Research and analysis

Research and analysis to explore the service effectiveness and sustainability of community managed libraries in England

Published 5 September 2017

1. Executive summary

1.1 Introduction

Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 “…to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof”. In light of increased resourcing pressures, many local authorities have moved, or are now moving, to a model where they are working in partnership with communities to deliver this service.

As part of this shift towards the increased use of community managed libraries, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Libraries Taskforce, a partnership body of sector stakeholders, want to ensure that local authorities have access to the most up-to-date and accurate evaluation of delivery options when they consider how they will provide their library services in the future to meet the needs of each community that they serve. Therefore, to further build the evidence base on community managed libraries, the Libraries Taskforce and DCMS commissioned SERIO, an applied research unit at Plymouth University, to conduct an England-wide research project to understand more about how community managed libraries operate, and what lessons can be learnt and examples shared about their effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability.

The objectives of the research were to examine:

1. Whether, and how successfully, they are able to deliver the 7 Outcomes identified in Libraries Deliver: Ambition for Public Libraries in England 2016-2021, including as articulated in the Society of Chief Librarians (SCL) Universal Offers and how / whether this has changed over time
2. Whether the service level / quality matches expectations prior to switching to a community managed library model
3. Any evidence around whether some community managed library models deliver against expectations more effectively than others
4. What could be done (at local and national level) to help them be more effective
5. Whether community managed libraries are sustainable over the longer-term in terms of both finances and other resources (for example staff / volunteers)

1.2 Methodology

The research consisted of a desk-based review to collect important contextual and comparative data that then informed the assessment against each of the research objectives. This included a literature review of documents, outlining expectations of community managed libraries such as service level agreements; and any research or evaluations conducted by (or for) local authorities in relation to the effectiveness and sustainability of community managed libraries.

An online baseline survey was conducted with community library service managers, staff and volunteers across the 9 regions of England, to provide a broader understanding of the delivery models and effectiveness of community managed libraries. This was followed by the development of 9 detailed case studies, one for each of these regions, to inform the research objectives. Finally, a financial sustainability review, library user survey and interviews with local authority stakeholders from across the 9 regions were conducted to assess library effectiveness and financial and resource sustainability.

The research was limited to the number and typology of community managed libraries that responded to the initial online survey, and subsequently provided consent to be contacted for further investigation. Therefore, the information collected cannot be considered a representative sample of the community managed library sector as a whole. However, additional analysis was conducted following consultation with DCMS and Libraries Taskforce (with input from Local Government Association (LGA)) to ensure, as far as possible, a representative sample of community managed library typology, age, demographic profile and geographic location across the 9 regions in England.

1.3 Models examined

The research used 3 overarching types of community library model, as described in the Libraries Taskforce’s Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit, as the basis for classifying community managed libraries for analysis and reporting. These 3 models are:

1. Independent libraries (ILs) - run fully independently of the local authority library service
2. Community managed libraries (CMLs) - community led and largely community delivered, rarely with paid staff, but often with professional support and some form of ongoing local authority support
3. Community supported libraries (CSLs) - council-led and funded, usually with paid professional staff, but given significant support by volunteers

This typology is broadly illustrative of the different types of community library models in existence but, in practice, there is great variation in the operational structures chosen and the services offered. In addition, there are situations where more than one model is used within one council area, recognising that even within one area, ‘one size does not fit all’.

For the purposes of this research, the acronym CL will be used inclusively to refer to all 3 recognised types of community library. The acronyms ILs, CMLs and CSLs will be used throughout the report to refer to the 3 specific model types of independent libraries, community managed libraries and community supported libraries respectively.

1.4 Research findings

Analysis of the information collected during the primary research and desk-based review identified 6 major themes regarding the effectiveness and sustainability of community managed libraries. They were:

Communication and recognition

The desk based review consistently pointed towards the requirement for greater communication, understanding, and strengthening of links between local authorities and CLs. This was validated in the primary research, particularly by CMLs who cited varying levels of communication with local authorities, in addition to a perceived lack of official recognition for the role that CMLs play, as barriers to their future development and sustainability. These barriers were highlighted by CMLs as a wish for greater recognition of their services by their local authority library service and for their inclusion within national statistics. Also of note was the desire by CMLs to change the nature of the relationship with local authorities to that of both groups working on a more mutually beneficial basis, supporting each other in the delivery of local library services.

Recommendation

It is recommended that ongoing engagement between local authorities and CLs is encouraged. This could be supported by the increased promotion of existing support materials, such as the ‘Stronger co-ordination and partnership working’ section of the ‘Libraries Deliver: Ambition’ document, by the LGA to its members, and by existing CL peer networks, for example Community Managed Libraries Peer Support Network.

CLs are also treated differently by local authorities across England, with some CLs being part of the statutory service and other CLs not being aware if they are part of the statutory service or not. Increased clarity of communications at a local level between CLs and local authorities could be supported by additional national guidance for local authorities on when to view CLs as potentially providing a statutory service. It could also provide example service level agreements (SLA’s) or memorandum of understanding (MoU’s) for local authorities to use in setting out clear expectations for delivery by existing and new CLs. This guidance should be provided by DCMS and consideration should be given about whether it could take a similar format as that produced by the Welsh Government in their publication Guidance on Community Managed Libraries and the Statutory Provision of Public Library Services in Wales.

Recommendation

It is recommended that additional national guidance for local authorities is provided byDCMS. This guidance should set out when a CL should, or should not, be viewed as potentially providing a statutory service and also provide examples of SLA’s and/or MoU’s templates that can be used by local authorities to set out expectations for CL delivery of services. This guidance could take the form as that produced by the Welsh Government in their publication ‘Guidance on Community Managed Libraries and the Statutory Provision of Public Library Services in Wales’.

