2002-2005
LIBRARY SERVICE UPDATE
Summary 1: Welsh Library Standards 2002-5
This section deals with the first framework of public assessment of Merthyr Tydfil Public Library Service by CyMAL, the body that represents the Welsh Assembly Government and monitors the progress that all Welsh libraries make toward meeting the requirements set out in the development targets. T
The detailed assessment of our progress and our responses are listed in the section, but, in general, you should note the following:
- We have made substantial progress in meeting standards since 2002, especially due to positive effects of computerisation.
- We have had some differences and problems with communication with the CyMAL misundstandings on both sides regarding a handful of standards
- Most significantly. we have - and will - continue to fail standards that depend on space, staff and processes that are incompete due to the work still required by the modernisation programme (until we finish the planned work). The problems with buildings is long-term and causes many problems and missed opportunites. They also account for the highest levels of customer dissatisfaction as library users have long been accutely aware of the limitations inherent in what we offer them.
4. We have warned of and experienced difficulties with new and developing systems and our limited capacity, but CyMAL naturally have no reason to do anything but focus on the standards.
Welsh Library Standards for 2002-5
Background
In common with all local authorities, Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council is required by law to provide a “comprehensive and efficient” public library under the terms of the 1964 act that governs libraries. These terms are open enough to be challenging, but vague enough to bring many inconsistencies and sometimes very substantial differences between authorities.
It became clear to the new Labour Government that clearer definitions of minimum levels of service need to be created and monitored and a process begun in England and managed by what is now DCMS.
By 2002, the Welsh Assembly Government introduced a similar, but distinctive process based on a three-year development period that concluded earlier this year.
Despite successes and a generally very good reputation by local and other users, Merthyr Tydfil Library Service had suffered from long-term problems caused by a lack of investment that had been censured by two Government reviews in the 1960s and 1980s without substantial remedy.
In 2000, the then Education Directorate, employed an independent consultant to assess the service. The main recommendations were to computerise the library management system and employ additional professional staff. As a consequence of the report, the County Borough Council did invested in one of the most modern systems available, something that has been generally acknowledged as having revolutionising the service – because it has.
Unfortunately for us, the 2002-5 Welsh Standards came at probably the most difficult period possible in the time between a broken and inadequate manual system and a fully functioning version of the new one (something we are still working on in many respects).
While we could not have met most of the standards without computerising, the workload was immense and capacity stretched beyond our limits to meet our overall objectives. This required us to set many necessary tasks (not generally of direct benefit to customers) to one side – we had already jettisoned most “non-essential” tasks- most for good - until we complete our main objective – a fully automated and effective management system.
To fully understand the reports, you have to be aware of how they relate to our situation and experiences. In that sense, we have far exceeded the position that we were, or could have been, in. However, while the regulators have been fully informed of our circumstances, they naturally have no reason to place our situation in context.
They have generally assessed us as if we were in the state we are working toward. This is frustrating, but not unreasonable – especially giving that our investment in automation was, at least in basic senses, generally ten years behind comparable library services. Ironically, that technological delay has worked to our advantage in the sense that we were able to achieve a more complete transfer to a very modern system, something that has not always been the case elsewhere.
The comparison in general computer terms is that we went straight to Windows XP, while others who had a computer much earlier are still running Windows 95 or even 3.1.
The Standards 2002-5
WPLS 1:Two options: Either 85% of households within 2 miles of a static library or within 30 minutes by public or private transport.
WPLS 2:Emergency non-opening of service points no more than 2.5% or planned opening hours per annum.
WPLS 3: Mobile library missed stops no more than 2.5% of the planned visit times per annum.
WPLS 4: Aggregate opening hours of all service points no less than 128 hours per 1000 population.
WPLS 5: More service points open at least 45 hours per week.
WPLS 6: All service points (excluding mobile libraries) open for more than 10 hours must provide a whole authority on-line catalogue.
WPLS 7: No less than 7 free Internet stations per 10,000 population.
WPLS 8: Issue periods of no less than 3 weeks.
WPLS 9: Minimum allowance of 8 lending books per user.
WPLS 10: Target supply times for reservations.
WPLS 11: 6,600 physical visits per 1000 population.
WPLS 12: Upper quartile targets for visits to the library website.
WPLS 13: User survey reporting 65% success in obtaining a particular book.
