Agenda item

To receive a report of the performance that Libraries, Registration and Archives (LRA) has made against its outcome-based specification for 2016-2017 and the proposed development of the internal commissioning approach for LRA for 2017-2018 and the priorities LRA has identified for 2017-2018.

Mr J Pearson, Interim Head of Service, was in attendance for this item.

1.    Mrs Cooper introduced the report and explained that the Libraries, Registration and Archives (LRA) service was an internally-commissioned, completely integrated service which included the registration and home office passport services, which could not be outsourced to any external provider. A decision had been taken in 2015 to keep the services together, and Kent was currently the only county in the UK to havea totally integrated LRA service.  The report set out performance against the service specification during 2016/17 and the specification for 2017/18. 

2.            Mr Pearson added that the specification included two methods of measuring performance, as key performance indicators (KPIs) recorded figures but could not assess quality.  He highlighted key areas of performance, such as customer satisfaction (which was at 95 – 97 % across various parts of the service), and the home library service, which, although receiving good feedback from customers, had not been used by as many people as had been expected and so had not met its target for the year. The registration and wedding services had also both received excellent customer feedback.

3.            Mrs Cooper and Mr Pearson  responded to comments and questions from Members, including the following:-

a)    Visitor numbers for the Kent History and Libraries Centre had been lower than those for the former Centre for Kentish Studies at Sessions House, and satisfaction rating was only 86%, as the space at the Kent History and Libraries Centre was smaller than at the Centre for Kentish Studies and work was still going on to develop and improve the new archive service;

b)    in response to a question, Mr Pearson undertook to look into the level of investment in new books at Faversham library;

c)    responding to a comment about how libraries could support an improvement in reading attainment at primary schools, Mr Pearson explained that the School Summer Reading Challenge had been established to counteract the dip in reading over the long school holidays, and Members were encouraged to support this scheme in their local libraries.  Schools could be encouraged to visit their local libraries and explore the opportunities there, particularly in the digital area.  Mrs Cooper added that work was ongoing to seek to link libraries with children’s centres and combine services to give a ‘cradle to grave’ service.  This could signpost new parents registering a birth to other children’s services and projects to encourage early reading.  She added that libraries could identify and support local students’ needs, for example by offering a homework club, as in some other EU countries;  

d)    in response to a question about digitalisation of collections, Mr Pearson explained that Kent needed to secure the permission and agreement of any other party depositing an item before digitalising it to add to Kent’s collection, and would charge the other party for the cost of the process;

e)    in response to a question about how older people in sheltered accommodation could be helped to access a library service within their premises, Mr Pearson explained that a range of services were being developed to support such communities, such as supplying a box of books to a residential or nursing home, with the contents of the box being refreshed regularly, and the Home Library Service.  However, such services would need to be sufficiently used if they were to be retained and continued. The SELMS scheme allowed libraries to borrow books from each other, to keep their local supply fresh, and could also serve readers requiring books in other languages.  Borrowing such books from a larger library already serving a wider and more established cultural diversity could save smaller libraries from having to source and fund their own collections from scratch;

f)     asked what input library staff had been able to have into the development or delivery of the specification, Mr Pearson explained that staff workshops and feedback had been a priority in delivering the national ambition and developing the LRA specification;

g)    in response to a comment about front-line staff not knowing about the availability of, or how to operate, a hearing loop, and a concern about general awareness of disability and social inclusion issues, Mr Pearson emphasised that a key point of the LRA service specification was that services should be available to all.  The challenge of delivering this was that data for library users, and their satisfaction with the service, was only recorded where there was engagement with the lending service; people who had attended a library to use a computer, for example, would not generate data about their visit.  Satisfaction surveys were a key part of developing the service, and work was in hand to improve the wording of these. However, people would need to feel comfortable about registering their disability and discussing their needs before they could be encouraged to do so. Disabled service users had recorded very positive comments about how they had been treated and supported when using their local library;

h)   although undertaking an EQIA was a vital part of identifying needs and shaping a service to meet them, the County Council should be proactive and strive to exceed the requirements of the EQIA; 

i)     library premises were much used by community groups, but such groups could make more use of other civic buildings if opening times could be more flexible around evenings and weekends. Asked if a ‘trusted key holder’ scheme could help with this, Mr Pearson explained that some buildings were currently being accessed using such arrangements.  He undertook to look into the feasibility of opening parts of larger buildings while sealing off access to other, staff-only areas; and

j)      asked how the Summer Reading Challenge could be continued through the rest of the year, Mr Pearson explained that schools were being encouraged to see how they could sustain children’s reading habits, perhaps by establishing a yearly themed reading scheme, in partnership with local libraries.  Such schemes could be kept going if there were sufficient local support and demand for them.  In addition, the Kent Digital Playground would focus on children and young people from disadvantaged communities.

4.            The Deputy Cabinet Member, Mrs Hohler, thanked Members for their thoughtful contributions and a good debate.  She recommended a scheme run by libraries in New York, in which displays at the library were tied in with course work at local schools, and parties of school children would be taken to the library as part of their course work.

5.         RESOLVED that the progress made by the Libraries, Registration and Archives service in 2016-17 be noted and welcomed, with Members’ comments above being noted, and the proposed service specification for 2017-18 be endorsed.