Shared learning

CLs cited their wish to see increased cohesion and learning developed through a nationwide peer support group that, separate to engagement with local authorities, aimed to share learning and good practice across specific issues that CLs face; a view that was echoed by stakeholders interviewed. The shared learning and knowledge created by the networks would encourage self-ownership by CLs of the challenges within the sector, and provide a route for local authorities to engage with CLs in a different manner. Peer networking could therefore take a more prominent role in catalysing development and enhancing the communication process between CLs, local authorities and other relevant stakeholders.

Recommendation

It is recommended that existing networking arrangements, such as the Community Knowledge Hub and Community Libraries Peer Support Network, are supported, developed and promoted for further dissemination by the Taskforce and its members (particularly the LGA) to relevant stakeholders, local authorities and CLs.

Sustainability

In terms of the effectiveness of service delivery, despite areas of commonality across the CSL and CML models, there is a great deal of variability in how these services are provided. This variability is the result of a range of localised internal and external factors, and therefore it is reasonable to argue that the CL sector cannot be fully understood by segregating library types into operational model types alone.

The likelihood of success for sustainably financed and resourced community libraries is dependent on a broad set of internal factors, such as drive, determination, volunteer availability and expertise, and external factors, such as the impact of local authority policy and resource availability.

Despite these factors, the majority of CLs indicated that they intend to grow the number and scale of their enhanced or income generating services in the future, highlighting a desire to increase revenue incomes and support their sustainable growth into the future. However, these same libraries reported that their main revenue streams will still be derived from the delivery of core services, indicating limitations to their ambitions to grow in the short-term whilst they remain reliant on some form of centralised local authority funding or support. Therefore, the current rates of sustainable growth in the research should be considered fragile.

In particular, despite the financial sustainability analysis reporting generally positive growth, current library models demonstrate a high dependency on volunteer performance and availability, and a high level of sensitivity to additional financial burden, such as increasing overhead costs.

The dependency on volunteers is particularly important, with CLs citing volunteer availability and capability as a major barrier. Volunteers represent a critical resource for revenue generation and future development, however CLs raised concerns regarding the gap in volunteer availability becoming greater as the number of older volunteers providing their time either reduced or ceased. Some CLs have tackled this barrier by developing interesting and engaging services that attract and encourage a different age range of volunteers to participate, and which can be provided without the need for additional training above that of a basic nature.

Recommendation

It is recommended that additional information and support on how to increase volunteer recruitment and improve succession planning and retention is provided by local authorities and (such as the Taskforce and peer support networks) to CLs. This could include increasing connections with national partners such as the National Citizen Service (NCS), or exploring corporate volunteering opportunities. Learning and good practice developed through this support, and areas of further research into how to attract and retain volunteers of all ages with the right skills, (as outlined in point 1 of Recommended areas of further research) should be incorporated into the ‘Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit and receive additional promotion by CL peer networks, such as the Community Libraries Peer Support Network.

Effectiveness

All libraries reported that they felt they were delivering efficient and effective services for the majority of those services that they offer, a view that was verified by both the user survey and stakeholder interviews. Stakeholders interviewed as part of the research, which consisted of local authority representatives responsible for library services, were also generally positive about how they viewed CLs and their ability to deliver library services. When asked if they felt CLs were effective in delivering the 7 Outcomes, as outlined by ‘Libraries Deliver: Ambition’, they felt that CLs were ‘quite’ or ‘very effective’ in delivering 4 of the 7 Outcomes. Those Outcomes where stakeholders felt CLs were currently less effective were ‘healthier and happier lives’, ‘greater prosperity’ and ‘helping everyone achieve their full potential’.

The majority of stakeholders indicated that they felt that CLs had met or exceeded expectations for specific outputs including financial savings; increased opening hours, visitor counts and book issues, maintaining quality levels and increasing social capital in the local area. There were also areas where stakeholders reported that they felt that CLs were better placed than they were to deliver services that engaged and tailored services to local communities. However, a small minority of stakeholders reported that, in some cases, their expectations were set low to begin with, raising the question as to whether the performance of CLs is assessed by stakeholders on an equal basis with local authority led libraries.

Following on from this, stakeholders indicated that size, proximity to local authority led libraries, a lack of ongoing local authority support and a limited range of services on offer from CLs could be limiting factors in their future sustainability, factors that correlated with the views voiced by community libraries. However, some stakeholders confirmed that their existing support would probably continue for the foreseeable future; and all stakeholders reported that they were ‘very comfortable’ with the idea of income generation or ‘enterprising’ activities undertaken within a library context, indicating that developing this area of income generation for CLs is broadly supported.

Support

CLs identified limited sources of funding and building restrictions as major barriers. Tackling these barriers is challenging given that solutions are limited by external factors, such as the availability of localised funding and the physical building constraints that libraries operate within. Income generation activities are critical to CLs long-term sustainability, allied with ongoing support from local authorities, for example, through contributions to core funding (especially in the early years), free/discounted access to library management systems and IT, and reduced business rates and preferential lease rates. Both CLs and local authorities both recognise there is a need for more funding opportunities to be made available for CLs; ranging from minor support to more substantial grant funding.

Recommendation

It is recommended that further information and support is provided to CLs to identify, prepare and apply for local and national grant funding sources. This information and support could be provided through ‘Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit’, the CommunityLibraries Peer Support Network or by local authorities assisting CLs by providing access to information and training, ensuring that CLs are able to benefit from any funding streams that become available.