WPLS 14: User survey reporting 75% success in finding information.
WPLS 15: User survey reporting 95% of users finding knowledge of staff “good” or “very good”.
WPLS 16: User survey reporting 95% of users finding helpfulness of staff “good” or “very good”.
WPLS 17: At least 29% of staff to have appropriate qualifications.
WPLS 18: Locally developed collection management indexes for set categories.
WPLS 19: Minimum levels of items added to stock.
WPLS 20: Time to replenish open access stock is 8.5 years.
WPLS 21: Expenditure on stock categories compared against indicative standards.
WPLS 22: A minimum expenditure on Welsh material.
WPLS 23: Comparison of space provided for public use against an indicative standard of 23 square metres per 1000 population.
The report for 2004-5
CyMAL assessment of the report is reported below with additional notes to respond to some of the comments made by the assessors.
Welsh Public Library Standards – Annual Report 2004/05 - Merthyr Tydfil: Welsh Assembly Government response
Assessors: “The authority’s Annual Report for the 2004/05 contains some data that is very difficult to comprehend, despite attempts to obtain clarification. Further reference will be made below to particular and specific issues. Overall the impression gained is that many key systems are still in the development stage, and therefore the compliance with the required performance levels is sometimes difficult to establish with any degree of certainty, and the authority’s achievement in relation to the library Standards framework is, therefore, difficult to assess.
As far as it is possible to establish, the authority appears to be meeting the requirements of 13 of the 20 substantive Welsh Public Library Standards, namely WPLS 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22,appears to be partly meeting the requirements of WPLS 15, appears not to be meeting the stipulated Standard in WPLS 3, 11 and 23”.
MTPLS: We made every attempt to explain the data, but for some some reason the panel failed to understand any of the explanations. We find it hard to understand why the panel only has the “impression” that we are at a development stage as we have told them and many others that we effectively re-started key elements of the service in 2002 and started many more for the very first time.
Assessors: “In relation to WPLS 15 the outcomes of a survey among children obtained a result that was below the level stipulated by the Standard, whereas the results of the adult survey appear to have been satisfactory.”
WPLS: There were two different problems in particular surveys in the periods reported. One of them being partly beyond our control at the time. The general and comparable results have generally not reflected the same responses and we are conducting a larger and more analytical survey in 2005-6 to try to establish the main issues reported.
Assessors: “It is clear that the failure to achieve WPLS 3 is due to exceptional circumstances as indicated in the submission”.
MTPLS: We failed WPLS because our vehicle was involved in two road traffic accidents in three years (not the fault of our drivers) that took our vehicles off the road for long periods. Unfortunately, we had no access to a replacement vehicle at either time.
Assessors: “The authority is as yet unable to meet the requirements of WPLS 11 (where there has been a reported decline in performance compared to 2003/04).”
MTPLS: We still believe that this target can be met, but not until we are able to concentrate some resources to the target. We have a number of challenges regarding visitor numbers including - a limited number of service points, an acknowledged need to increase promotional activities, some problems with the electronic counters in 2004-5. Initial data following promotional work supported by ICS, shows the link between promotion and user responses and the potential to increase uptake. However, it should be understood that many similar activities had to be sacrificed for the three years it took to complete the main processes required for computerisation.
Assessors: “There is a long-standing issue over adequate space allocation (WPLS 23), even though there has been a slight increase during the three-year period of the Standards framework. Nevertheless, the authority is substantially below the indicative Standard for this area.”
MTPLS: The lack of space, especially at Merthyr Tydfil library, is a very long-term problem, widely documented and well known. It is also significant to many challenges and missed opportunities.
Assessors: “Due to problems in interpretation of the data submitted, it is impossible to establish whether the authority is meeting the requirements of WPLS 19, 20 and 21.
WPLS 19 – where the reported acquisitions for the year appear to be a hundred times higher than those stipulated by the Standard, and at levels, which are therefore difficult to comprehend. Further enquiries by the Welsh Assembly Government official responsible for matters relating to Standards failed to resolve this issue of accuracy of data and interpretation. It is noted that ‘some quantities of reserves’ continue to distort the figures. It would appear that the figure in the Annual Report is based on items added to the library management system during the year from various sources, not on new acquisitions as is required by the Standard.”
