Help navigation
- Friday, 24 May
Log in to TheBookseller.com
News
-
RELATED STORIES
-
ACE: Libraries should be 'hub' of communities
Arts Council England’...
-
Blind eye
There is a strong suspicion...
-
Hereford at risk of library closures
Herefordshire Council is du...
-
ACE's Ashley: libraries 'good at adapting'
Arts Council England’...
-
Manchester library closures to go ahead
Six libraries in Manchester...
Libraries must not be a 'soft touch' for cuts
25.08.10 | Victoria Gallagher
The Reading Agency has said libraries should "not be a soft target for cuts" after statistics released last week showed a continued decline in library visitors. The stats have led to a media blitz on the issue of libraries, with some campaigners suggesting that up to 1,000 libraries could be under threat from local government cuts.
Last week, the Department for Culture, Media and Sports' (DCMS) Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport report showed a 1.7% decrease in the number of library goers last year. But the agency said that digging deeper into the statistics showed that there was not just a "straightforward picture of a decline in public interest and take up". It said instead that children and young people's use was steady, with children's book borrowing rising for five years in a row.
The Reading Agency also said the best libraries offered a range of groups, activities and services to deliver added value. It said "the social consequences of this more active approach are profound".
The agency singled out the Summer Reading Challenge for children, and the Six Book Challenge for emergent adult readers as two initiatives which have had a positive response from the public. The Summer Reading Challenge saw 725,000 children take part in 2009, an increase of 5% on the 2008 total. This year it is estimated more than 750,000 children will take part. For the Six Book Challenge 13,500 adults registered this year - up 50% on 2009.
In a statement the agency said: "In tough financial times, we cannot afford to undercut libraries' ability to create a nation of readers, our literacy skills deficit is already too large. The scale of cuts means the library network is unlikely to survive in its current shape, so prioritizing and innovating will be key."
It added: "We must not lose sight of libraries' radical social purpose ... They should not be a soft target for cuts."
Photo by Justin Sutcliffe for The Reading Agency (c) 2009
Territory Manager, Germany –...
£Competitive Salary + Strong Bonus + Benefits
This is a brand new position to join...
Excellent salary package and career opportunities
TheBookseller
-
Pearson makes significant changes to structure - Pearson has revealed “significant changes” to its org... t.co/2PrL6hUtME
-
Pearson makes "significant changes" to structure: Pearson has revealed “significant changes... t.co/yfjMhaYeo8
-
Lydia Davis wins International Man Booker: American writer Lydia Davis has won the fifth... t.co/dVOBpaeWHF
©2012 Bookseller Media Ltd rights reserved.
Comments: Scroll down for the latest comments and to have your say
By posting on this website you agree to the Bookseller comments policy. Comments go direct to live please be relevant, brief and definitely not abusive. Report any "unsuitable comments by clicking the links"
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first | Readers' most recommended
What is missing is proper research into the VALUE that the public, and especially the young, the elderly, the unemployed and the disadvantaged derive from public libraries. It is such research rather than statistics which helps persuade hard nosed Leaders and Members of councils who make the decisions.
The Taking Part survey does indicate trends and regional variances. However, the case for libraries must be based on evidence from proper research and not from statistical surveys. You can try to prove anythng with statistics!
It is a given that the young are hugely important and must be a priority, for they will soon become the adults who will replace us. They need all the skills we can give them. But the elderly and disabled need representation, too. It seems they are cavalierly written off in the government's plans for modernising library provision or cutting it. The emotional, mental and physical health and agility of older people and the disabled is vastly enhanced by the existence of community libraries and the pleasures of reading. They do not want pipsqueaks telling them to stay out of sight and have their books delivered to the door, not unless they absolutely have to. They need accessible, decent libraries, not a shelf of books in a pub. If neither respect nor humanity are principles held by those who wish to dictate the the future of library service, then consider the social and financial costs of neglecting so large a proportion of the population which will have to be borne by the younger generation.
