CeriYas

11/01/2022

Hard Evidence: how many people actually use libraries?
There’s no doubt that people in the UK value libraries. They are seen as an asset to communities, offering a calm, quiet, neutral space, where anyone can access information for work or leisure. When libraries are threatened with closure, community groups and public figures spring into action to try to save them. But while we clearly hold libraries close to our hearts, how many of us actually use them?

Fewer and fewer, it seems: in the five years to 2013/14 (the last period for which data is publically available) the number of visits to public libraries fell by 12.4% to 282m. This decrease was mainly the result of fewer people using them, demonstrated by the fact that the proportion of adults who had visited a library in the previous 12 months fell by 10.2%.

As well as fewer people using libraries, those who do use them are making fewer visits. What’s more, the number of books lent by public libraries fell by 20% to 247m over the same period, mainly due to a decrease in the number of borrowers – by 18.3% to 9.8m.

At the same time, the number of libraries in the UK fell by 7.5% from 4,482 in 2009/10 to 4,145 in 2013/14. It’s impossible to tell from the statistics whether the fall in use was caused by the closure 337 libraries, or if the closures came as a result of the fall in use.

It’s clear that fewer people use libraries than in the past. But they’re still visited by over a third of the adult population – and 9.8m of those borrowed books. If we delve a little deeper into the data, we can sketch a more detailed picture of what’s going on. For instance, statistics show that some sections of the community use public libraries more than others.

More women than men visit public libraries, and people between the ages of 25 and 44 visit more than other age groups. A higher proportion of adults from black and minority ethnic (BME) groups visited a library than white adults. And libraries in the most deprived areas are visited more than libraries in the least deprived areas.

On the rise?
There’s another major library sector which keeps detailed statistics – university libraries. The Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) have been collecting statistics every year for decades. And the situation of academic libraries is clearer than for public libraries, because there have not been widespread closures.

Analysis of the data shows that for every full-time student studying at a university, there are around 55 visits to the library each year. This average has not changed for ten years. But because student numbers have increased, university libraries are seeing more people come through the doors than ever before. For example, last academic year (2014/15) there were 2.4m visits to Oxford University libraries.

Yet the concept of “library use” is more complicated in university libraries than public libraries: it’s not simply a matter of counting the numbers of people coming in or books going out. The truth is, university libraries are no longer simply physical buildings where books are stored and made available for borrowing or reference.

Since the mid-1990s, academic journals have been published electronically. The SCONUL statistics show that over the last ten years the average number of journals bought by a university library has increased from 7,000 to 30,000, with 99% of these now provided electronically. Since around 2010, textbooks and research monographs have followed the same path towards online provision. This means that a student or researcher may be a very heavy user of the library, even if they never set foot in the building.

The statistics show that the average number of book loans per library user fell by 11% over the last ten years. But this is just for printed books. When e-books are included, the number of “loans” over the same period trebled. So, although the use of public libraries is in decline, more people are using university libraries than ever before.

Those funding public libraries may view the digital shift experienced by university libraries as a way of providing library services without the need to keep buildings open. But, although more students are using digital libraries than the paper-based libraries of the past, the library building as a place to study is still important to them. Similarly, while open access content, digitisation programmes and e-book subscriptions may mean that a public library is not the only place to read books and newspapers, people still enjoy the experience of physical books and value the space to escape, study and learn.

11/01/2022

Libraries aren’t ‘dead in the water’ – even if some have given up
Having spent 15 years researching public libraries and trying to emphasise their contribution to education and society as a whole, you might expect that I’d be delighted at the good news that our public libraries are finally receiving the media attention and recognition they deserve? Sadly not.

The recent boon in media interest is of course linked to a large-scale BBC investigation into the “real” picture of library closures, staff redundancies and budget cuts which have taken place since 2010, the year in which UK Chancellor George Osborne “unveiled the biggest UK spending cuts for decades”.

I was one of a number of people interviewed as part of the investigation, and have been quoted in two two depressingly entitled articles: one on how a quarter of staff jobs have been lost as hundreds of libraries close and another entitled “Libraries: the decline of a profession?”

The first article presented some stark statistics – based on an extensive series of Freedom of Information requests by the BBC – which revealed the extent of closures, planned closures and job losses, as well as the concurrent increase in community-run libraries – where the local authority hands over the management of a library service to a group of community volunteers – and volunteer staff.

Libraries aren’t over, they will just look different. A similar view was expressed by Elizabeth Elford of the Society of Chief Librarians, who observed “there will be fewer public libraries when we come out the other side, but they will be better and more innovative.” I sincerely hope that she is right, but I question whether the closure of so many public libraries could be characterised as a positive development.

Of course, not all libraries have “closed”. In addition to the 343 libraries no longer in existence since 2010, the BBC also reported that 232 libraries have been “transferred”, 174 of which have moved from council control to management by community groups (whether or not these should also be counted as “closures” remains a point for ongoing debate).

For Ian Stephens, chair of the Local Government Association’s culture, tourism and sport board, it is testament “to how much people value their libraries that so many have volunteered to help keep them open.” This might well be true but it provides little comfort to those volunteers who would have preferred the library service to remain council run rather than being forced to fend for themselves without professional training or long-term council support.

Community run
Community-run libraries are also under no obligation to conform to council standards and, as I keep being told by people working in community-run libraries, they feel that they are in competition with other libraries in the city or county, and are certainly not connected to them as they originally thought they would be.

