This is what they're
looking for

From April 2008, local councils must produce data on 198 'national indicators' laid down by central government. These 198 indicators will now be the only measures used by central government to judge how well local councils are doing - across the whole range of their activities, from schools to roads, social services to crime prevention. They replace the 1,800-odd assorted national targets previously enforced, and inspection structures such as Best Value or CPA (Comprehensive Performance Assessment).

Public libraries get few obvious favours in the new indicator set, published by the Department for Communities & Local Government*.

The only specific measure for libraries is 'Use of public libraries' - No. 9 - one of 14 items grouped under the heading 'Stronger and safer communities'. There is one comfort - many people feared that public libraries would be bundled into one vague 'culture' indicator, with not a single one to themselves.

It is listed as a 'new' indicator not previously collected. It will mostly be researched via a new participation survey to be carried out by Sport England. Like its 197 fellow indicators, it is fixed and non-negotiable, because it 'represent[s] government decisions on national priorities'.

'Use' of the library service is defined as any contact - visits, online, phone, letter, email, outreach(e.g. event, housebound service). But not books borrowed. This will irritate many people. But libraries as a whole may well breathe a sigh of relief - nationwide, book issues are declining, while visits are going up. So libraries will not be measured on a weak spot.

More worrying for many, only residents and only adults (16+) are to be counted (plus councils should aim 'where possible and appropriate' for a 'closer match' with their community profile). This is bad news for councils that are heavily used in the daytime by people who work, but don't live, in the borough. It is bad news for the many services that are well used by under-16s and feel this work is a high priority. Or is it?

This is where ingenuity must come in. It's very important to understand how these indicators are meant to be used. The full list of 198 is the first concrete result from last year's Local Government White Paper (The Campaigner, winter 2006). This promised a big cut in the indicators then being set by government. It has been achieved as promised - and as long desired by the Local Government Association. In return, local councils are expected to send in data on all 198 - but to select up to 35 from the 198 for special attention - via 'genuine negotiation' with local people. (There are a few extra, compulsory ones - but we won't go into that now)

It isn't, frankly, very likely that the library indicator will be one of the magic 35-odd in many 'local area agreements' although something to do with 'culture' might just be. Most councils will, however, go for the vote-catchers like education, safer streets, youth services etc.

The guidance to the indicators states that libraries contribute to many local government priorities, such as community cohesion, education and wellbeing. But they may need to prove this to hard-pressed councils looking for cuts. So library supporters will have to take a good look at the indicators their council chooses  and show how libraries can contribute to delivering them.

To be honest, not many of the other 197 indicators point obviously to libraries. The full list covers everything from education (dozens of indicators here, for all age groups), crime, health and housing, to the economy and climate change.

There are comparatively few in areas such as skills, enjoyment of reading, lifelong learning, quality of life etc, where public libraries might shine. For instance, the 'children and young people/enjoy and achieve' list has just one measure about 'participation in positive activities' among 44 measures largely centred on education targets.

The good news is that libraries are so versatile, so available, that you can argue they are useful to almost anything a council might want to achieve. Improving results in education, keeping teenagers off the streets, improving quality of life for old people, running multi-cultural festivals, spreading information on health - you name it. But make no mistake. Unless library services can prove they contribute to the chosen targets, in each local authority, they may have a grim future.

The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities & Local Authority Partnerships: Single Set of National Indicators:
www.communities.gov.uk/publicationsllocalgovernment/nationalindicatorsupdate

Goodbye PLSSs!

The DCMS (Department for Culture, Media & Sport) has just published the last-ever results of the Public Library Service Standards (PLSSs). Introduced in 2001 by Chris Smith, then Secretary of State, they were a heroic attempt to define clearly what is a 'comprehensive and efficient' public library service - as required by the law (Public Libraries & Museums Act 1964).

The PLSSs put down numerical targets to aim at for a host of library basics - how many library buildings, how many books, how many satisfied customers, and so on. Very few services met all 10, but they knew what they were supposed to aim at. The original 26 items were drastically 'streamlined' to 10 in 2004. But they were still clear numerical targets.

All that has now gone. Now there's the Library Benchmark - a list of things to measure, but with no targets at all. Councils decide their own.