A regular theme identified by CLs is the value of ongoing ad-hoc or targeted support from local authorities that does not necessarily relate to direct funding, for example, informal advice, support with accessing local volunteer networks, and combined training sessions. This support has enabled CLs a window of opportunity to consolidate their volunteer base, ensure effective service delivery and, in particularly in the case of CMLs, develop new enhanced or income generating services that have contributed to their long-term sustainability.

Recommendation

Local authorities should be encouraged to provide on-going ‘non-financial’ and ‘provision of expertise’ support to CLs, such as informal advice, or free/discounted access to library management systems and IT, combined training sessions or preferential lease rates. This continuing support is particularly valuable to CLs in the short to medium term period (Years 1 to 3) of consolidation required to ensure their sustainable development.

1.5 Areas for further research

Following on from the themes identified by the research, a number of additional areas have been identified that would warrant further investigation – either because insufficient information was available at this stage, or because specific areas of enquiry fell outside the scope of this piece of work.

First, the availability and capability of volunteers within the community library sector was consistently identified as a significant factor for the future sustainability of community libraries. Therefore, going beyond the recommendation regarding increasing volunteer recruitment and succession planning, further research is required to fully understand the major drivers and barriers in attracting, training, developing and retaining volunteers. The learning from this further research should then be applied to the ‘Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit’.

Secondly, due to the limited number of IL respondents, additional investigation into ILs is required to fully understand their operational models and methods of revenue generation. Initial insights indicated that the level of revenue and breadth of services ILs offer far exceeds that of both CSLs and CMLs. Therefore, to provide a holistic view of the CL sector, it is recommended that areas of IL good practice are examined and disseminated to CSLs, CMLs and local authority led libraries, through updates to the ‘Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit’ and through the Community Libraries Peer Support Network.

Finally, the desk based review of available information regarding community libraries within existing literature, specifically concerning their effectiveness and sustainability, was found to be limited. However, the review did not conduct an exhaustive search of all available evidence, but rather captured significant findings that summarised current levels of understanding. Therefore, there would be benefit in conducting a wider review of available evidence to inform future research, based on the findings in this report.

2. Context and background

DCMS oversees policy on public libraries and is responsible for the promotion and superintendence of the public library sector in England. It is supported by the Libraries Taskforce, a partnership body of sector stakeholders, which is jointly sponsored by DCMS and the LGA. Their role is to provide leadership to, and help to reinvigorate, the public library sector, and to enable the delivery of the recommendations from the Independent Library Report for England. The Libraries Taskforce remit covers public libraries in England only, however it liaises with the Devolved Administrations to share information and learning.

Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 “…to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof”. Many local authorities are now working in partnership with communities to deliver this service. This may be through volunteers working alongside paid staff to run statutory services or communities taking on responsibility for delivering services. The latter may be accompanied by the library moving out of the statutory service where a needs assessment indicates the ability to withdraw the statutory council service. This move to increased community involvement is also happening in other public services, including museums, post offices, leisure centres, community halls and pubs.

DCMS and the Libraries Taskforce, want to ensure that local authorities have access to the most up-to-date and accurate evaluation of delivery options when they consider how they will provide their library services in the future to meet the needs of each community that they serve. To further build the evidence base on community managed libraries, the Libraries Taskforce and DCMS commissioned SERIO, an applied research unit at Plymouth University, to conduct an England-wide research project to understand more about how community managed libraries operate, and what lessons or examples can be learnt and shared about their effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability.

To assess how far community managed libraries successfully and sustainably support the delivery of the statutory duty to deliver a ‘comprehensive and efficient library service’, the research project required evidence to understand how effective community managed libraries are in terms of service delivery compared to other library delivery models, including:

1. Whether, and how successfully, they are able to deliver the 7 Outcomes identified in Libraries Deliver: Ambition for Public Libraries in England 2016-2021, including as articulated in the Society of Chief Librarians (SCL) Universal Offers and how / whether this has changed over time
2. Whether the service level / quality matches expectations prior to switching to a community managed library model
3. Any evidence around whether some community managed library models deliver against expectations more effectively than others
4. What could be done (at local and national level) to help them be more effective
5. Whether community managed libraries are sustainable over the longer-term in terms of both finances and other resources (for example staff / volunteers), including:
   • whether they are sustainable at all
   • whether they are more or less sustainable than other library delivery models
   • whether some community managed library models appear to be more sustainable than others
   • what could be done to maximise the likelihood of long-term sustainability
   • how efficient community managed libraries appear to be compared to other delivery models (including any value for money assessments readily available), in particular how the efficiencies delivered by community managed models compare to what stakeholders expected when switching to this model of library provision

3. Summary of research methods

To address these research themes, the following methodology was developed to offer robust conclusions on the effectiveness, sustainability and efficiency of community managed libraries.

3.1 Desk based review

A desk-based review was undertaken to collect important contextual and comparative data which informed the assessment against each of the research objectives. This included a literature review of documents, outlining expectations of community managed libraries such as service level agreements; and any research or evaluations conducted by (or for) local authorities about the effectiveness and sustainability of community managed libraries. A search strategy was developed that applied the appropriate significant words to academic databases and grey literature. The purpose of the review was not to conduct an exhaustive search of all available evidence, but rather to capture the main findings that summarise current levels of understanding.

