Three quarters of respondents to Harrow library survey oppose closing libraries

Harrow’s rundown library service has held up its visitor numbers despite national trend

Three quarters of respondents to library survey oppose closing libraries

Harrow libraries need to invest not divest

Harrow Council has determined that as part of it’s current saving strategy, the library service will have to bear £500,000 of the cost with a 25% cut in funding. This a political decision which reflects Harrow’s historical lack of investment in cultural infrastructure and a progression of the corresponding decline in commitment to its statutory obligation to provide an effective library service.

Libraries have been treated as a Cinderella service.

Despite the service’s under-funding and neglect, it remains much valued by the community, and council has met with stout opposition to its ambitions to instigate further library closures, just as it met with vociferous opposition to its desire to close the Harrow Museum and the Hatch End Arts Centre.  

The simplest way of achieving the sought £500,000 savings from the library service is to cut off a few limbs from the service and deny easy access to sectors of the community. This is what is proposed with the closure of four of Harrow’s remaining ten public libraries.

Libraries are essential aspects of the cultural and social infrastructure for a community. Well-managed libraries contribute to the vitality of a neighbourhood, providing centres of information, learning, leisure, and stimulation. They also help with integration when they are promoted as destinations for all groups within the community.

The Law (The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964) states [extracts]:

Section 7: General duty of library authorities.

(1) It shall be the duty of every library authority to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof,

(2) In fulfilling its duty under the preceding subsection, a library authority shall in particular have regard to the desirability—

(a) of securing, by the keeping of adequate stocks, by arrangements with other library authorities, and by any other appropriate means, that facilities are available for the borrowing of, or reference to, books and other printed matter, and pictures, gramophone records, films and other materials, sufficient in number, range and quality to meet the general requirements and any special requirements both of adults and children; and

(b) of encouraging both adults and children to make full use of the library service,

The intentions of the now 50-year-old Law are clear: to make the broadest range of materials available to the widest range of interests (people). The principle duty it imposes is the provision of a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof.  This is incompatible with the closure of libraries.

Also clear is that Harrow has failed miserably in its task of encouraging both adults and children to make full use of the library service.

Rather than promote them with pride, Harrow has neglected them as if unwanted. Rather than exploit their potential as social enhancers, Harrow has treated them as an irritating statutory obligation to be complied with, without enthusiasm, at the most basic level allowable.

Through its rolling programme of service reduction, which has seen the axing of the reference library and the closure of the core Civic Centre library, the making redundant of the bulk of the borough’s librarians, the re-staffing of libraries with a complement of incompetent and poorly trained, less well paid staff, its lack of investment in buildings and IT infrastructure, its low stock levels, and its poor opening hours, it has actively discouraged users, possibly so as to be able to say that user numbers have gone down and to justify further closures on this basis.

Blaming users for a lack of enthusiasm for poor service does not work.

Ironically, while the decline in service has undoubtedly discouraged users, and driven many away, user numbers are still rising in Harrow’s libraries and the case for closures due to lessening of use cannot be made.

The overall increase in visits to Harrow libraries from year 2013/14 to 2014/15 is 14%.

 Visits to all Harrow Libraries – 2011-12 to 2014-15

2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15 (April to Nov 2014)	2014-15 (annualised projection)	% change 2012/13-2014/15
1,094,598	1,092,538 (- 0.19%)	1,104,846 (+ 1%)	(734,647)	1,259,394	+ 14%

Two of the libraries it proposes to close are outperforming this figure: Bob Lawrence 20%, and Rayners Lane 14.4% (all figures derived from Appendix 4, Visits by Library– 2011-12 to 2014-15, the latter annualised based on the available data for the months May – November 2014).

Visits to Libraries proposed to close due to falling visits – 2011-12 to 2014-15

Branch	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15 (April to Nov 2014)	2014-15 (annualised projection)	% change 2012/13-2014/15
Bob Lawrence	64247	64269 (+0.3%)	65445 (+ 1.83%)	45809	78,529	+ 20%
Hatch End	81834	84089 (+ 2.76%)	85334 (+ 1.48%)	53090	91011	+ 6.7%
North Harrow	72041	72773 (+ 1.02%)	77563 (+ 6.58%)	47143	80,816	+ 4.2%
Rayners Lane	82533	82025 (- 0.62%)	74506 (- 9.17%)	49724	85241	+ 14.4%

These figures from council do not correlate with the council’s statement that numbers of visits are falling. They do however correspond with a key outcome from the library service consultation undertaken from November 2014 to January 2015 “to inform the development of the library strategy”, in which nearly three quarters of respondents (71.5%) opposed the proposed closure of the four libraries under threat.

