Unified network, locally-led, regionally-developed and nationally-supported

Publicação de Nicholas Poole no Twitter. A ler, assimilar e executar.

 

"

Because I am going to be discussing it with policymakers later, I thought a #thread on @CILIPinfo, policy on public #libraries might be in order.

At bedrock, we believe that everybody everywhere should benefit from the life-changing support of a quality local #library service, no matter their age, means or location.

This is not currently the reality for communities across the UK. Instead, because libraries are attached to a Local Government funding model that is no longer fit-for-purpose, we have seen the emergence of a 2-tier library sector.

The establishment of "library haves and have-nots" is one part of a complex landscape of social and economic inequality that results from partial devolution without appropriate oversight or controls. We believe that this inequality must be addressed at a national scale.

Re-establishing equality of provision of library services requires some fundamental steps which, while falling short of root-and-branch structural reform, certainly require us to take a much more organised and strategic view of the governance of libraries as a sector.

The first step is to recognise the fundamental design principle of the 1964 Public Libraries Act - that library provision works best as a unified network, locally-led, regionally-developed and nationally-supported.    

Accepting this principle - that libraries are a network - the next step is to implement quality standards, an evidence and outcomes framework and an accreditation system to promote consistency and quality of provision. 

The next step is to embrace the principle of active stewardship - there ought to be a proactive approach to monitoring quality of provision and targeting failing services or gaps in provision. Otherwise we end up pretending that volunteerism can fill the gaps by default.

Once we have a library network that is properly and actively governed according to clear standards, we need to review the financial model. In our view, funding should reflect value, and the reality is that local libraries deliver value across a range of frontline services.

Libraries impact Place, Health, Learning and Local Economies. Instead of a singular funder (Local Councils) their funding ought to reflect their impact - i.e libraries should be funded as part of Health & Social Care, Education & Skills and Business & Enterprise.

When we have proper active stewardship and the right funding model, we need to see a joined-up approach to sector development. Things like marketing, lobbying, strategic partnership and digital transformation are best done nationally for all libraries.

While libraries are inextricable from localities, the reality is that localism has not been a success for library provision. One only has to look at nations with a single service to see the benefit of being able to roll out campaigns & develop services consistently.

This does not mean, by the way, that libraries should be homogenous or fail to reflect local needs. They are ideally-placed to translate a national offer into a hyper-local service - that is a key strength. But they must do so in a framework of good governance & standards.

I should note that we are not asking the earth here - #library provision is a fraction of public service spending with a huge multiplier effect. What we are asking of Government is common sense - to make adequate provision for libraries to do what they do.

If this provision can be made through the relationship with Local Government, so be it. But if library provision is threatened by a conflict between local and central Government, then an alternative mechanism must be explored - up to & including a National Library Service

To be clear, we consider Community Managed Libraries to be a wholly inadequate response to the Government's responsibility under the Public Libraries Act to promote the improvement and development of library services to the public.   

As we have said, many times - the challenges confronting libraries are tactical and practical, not existential. Fundamentally, although libraries will always innovate, innovation is not the solution to poor governance, systemic under-funding or volunteerism.

All of this can be achieved, simply, quickly and without changes to primary legislation. It is, in effect, a call for a return to the intended approach set out in the 1964 Act. A better future for libraries can be had, if we only have the shared will to achieve it.

"