3.2 Online baseline survey

An online baseline survey with community library service managers, staff and volunteers across England was conducted to provide a broader understanding of the delivery models and effectiveness of community managed libraries. This approach represented the most efficient and effective method to collect the range of data required from the different research sample populations across the 9 regions of England. Responses about issues such as effectiveness, sustainability and efficiency were collected through this online survey, providing a greater understanding of these within community managed libraries in England and enabling a comparison between the range of different community managed library models currently operating.

3.3 Case studies

Nine detailed case studies, one for each of the regions of England, were produced. Each case study was selected based upon providing the greatest range of typological, geographical, demographic and community library model and age type to inform the research objectives. Developing the case studies involved telephone and in-person interviews with library service managers, staff, volunteers, and local authority stakeholders (see section 3.6). Semi-structured interviews were used to enable an in-depth exploration of topics covered in the baseline survey as well as open discussion about the issues especially pertinent to each respondent, which subsequently provided the data required to meet the research objectives.

3.4 Users survey

410 postal surveys were distributed to the 9 case study libraries. The libraries subsequently circulated the surveys amongst their users. The survey explored users’ views and experiences of the library to provide insight into what types of services are being used, how satisfied people are with those services, and what, if anything, could be done to improve those services. As an incentive, respondents were offered the chance to win one of nine £10 Amazon vouchers and one of two £25 iTunes vouchers.

3.5 Financial sustainability analysis

Community libraries responding to the online baseline survey were asked to provide basic income and expenditure data for their libraries for the latest full financial year. CLs were also asked for consent to be contacted regarding collecting more detailed financial information. A small sample of the CLs who provided consent were asked to provide additional financial information for (up to) the previous 3 years, or from the first full financial year of trading, to assess their financial sustainability over the longer-term. Financial sustainability was assessed by comparing performance between CL models against a set of financial indicators.

3.6 Stakeholder interviews

Ten local authority stakeholders from each of the 9 regions in England were identified and invited to take part in an interview lasting approximately 1 hour to explore the following major themes:

• the library service history and provision of statutory services in the region; including if and how the local authority have been involved with community managed libraries
• where regional library services have adapted to include community managed libraries, what expectations were regarding their delivery; and perceptions of how efficiently community managed libraries perform
• opinions on the benefits or drawbacks of community managed libraries compared to pre-community managed models, particularly highlighting where community managed models have exceeded or under-performed against expectations
• views on the future direction and sustainability of library services, in the context of both local authority and community managed library models

4. Desk review of the sustainability and effectiveness of community managed libraries

The desk review of the sustainability and effectiveness of community managed libraries revealed the following findings:

4.1 The transition

Public libraries within England have connected communities and individuals over the last 150 years or so, providing a safe, neutral space for members of the community to use.

Involving the community in supporting and delivering library services is not a new concept, and groups such as ‘Friends of …’ have helped to raise funds and support the continued existence of libraries for many years. In addition, the use of community volunteers has formed part of local library provision for decades and, from the 1950s up until the 1980s, community managed libraries in the form of networks of local volunteers delivered much of rural Britain’s public library service^{[footnote 1]}.

However, with the recent resource challenges public sector organisations across England have faced, there is an increasing focus on the role communities can play in shaping and delivering their local library service. Managing resources effectively and in a sustainable manner is fundamental and, if properly supported, community managed libraries can contribute to the adaptability and innovation required to deliver an efficient library service.

It has been suggested that community involvement is not a ‘quick fix’ for strengthening sustainability within library services. Communities and local authorities need time and resources to investigate the transition to new arrangements with increased community involvement. The challenge is not simply to transfer libraries to community management to ensure local authority efficiencies, but to work with communities in a strategic manner that will create shared benefits for the local community, local government and local users.

4.2 Library models

There are various forms of community library in existence. Some local authorities pay community groups or charities to deliver statutory services; whilst other communities continue to deliver or develop their own services where local authority funding is being withdrawn. As described in the Libraries Taskforce’s Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit, there are 3 overarching types of community library model:

1. Independent libraries - run fully independently of the local authority library service
2. Community managed libraries - community led and largely community delivered, rarely with paid staff, but often with professional support and some form of ongoing local authority support
3. Community supported libraries - council-led and funded, usually with paid professional staff, but given significant support by volunteers

This typology is broadly illustrative of the different types of community library models in existence, but in practice, there is great variation in the operational structures chosen and the services offered. In addition, there are situations where more than one model is used within one local authority area, accepting that even within one area, ‘one size does not fit all’.

For the purposes of this research, the acronym CL will be used inclusively to refer to all 3 recognised types of community library. The acronyms ILs, CMLs and CSLs will be used throughout the report to refer to the 3 specific model types of independent libraries, community managed libraries and community supported libraries respectively.

A 2016 report noted that the pace of CL growth in England is relatively rapid, with the number of CLs having increased by a fifth since 2015, from 250 to 300.

4.3 Sustainability

Libraries are operating in a changing landscape characterised by declining public funding and increased demand for digital capabilities. Leadership and a clearly articulated ‘theory of change’ is required to improve the overall sustainability and resilience in future library services. In the face of this challenging environment, CLs are adopting more dynamic strategies to remain sustainable. For example they are increasingly diversifying their services and expanding their income streams, providing secondary activities alongside their core work such as cafés or community hub facilities.