MTPLS: We acknowledge problems with reliable data for 19, and simply wanted to indicate the overall number of additions, of course they were higher that those for “new” only, but that was largely because of the automation process. We explained at the outset that we would have problems with this data, generally because we simply couldn’t spend the time to extract sub-data needed during this period, but also because we are learning to use the new systems. The sheer scale (in our terms at least) of adding the many thousands of reserve stock items has caused many distortions. Staff changes during the period also had an effect.
Assessors: “WPLS 20, where no Performance Indicator is cited, merely a tick to indicate compliance. If the levels of acquisition and spending cited in WPLS 19 and 23 are to be believed, then the authority may be complying with the Standard – and by a very comfortable margin, but it is impossible to establish that with any degree of certainty.”
MTPLS: We admit some substantial differences with the assessors regarding this standard. They ask for a performance indicator for a standard that requires that the “Time to replenish materials available on open access or for loan is 8.5 years”. There is no PI for that as far as we are concerned except whether or not stock has been assessed to the standard. The fact is that a combination of a general pressure on space and the process of pre and post computerisation check ensured that stock on the shelves was either well within the time period or well used, in good condition or needed. As we noted in the return, “ All stock has been assessed twice since 2000. We are currently working on the third assessment stage”. Whatever their comments, we met the purpose of this standard and the stock we have compares well with any comparable service.
Assessors: “WPLS 21, where again the figures cited in the Annual Report are impossible to comprehend, and again a hundred (or so) times higher than those offered as an indicative Standard by the framework, and certainly not within the median to top quartile figures claimed by the submission. The Welsh Assembly made similar enquiries
Government official concerning this data, but the figures were not amended subsequently.”
MTPLS: These comments are typical of what we consider to be the most disappointing elements of the feedback. We acknowledge that the figures were presented as total expenditure levels for the year rather than the per ‘1000 figure format we perhaps should have presented, but had reason at the time to believe that the “Government official” was aware of that. We used that approach because it was more practical for us to have a single annual target – it still does seem the easiest way to manage it. It seems harsh and unreasonable to fail us on that standard in the circumstances. Had it been made clear that the figures had to be presented in a particular way (something not raised in the previous two years or in the course of any recent enquiry) we would have naturally altered the annual figure presented to meet their expressed needs.
Assessors: “Members of the Working Group find it difficult to comprehend why the authority cannot submit a set of data in these areas which complies with the requirements, especially as it now has a modern library management system in place. The nature of the data submitted in these areas tends to cast doubt in the minds of the assessors over the accuracy of data in other areas of the Report, and it may need to seek verification as to the accuracy of data unless more realistic figures are submitted.”
MTPLS: Perhaps members of the Working Group have either never gone through the process of computerisation with limited resources - or did it too long ago to remember what it was like. The library system provider for our new operating system noted in his assessments that we did remarkably well to meet our targets with the resources at our disposal and relatively little disruption to users. Apart from the volume of input, we have to learn to manage a system that was substantially upgraded in the middle of the process and train 95% of staff with no previous experience of computerisation or the processes. We are very grateful to have the system, it is now an essential part of the service, but we are still learning to use it and will be doing so for some time. In some senses 2004-5 was our first full year of managing data. It is especially disappointing that we have been criticised about accuracy of data when we have been at pains not to present anything that we were not sure about – and have been criticised in part because of that caution.
Assessors: “Due to the ambiguity in the data submitted it is impossible to state with any degree of accuracy whether there has been continuous improvement. However, the authority was considered to be meeting 14 of the Standards in March 2004, having improved from 7 in 2002 and 2003. It is only possible to establish with any degree of certainty that performances have changed in two areas WPLS 3 and WPLS 15, both performances having declined compared to March 2004. The submission itself indicates areas where there has been a decline in achievement and it also refers to various major constraints on development in the future. The year 2004/05 in the context of the Standards is therefore at best, a standstill year.”
MTPLS: We knew by 2004 year that we could not meet the standards relating to staff and space resources or the stock management requirements (simply not possible in our present phase), but while we have to accept the effect of the road traffic accidents, patchy surveys and visits, we know that we are not “standstill” in the sense that we did meet standards 20 and 21. It is also worth noting that while we ourselves raised the questions about our generated data for additions to stock, it is clear from all the available indicators that we met at least part of that standard – for adult fiction and junior stock.
