Brent Library London Comparision

I have been slow to publicise the CIPFA comparison of library data which is now available for 2018.  Those who like to attack the Library service in Brent have previously used this information to suggest that the Libraries Transformation Project failed despite the rise in numbers and user satisfaction. 

I particularly notice that Brent is now the second most visited service in London comparator group it is in.  It is also has fairly low spend, low reliance on volunteers, and is low in terms of numbers of libraries.

It is also at the higher end for number of book issues (although fairly low for numbers of book stock).  This argues that the book stock is well chosen since it is being well utilised.  Indeed by concentrating the facilities in a smaller number of libraries in easy to access locations, all of them become better used since there is inherently less downtime.  If you go to, say, Willesden Library, and many of the computers are in use you can still find a vacant one.  If you went to a smaller library with fewer PCs the chances of them all being occupied or of standing empty would be higher.

A More Negative Take
I had already started writing about this subject when I noticed that Martin Francis has beaten me to it.  As usual, his take is extremely negative.   He ignores the CIFPA comment that "Brent is within the higher quartiles suggesting that the library service engages well with the population when compared to the other authorities", and instead concentrates on the lower number of libraries. This is unsurprising given having fewer libraries more efficiently used was one of the key points of the successful strategy.

Wembley Library
He also has a specific objection to Wembley Library as people go through it to access the Civic Centre, which is true, as it was also true of the old Brent Town Hall library, and is a key feature of any strategy that tries to benefit from co-location.  That is one reason why I would reject his take that the increased number of visits at Wembley are an invalid measure.  The other is that the sheer scale of increased usage.  An increase of 787% in visits cannot be attributed solely to the provision of a side door, which in any case was also present in the predecessor library.  Finally, it is worth noting that Brent Town Hall library was a relatively small library even within Brent; the new Wembley Library is actually one of the best used in the UK.

Home Delivery Service
Martin also suggests that there should be a service for delivery of books to the housebound, apparently oblivious to the fact that there already is one.   Wembley Library has long had one of those irritating continuous loop films advertising this service.  One of the benefits of the transformation was the increase in usage of this service.

Book Stock
His stricture on book stock also seem curiously negative.  He omits mentioning that book loans have gone up, even though the spend is relatively low.  This suggests that he is not particularly interesting in the efficiency of spending, and hence ignores that Brent spends an unusually high proportion of its libraries budget on materials.  He also seems to ignore Brent's membership of the London Lending Consortium, which allows a reader in Brent to access the book stock across roughly half the Boroughs in London.

Library Fines
One thing that simply surprises me about his reaction is how laid back he is about the increase in charging that came in April.  This doesn't make much money, and some libraries are abandoning fines entirely. 

National Decline in Libraries
Martin also doesn't seem to appreciate that libraries in general are declining in usage across the UK.  This includes in terms of book loans.  Brent has done remarkably in seeing visits go up, loans go up and satisfaction levels go up despite the national decline.  That this has all been achieved on a much lower budget is a strength not a weakness.I think the fact that all Brent libraries are now open seven days a week is key to this achievement.