In Locality’s review of current and potential library enterprise activities, 5 important areas of opportunity for income generation were identified:

• non-library service public contracts
• private sector service contracts
• direct trading through the sale of complementary products
• charges for services, and
• new / emergent ICT services

A pilot programme explored the potential of various income-generating activities for libraries, establishing a learning base to build upon. The programme report detailed several important themes to be taken into account if income generation within public libraries was to be increased. Among them was the need for significant organisational transformation to occur and for staff attitudes to embrace service transformation. Critical elements included a need for:

• staff to buy into the vision, mission and values of the service
• staff to be duly recognised for their efforts
• for an environment to be fostered that encourages participation and innovation

Other themes included the need for libraries to consider the scope, scale and form of their service offerings, for example engaging in multi-authority partnerships to achieve greater financial returns; and considering the sale of specialist resources or assets.

However, despite these efforts, in the past 5 years the total income raised from library services has remained relatively unchanged, at around 8% of total expenditure^{[footnote 2]}.

For existing CLs, the ownership of assets was not originally a part of transfer agreements, but in relation to the development of sustainable CLs, it is beginning to play an important role. Transferring library buildings into the ownership of legally constituted community groups can open up a range of possibilities that can result in improvements to the layout and fabric of buildings. A community asset transfer can be an essential factor in increasing the prospects for future financial sustainability, with a rising number of local authorities recognising that this can form an important part of their strategic asset management. However, transferring library buildings into community ownership is not always viable, and each individual case needs consideration on its own merits. Nevertheless, in recent years, the majority of local authorities in England have started to consider the process of transferring assets to communities.

4.4 Effectiveness

There are no national performance standards or frameworks extant in the English public library sector that local authorities can assess CLs against to evidence whether they are providing effective services. Previous frameworks such as Public Library Standards and Public Library Impact Measures were removed in 2008.

Cavanagh also noted that there was little guidance available to enable robust evaluation of CL services^{[footnote 1]}. Therefore, in the absence of clear criteria for assessing library effectiveness, Cavanagh invited 2 groups of library staff to complete an online survey, reporting on the services their library provided and the degree of importance they placed on certain aspects of library provision. He compared the responses of CL leader volunteers (volunteers, n=36) with those from leading traditional libraries (librarians, n=34). Due to the small sample size of the Cavanagh research, the findings associated with the work should be considered indicative rather than representative.

Although noting that there was no baseline to compare service provision prior to the CLs becoming volunteer-managed, Cavanagh observed that CLs offered a narrowed yet diversified service when compared to traditional libraries. They were less likely to be open in the evening, provide newspapers or magazines, or offer e-books; but were more likely to offer unique services such as a café or film nights. Librarians in traditional libraries tended to report that they felt CLs would do less well compared to when the library was professionally staffed; whilst volunteers tended to report that their CL was performing better than when the library was professionally staffed. Regarding the importance of training, librarians in traditional libraries were found to perceive various areas of training as essential, such as Equality and Diversity, Data Protection, Freedom of Information, and Customer Care, whereas volunteers were less likely to perceive training as important. Further to this, both volunteers and librarians reported undertaking less training than that perceived as being needed. For example, 100% of librarians and 46% of volunteers perceived that training in Customer Care was essential, but only 43% of librarians and 29% of volunteers reported that they had received such training.

There were also differences of opinion observed between volunteers and librarians concerning the relative importance they placed on 30 different aspects of library services. While library usage and the quality of staff/ volunteers were ranked in the librarians’ top 5 essential criteria, volunteers ranked these criteria 17th and 14th respectively. Conversely, volunteers ranked staff/ volunteer morale as the most essential criteria, whereas librarians ranked it much lower. There were some similarities in rankings between the groups, for example customer satisfaction and services suited to customer’s needs were ranked highly by both volunteers and librarians; whilst parking provision and staff/ volunteer demographics reflecting the communities served were both ranked relatively unimportant by both groups. There was also variation in the level of support that volunteers reported they were receiving from their local authority. While some reported that local authorities provided them with professional assistance whenever they needed it, others perceived that their CL was at risk of closure if footfall to the library did not increase.

Cavanagh noted that there appears to be widespread variation across the library network regarding the range of services and training provided, and the extent of local authority support. He suggested that the evidence indicates there is currently a ‘fragmented and inconsistent network of volunteer delivered libraries’ and a national library standards framework is needed to reduce service variability between and within local authorities.

To reduce service variability and support heads of library services and communities looking to establish community managed libraries, the Libraries Taskforce published the Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit. It provides guidance on establishing a community managed library, including how to engage in effective partnerships with local authorities and other stakeholders and ensure a high-quality service is provided to local people. First launched in March 2016, the toolkit is a live document which is regularly iterated and improved based on feedback.

4.5 Concluding points

From the literature search summarised in the previous section, it was evident that there is a reasonable body of literature available regarding the effective delivery of public library services. However, specific literature that addresses and investigates community run library services is relatively sparse. Therefore, this report looks to contribute to the literature specifically looking at the effectiveness and sustainability of community library models. However, as the review did not conduct an exhaustive search of all available evidence, there would be benefit in conducting a wider review of available evidence to inform future research, based on the findings in this report.

5. Online baseline survey of community library models in England

The following section provides the findings from the online baseline survey sent to all community libraries:

5.1 Library models

The research used 3 overarching types of community library model, as described in the Libraries Taskforce’s Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit, and earlier in section 4.2, as the basis for classifying community managed libraries for analysis and reporting. This typology is broadly illustrative of the different types of community library models in existence but, in practice, there is great variation in the operational structures chosen and the services offered.

5.2 Library demographics

In total, 61 libraries responded to the online survey within the three-week timeframe allocated. This reflects a 13.5% response rate, of the 442 libraries that were invited to take part.

[Please note that due to variability in the number of responses to each question within the survey, percentages reported will vary due to differing bases and/or non-responses. Response numbers will be provided against each statistic reported.]

