Lincolnshire Libraries Consultation

Summary of report

Background
- A Library Needs Assessment (LNA) was undertaken by LCC

- LCC's Community Engagement Team prepared an engagement plan, approved by the library service and the Consultation Institute (tCI), - In July 2013, Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) were commissioned to provide independent support, facilitating public events and analysing and reporting the data

The 90 day public consultation

Dedicated website and Community Information Packs An online survey (questionnaire) for adults to complete A hard copy survey (questionnaire) for adults to complete

available in all libraries and other places around Lincolnshire (30,000 distributed) Consultation with children and young people (facilitated sessions) An online survey (available to download) for children to complete - 3,000 distributed Eight public consultation events held between the 18th and 30th July 2013 in venues around Lincolnshire (Hemswell, Louth, Spalding, Sleaford, Lincoln, Grantham, Skegness, and Boston).

The role of Sheffield Hallam University (SHU)

To manage and facilitate eight consultation events The categorisation of literal questions and structured

analysis of responses for online and hard copy surveys (including both data from the adult survey and children's survey) over 6,000 responses and almost 22,000 qualitative comments Categorisation, analysis and reporting of comments received which fell outside of the pro-active consultation activities such as the public survey and the public meetings (650+ letters / emails, 1,300+ petition comments) Produce an overarching Public Consultation report including analysis of all consultation activities (apart from the childrens consultation) and public responses Additional guidance was provided to the SHU team from an expert from Shared Intelligence who has substantial experience of other library reviews

The nature of the consultation 'sample'

ADULT CONSULTATION
Survey response rate Survey accompanying communications* Consultation events Written communications (via letter / email) Social media comments* Petition comments 5,599 (including over 21,300 comments) 96 223 560 283 'Tweets' 900 + 432 from Deepings

CHILDREN / YOUNG PEOPLES CONSULTATION

Survey response rate 414

* this includes letters / documentation sent with surveys, comments on the back page of surveys etc. Consultation events 76 Written communications 94 (via letter / email) * Only those directed at LCC Petition comments n/a

Over 8,000 contributions / submissions to the consultation 7,095 visits to the libraries consultation webpage 902 downloads of information packs 931 downloads of consultation document

How representative is the consultation 'sample?

Under 50s under-represented Students under-represented Non-users under-represented Males under-represented Jobseekers - not known

Key findings Participant feelings

Strong public feeling - many participants were angry and upset Many participants found the survey and consultation events

unsuitable or inadequate ways of communicating their feelings. There was a fundamental disagreement with the proposed cuts to services There were thousands of communications which highlighted the value and importance of the library, both to participants as individuals and also the perceived benefits to the wider community There was a widespread sentiment that the function of a library amounted to much more than the services referred to in the consultation (a community hub, social centre)

Key findings Participant feelings

The

young people (and their parents) who participated in the childrens consultation also opposed the plans In addition to the LCC-led consultation activity, members of the public and councillors developed campaigns and led action against proposals A number of petitions were submitted and debated at Full Council on 13 September 2013. Over 23,000 signatures have been collected The value of libraries (educational and social), the enjoyment that they bring, the positive impacts on quality of life and wellbeing, and the quality of current staff and facilities were the key messages from participants

Key findings Perceived impacts

Overall,

some 63% stated that the changes to their library would have a significant effect on them personally, whilst 68% said that the effect on their community would be significant The impacts are perceived as being greater on individuals and communities with Tier 2, 3 or 4 facilities. The greatest personal impact would be felt amongst Tier 4 individuals, who represented 379 of the survey sample (7%) The impacts of the changes to the service were reported to be damaging to communities, particularly effecting the elderly, children and young people and jobseekers The impact on rural communities of these proposals was perceived as greater, or more serious, than impacts on urban communities

Key findings Perceived impacts

The

cuts to the library service were viewed as a highly unfair and short sighted approach that would result in permanent damage to the county The impact on young people, both now and in the future, was a key concern There was concern that community-run libraries may not materialise or they may start up but then face difficulties which may ultimately result in library closures

Key findings Feedback on Tiers 1 and 2

Extremely 5 Important
4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3

Very 4 Important

4.1 4.2 4.0

4.2
4.1

4.0
3.7

4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3

4.3

4.3 4.3

3.9
3.8 3.6

3.4
3.3 No Opinion 3.2 3

3.3

3.2

3.2 3.1 3.2

3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9

Not very 2 Important

Not at all important 1

The library should be well-used

The library should be located in a The library should be less than 30 The library should be in an area or highly populated area minutes away by public transport community that is disadvantaged
Overall Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 CL n/a