It will never again be quite so easy to check your council's performance. The last set of PLSS results is now on the DCMS website:

www.culture.gov.uklReference_librarylPublications/archive_2008/plss_results2006-7.htm

Hello, Library Benchmark!

The new Library Benchmark lists 23 items, grouped under five headings: satisfaction, participation, access, resources and efficiency. Much of this data is already collected in the regular Cipfa (Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy) and Cipfa PLUS (Public Library User Survey) surveys done by nearly all library services.

Instead of being still quite closely modelled on the terms of the old PLSSs, many items on the new list are different - more user-focused, more about quality than quantity, more about showing actual outcomes/impact on users.

Some might call it a starter kit that can make it clear what modem public libraries are meant to be about, even to the least enlightened head of service or councillor.

The task of producing the Library Benchmark was carried out by MLA (Museums, Libraries & Archives Council), overseen by a steering group from the Society of Chief Librarians, the Audit Commission, IDeA (the local government improvement agency), Cipfa, MLA and DCMS (Department for Culture, Media & Sport). 'Interested groups' were also consulted, including a youth focus group. The Library Campaign had a meeting with MLA, sent in comments and also organised a focus group.

There is a change to more user-specified criteria. For example, the benchmark now drops all reference to number of hours open. This rarely-met target from the old PLSSs was bravely retained all the way through the consultation on the Benchmark (though without any number to aim at). Now it has gone completely, replaced by the percentage of users/young users who say the hours are 'good'.

Similar is the loss of the measures of how many people live a specified distance from a library service. This was cherished by users, but less loved by cash-strapped services looking for cuts, services whose transport links did not fit the implied pattern - or innovative services with new ideas on access. Now there's nothing about distance. It's .about how many users/young users find a library 'easy to get to'. Both these new-style measures rather leave out the important question of how many people don't use the library at all because of hours or location.

Gone, too is any real reference to quality of staff. Mention of staff qualifications are long gone, but until now there were questions about numbers who found staff helpful or 'good'. Now the sole direct mention of staff is - under the heading 'Efficiency' - about user visits and interactions per full-time equivalent. This hardly presents contact with staff as a potential quality experience.

Not gone, alas, is the focus on 'time taken to replenish lending stock' (15). This, as users have argued, has long been an excuse for librarians to chuck out perfectly good books, badly needed within a poor choice of books.

There are lots of items in the benchmark about children and young people. Several (e.g. 5, 12) are similar to the items previously found in the 'impact standards' trialled by DCMS (Department for Culture, Media & Sport) from 2004. These were an earlier attempt to encourage library services to prove their popularity by counting how many children took part in various library activities.

Some items need information from other council departments such as social services (e.g. number of housebound people). This will be a routine matter to some library services - a new step for others. Again, the Benchmark is encouraging libraries to make sure they use all available information to find out who their potential users are - and tailor their service appropriately.

Different types of contact (visit, online search, book issue etc) are clearly separated out - to provide a useful 'comprehensive' view of the ways the service is used. This is an important area, especially as it is the focus of the sole remaining 'national indicator' that government will monitor.

There are gaps, too: no measure of community engagement, no push to consult non-users. And MLA still has not cracked the problem of how to measure use of virtual services in a way that suits all. The Benchmark admits there are 'issues' here, with services using so many different ICT arrangements, library management systems etc.

So what's it all about?

More measures but no targets, no compulsion. That's the shape of the 'Library Benchmark' that is to replace the Public Library Service Standards (PLSSs). This new name is to make it super-clear that it is not a new set of PLSSs.

As soon as the local government white paper came out, it was clear that it meant 'the end of the PLSSs,' says MLA (Museums, Libraries & Archives Council, the sector's advisory body). 'The time for nationally set targets for all library authorities is over.'

PLSSs, says MLA, were a way. for government to monitor local services. The Library Benchmark is 'a sector-led voluntary improvement tool'. Local managers should use it to mark their own progress over time, compare their service with others and with 'the national position', identify best practice and plan improvements - in their own way.

What's coming is a 'total culture change', says Andrew Stevens of the MLA. 'This is taking services out of their comfort zone. It is much more sophisticated. It's a much bigger game.'