CLs for the survey sample were identified through consultation with the Libraries Taskforce and primary desk based research. Due to non-responses, the number of CLs in the East, North East and North West regions were under-represented when compared to the other 6 regions. However, there was an even response across all of the 9 regions in terms of typology, deprivation levels and demographics. Given this, the survey cannot be considered as representative of the CL sector as a whole, but should be considered indicative of CL model and operational type across England.

Responding libraries were located across 30 local authority areas and were comprised of a diverse range of organisational legal statuses and community library models. Chart 1 provides information regarding legal status and CL model reported from the online survey respondents.

Chart 1: Online survey respondents - CL type and legal status

Due to the low base number of ILs, any statistical comparisons drawn between the models will be limited to CSLs and CMLs.

More than half of all the libraries surveyed (60%, 36 libraries) reported that they were part of their council’s statutory library service network. Other libraries were either not part of the network (20%, 12 libraries) or they were unsure (20%, 12 libraries).

Of the 3 models CSLs are, unsurprisingly, most likely to report being part of their council’s statutory library service network; however only around three-quarters of CSLs indicated they are members (72%, 18 libraries). The remaining 28% (7 libraries) were unsure, raising questions over the clarity of communication between the library and their local authority regarding the provision of statutory services.

Over half of CMLs (56%, 18 libraries) reported that they were part of their council statutory library network; 15% (5 libraries) were unsure and 27% (9 libraries) reported that they were not. As anticipated, all 3 ILs responded that they were not part of the statutory library service network.

5.3 Delivering library services

Core library services

The online baseline survey listed 9 core services that CLs may be expected to deliver as part of the statutory network membership - a list of core services can be found in Annex 1. Of the libraries who were part of their council’s statutory library network, 86% (16 CSLs and 14 CMLs) reported that some of their services are provided as a result of their statutory network membership; the most commonly offered services included^{[footnote 3]}:

• book loans / reservations (63%, 8 CSLs and 11 CMLs)
• wifi (40%, 4 CSLs and 8 CMLs)
• inter-library loans (30%, 3 CSLs and 6 CMLs)
• access to computers (26%, 3 CSLs and 5 CMLs)

Responses also indicated a greater appetite to engage further with their local authority with regards to providing statutory services:

Even accepting our local authority’s terrible financial situation, we would like to have a closer relationship with the statutory library service, for example marketing our activity programme through the local authority.

However, across all CL models, the majority of respondents reported that they offer a range of core library services, whether they are part of the statutory service network or not. CLs on average provide at least 7 of the 9 core library services listed. As Chart 2 shows, the most common services provided by both CMLs and CSLs included: book loans; photocopying/ printing; computer access and wifi provision.

Of those who offer computer access, just under two thirds (60%, 15 CSLs, 9 CMLs, and 1 IL) note that they provide this service for free. Around a third (31%, 7 CSLs, 10 CMLs, and 1 IL) said that computer access is free for a set period (for example 1 hour) or for certain people (such as children or library members), and then is subsequently chargeable. The remaining 9% (2 CSLs, 2 CMLs and 1 IL) said that all their computer access is chargeable.

Chart 2: Core services provided by community supported, community managed, and independent libraries

Base: 61 (with exception of book loans n=60; newspapers/ magazines n=60; library service for schools n=58; inter-library loan service n=59; DVD/ CD loans n=59; wifi n=60)

A large majority of community libraries reported that they receive financial and/or in-kind support from their local authority to deliver the core services they provide, including:

• inter-library loan service (95%, 19 CSLs and 20 CMLs)
• national programmes such as the Summer Reading Challenge, Quick Reads, Books on Prescription (90%, 21 CSLs and 26 CMLs)
• book loans (89%, 24 CSLs and 26 CMLs)
• computer access (80%, 20 CSLs and 24 CMLs)
• DVD/CD loans (74%, 14 CSLs and 15 CMLs)
• wifi (72%, 17 CSLs and 22 CMLs)

Libraries were less likely to report that they received local authority support to provide newspapers/ magazines (30%, 9 CSLs and 3 CMLs), and library service for schools (26%, 6 CSLs and 3 CMLs).

Enhanced library services

The online baseline survey highlighted variation in the types of enhanced library services CLs offer - a list of enhanced services can be found in Annex 1. From a list of 16 potential enhanced services, CLs reported providing between 0 and 12 enhanced services (mean= 6).

As shown in Chart 3, a large proportion of libraries reported offering community events and parent and baby groups 87% (19 CSLs, 30 CMLs and 3 ILs) and 85% (20 CSLs, 26 CMLs and 3 ILs) respectively. Similarly, around two thirds of libraries reported that they offer:

• reading groups (64%, 15 CSLs, 21 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• local history archive (64%, 16 CSLs, 20 CMLs and 1 IL)
• ebook loans (63%, 18 CSLs and 18 CMLs)

This is supported by comments provided by CLs within the survey:

We have an events programme including lectures, classes, activities for small children, and wellbeing sessions for older people

There are book sales, plant sales, local events information, health information, education information, and displays of local authority consultation documents

Around half the libraries surveyed reported that they offer:

• creative groups (55%, 10 CSLs, 19 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• e-magazines (53%, 15 CSLs and 13 CMLs)
• digital skills classes or training (48%, 8 CSLs, 18 CMLs and 2 ILs)

Less than a quarter of libraries currently offer children and young people’s groups, or health groups (23%, 7 CSLs, 4 CMLs and 2 ILs; and 18%, 2 CSLs, 6 CMLs and 2 ILs respectively).

