In December 2015 the Libraries Taskforce held a data workshop to start the process of identifying and improving data retained by and about public libraries. The ambition was simple but essential: pinpoint existing datasets, make them more accessible, and establish what data was best suited to inform decision making and decision makers.
This work was to underpin the conviction that “access to timely, accurate, comparable library data is critical to enabling the library sector and users to monitor the delivery of library services and improve their quality.”
It’s worth bearing in mind what the Taskforce set out to accomplish as it acknowledged:
“…how much time and effort (at national and local level) goes into dealing with requests for information (from the media, campaigners and the public) on numbers of libraries and closures. As these requests often come with slightly different definitions and start and end dates, the resulting information cannot easily be compared (the ‘apples and pears’ analogy), leading to confusion and unhelpful ‘noise’ in the system.”
A survey was accordingly sent out and library services were asked to provide information around the location and type of each library within a service. For example:
|LAL: Local Authority run library||CRL: Community run library or CRL+||CL: Commissioned library||ICL: Independent community library or ICL+||XL: closed library|
This was followed by the number of open and staffed hours and what sort of IT and digital access was available. In fact all the basic detail that would have been an incredibly valuable resource and achieved the objectives as outlined above.
There was even help in defining the different types of libraries:
|Types of ‘Open’ Libraries|
|(LAL) Local authority run library Nb LAL- indicates LA funded and managed, but unstaffed||Library building funded, run and managed by local authority staff (can be augmented by unpaid volunteers)|
|(CL) Commissioned library||Library building that was an LAL and part of the statutory service on 1 April 2010 where the library building/service has been transferred to a separate trust or organisation (may be operating as a social enterprise, may be commercial), commissioned and funded by a local authority. Local authority are still accountable.|
|(CRL) Community run library Nb CRL+ indicates that LA staff may be involved in day to day running||Library building that was an LAL and part of the statutory service on 1 April 2010 and operating now as a library with some level of ongoing support from a local authority. Work according to a joint agreement such as a Service Level Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding or contract. Staff are volunteers, but some form of support is available. May or may not be counted as part of the statutory service.|
|(ICL) Independent community library Nb ICL+ indicates paid staff||Library building that was an LAL and part of the statutory service on 1 April 2010 and now operating as a library that has been transferred to the management of a non local authority body, either community group or third party, which is OUTSIDE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY NETWORK (eg for circulating bookstock, access to online cat etc)|
|(X) Closed library||Library building that was an LAL and part of the statutory service on 1 April 2010 and now either completely repurposed, or locked/shuttered.|
Unfortunately, the dataset was lost in the void of politics, eventually being held up at Downing Street level. But after constant pressure some details were finally published a few days ago. Sadly, rather than the complete data it’s little more than a contact list for public libraries in England. In other words it’s taken 16 months to produce a piece of work that could have been done within a hour using yell.com!
Given the professionalism of the Taskforce staff, being instructed to release such incomplete data must be both galling and embarrassing to say the least. The reputational damage to the Taskforce members and the Libraries Minister, Rob Wilson, must also not be underestimated either given their inability to control and publish data freely.
Far from being a ‘first step’ as stated by the Taskforce, this is a deliberate withholding of information for political purposes.
Therefore, it’s time for the profession to take responsibility for the collection, development, and dissemination of up-to-date data, and remove the openly biased political interference from the equation.
This is the issue I shall post about very shortly.