More colour in the community. Libraries Taskforce, CC BY
This would appear incongruous with the public library service so familiar to many of us, with one large central library providing the greatest range of resources, and a number of smaller branch libraries serving the different parts of the community. The community-run service, at least in its current form, does not appear to replicate this service, and, as the statistics show, we now have an utter lack of consistency of provision across towns and cities.

Supportive role
Volunteers have long supported library services by supplementing existing work – shelving, routine enquiry work, storytelling sessions, and so on – or by adding value to a service with more specialised skills, such as cultural awareness sessions from members of local minority ethnic communities. This is extremely valuable work, and in no sense devalues the existing service. Many of our students will work as volunteers in library services before coming on the masters programme, and it serves as excellent preparation for an information career.

However, some politicians and other commentators seem to forget that there is an important distinction between volunteers used to supplement an existing service, and volunteers either replacing the specialised roles of paid library staff, or working in “community-run” libraries. The second of these seemed at the time to relate very closely to the coalition government’s Big Society ideology, the impact of which is still being felt, particularly in terms of the ongoing drive for local authorities to make the most of ever-decreasing budgets. Certainly before 2010 the community-run library was a very rare phenomenon.

Last year I was told that public libraries – and, by association, any research into them – were “dead in the water”. No such demise has occurred, as I wrote in a blog last year. Nevertheless, the recent media coverage is a clear reminder that we cannot be complacent about the future of public libraries. These are very difficult times for these organisations and those who work in them, and it would be naive to pretend otherwise.

People who have devoted their lives to supporting public libraries are now suggesting that we have gone past the point of no return. Yet there are still a huge number of individuals and organisations who still firmly believe in the role of the statutory public library service in a democratic society, and are working tirelessly to ensure that it remains.

To those fortunate individuals who appear not to have seen the extent of the contribution a public library makes to its community, I repeat a point made by David McMenemy, in his book The Public Library: “In all of the discourse around the diminishing use of public library services it is crucial not to lose sight of the fact that many people within our communities continue to need the services they offer.”

Public library services remain one of the most significant and democratising assets within our communities and should not be sacrificed for economic or political expediency.

11/01/2022

Pandemic shows how ‘digital by default’ government services exclude those who need them most
The internet and other digital technologies have helped many of us cope with lockdown, and new ways of working have quickly become commonplace. But the pandemic has also exposed the “digital divide” across the UK – and the fact that not everyone has access to a computer, tablet, laptop or smartphone – or has an internet connection in their home.

And with many pupils still having to study at home, for families that rely on mobile phones for an internet connection, online learning comes at a high price.

There is a significant overlap between groups at high risk of COVID-19 and homes without internet access. A recent report from Ofcom found that in the UK 43% of people age 75 and over do not have any kind of home internet connection. Nor do 26% of people age 65-74, or the 24% of people who work in semi-skilled and unskilled manual jobs.

And with libraries closed many are more cut off than ever before. Indeed, people rely on libraries for online access – a place to search for jobs, answer emails, access educational resources and stay in touch with the outside world.

Cut off
Yet even though not everyone has equal access to technology or the internet, the UK government has continued to push forward with its plans for “digital by default”. This sidelines the most vulnerable members of society – including the elderly, sick and poor – and forces everyone to use IT for everyday tasks. Examples include patients having to order their medication online, unemployed people needing to apply for social benefits (universal credit) over the internet and homeless people unable to access basic help and support.

In this sense, COVID-19 has significantly increased demand on many online services, including the already troubled universal credit system – with many new claimants experiencing significant delays. The alternative option, to apply over the phone, has also been severely disrupted during this time. This has resulted in people not having enough money to buy food, while others have been forced to home-educate their children without access to computers or the internet.

According to the Good Things Foundation, a social change charity that uses digital tools to help vulnerable people, in some areas, initiatives in the community – such as help with shopping for vulnerable people – have only been advertised on websites and via social media platforms. This means that large groups of people have been unable to access, or have been unaware of, the available help.

Child Learning over mobile phone using internet connection and smart application during self isolation at home.
Many children have had to rely on smartphones for their homeschooling. Pearl PhotoPix/Shutterstock
The House of Lords Public Services Committee inquiry into the impact of COVID-19 found a number of inequalities in terms of access to critical public services. In the inquiry, Sarah Mann, director of Friends, Families and Travellers, a charity that works with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups, highlighted how the pandemic has led to the exclusion of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people from public services.

“It took a long time for any guidance to get out to local authorities to remind them that they may have a duty to support Gypsy and Traveller families as they would other families in this situation.”

Connect us all
According to a 2019 survey by Oxford Internet Institute, 20% of British people do not use the internet. And much of this 20% is made up of people on low incomes and with lower levels of education.

In this sense, COVID-19 has revealed the problematic nature of the government’s plan to make everything “digital by default”. Indeed, this is an idea born out of austerity and an approach that transfers the cost of public functions from the public sector to individuals or business. And the cost of supporting those to charities, families, volunteers or local government. Underlying many internet-based systems are also design choices that further exclude already marginalised members of society – particularly disabled people.

Sad frustrated senior woman holding hand on her face, sitting at kitchen counter with laptop and papers
Online systems can be difficult to navigate. shurkin_son/Shutterstock
Serving only online customers may be a perfectly reasonable and sustainable business model in the private sector. But the public sector needs to administer statutory obligations, entitlements and duties of care – including welfare, healthcare and justice – for us all as equals under the law.

Digitising government for “efficiency” under the guise of “improving services” compromises this principle. And, ultimately, if a public service is not reaching everyone, then it’s failing in its duty.

11/01/2022

11/01/2022