services where this has already happened.
Similar initiatives are under way in the East of England, the North West and Northern Ireland. London’s geography,
history of fragmented governance and generally higher costs, mean there is relatively more to be gained from the LLCP approach than in many areas.
No local service is going to be exempt from the effects of the new public spending environment, in which local government budgets may be cut by up to a third. Authorities across the country are already looking at more efficient ways of delivering services, sharing functions across departments and authorities, and looking at new governance models like trusts and contracting out to the private and third sectors.
This is a difficult process but one which is inevitable. None of these is a panacea and it is really important that consumer interests are protected; there have been examples where attempts at cost-cutting have resulted in inferior delivery. The MLA is committed to helping to ensure that the overall system is improved.
Local Government is also moving towards a world in which services are commissioned according to their contribution to local priorities, rather than rationing resources by departmental silos. This is an opportunity for libraries because of the immense contribution they make to learning, community cohesion and tourism. However, it illustrates that arguing to ring-fence existing budgets is fighting yesterday’s war.
The programme, which is being led by boroughs with a strong reputation for delivering a high quality library service, will continue to engage with interested groups to discuss how the projects will work.
We hope individual boroughs will engage actively with staff and residents as they plan how libraries and other cultural services can be improved and thrive, especially in the post-recession climate.
The need for quality services is higher than ever; and funding is under more pressure than ever. The MLA and the LLCP are part of the solution.
Roy Clare MBE
Chief Executive, Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
Entries (RSS)
January 26th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
I don’t think any member of the public would have put interlibrary stock, online services and automated lending as the three priorities for change in London Libraries. In fact we know they would have put improved shelf stock, longer hours and better buildings along with a request that well informed staff be available at counters. It is almost bizarre that the LLCP failed to identify the most things that people want.
I think also people should not feel they have to be grateful for a project which admits that there has been gross ineffeciency for years and years and now thinks that something should be done about it. They should indeed be sceptical that the same library managers who have failed to operate effficiently are being allowed to define the programme of improvement. That doesn’t make sense. Efficiencies should have been sought years ago, and unless someone analyses why the library authorities of London managed to avoid Best Value Reviews, Annual Library Planning, The Gershon initiative and all the other attempts to stop people wasting money, they are unlikely to succeed this time either.
If the MLA is not able to persuade councils to give better service, then this project should not have got so far and have spent so much money (over £300k) and plan to spend more.
There is only so much that can be gained by cross council working. The first thing that must be done is to raise the standard of the service in individual councils first. If attention is only paid to sharing some back room roles, those pressures which should drive councils to do better will not be so great. I believe that 80% of the improvement has to come from within councils and only when that has been done should we seek the 20% that will come from partnerships with others. (as in Hillingdon)
As to whether ‘peer’ reviews will ever raise the standard of services within councils, as the programe suggests, ‘to the level of the best’ - one has to observe that this method has never worked in the past. The participants tend to choose to adopt those activities which they find useful– but rarely those that the public would find beneficial. In my experience, with the greatest respect to library managers, it is no use asking them, in committee to make a radical change. Such a drive could only come from strong political leadership of which there is no evidence yet in the LLCP.
Of the five London councils I have heard speak on the subject of the LLCP three have said publicly it is not in line with their own plans. One described it merely as an attempt to create one library card and the the fifth said it is a cost cutting exercise. The fact that London councillors are being re-elected in May means that this project is definitely off the council agendas until after that is over. It risks only being controversial.
What is needed is not a programme now, but to wait until after new councillor portfolio holders have been appointed in the summer. Then there should be sensible discussion with them about the issues raised in the first Capital Ambition report and a concensus agreed with them about what an LLCP can and should attempt to do. This current programme should be stopped. One will rarely find a less persuasive document than the one they have just published , to which Roy is referring.
There will probably be, by the summer, a new Libraries Development Agency - since all three parties appear to support that; it will be an interesting first task for the new people to tackle. Hopefully this time, they will start by trying to work out what the public want.
January 28th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Nowhere in Roy’s piece do i see any mention of the proposals in the LLCP to cut the library workforce, a figure of 10% or 375 posts was metioned in a 2008 document, is this still the case? I have asked to see the final report of the ‘Workforce Benchmarking Study’ but have been denied, “it is not in the public domain” I have been told, is this because the recommendations are too sensitive and that they are scared of a backlash from staff, the unions and the public? How does the LLCP Board envisage running improved, more efficient library services, or service?, with fewer professional staff?
The public are interested in more attractive and interesting books on the shelves, improved opening hours, clean and welcoming buildings and professional and knowledgeable staff behind the counters. I will also mention the importance of the ‘People’s Network’ provision in libraries, but I do think that this has also lost it’s way, become rudderless with no real vision or strategy, a real shame and a lost opportunity in my view.
I also can’t believe that we had to have another programme or review and spend 100s of thousands of pounds on consultants, why couldn’t we have used recommendations and evidence from past ones and tapped into the expertise in our own sector to find solutions and possible answers?
The way that the LLCP has been conducted, seemingly behind closed doors or only open to a select few, has led to suspicion and anger, there should have been open and honest debate and consultation right from the start.