** With apologies for cross-posting **
PRESS RELEASE
Best Practice in data collection
Report of a benchmarking exercise for public library authorities
A new report from LISU at Loughborough University investigates
differences in the relative cost and key output measures of seven
county library services, and identifies areas for the potential
exchange of good practice between authorities. The study was
commissioned by Leicestershire Library Services and Warwickshire
Library and Information Service and was based on exploring
differences in the figures each authority reports to CIPFA.
The research found considerable variation in the methods used to
compile figures for the CIPFA return, and many of the figures are not
truly comparable between authorities. Reasons for disparities include:
o Organisational differences
o Difficulties in apportioning costs to the library service
from wider units/departments and different
accounting protocol
o Insufficient guidance from CIPFA and lack of respondents'
notes to accompany returns
Some of the most significant differences were found in miscellaneous
and other income and expenditure categories, and in support services
expenditure. A key area relates to the apportionment of corporate
overheads, which varied considerably between authorities, but over
which library services have no control.
Margaret Bellamy, Head of Leicestershire Library Services, remarked,
"The work underpinning this report has been valuable to the library
service in helping to identify costs and areas for further
investigation. In the current climate of greater efficiency and
accountability this information is necessary for service management".
Ayub Khan, Quality & Operations Manager, Warwickshire Library and
Information Service, added, "Participation within this study provided
us with an opportunity to review our data and financial collection
methodologies. This ensured a consistent approach with partner
authorities and has highlighted the need to compare like with like,
as the study demonstrated the difference in interpretation".
Although all the authorities included in the study provided broadly
the same service, there were significant differences in staffing
structures and deployment. For example, elements of ICT provision may
be the direct responsibility of the library in one authority, but
provided centrally and recharged as an overhead in another. Thus, the
same type of expenditure could be found in any one of three
categories in the CIPFA return, depending on the practice of the
responding authority.
The report also covers visit figures in some detail, which are
subject to much public scrutiny, and an important consideration for
all authorities. Variation was found in how visitors are defined and
counted, and which figures are reported to CIPFA; largely dependent
on whether automatic counting is in place. Concern was voiced that
there are no standard guidelines for checking/calibrating automatic
counters, especially as an increasing number of authorities rely on
this method.
An anonymised version of the full report is available to download
from the LISU website at:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/dis/lisu/pages/publications/bestpractice_op36.html
For further information, contact:
LISU - Research & consultancy for performance measurement,
Loughborough University LE11 3TU. E-mail: [log in to unmask], tel:
01509 635680, fax: 01509 635699.
|