This week the Government published their long-awaited ‘Modernisation Review’ of public libraries. This has received a huge amount of comment. The Society of Chief Librarians (SCL) also published their ‘manifesto’, interestingly entitled ‘The Numbers’.
There are lots more numbers and statistics in the Modernisation Review than in the SCL’s document. These include some extremely worrying charts in Chapter 1 showing the scale and speed of decline in library usage. The SCL chose to focus on just four figures:
1. Direct cost to users - £0
2. Annual visits in the UK – 34 million
3. 2009 increase in borrowing – 1.3%
4. Cost per person per day to run – 5p
I can understand why the SCL wants to highlight these figures in particular, but I think both their document and the ‘Modernisation Review’ fail to highlight one of the key reasons why libraries are so special.
DCMS’s annual Taking Part Survey collects data on forms of engagement in culture and sport in England in a way that allows you to easily compare audiences and participants across sectors. Library users are far more representative of the adult population as a whole than arts engagers, sports participants, museum and gallery visitors and attenders at historic sites. For example, using 2005/06 figures, the proportion of the adult population who ‘Never worked or long-term unemployed’ and attended a library during the year was 39.1%. ‘Higher managerial and professional occupations ‘ was higher (52.9%), but the gap between the two was small compared to sports participation (42.1% v 82.1%) and attendance at historic environment sites (39.7% v 86.5%).
Libraries are a great way to reach families of all sorts. 58.5% of all lone parents had visited a library in the past twelve months, a higher proportion than the households with children and two adults and families without children. Libraries have a tremendous positive impact for young people, families, communities and society as a whole by giving accessible opportunities to engage with culture and learning has for all.
And did you know that there is statistically significant higher usage of libraries by Black and Asian adults than the population as a whole? You can’t say that for the arts or museum attenders.
I think these ‘numbers’ tell a story about libraries that is often underplayed. Unlike a theatre, museum or historic monument, nobody seems to feel that libraries are exclusive places that are ‘lot-for-the-likes-of-me’. Libraries are the accessible palaces of culture in this country. They are a rare and vital way for all sections of the community to come together and connect with the place they live. They are used and valued by all sections of society. Other cultural sectors could be doing more to grow and broaden their base of attenders and participants by meaningfully engaging with library users.
But why is their popularity falling so fast? The 2006/07 Taking Part Survey showed that 46 per cent of all adults had attended a library in 2006/07, which was significantly lower than the previous year (down 2 percentage points). There was also a statistically significant decrease in attendance by adults aged 16 to 24 (down 4 percentage points).
There was one notable rise: of those who had not attended a library during the past 12 months, there was a significant increase (up 2 percentage points) of those who felt they had ‘no need to go’ (32%). It appears that for a significant and growing portion of the population - particularly the young - the library ‘offer’ is not seen as attractive of relevant.
The Modernisation Review does make many recommendations about improving the library offer and has a whole chapter on digitisation, but for me the document is not as bold as it should be on recommending re-inventing the library offer for the 21st Century. If the trends for book issues to adults look bad now, what will they be like in ten years time if the Kindle and iPad have a tenth of the impact of the iPod and mp3?
Recommendation 7 is to improve the ‘communication of the library offer’. There’s undoubtedly a need to do this, but good audience development practice is not simply about telling people about what you’ve got. The way individuals, particularly younger people, are accessing cultural opportunities is fundamentally changing. Libraries could and should be at the forefront of a new way of engaging with culture and learning within local communities.
The Modernisation Review makes lots of sensible suggestions, but is still feels a bit like a rearguard action to try and make a 19th Century model relevant today. Libraries could be more important now than they’ve ever been. But a radical, customer focused approach is needed and I think some really fundamental questions need to be asked.
Should reading be at the heart of the library offer? For me, absolutely. But do libraries need to be predominantly filled with stacks of books, the majority of which simply gather dust for months at a time? I’m not so sure. It is now commonly understood that ‘Quick Pick’ sections are a great way of improving the number of issues. What is that saying? That many customers want to be guided in their choice rather than just be faced by thousands of unattractively displayed books?
