KPMG have published a white paper entitled ‘Payment for Success’ that has done the unthinkable – it’s annoyed a bunch of Librarians. It’s true, we do get annoyed and sometimes to levels when we go Shhhhhhhh! loudly.

However, like those in other professions - ‘The presenting issue is about levels of spending, but the real issues are about shifting control from providers to their customers and from bureaucrats to enterprising professionals.’ ( KPMG – Payment for Success) – we tend to get really annoyed by people making sweeping, ill-informed, and unreferenced claims about our profession.

The report – which makes some valid general points about tackling problem with public services – ‘Performance management has, in most cases, been undermined by its disconnect from financial management, which remains poor in many parts of the public sector’ ( KPMG – Payment for Success) – also talks a lot of old tosh too.

For example, there are 3 principles to the strategy:

(a) Three distinct customer roles should be created for each of the different types of service – personal, local and national – with these customers radically empowered to decide what they want and from whom
(b) Payment by results should be implemented across the public sector without exception – where it exists already, it should be made more forceful and sophisticated, where it does not exist, it should be introduced with very limited transitional periods.
(c ) Public service providers should be given almost total freedom to respond effectively to their customers and the PBR regime, supported by the active divestment of public sector staff into independent providers in control of their own future.

So correct me if I am reading this incorrectly, but that final one is saying all public sector staff should be outsourced

Another problem is there are just too many people with different jobs and professions working in local government.

‘One example is children services, where there has been a great emphasis recently on co-ordination amongst the many professionals. Success if often defined as having up to 10 different professionals from maybe 6 organisations around a table to discuss a family’s situation ( e.g. a social worker, an educational psychologist, an education welfare officer, a police officer, a pastoral teacher, a health visitor, a doctor, a housing officer, a community worker, a youth worker, a probation officer, etc). Better outcomes and value for money could well come from forging new professions which blend together skills and reducing the number of organisations involved, rather than yet more bureaucracy to manage the fragmentation.’

Now, I am all for ‘forging new professions’ but what are they suggesting on blending here and how? Why not just someone who is trained in more than one area?

But then we get to Libraries, where the reports says the following

‘A “local big state” is no more desirable than a “central big state”. Local government should seek to devolve to the most local level possible and to encourage communities to take over services. One example would be libraries. Libraries face funding challenges – in that they are more discretionary than other services, usage has declined, the unit cost of lending a book can be more expensive than the wholesale price of a book and customers have new book and information media and services (e.g. Amazon, social networking sites, etc). The level of community resistance to closing a library is usually disproportionate to the level of local usage, because communities believe that a local library belongs to them, not the council, and they believe in the future potential of the library to do great things. Devolution can allow new ideas to develop. For example – in North America libraries are often run by volunteers not paid council staff, whilst in the UK charity shops often have waiting lists of volunteers wanting to help them with book sales; much of the public space in a library is badly used storing infrequently used books; e-government has put libraries on line, but they still focus on a buildings based service; too many community groups are spending scarce resource on premises; where some councils have handed the library back to the community, they have often turned it into a much more vibrant community organisation and space. Giving councils total freedom on libraries could mean that they create huge social value from engaging a community in running its own library, backed up with some modern technology, whilst also saving large amounts of money on over-skilled paid staff, poor use of space and unnecessary stock.’

Let’s leave aside evidence that visits to libraries and library usage usually rises as the economy declines. (Rising to the challenge: a look at the role of public libraries in times of recession, Christine Rooney-Browne, Library Review, 2009 Volume: 58 Issue: 5 Page: 341 – 352) and just look at what KMPG assert.

‘Libraries face funding challenges’ – in that they are more discretionary than other services,, - Libraries like all local services do indeed face funding challenges, nothing new there.

‘Usage has declined’ –According to this BBC new story  (from figures by the Chartered Institute of Public Finanace and Accountancy) on the 2008/9 figures, there was a year-on-year decrease in visits to libraries in England of 1.4%, a decrease of 4.1% in Northern Ireland and an increase 0.4% in Scotland, and an increase of 3.7% in Wales. So, overall, yes, this does seem to show a decline in numbers visiting – if only slight. But this doesn’t tell the whole story as shown by the ‘unnecessary stock point below.

‘The level of community resistance to closing a library is usually disproportionate to the level of local usage.’ - This CAN be true, in the same way it is true if the local council tries to shut down a local school, swimming pool, or pub etc. This ‘disproportionate’ mass are usually those who recognise that even though they may not use the resource that it is a vital part of the community – especially for the young and the old.

‘In North America libraries are often run by volunteers not paid council staff’ – Well, bully for them, although ‘where does this ‘often’ claim come from. Sure the ALA would be surprised by this.

‘Whilst in the UK charity shops often have waiting lists of volunteers wanting to help them with book sales’ – That’s great, but if they want to sell books maybe they should go volunteer at Waterstones. If someone comes in and asks if they have a particular book are they going to know? Do they catalogue the books that come in, in any form, or do they just stick a price sticker on and stick it on a shelf.

‘Giving councils total freedom on libraries could mean that they create huge social value from engaging a community in running its own library, backed up with some modern technology.’ Seriously you’d think that the average library didn’t already engage with the local community and offer space for adult education etc, and that also they were still dark dusty places where there were no computers. We were doing both of these back in Swansea 15 years ago. And believe me people already think they run the library as anyone who works/has worked in public libraries and has been on the end of the ‘I pay your wages’ line will be fully aware.

‘Whilst also saving large amounts of money on over-skilled paid staff’ – Most frontline staff in public libraries are library assistants who are often not qualified librarians – it’s how I started off myself in Swansea Libraries. Those that are qualified are few, and if they are ‘over-skilled’ I’d like the authors of this report to visit a library and tell them just how they are over-skilled by detailing the skills that they have and how those are not suitable for the work in the library. In fact CILIP should call them out on this point. Let them prove they are not just under-skilled at the task of white paper writing.

‘Poor use of space’ – I’m sure there is some poor use of space in some of our libraries, especially older ones in building that are less flexible, but in most I have been in this is not the case – far from it in fact. There are areas for sitting, using computers, borrowing videos, CDs, DVD etc Indeed, if anything the only complaints tend to be from those who think there should be more BOOKS.

‘And unnecessary stock.’ Is that why, according to the BBC item mentioned above, the number of books issued went up in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? - 6.8% in Wales, 0.6% in England, 1.7% in Scotland and 3.6% in Northern Ireland. An increase in that unnecessary stock being borrowed by the public obviously.

I’m not for one moment saying that Libraries are not facing serious challenges, nor am I saying that there is not a role for more community involvement in supporting them, but KPMG’s lazy paragraph on my profession, like much of the previous government’s ramblings, shows clearly that the authors have not been in a library recently. It also shows they are too lazy to bother to back up their claims with any references.