 |
 |
Frances sent the Laser document to me off list & the vast majority of it's recommendations are collected by Leeds in addition to counting beans, indeed several of them are collected by CIPFA. The problem with many of the recommendations is that the qualitative data is often expensive to collect & few library authorities have the budgets/staff for the survey activites involved. The appendices showing how some authorities have attempted to collect this data are mainly using very small samples but do show the value of collecting this data. Lionel Aldridge Performance Manager Leeds Library and Information Services 0113 395 2350 National Year of Reading: I'm curently reading the late George MacDonald Fraser's last work "The Reavers". This is very much in the style of his "The Pyrates" & again proves that he was what he aimed to be - simply a good story teller. "Frances Hendrix" <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> 19/08/2008 09:38 To <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]> cc Subject Re: You cannot be serious? Thanks Lionel What a helpful response, BUT the whole subject and process seems to be one of little practical and sensible use, and is still basically bean counting and not of the value added by public libraries. Why, as a group, do Librarians not fight for what they think would be a preferable, qualitative and more meaningful way of judging the work that is done? I refer again to the PwC (Laser) Libraries Impact report f Frances Hendrix Martin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs PR6 7QR, UK tel: 01257 274 833. fax: 01257 266 488 email: [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: Lionel Aldridge To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:01 AM Subject: Re: You cannot be serious? Frances is correct at present on catching out & has been for many years on the issues but has only just become correct on active borrowers. It has many years since issues have been on the audit agenda but active borrowers was part of CPA and subject to audit. Although Leeds was not audited on it (probably because we had such a low figure) I was always conscious of the possibility. (Andrew of course lives under a different regime in Scotland & no doubt has been subject a different set of audits.) CIPFA does tend to take statistics as given and my error on active borrowers in 2002 went unremarked (I supplied a figure about 3x the actual one - nor was the huge drop the following year noticed). There are problems when using CIPFA to compare with other authorites, not only in the financial figures as local practices and policies can affect returns (e.g. speed of requests & policy on pre-publication requests). The guidelines accompanying the return are a means of, as much as is possible, to create a level playing field and work with varying degrees of success. The situation has been made worse by the governments reducing of Indicators to a single one for libraries & that being one libraries do not collect. Whilst the PLSS & CPA were in place several of the most indicative figures libraries provide to CIPFA were subject to audit (but not issues). Leeds has just been audited on cost per visit & this process endorsed Andrew's view - had I been cheating then I would have lost Leeds top score and both my own & Leeds credibility would have gone. This was also presumably true of all the parts of PLSS & CPA. It is possible to cheat on all manner of library matters - for example on the Plus overall satisfaction for adults you will get a far better score if you skew your samples to older people & further improve it by concentrating on women - & having been audited on Plus last year I am certain I would have got this wheeze past them. Having said all this, fixing figures may make you look good locally & nationally but they ain't much use in managing your service. If this fixing of issues is widespread the conclusion must be that librarians are very bad at cheating as issues nationally have declined so consistently across the board & over time. The intention of my first posting was not to be comforting - I felt that Frances was questioning the integrity of librarians in an almost unanswerable fashion & that I could add some perspective to the debate which was in danger of closing on a negative note. Lionel Aldridge Performance Manager Leeds Library and Information Services 0113 395 2350 National Year of Reading: I'm curently reading the late George MacDonald Fraser's last work "The Reavers". This is very much in the style of his "The Pyrates" & again proves that he was what he aimed to be - simply a good story teller. Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: "lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries" <[log in to unmask]> 18/08/2008 15:47 Please respond to Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> To [log in to unmask] cc Subject Re: You cannot be serious? I thought Lionel made some comforting and sensible points, and he is right a lot of the respondents mentioned more than one library they knew of or they had worked in BUT some were talking about regional groups, others mentioned libraries that have a special word for the practice of upping the issues (I wont quote it as it could lead back to an individual and certainly to the labara), so it isn't isolated. But how Andrew does a library get caught? If the 'fiction' is perpetuated, who would check it out and how. Cipfa takes what it is given surely, and what spot checks are there., it isn't as if it is money and audit trials etc. as long as the 'fiction' is in reasonable bounds then I would have though it was fairly simple? f Frances Hendrix Martin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs PR6 7QR, UK tel: 01257 274 833. fax: 01257 