Does most of a library service’s book stock need to be held in libraries themselves or could there be a more joined-up approach to stock control within and between library services that could reduce cost and improve the range of the offer to customers? And if libraries were less full of stock, what new and exciting things could you do with the freed-up space that would actually give new reasons to visit?
I love books and access to a fantastic local library as a child has made a major positive impact on my life. But the world is changing at what seems an ever increasing speed. We can’t just be nostalgic. We must focus on the needs of our current and potential customers and re-invent libraries so they are valued as essential cultural and learning centres for modern communities, not fighting for their lives.
David Brownlee, 26 March 2010
Comments
_______________________________
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment Tim and for helping to generate a debate. You’ll have noticed that I was very careful to make my remarks as questions rather than suggest I have the answers. If ‘Quick Pick’ sections are so successful, it seems to suggest that the quality of stock and the way it is curated is as important as the volume of the stock. I’d agree to develop a strategy based on this observation without further research could be extremely foolhardy. Freeing up space for other exciting things is ‘piffle’? Maybe. But as the HMV Group is choosing to convert space in larger branches of HMV and Waterstones to use as cinemas, I don’t think it’s an entirely stupid question to ask. - David
"It appears that for a significant and growing portion of the population - particularly the young - the library 'offer' is not seen as attractive of relevant."
Excuse me, this is deliberately misleading. I quote from my recent contact with Miranda McKearney of the Reading Agency :
'The Summer Reading Challenge runs in most libraries over the summer, and involves 725,000 4-12 year olds. Research shows it inspires children to read more, and builds their reading range and confidence. In order to do it, thousands of children and families join the library to take part. It's a good example of the kind of work a library development agency can do helping libraries work together to raise standards/ give the public a better service.
Some authorities involve young people as volunteers who work with the younger children dong the challenge, to help them by talking about the books they've read, maybe helping them use the website (which has lots of fun reading games/ authors to talk to etc) or perhaps running some kind of linked activity. This year's Challenge will have a space/science theme, and will link with the BBC's science programming.'
Is it intended to rob these 725,000 children of books and give them silly things to dos in the 'freed up space' ? I think that is your view:
'If libraries were less full of stock, what new and exciting things could you do with the freed-up space that would actually give new reasons to visit?'
You have the audacity to claim that those who value good book stock and value the importance of reading are merely 'nostalgic'. No -- I, for one, am nostalgic for the ducking stool and stocks: for all the philistines who are intent on dismantling our public library service and depriving us of books.
Swindon has been selected to be one of the 20 partner authorities for a major new partnership between The Reading Agency and V, (the national youth volunteering charity) and Laing Integrated Services. They have agreed to fund a pilot Summer Reading Challenge volunteering programme for 16 to 25 year olds during 2010, with a possible extension to 14 and 15 year olds. We value books and we value our children's future literacy in Swindon, as highly as they are valued in the rest of the country. We do not welcome your interference and your inane ideas.
_______________
You don’t need to convince me of the importance of libraries and their impact on young people Shirley, although the Summer Reading Challenge is a really good case study. I just think that given the current and increasing pressure on local government funding, they would be better placed to continue doing their excellent work if the numbers using them were increasing rather than decreasing. I’d defend my right and the right of every one in the country to have and express a view of what libraries could and should be offering to the hilt. - David
___________
Sorry Peter - that phrase will resonate with many people who are working in the arts and museum sector as it is the name of a report and programme of a few years ago that demonstrated how many cultural organisations need to change their overall positioning to reach a broder audience. I don't think that's the case for Libraries, they are already reaching that broad audience. If you're interested, here's a link to the final report: http://www.takingpartinthearts.com/download.php?document=148
Have you been in a library since you were a child? This description doesn't fit the libraries I work in. The books are constantly being checked and weeded, circulated or withdrawn; new books are feeding in all the time, both selected by library staff or requested by readers. And I'm talking about branch libraries too, not just big main ones. The situation is much more dynamic than you want us to believe and it is deliberately misleading to use the word 'nostalgic' to describe the people of all ages who come and borrow to read.