While the council’s proposal additionally makes the case for library closures based on a decline in book issues, and suggests that changing patterns of behaviour mean more use of digital media and online resources, it fails to acknowledge that the changing patterns of usage have seen an increase, not a decrease, in the demand for access to libraries themselves.

The council’s desire to increasingly convert its statutory library provision into an on-line resource is neither matched by a quality provision to make this a reality, nor by the level of actual use by its members. Crucially, it does nothing to mitigate the demand for the bricks and mortar resource provided by library buildings, which remain highly valued, well used, and have the potential to be more widely used as community cultural focal points.

Harrow libraries have made no attempt to respond to the changing population pattern of the borough. Inward migration and an increase in the proportion of rented properties mean that a significant sector of the community has not grown up with libraries and needs to be introduced to their offering.

The unloved, uncared for appearance of Harrow’s libraries discourages new visitors, who might reasonably expect to find a more modern and welcoming environment, in keeping with their experience of office and retail environments.

The reduction in the level of stock issues is a natural reflection of the out of date existing stock and the poor selection and promotion of new stock. Here too, lack of commitment to more than the basics is the cause. Harrow’s current spend (£323,000) does not compare favourably with neighbouring Brent (£550,000).

The reduction in the level of stock issues certainly does not detract from the apparent need for libraries. More visits are being made to Harrow’s libraries year on year and the need to improve, extend, and develop the service is indicated. The opposite of what Harrow proposes.

Traditionally, one of the key areas of attraction to library visitors is the newspapers, magazines and journals section, which can act as a focal point in a properly organised library. Here again, underinvestment and an apparent disinterest by the service providers is shown in the poor choice, unappealing displaying and lack of availability of titles, and the complete divestment of archiving facilities denying access to past issues and the wasting a valuable resource.

The service even fails to keep abreast of the renewals for the subscriptions it has, titles are not in the catalogue, staff are unfamiliar with the titles (the more so with the online titles), and there is a general air of disinterest in the section. This is also reflected in the uninviting reading areas themselves that show no imagination and little attention to comfort.

Overall, Harrow’s libraries appear designed to discourage rather than encourage visitors to linger. The average doctor’s waiting room has more appeal. While in other sectors there is constant talk about improving the “customer experience” through enhancement, Harrow’s libraries tend more towards the grubby than the glamorous.

Libraries are not and cannot become profit centres. They are cultural centres provided for community enhancement and the public good. This is a social benefit that comes at a financial price, but it is acknowledged to be a socio-economic net gain.  

Harrow’s intention to close four more of its libraries is based purely on cost grounds. It pays no regard to the social benefit they offer and fails to consider how they could offer more with appropriate investment and imagination.

At the same time, there are obvious inefficiencies in the service, which could easily achieve the £500,000 saving without the need to close any library.

Poor management has caused gross inefficiencies.

If delivery costs per visitor were driven down to the mean average (£1.48) of Harrow’s 5 lower cost libraries (Roxeth, Wealdstone, Pinner, Hatch End, Kenton) a total of £459,158

in savings could be realised. Just £41k short of the £500,000 target.

If all Harrow’s libraries could deliver visits at the same efficiency as Roxeth (£1.27 per visit) a total of £650,734 in savings could be realised, achieving £150,734 in surplus savings which could be released for improvements to the service.

More than a third of this could be achieved from Gayton alone, which, while having the benefit of a town centre location and the highest visitor numbers, is conspicuously not cost effective.

With more than double the mean average of visitors across the borough’s 10 libraries, Gayton could be expected to at least be among the lowest cost per visitor locations. Instead it is second highest, only beaten to the top spot of most costly by the library with the lowest visitor numbers of them all. Bob Lawrence with its 65,445 would obviously not have the economies of scale to match Gayton’s 238,134 visitors. Neither does Roxeth with its 122,809 visits, yet Roxeth delivers visits at a cost of only £1.27 while Gayton cannot deliver the same service for less than £2.25.