Groups for children and young people was the service that libraries were most likely to report as one they planned to offer in the future (23%, 3 CSLs and 10 CMLs). With regards to the services that libraries were least likely to report offering or planning to offer, no libraries said that they offer a toy library and only 2 libraries (1 CSL and 1 CML) indicated that they plan to offer one in the future.

Similarly, business advice, laptop or tablet loan, and healthy eating/ cooking sessions were currently on offer by only 5% (1 CSL, 1 CML and 1 IL), 4% (1 CSL and 1 CML) and 4% (1 CSL and 1 IL) of libraries respectively; with only 1, 3 and 4 libraries indicating that they plan to offer these services in future.

Chart 3: Enhanced services provided by community supported, community managed, and independent libraries

Base: 60 (except reading groups n=59; digital skills classes or training n=58; creative groups n=58; parent and baby groups n=58; local history archive n=58; healthy eating / cooking sessions n=57; job clubs n=57; e-book loans n=57; laptop or tablet loan n=56; business advice n=56; children and young people’s groups n=56; language / conversation classes n=56; health groups n=55; toy library n=54; e-magazines / newspapers n=53)

Overall, CLs reported receiving less support from their local authority to deliver enhanced services, when compared to core services. For example, the majority of libraries reported that they do not receive any form of financial or in-kind support from their local authority to deliver:

• creative groups (97%, 8 CSLs, 17 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• community events (94%, 17 CSLs, 25 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• children and young people’s groups (92%, 6 CSLs, 4 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• parent and baby groups (89%, 15 CSLs, 22 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• digital skills classes (80%, 4 CSLs, 14 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• reading groups (66%, 11 CSLs, 10 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• local history archive (57%, 10 CSLs, 9 CMLs and 1 IL)

The exceptions to this were e-book loans, and e-magazines/newspapers, which were reported as supported by local authorities in 100% (16 CSLs and 16 CMLs) and 96% (13 CSLs and 13 CMLs) of cases respectively.

Income raising services

The majority of CLs reported that they currently offer at least one income raising service (81%, 46 of 57 respondents). The total number ranged from 0 to 9 and the mean number of income raising services currently offered was 3.

Of the 11 CLs (6 CSLs and 5 CMLs) who reported that they do not currently provide an income raising service, 3 noted that they plan to offer one in the future. As shown in Chart 4, the most commonly reported service currently provided was meeting room/ workspace hire, by 64% of libraries (14 CSLs, 22 CMLs and 2 ILs).

Around half the libraries surveyed reported that they provide:

• document laminating (51%, 11 CSLs, 17 CMLs and 1 IL)
• craft sales (46%, 6 CSLs, 18 CMLs and 2 ILs); and
• exhibition areas (44%, 7 CSLs, 16 CMLs and 1 IL)

A third said they provide database research (31%, 6 CSLs and 11 CMLs) and a quarter offer selling/ advertising space (25%, 5 CSLs, 8 CMLs and 1 IL); and a café (25%, 5 CSLs, 7 CMLs and 2 ILs); whilst one fifth provide a shop (20%, 4 CSLs, 6 CMLs and 1 IL).

Parcel collection was not offered by any of the CLs surveyed. In addition:

• 2 libraries deliver front desk services for public services (4%, 1 CSL and 1 CML)
• 5 offer a vending machine (9%, 1 CSL, 3 CMLs and 1 IL)
• 6 provide organised trips (11%, 4 CMLs and 2 ILs) and
• 8 provide sponsorship opportunities (15%, 3 CSLs, 2 CMLs and 3 ILs)

Although CSL and CML libraries reported providing a number of similar income raising services, there were some notable differences. For example, a higher proportion of CMLs reported providing craft sales (52%, compared to 29% of CSLs); database research (42%, compared to 29% of CSLs); and exhibition areas (56%, compared to 33% of CSLs). This may be somewhat related to the nature of CMLs, and their increased reliance on additional, sustainable sources of funding.

Chart 4: Income raising services provided by community supported, community managed and independent libraries

Base: 59 (except craft sales n=57; document laminating n=57; café n=55; shop n=55; selling / providing advertising space n=55; exhibition areas n=55; vending machines n=54; providing sponsorship opportunities n=54; parcel collection n=54; database research n=54; delivering front desk services for public services n=53; organised trips n=53)

Overall, the majority of CLs reported that they did not receive any financial or in-kind local authority support for delivering income-raising services, including:

• document laminating (100%, 10 CSLs, 17 CMLs and 1 IL)
• exhibition areas (100%, 6 CSLs, 13 CMLs and 1 IL)
• sponsorship activities (100%, 1 CSL, 2 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• front desk services for public services (100%, 1 CSL and 1 CML)
• organised trips (100%, 4 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• meeting room/ work space hire (94%, 12 CSLs, 19 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• café (92%, 3 CSLs, 7 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• advertising space (92%, 4 CSLs, 6 CMLs and 1 IL)
• craft sales (91%, 5 CSLs, 14 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• shop (90%, 2 CSLs, 6 CMLs and 1 IL)
• vending machines (80%, 1 CSL, 2 CMLs and 1 IL)

The exception to this was the delivery of database research, for which 62% (4 CSLs and 6 CMLs) reported receiving financial and/ or in-kind support from their local authority.

6. Service effectiveness and efficiency

6.1 Service efficiency

Libraries were asked how efficient they felt their library services are and the majority of respondents reported that they felt their services were running efficiently. 30% (5 CSLs, 11 CMLs and 2 ILs) reported that they were ‘very efficient’, where all or most services are running efficiently.