__________________
I must confess Ralice that there was a good ten years when I hardly ever visited a library. But in the last decade I've spent a lot time in libraries, both for personal and professional reasons. I've even worked in one. But you are quite right, it is easy to generalise. Some of the most talented people I have worked with are librarians, delivering small miracles with meagre resources and little recognition. And I do realise that library services have evolved, but at the same time visits and issues to adults are still decreasing. I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to value libraries as much as I do. I have a grave fear that won’t be possible unless we turn around this downward trend rapidly. - David
_________________
I’m more than ready to be convinced that investing in more stock is the answer Amanda. Are you aware of any research that has been done to see whether there is a correlation between those services that have cut their stock budget the most and where visits and issues and have declined the most? I’d have thought this would be a really useful piece of evidence and it wouldn’t be hard to find out, given the amount of CIPFA data there is out there. - David
In response to your question to Amanda Field, there is an abundance of research that shows the connection of library use to the quality of book stock. It is visibly clear from historic CIPFA data, from IPsos MORI work in many councils and from Library User surveys. The last collection and analysis of it was by the Audit Commission some years ago. Failure to review these figures is a major omission not just of the DCMS review but also of the all the work done for the London Libraries Change Programme- as you ought to know, if correspondence to your Chair and to the London Cultural Bodies had been communicated properly
On the good library blog, where you have made comments, I have invited you to meet. That would be a good way forward.
My commenters have coined an expression which is 'Citadel Government' in which those who work within the walls of the citadel take first bite at all the cherries and only throw the pips over the wall to the people of the country. That is how they feel that the public library service is treated. We should stop it.
________
I'm not on the Board of London Library Change Programme Tim, although I was very briefly when I worked for a different organisation. I'd be delighted to meet. - David
My advice is DON'T try & fix what is not broken & get the Public money back that was paid to the Private company that came up with this nonsense.
______________
It's hard to look at the user figures and say libraries are 'not broken'. I think the article in yesterday's Times (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article7080540.ece) articulates far better than I did the fact many libraries appear to be on 'borrowed time'. I was drawn to Tim Coates’s quote: ‘We shouldn’t polarise the argument into books or no books. Is it a social service? It is if it’s a good library. If it’s a bad library, it’s no service at all.’ I agree totally. As someone who loves books and believes that free access to reading is the ‘USP’ for libraries, all I am questioning is have we found the best way for that offer to be presented to the public in the 21st Century?
We need to get more people using and valuing libraries. Quickly. And those that care passionately about libraries need to find some common ground or many libraries will reach the end of their 'borrowed time'. As the Times article says: ‘Knowledge is Power’. I’d add to that: ‘Unity is Strength’. - David
Stock-based services are problematic, we know this. I think the rub is one of transforming a 19thC model to 21stC has to be about strengths of access and communities and the need for innovation around service delivery (as opposed to low-return promotional schemes).
The book is just one media, albeit a special and symbolic one; it's minds and experiences that the value is really located in.
A pre-occupation with comprehensive book stock doesn't seem to work in retail and when you add return logistics and low capacity/high costs to that model, you have a recipe for a diminishing service, a weakening brand value and a loss of potential marketing clout.
Community spaces + a Love-film model would be a killer combination, let's make lending a truly 21stC cultural transaction. That means putting libraries at the fore of cultural consumption rather than trying to play catch-up with a cultural economy that is racing away to who knows where.
_______
Thanks Jim. I believe with some creative thinking it would be possible to increase choice AND minimise costs. But that would mean a model where you wouldn't necessarily expect a title to be in a library when you visit, as in your 'Love Film' analogy. But do customers want that? There is already a culture of waiting through inter-library loan schemes and of course going on the waiting list for popular titles. What if the good work being done to join-up the stock catalogues of some library services could be further extended and curated so that your local library could offer a catalogue as broad as Amazon and access as quickly, but for free? For me that's an exciting offer that would put libraries at the fore of cultural consumption. - David
Comment feed (What are feeds?)