Opening hours

Key findings Feedback on Tiers 1 and 2

Access

and travel times were a major concern - '30 minutes travel time' was viewed as unrealistic due to public transport issues and costs. The importance of travel time increased for participants in more rural areas (Tier 3 and 4 library users) The opening hours were indicated to be the most important criteria, followed by usage and proximity / access Disabled participants placed a higher importance to each factor of the criteria, particularly keeping libraries in disadvantaged areas Tier 1 and Tier 2 feedback was broadly comparable 18% of survey participants chose not to answer this question for Tier 1 question and 22% for Tier 2 - primarily because they disagreed with the criteria (expressed through qualitative data)

Key findings Feedback on Tiers 3 and 4

100%

4.8%
90%

8.0%

18.9%
23.5%

21.3%

21.7%

8.9%

80%

41.0%

70%

60%

49.2%
51.3% 50% 51.4%

85.4% 62.5% 86.3%

40%

37.2%

30%

20%

31.8% 25.1%
10%

27.3%
21.8%

15.8%
6.6%

0% Overall Tier 1 Tier 2

Mobile vehicle

Tier 3
Community-run library

Tier 4
Don't know

CL

n/a

Key findings Feedback on Tiers 3 and 4

No LCC static library Participants preferred

/ 'leave the service as it is option the option of a community run facility (51%) to a mobile vehicle (25%). However there were concerns over sustainability, staffing and access Mobile libraries were viewed as highly valuable by isolated rural communities. However, would not work for others due to limitations on space and facilities, access, timings, community and social opportunities The perceived impact of losing a 'community hub' due to either a mobile service or a community library with restricted hours was a key concern Tier 4 was viewed as inadequate and insufficient to meet community needs by participants in all Tiers apart from current Tier 4 users

Key findings Feedback on Tiers 3 and 4

Participants

preferred the option of 66 hour-long stops per month, particularly current Tier 4 users (77% v 35%), however generally the proposal was deemed inadequate with longer time needed for stops (especially by non-Tier 4 users) Mobile libraries were described as a 'lifeline' by many current Tier 4 users. Current Tier 4 users expressed a strong desire to retain their services Access was the primary concern and the difficulty of accessing the service in specifically allocated windows of time was highlighted by many people

Key findings Feedback on Tiers 3 and 4

100% 90%

80%

70%

64.6%
70.4% 60%

50%

40%

30%

21.1% 20%
21.5%

10%
14.3%

8.2% 0% Tier 3: If your library was taken on by the local community, would you want to be part of a 'steering group' that takes on this opportunity?
Yes Possibly

Tier 3: If your library was taken on by the local community, would you be interested in giving your time as a volunteer in your local library?
No

Key findings Feedback on Tiers 3 and 4

100%
1.9%
2.0%

4.8%
90%

8.0%

2.8% 2.8%

1.5%

1.6%

4.5%

1.8% 1.8%

2.6% 4.2%

22.2% 23.6% 80% 20.6%

26.5% 27.6%

29.4%

27.6%

70%

60%

50% 59.3% 40% 60.7% 57.8% 30% 60.6%

71.4%

65.5%

65.1%

20%

10%

13.2% 6.1% 0% Overall Tier 1 Tier 2

Less than one hour 1-3 hours 4.6% 5.9% 4.8%

7.3% CL n/a

Tier 3
4-7 hours 8-15 hours

Tier 4
More than 15 hours

Key findings Volunteering

Overall

8% of participants were keen to join a library steering group, the proportion willing to volunteer was 14% In each case, a further 21% of participants indicated that they might consider becoming involved - two thirds of survey participants did not want to become involved There was a strong sentiment from participants that the timing for expressing an interest in involvement in a community-run library, or a willingness to volunteer, was too early More volunteers may come forward in the future

Key findings Suggestions

Multi-use

/ Shared Provision / Growth of the Service Growing the service (including diversification and product development ideas), shared provision and the multi-use of library buildings More promotion / publicity There was a perception that more marketing and promotion of the library service would be beneficial and that this could have market development and market penetration impacts (attracting lapsed and non-users and encouraging greater use of the service by existing users) Income Generation / Financial Ideas Including: hiring out facilities or making charges for specific services, selling off assets

Summary
Significant

feedback from those motivated to respond approximately 1% of the population. We do not have the views of 99% of the population Of the 1%, 81% describe themselves as library users. Within the 1%, there was widespread opposition to the proposals especially from library users. 63% of people who responded felt that the changes would have a significant impact on them, 68% on their community Tier 1 and 2: Most important: Opening Hours; 30 minutes by public transport; well used Tier 3: Preference for community libraries rather super mobiles Tier 4: widespread support for the current service Volunteering: 8.2% yes, 21.5% possibly