A far as I can see, with a government of the current complexion, to destroy the radical social purpose of public libraries would be a very obvious thing to do.
By whatever cloaked means that conveniently comes to hand.
It's worth repeating that the report in question was deeply flawed. The only shame is that some well known, media friendly library campaigners have utterly failed to challenge the current 'decline' narrative. Disappointing and disheartening for those looking for voices to speak up for the service.
Ian : you have expressed disappointment at what you see as the failure of campaigners. You are disheartened that people "are not speaking up for the service". You SHOULD be disappointed that government, the profession and statutory bodies refuse to listen to them. Hurculean efforts are made by individuals, unpaid, who spend thousands of hours challenging every daft idea and every piece of disinformation. When the media decides that a soundbite about Libraries might just be newsworthy for five minutes, any campaigner worth his/her salt will go at short notice; they must. Do you want the full five minutes to be a sermon on the merits of a library shelf in a pub or a rural telephone kiosk ? After the edit, when the campaigner's contribution is cut savagely, he or she doesn't doesn't say "This is a waste of time", but sticks their neck out again and again, to defend the things the public tells them it values. And where are you in all this ? Let's all get off our backsides and defend the service.
We need to ensure that there are better measurements of the public library - footfall and issue numbers are simplistic quantitative measurements. There is a need for qualitative measurement that shows the real value and impact of public libraries. What the statistics do not show is the decline in resources expended on frontline library provision (book fund cuts, loss of public-facing professional staff, and most importantly cuts in opening hours). Perhaps it is not valid to make a correlation between these reductions and the falling numbers reported, however they do appear to have happened concurrently.
I will be trying to bring together a group later this year to consider how the value of the public library can be better measured and hope that we can put forward viable alternatives to those in power I have just, this morning, asked for a small budget from my university to do this).
Eddie
The "radical social purpose" of libraries is one that has been diluted by local authorities and national government to such an extent that the message has been lost. It would be impossible to deliver equitable, democratic, progressive library services if they were taken into the hands of businesses and other organisations with their own agendas and priorities. Priority should be with remembering what libraries' core values are, maintaining these and ensuring that the public and the government are better aware of them.
This requires strong, effective, professional leadership from qualified librarians who have a good understanding of the social relevance of public library services.
Eddie - I think it is valid to make a correlation between reductions and falling numbers - I'll dig out some figures if I can find them. I know Rachel Cooke from The Observer identified very clear increase in users and lending when book buying budgets were increased.
National and local Government really need to stop looking at statistics on paper and visit libraries to see the impotance of them and how they are used. Users do not need to take a book out any more, they visit for a variety of reasons, including storytimes, research, reading groups, talks etc. Why does it always have to be about the paper statistics, when places like libraries have so much more going for them that cannot be recorded as a statistic. None of it makes sense. Keep campaigning folks, we have to make our voices heard.
Excuse my ignorance but if you look at the number of respondents for the 'Taking Part' survey it has gone down from 28,117 to 6,097 does this effect the quality and outcome of the data? and why has it dropped so much, has it got something to do with saving money?
This point has already been made but is worth stating again, if you continuously cut the quantity and quality of the book stock, replace librarians with volunteers and undermine the integrity and ethos of the service then yes the public will respond by staying away. We desperately need strong leadership from within the sector and we also need librarians to stand up and fight for their profession.
Oh what a deeply depressing read this thread is . More calls for studies , data, grants , leadership as if this was the begining of the cycle of realisation . Its actually towards the conclusion and you guys will I fear ,be in a meeting when it all comes crashing to an end . Where is the radical out of the box thinking coming from that is so very overdue ?.
Desmond himself is asking for more research He and I were on a Board together once and he famously said "no more data is needed, we need to actually do something !" Hear Hear !. But now Vaisey is going to do it .
