An 'Efficient to use' Library Service


ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE MEANING OF COMPREHENSIVE
THE MEANING OF EFFICIENT
THE LEGALITY OF CURRENT SERVICE STANDARDS
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



ABSTRACT

The definition of "efficient" as referred to in the 1964 Act is one of a library service that is efficient for the user to use (and does not in fact refer to efficient library operations).  While a member of the public may use a library that is close by for needs such as 'desires' (fulfillment), if that library were to move further away, the user may then only use the library for more important matters that arise, e.g., medical information, or a holiday guide (i.e., time, energy and expense increase, but the value/ potential value of using the library remains the same).  Yet the council does have to provide a service that meets a full range of needs, and which is efficient enough for the user to use the service.


INTRODUCTION

Resurrecting this thread once again, this time though not to talk about "comprehensive" (ref. down thread), but the meaning of the word "efficient".  For anyone interested it does seem to me at this point that these terms could probably be defined without too much argument and in a court of law (though I'd check with a lawyer first ;)  I am going to suggest also a reason below why it may have actually been illegal for the Government to remove the original 1964 standards for the library service that included, e.g., the maximum distance a person should have to travel to their local library (with the exception of rural areas, one mile).


THE MEANING OF COMPREHENSIVE

"comprehensive" I think could probably be legally held is after the meaning of the word comprehensive in the sense of a comprehensive school, i.e., providing a full range of education ranging from technical to academic (the first use of the word comprehensive for this purpose can be traced back to the decades before the second world war).  Accept though a 'comprehensive library' is obviously a different matter to comprehensive education provision.  So there is I don't think to all intents and purposes here an issue, and it would seem as well that they same has essentially been concluded by Library Review as is evident in a brief article from 1964 titled 'Comprehensive and Efficient' http://tinyurl.com/ylgulyf  I would also at this point add a dimension based on the use of the word 'desire' ("for all persons desiring to make use thereof").  Desires reflect fulfillment, and the use of the word "for" implies that this is the role the library is to play in the lives of people ('for' being synonymous with purpose and role).  This indeed does set a very high benchmark for the standard of library service that is to be provided for public use.  (If I can end this paragraph with some library rhetoric, not amiss in the current times, a council has to by law provide a comprehensive eduction, but likewise by law has to provide a comprehensive library service - and the two very much do compliment each other.)


THE MEANING OF EFFICIENT

"efficient" though takes a degree more study: "a ... efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof".  Now if this is analysed grammatically, this could mean (a) an efficiently run library, but it could also mean (b) an efficient library service, which is slightly different, the word service ("work done by one person or group that benefits another") brings in the dimension of the user and the benefit they see the opportunity of, and how much "time or effort or expense" they have to put into using the service (the efficiency of the service).  And there is one item of compelling evidence to suggest that the definition should in fact be (b), a library service that is efficient for all persons desiring to make use of, that specifically being the following quote which is from the second reading of the 1964 Act:

"Local authorities are naturally anxious to know the standard against which they should measure the efficiency of the service they are providing. These are set out in some detail in the Report of the Working Party on Standards; and its would be the intention of the Secretary of State to refer to the relevant passages of this Report by a circular to local authorities when the Bill becomes law."
HANSARD 1803–2005. "PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL, (Hansard, 30 June 1964), http://j.mp/eM0PLI

The report referred to in the above quote was the Bourdillon report on Standards of Public Library Service (Great Britain. Ministry of Education; Bourdillon, H. T. 1962) and included service standards relating to annual additions to stocks of books (250 volumes per thousand population), number and qualification of staff (one member of staff for every 2,500 population served, and 40 per cent of these staff should be qualified), the maximum distance a person should have to travel to their local library (with the exception of rural areas, one mile), etc. (ref. Nick Moore (July 2003), "Public Library Trends" http://j.mp/gM6p9o ).

Now these are all factors that relate to the efficiency of the service to use, that they have stock sufficient to be able to have a reasonable chance of finding what you are interested in relation to the time, effort and expense of obtaining it, that staffing levels are such you are able to find the information you seek without too much diversion, but also that the time, effort and expense of using the library is not prohibitive.  (A conclusion of my own is that the user should be able to obtain what they seek, but at a cost that is worth the value of the end result, which is not an easy calculation at all for the library, but by no means I would suggest impossible.  It is a calculation that is changing all the time, I would have for instance not created this webpage http://j.mp/ehdIew on the subject of 'Service efficiency and standards' of public libraries had I not been able to gather the necessary information on the Web; the time and effort needed to gather this information 20 years ago would probably have meant it would only have been done for the purposes of writing a book or other such publication.  In the future with e-books it may become extremely easy - i.e., efficient, at least from my perspective, to simply download and read for a few hours or moments any text and that only has in the first instance to catch the faintest of interest, and that in the current day I wouldn't be able to read on account of the time and effort that is required in getting the book - this may cost more, but I think the next generation would be willing to pay.)