The thousands of targets set by central government for all local services have been replaced by far fewer targets. Local councils will choose just a few to work hard on, in a 'place-based, cross-service assessment of outcomes' (not input) - ie, of results for people, not what is provided or what is spent.

Priorities for future services will be chosen by local councils and local people. This devolution has been urged for years by the Local Government Association. How it works in practice is left to each local council to decide. And whether there is really a culture change - or just some new jargon to describe business as before - remains very much to be seen.

The old, detailed PLSSs were seen as too rigid by innovative, dynamic councils and library services. Wangling a good score could have perverse effects. The PLSSs assessed input (resources), not successful outcomes. And they did not really address the wider social/educational benefits that libraries now need to prove to get better funding.

But they were valued by many library chiefs and users, because they gave clear guidance that helped them in arguing for better resources - and (to start with, at least) they fostered a belief that they would somehow be enforced.

In fact, a· 'main concern' during consultation on the new Benchmark was that it will not be statutory. It is completely voluntary. What's more, it specifies no targets at all. This worries many library chiefs.

But, says Andrew, services 'have a huge self-interest' in using it to assess their service, benchmark with others, plan improvements - and make a case for resources in the new local authority world.

The Library Benchmark also gives no ideal figures to aim at `just a list of things to measure, with no targets for them laid down. Services will fill in their own current figures to get a portrait of their own strengths and weaknesses. They can then compare themselves with similar areas and set their own targets for improvement.

Councillors and users will (in theory) also be able to make comparisons: 'Council X has a similar population to ours but far more people use the libraries - why?' or 'Why do we spend far less than the average on stock?' (or, of course, 'Council X runs their service for far less than we do - how do you justify the extra?')

It remains to be seen if every service head will be 'sophisticated' enough to play the new game, with its numerous tools. Library users, too, will have to get their heads round far more complex material. And they no longer have any national standard to back them up - save that very limited 'national indicator' .

The MLA admits that much more work must be done on toolkits and research to demonstrate how libraries contribute to those all-important community outcomes. 'Some' services, it says, are finding partners and showing what they can do in the community - but 'many more' just aren't. This looks potentially disastrous.

Maybe it is significant that, when asked what support they most wanted, library chiefs called for research on the impact of libraries on people - and lots of advocacy.

www.mla.gov.uk/website/programmes/frameworkframework5

Still to come

The Library Benchmark is just one part of a jigsaw of 'improvement tools' for public libraries. The rest are still in the pipeline as we go to press. When all are published, TLC will produce a complete guide for members.

Still to come is a Culture & Sport Improvement Strategy, which will cover libraries. This has its own enormously elaborate 'toolkit' for evaluating services and planning improvements.

Then there's the Outcomes Framework, a tool to help demonstrate libraries' (and museums' and archives') impact on the people's lives. This will be important. In the new local authority climate, all services have to prove their value not by declaring what they spend or want service they offer - but by showing how they affect local people.

And MLA will launch a new 'improvement section' on its website, which will set out 'the context, the available tools and how to use them'. MLA also promises to share good practice, and continue organising peer reviews (investigations by fellow librarians).

Jargon guide

Or, if you prefer, the context within which library services (and all other services) will have to compete for support. From now on local councils must' engage with their communities' - how they do so is not specified. Together, council and residents will:

Use. a Local Strategic Partnership (made up of relevant local bodies) to set the priorities for an area - in a Sustainable Community Strategy.

Turn this strategy into a 'delivery plan' called the Local Area Agreement (LAA.). This will include up to 35 targets chosen from the menu of 198 'national indicators' - plus some extra ones devised locally, and a few compulsory ones from government, mainly to do with education.

Prepare for a new type of inspection called the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA). So far, very little is known about CAAs. They are being worked on by the miscellaneous agencies (such as the Audit Commission) that used to inspect different local authority services. In future all this will go into the CAA. And the CAA will (it's assumed) focus less on detailed targets and more on how happy local people are with the place where they live, in all its aspects.

Richmond upon Thames Arts Council

Tel/fax:  020 8979 3848 E-mail:  info@artsrichmond.org.uk: www.artsrichmond.org.uk
Registered Charity No:  251359