Carol, the reason why the figures are important is because the service is no longer worth paying for. If people don't use it, it is a waste of taxpayers money. The report about which this discussion is taking place is actually very good and informative. It should be a spur to management because, as Alan Wylie says, it makes clear, if you look, what the remedies are. But if the library profession either fail to accept what it says or keep denying that there are problems, nothing appropriate will be done and the slow collapse will just continue for a few more years until the whole thing is closed. What you are being told is that those activities you cite are actually not worth the money they are costing. The service needs to go back to its fundamentals and do them properly. Harsh, I know, but its about time your colleagues started to understand how important this is. I share Julian's exaasperation to the response to this report both here and on the librarian blogs.
".... the service is no longer worth paying for. If people don't use it, it is a waste of taxpayers money."
Well, that's great. Is not taxpayers' money wasted by the bucketful all over the shop without a single eyebrow being raised ? Was squillions of taxpayers' money not given to the Banks without them being held accountable ? Were the country's gold reserves not sold off for a price as cheap as chips ? Have no public servants found to be venal, greedy wasters in the parliamentary expenses scandal ? And, at a local level, have councils wasted money hand over fist and are now asking ordinary people to lose everything they depend upon to make life tolerable ? If the 'profession' is hand-in-glove with these losers, then yes they deserve some blame -- but they are small fry compared with those in power.
Sorry, but it makes me angry that it seems to be something not said -- that Westminster, Whitehall, quangocrats and local councillors do not see the need for any service which SERVES people in a valuable way without a profit motive, particularly if such people are not the ones they have drinkies with or would even cross the street to speak to.
It must not be forgotten that many people, often of limited mobility because of age or disability, rely on reading to fill their time
What is missing is proper research into the VALUE that the public, and especially the young, the elderly, the unemployed and the disadvantaged derive from public libraries. It is such research rather than statistics which helps persuade hard nosed Leaders and Members of councils who make the decisions.
The Taking Part survey does indicate trends and regional variances. However, the case for libraries must be based on evidence from proper research and not from statistical surveys. You can try to prove anythng with statistics!
It is a given that the young are hugely important and must be a priority, for they will soon become the adults who will replace us. They need all the skills we can give them. But the elderly and disabled need representation, too. It seems they are cavalierly written off in the government's plans for modernising library provision or cutting it. The emotional, mental and physical health and agility of older people and the disabled is vastly enhanced by the existence of community libraries and the pleasures of reading. They do not want pipsqueaks telling them to stay out of sight and have their books delivered to the door, not unless they absolutely have to. They need accessible, decent libraries, not a shelf of books in a pub. If neither respect nor humanity are principles held by those who wish to dictate the the future of library service, then consider the social and financial costs of neglecting so large a proportion of the population which will have to be borne by the younger generation.
A far as I can see, with a government of the current complexion, to destroy the radical social purpose of public libraries would be a very obvious thing to do.
By whatever cloaked means that conveniently comes to hand.
It's worth repeating that the report in question was deeply flawed. The only shame is that some well known, media friendly library campaigners have utterly failed to challenge the current 'decline' narrative. Disappointing and disheartening for those looking for voices to speak up for the service.
It must not be forgotten that many people, often of limited mobility because of age or disability, rely on reading to fill their time
Ian : you have expressed disappointment at what you see as the failure of campaigners. You are disheartened that people "are not speaking up for the service". You SHOULD be disappointed that government, the profession and statutory bodies refuse to listen to them. Hurculean efforts are made by individuals, unpaid, who spend thousands of hours challenging every daft idea and every piece of disinformation. When the media decides that a soundbite about Libraries might just be newsworthy for five minutes, any campaigner worth his/her salt will go at short notice; they must. Do you want the full five minutes to be a sermon on the merits of a library shelf in a pub or a rural telephone kiosk ? After the edit, when the campaigner's contribution is cut savagely, he or she doesn't doesn't say "This is a waste of time", but sticks their neck out again and again, to defend the things the public tells them it values. And where are you in all this ? Let's all get off our backsides and defend the service.