Assessors: “In addition to scrutinising the performance against the substantive Standards, in this, the final year of the first three-year framework, the Welsh Public Library Standards Working Group has also considered the authority’s work in relation to WPLS 5, 12 and 18. It had been hoped to offer specific calibrated Standards in these areas during the three-year period, but that has not been possible for various reasons. The Group was seeking indications of relevant performances and activity in those areas in order to acknowledge the work of the library authorities.”
Assessors: “In respect of the Annual Report from the authority, it is possible to deduce that work in relation to stock management as a result of implementation of a new library management system and stock quality assurance activity (WPLS 18) has been carried out, but it is described as ‘under development’. Given the particularly confusing data presented in the Annual Report in areas that correlate with activity in this area, it is impossible to establish whether work has been carried out or merely planned, with facilities within the library management system under development and not yet operational. The authority’s own assessment of its performance in this area is that it does not yet comply and we would be inclined to agree”
MTPLS: We acknowledged that we are not meeting this WPLS yet - because we have not been able to undertake that work yet.
Assessors: “In relation to WPLS 12 and the counting of virtual visits to library services, it would appear that some facilities and services are now in place, and that the number of visits is significant and increasing. However, the nature of the services and facilities (what can be done by virtual means by users, such as submitting queries, undertaking catalogue searches, requesting books, renewing loans and so on) are not described*. Nevertheless, on balance the Group is prepared to accept that the work is sufficient to indicate that it is Standard equivalent.”
MTPLS: *This criticism is unexpected because the was no known requirement to describe the online services offered in the documents provided
Assessors: “In relation to WPLS 5 (opening larger service points), the authority is in some difficulty, having a very small number of static service points in total. It is noted that it is the intention to extend the opening hours at Dowlais by 5.5 hours (although current and future total opening hours are not indicated in the submission). As yet, however, there appears to be insufficient evidence of service enhancement in this area that could be regarded as Standard equivalent.”
MTPLS: We are making improvements to opening hours at all three libraries in 2005-6 and consolidating improvements to the mobile library hours, but we have well known capacity issues regarding staffing that will be summarised at the end of this report.
Assessors: “In total therefore the authority appears to be meeting 14 (61%) of the 23 Standards in the framework, and partly meeting another one. By way of comparison we thought that you would like to know that the average number of Standards achieved by Welsh public library authorities as at March 2005 is 16.73 (72%), the highest being 21.
Previous assessments on the authority’s Annual Reports have indicated that target setting in relation to the achievement of the Standards was somewhat hampered by the transitional processes involved in implementing the new library management system. The situation has improved somewhat as practices have consolidated, and in the year under review most of the targets designed to sustain performances at current levels were met. However, they were not met in locally designated priority areas - all the performances were slightly below the targets set, but as the targets set were very high, the performances in these areas appear to have been satisfactory. It is also clear that some service improvements and enhancements will take place in the near future if all actions take place and all system developments are achieved. There is evidence of continuing analysis of problematic areas and under achievement against the Standards, but very little by way of indications of intended additional specific action. The Welsh Public Library Standards Working Group, as advisers to the Welsh Assembly Government and its officials, will continue to monitor performances in relation to the Standards from the 2002/05 framework that Merthyr Tydfil Library Authority is not yet meeting. It will give particular attention to the manner in which those issues are addressed in the forthcoming Library Plan. It is also the intention of the Group to scrutinise very closely the targets and data in that Library Plan for the period from April 2005 to March 2008. This is to ensure that the data complies with the requirements of the framework, so that assessment of performances can be accurately achieved in future.”
MTPLS: We are happy to acknowledge that we have set high targets and that we are working very hard to attack all the “problematic areas” we face.
Library feedback on the 2002-5 library standards report
While the tone and some comments in the report have been disappointing, we were naturally already aware that we have not met key standards for 2002-5.
While the overall improvements during the period have mitigated the effect of not complying with the standards, our continued inability to meet the standards for space, opening hours, stock quality indexes and visits must give concern, especially when viewed in context of the new standards for 2005-8.
We quite simply lack the space and staff resources to meet certain standards in the short to medium term. The standards for visits and stock indexes are moving to the centre of our current objectives, but we are under, sometimes severe, pressure to do what we need to do. Matters of space and overall staff numbers to extend access times have implications beyond existing or historical proposals for capital and revenue budgets.