If Gayton were performing to the same level as Roxeth, £233,371 could be saved at this branch alone.

What leaps out from this analysis is that Gayton is a very expensive liability and the prime candidate for closure. The most expensive, unfriendly and unloved of Harrow’s libraries, in a wholly unsuitable building, in a poor location, could generate £35,737 more than the required £500,000 saving, just by closing. 

(figures derived from Harrow Council’s report for Cabinet meeting 19^th March 2015: Library Strategy 2015-2018)

What Harrow libraries lack is a strategic vision to match the evident need.

The current plan is cut the number of libraries, starting with four in April/May 2015.

A new central library is spoken of (it has been talked about for years). Even if planning started today, it could not be delivered until 2018. Meantime, the plan is to close libraries today.

A new central library, while required as a replacement for the unsuitable Gayton library building, would add nothing to the size of the library estate, and would not compensate for the lack of access to a neighbourhood library.

The availability of a bus service and a half hour journey is no alternative to a local library and is only going to further discourage users from attending a library. Eventually the same reasoning could be applied to all outlying libraries and the whole borough could be served from one major library at the centre. Alternatively, library users could all be provided with a smart phone and Harrow could call that a library service for the 21^st century.

Having reduced library opening hours, and made no effort to promote the libraries to its changing population, it is hardly surprising that keeping the visitor numbers up has become challenging for library staff. 

Neighbouring Hillingdon has extended library opening hours, invested in all of its 17 library buildings and the resources they offer, and seen visit numbers rise by 33% and the membership increase by 14%.

                                                                      (source: http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk)

Meanwhile, Harrow plans closures and is considering further reduction in opening hours, offset by the introduction of new technology to enable unmanned opening.

The £20,000+ required for the implementation of the “Open+” scheme at each library does not account for on-costs such as maintenance, licence fees, increased risk (losses and damage), heating and ventilation, or the fact that even if unstaffed, premises would presumably need to be checked and secured by someone each day. 

The only public library trial of the Danish system in the UK has been at a tiny Leeds CC branch library that only opens 4 days a week. The trial is ongoing and has not yet been fully evaluated.

The system has been in use in Denmark, again at small branch libraries in small communities. Places where there is a strong community spirit and a sense of common ownership of public resources. Even here, implementation has only been recent, over the past two years, and the novelty has yet to wear off. Significantly, the buildings themselves are new, attractive, well equipped and clean – factors which (in other countries, at least) tend to discourage the abuse of a facility.

By contrast, Harrow is a mostly urban borough not known for an idyllic rural lifestyle.

Both in Leeds and in Denmark, the system has been implemented as a means of extending convenience and improving access for users, not as a cost cutting measure. There has been no reduction of manned opening hours and none are planned.

While the system might lend itself to extending the hours of a small branch in a quiet area, such as North Harrow, which also has the physical configuration that lends itself to its implementation, Harrow intends to trial the system at its second busiest branch, Wealdstone, in a location known to attract loitering youths, anti-social behaviour and theft. This is the branch where a new flatbed scanner was stolen before it was even plugged in. Even if unmanned opening does not put the library itself at risk, it is not likely to encourage uptake among legitimate visitors familiar with the location’s reputation.

In any case, the trial in Wealdstone has not yet been implemented and cannot inform this budget review. So the likes of North Harrow and Hatch End, where one could see the system may have potential, will already be lost to the borough before it can be considered.

In conclusion.

Despite long-term underinvestment, several staffing and outsourcing re-arrangements, reduced opening hours and poor IT services (including a very poor online catalogue and reservation system), Harrow library visit numbers have remained remarkably solid in recent years.

This demonstrates a stoic adherence of the existing user base to a service it values but its provider apparently does not. This is likely to deteriorate as the numbers atrophy through natural causes.

If Harrow is prepared to fulfil its duty to its residents and comply with the intent of the Law, it needs to refresh, renew and expand its library offering with bold and insightful initiatives.

The present proposals are a retreat from its cultural obligation to the community.