We need to ensure that there are better measurements of the public library - footfall and issue numbers are simplistic quantitative measurements. There is a need for qualitative measurement that shows the real value and impact of public libraries. What the statistics do not show is the decline in resources expended on frontline library provision (book fund cuts, loss of public-facing professional staff, and most importantly cuts in opening hours). Perhaps it is not valid to make a correlation between these reductions and the falling numbers reported, however they do appear to have happened concurrently.
I will be trying to bring together a group later this year to consider how the value of the public library can be better measured and hope that we can put forward viable alternatives to those in power I have just, this morning, asked for a small budget from my university to do this).
Eddie
The "radical social purpose" of libraries is one that has been diluted by local authorities and national government to such an extent that the message has been lost. It would be impossible to deliver equitable, democratic, progressive library services if they were taken into the hands of businesses and other organisations with their own agendas and priorities. Priority should be with remembering what libraries' core values are, maintaining these and ensuring that the public and the government are better aware of them.
This requires strong, effective, professional leadership from qualified librarians who have a good understanding of the social relevance of public library services.
Eddie - I think it is valid to make a correlation between reductions and falling numbers - I'll dig out some figures if I can find them. I know Rachel Cooke from The Observer identified very clear increase in users and lending when book buying budgets were increased.
National and local Government really need to stop looking at statistics on paper and visit libraries to see the impotance of them and how they are used. Users do not need to take a book out any more, they visit for a variety of reasons, including storytimes, research, reading groups, talks etc. Why does it always have to be about the paper statistics, when places like libraries have so much more going for them that cannot be recorded as a statistic. None of it makes sense. Keep campaigning folks, we have to make our voices heard.
Excuse my ignorance but if you look at the number of respondents for the 'Taking Part' survey it has gone down from 28,117 to 6,097 does this effect the quality and outcome of the data? and why has it dropped so much, has it got something to do with saving money?
This point has already been made but is worth stating again, if you continuously cut the quantity and quality of the book stock, replace librarians with volunteers and undermine the integrity and ethos of the service then yes the public will respond by staying away. We desperately need strong leadership from within the sector and we also need librarians to stand up and fight for their profession.
Oh what a deeply depressing read this thread is . More calls for studies , data, grants , leadership as if this was the begining of the cycle of realisation . Its actually towards the conclusion and you guys will I fear ,be in a meeting when it all comes crashing to an end . Where is the radical out of the box thinking coming from that is so very overdue ?.
Desmond himself is asking for more research He and I were on a Board together once and he famously said "no more data is needed, we need to actually do something !" Hear Hear !. But now Vaisey is going to do it .
Carol, the reason why the figures are important is because the service is no longer worth paying for. If people don't use it, it is a waste of taxpayers money. The report about which this discussion is taking place is actually very good and informative. It should be a spur to management because, as Alan Wylie says, it makes clear, if you look, what the remedies are. But if the library profession either fail to accept what it says or keep denying that there are problems, nothing appropriate will be done and the slow collapse will just continue for a few more years until the whole thing is closed. What you are being told is that those activities you cite are actually not worth the money they are costing. The service needs to go back to its fundamentals and do them properly. Harsh, I know, but its about time your colleagues started to understand how important this is. I share Julian's exaasperation to the response to this report both here and on the librarian blogs.
".... the service is no longer worth paying for. If people don't use it, it is a waste of taxpayers money."
Well, that's great. Is not taxpayers' money wasted by the bucketful all over the shop without a single eyebrow being raised ? Was squillions of taxpayers' money not given to the Banks without them being held accountable ? Were the country's gold reserves not sold off for a price as cheap as chips ? Have no public servants found to be venal, greedy wasters in the parliamentary expenses scandal ? And, at a local level, have councils wasted money hand over fist and are now asking ordinary people to lose everything they depend upon to make life tolerable ? If the 'profession' is hand-in-glove with these losers, then yes they deserve some blame -- but they are small fry compared with those in power.
Sorry, but it makes me angry that it seems to be something not said -- that Westminster, Whitehall, quangocrats and local councillors do not see the need for any service which SERVES people in a valuable way without a profit motive, particularly if such people are not the ones they have drinkies with or would even cross the street to speak to.