THE LEGALITY OF CURRENT SERVICE STANDARDS

This is based on my own brief research on the history of service standards in public libraries which can be found here http://j.mp/ehdIew  While the standards were originally defined as outlined above in the Bourdillon report, and have been through various incarnations since, currently in the form of the MLA Library Benchmark http://j.mp/f2i3dJ - I think it is fair to say that we now at this point do not have any legally binding service standards (the MLA Benchmark is a "set of voluntary indicators").  My argument is though that the libraries still have to meet statutory requirements (which includes a comprehensive and efficient service as outlined above).  I'm not sure legally if a library authority would have to prove it is meeting its legal obligations, or the plaintiff it is not, however the standards I would suggest are still intact, even if only implicitly, rather than defined, in that they were designed to meet the criteria set out in the Act, which library authorities still have to do also.  The question is how far have service standards today shifted from the those of the original Bourdillon report standards.  The Bourdillon report would have to be looked at closely, but would an authority would have to suggest the reasoning behind any deviation from these standards.  Given the duty of the government to superintend library authorities, why were the standards removed anyway?  (Is the government itself effectively carrying out its duties?  And if not the appropriate course?)


CONCLUSION

I am a library assistant (though maybe not for much longer! CV available on request), and so the above is offered without the resources and training of, e.g., a chief librarian (and also without being particularly thoroughly proofread).

Given 1) grammatically the 1964 Act could be interpreted as meaning an "efficient" service for the borrower to use, not just/ or an efficient library operation, and 2) the definition of "efficient" given in the second hearing of the 1964 Act gives the former of these interpretations, then can it be concluded that there is in fact not an issue over the meaning of the use of the word "efficient" in the 1964 Act?

It could further be reasoned that the library service has to be efficient not just for important matters, but that the time, effort and expense of using the library not be prohibitive for less practical day-to-day needs, and be available and practically so for users' 'desires'.  


RECOMMENDATIONS

I would like to check the above definitions I have offered with previous texts related to the subject, e.g., from COPAC http://tinyurl.com/yjql4w2 - some of the legal cases currently being prepared by lawyers to defend libraries have also been made available on the web, etc.

The question of whether or not the Government is meeting its obligation to superintend the library service.  It would be interesting to know why the original Bourdillon committee standards were eventually watered down so as to be in effect removed completely (a history of the standards themselves would be interesting).  Assessing the current standard of the library service might answer the question (ref. next paragraph), but how do they otherwise plan to maintain the standard of the service without the standards?

It is probably fair to say that our current understanding of the value of the public libraries to society is very much fragmented amongst the stakeholders concerned (the business speak of consultants reflecting the values of the management commissioning the reports, through the stories of library users, writers also!, not least trade unions, the insight of librarians themselves and their writings on the value of libraries, etc. etc., there is a historical dimension also, I'll write another post on this sometime perhaps).  Bringing this knowledge together would increase overall knowledge, and furthermore, this knowledge is a prerequisite to much of the work of the libraries (from the skill of frontline library staff through community library startegy,  through the design of impact and quality measurement strategies, not least informing the public of where their money goes and the value of the service to other stakeholders, etc. etc.), but its current fragmented form I would argue is hampering the effectiveness of the libraries.  In the context of this post itself, the 1964 Act and its associated standards were derived from an understanding of the value of the public library to society of the time (namely the Bourdillon committee).  Current public sector strategy seems to be to let authorities define their own standards (cmp. the 1960s and the vision of the then Labour government for the libraries - what were the options for the current Government, and the implications of?).  If an authority wanted to reason the standards it applied (it would be interesting to see what reasoning the Bourdillon committee applied), then a reasoned understanding of the value of the public libraries to society in the current context of society would be a prerequisite.

Would any of the above reasoning be of value to current legal cases fighting library closures?  (Or the library authorities trying to close them for that matter!  Maybe it is already being used anyway.)

Many other interesting points and questions arise on the issue of standards, however one I would like looking at, if the above is accepted as an uncovering of the myth that it is not really understood as to the correct interpretation of "comprehensive and efficient", why has this myth developed in library culture anyway?

The public libraries really could do with their own research journal, I'm sure the reasoning to prove the need for this could be deduced quite easily given the context of the society we live in.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Relevant texts are to be found in the text above and on the webpages linked to above and in particular that I myself created.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Tim Coates (who I do not have to introduce) initially to my own observation used the argument that it was in fact an efficient library service for the user to use that was required.  Academics and academic librarians have loaned and found documents for myself also (I am grateful for their time - in particular the law librarian who pointed me towards the second hearing of the 1964 Act :)