266 488 email: [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Sandeman To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: You cannot be serious? I would agree with Lionel; even if you were inclined to cheat, just a moment's thought & you would realise that it would only take one slip for your credibility to be destroyed forever ... in short, its a mug's game ! Andrew Andrew Sandeman, Project Officer, Performance & Quality, Level C3, Desk 071, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh. EH8 8BG Tel. 0131 469 5866 Fax. 529 6203 From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lionel Aldridge Sent: 18 August 2008 14:57 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: You cannot be serious? No-one can tell you it's not widespread because virtually all the list readers will only know what goes on in between 1 & about 4 authorities & may not be able to speak for all of them because their role didn't include this area. I for instance can say categorically that it doesn't go on in Leeds & I'm fairly certain it didn't go on in Hackney in the 1970's but cannot speak for other authorities. Several of the wheezes you mention are specifically excluded in the CIPFA guidelines (notably the leaflets ploy & the active borrowers one) while the member of staff variations are unlikely to have a significant effect at the authority level unless there is a widespread ethos of dishonesty within the library system. This is certainly not my experience of libraries (back in Browne issue days we had suspicions about a couple of branches figures but they were never proven). If a member of staff created 20 spurious loans each working day this would only be 5,000 in a year (bank & annual holidays + weekends reduce the number of days worked to about 250). This is only going to a very minor effect on annual issues of over 3 million for the authority but could have a significant effect on the distribution of funds/new books within the authority & therefore possibly make the effort worthwhile to the individual. I do expect a very few authorities have regularly massaged their figures & this is more likely to happen when under extreme financial pressure, but the way these wheezes have been shared with you makes me think the sharers were appalled like yourself at the practice. I'd also expect a few to be hoist on their own petard like the university you worked for & be too embarassed to correct their own error. But this does not make me think the practice is widespread - my experience of librarians both locally & nationally suggests that in general librarians are honest & are generally honest about their statistics. In fact I believe this list endorses this view in the way the fines debate took place with honest exchanges of both opinion & practice. Lionel Aldridge Performance Manager Leeds Library and Information Services 0113 395 2350 National Year of Reading: I'm curently reading the late George MacDonald Fraser's last work "The Reavers". This is very much in the style of his "The Pyrates" & again proves that he was what he aimed to be - simply a good story teller. Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: "lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries" <[log in to unmask]> 18/08/2008 11:49 Please respond to Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> To [log in to unmask] cc Subject You cannot be serious? Oh Dear please some one tell me all this isn't as wide spread as it would appear? I have been told over the years that numbers of current borrowers of a specific library has been a matter of fiction (for instance not removing very lapsed users etc), to an extent (so nothing like as many people are users than we would be led to believe), but some of the stories I am getting, like the one below fills me with despair:- At meetings I attend in (XXX), libraries discussed how to inflate and massage usage statistics One practice to attract lapsed borrowers back to the library, was to print leaflets which were posted off to the lapsed borrowers. The the leaflets had barcodes and were added to the library management system. Prior to posting each one out, the leaflet (which didn't have a due date) was checked out to each of the lapsed borrowers. The result? The library no longer had any lapsed borrowers and several hundred more active borrowers, and the leaflets were counted in the borrowing stats! At a local University , they implemented pre-overdue email notices some time ago. Fine income decreased around 5%, but the feedback from students and staff has been 100% positive. However, One can only hope that the pay off for the lapsed borrow leaflet was a huge and genuine return of lapsed borrowers., would be good to know? The tactics may have worked, and if the inflation of usage stats was legit then that would be fine., i.e. strategies to increase usage. f Frances Hendrix Martin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs PR6 7QR, UK tel: 01257 274 833. fax: 01257 266 488 email: [log in to unmask] ________________________________________________________________________ The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail. ________________________________________________________________________ ************************************************************************ This email and files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. If you have received this eMail in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it without using, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person. The Council has endeavoured to scan this eMail message and attachments for computer viruses and will not be liable for any losses incurred by the recipient. ************************************************************************