Almost two thirds (63%, 15 CSLs, 21 CMLs and 1 IL) reported that they were ‘quite efficient’, with room for improvement for a minority of services. Only 4 libraries (7%, 3 CSLs, 1 CML and 1 IL) reported that they perceived themselves to be ‘quite inefficient’ with room for improvement for the majority of services; and no libraries reported that they were very inefficient.

6.2 Effectiveness of core, enhanced and income-raising services

The majority of libraries reported that each of their core services was running effectively. As shown in Chart 5, the book loans service was rated as being most effective with 98% of libraries (21 CSLs, 30 CMLs and 3 ILs) who provide this service rating it as being very or quite effective^{[footnote 4]}. Similarly, CLs rated the following services as very or quite effective:

• computer access 94% (19 CSLs, 29 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• photocopying/ printing 91% (17 CSLs, 29 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• wifi 90% (20 CSLs, 26 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• national programmes 90% (18 CSLs, 27 CMLs and 2 ILs)

The least effective core service reported overall was DVD/CD loans with 13% (2 CSLs and 3 CMLs) rating their service as quite or very ineffective.

The enhanced services that most libraries rated as being very or quite effective overall, included:

• parent and baby groups (92%, 5 CSLs, 4 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• community events (87%, 14 CSLs, 23 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• reading groups (77%, 11 CSLs, 17 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• creative groups (73%, 8 CSLs, 14 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• e-magazines/ newspapers (68%, 9 CSLs and 8 CMLs)
• e-book loans (61%, 11 CSLs and 8 CMLs)

Overall, income raising services were similarly rated as effective by the majority of libraries. For example, the income raising services rated as very or quite effective by the highest proportion of libraries were:

• craft sales (83%, 4 CSLs, 13 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• selling/ providing advertising space (83%, 3 CSLs, 6 CMLs and 1 IL)
• shop (82%, 3 CSLs, 5 CMLs and 1 IL)
• meeting room/ work space hire (80%, 8 CSLs, 18 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• café (79%, 4 CSLs, 6 CMLs and 1 IL)
• document laminating (78%, 7 CSLs, 13 CMLs and 1 IL)
• exhibition areas (71%, 5 CSLs, 9 CMLs and 1 IL); and
• database research (58%, 3 CSLs and 4 CMLs)

Chart 5: Showing the effectiveness of core, enhanced and income raising services as rated by community supported, community managed, and independent libraries

Base: 56 (except photocopying/ printing n=54; computer access n=54; wifi n=54; national programmes n=52; inter-library loan service n=42; library service for schools n=42; N=newspapers/ magazines available in library n=39; DVD / CD loans n=40; parent and baby groups n=12; community events n=46; reading groups n=39; creative groups n=33; e-magazines / newspapers n=25; e-book loans n=31; craft sales n=23; shop n=11; café n=14; meeting room / work space hire n=35; document laminating n=27; database research n=12; exhibition areas n-21; selling / providing advertising space n=12)^{[footnote 5]}

Some libraries provided additional comments regarding the provision and efficacy of their services. For example, some noted that they had received positive user feedback since becoming a CL and others reported providing, or planning to provide, a greater range of services.

A common concern between CL models was the availability of physical space and the way in which this may limit libraries’ capacity to deliver more and varied services. Similarly, a lack of volunteers with the appropriate experience and skillset was cited as a concern amongst all libraries, particularly regarding their ability to deliver effective services.

We are physically a small library and are very limited in opportunities for revenue generation. We do not have a separate room that we can hire out so most events / activities have to be outside of normal library hours and involve moving the book racks each time.

Shortages of staff and volunteers means that we are unable to reach out to the 3 local schools in the way we would like to

We have received positive feedback from users about our core services and additional activities, for example increased liaison with the local primary school

A café is planned and the current library space will be converted into a theatre/conference space. We will then be able to offer a wider range of services such as reading groups, homework clubs, health clubs, as there will be more staff available

6.3 User satisfaction

Most libraries also reported that they perceived the users of each of their core services to be satisfied with the services they deliver. As shown in Chart 6, the core services that libraries reported users would be quite or very satisfied with were: national programmes (92%, 21 CSLs, 25 CMLs and 2 ILs), computer access (98%, 22 CSLs, 29 CMLs and 3 ILs), and book loans (100%, 22 CSLs, 30 CMLs and 3 ILs).

DVD/CD loans was rated as the core service that libraries perceived users would be least satisfied with, but overall was still rated highly by 69% (14 CSLs, 12 CMLs and 1 IL).

The enhanced services that most libraries reported that users would be very or quite satisfied with were:

• creative groups (96%, 9 CSLs, 14 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• parent and baby groups (96%, 18 CSLs, 21 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• children and young people’s groups (91%, 7 CSLs, 2 CMLs and 1 IL)
• reading groups (89%, 12 CSLs, 17 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• dgital skills classes/ training (89%, 7 CSLs, 15 CMLs and 2 ILs); and
• community events (88%, 16 CSLs, 23 CMLs and 3 ILs)

The income-raising services that libraries were most likely to report that users were very or quite satisfied with, were:

• meeting room/ work space hire (85%, 9 CSLs, 17 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• database research (83%, 5 CSLs and 5 CMLs)
• shop (80%, 3 CSLs, 4 CMLs and 1 IL)
• craft sales (76%, 3 CSLs, 11 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• café (62%, 4 CSLs, 3 CMLs and 1 IL)

Chart 6: Showing user satisfaction of core, enhanced and income raising services as rated by community supported, community managed and independent libraries

Base: 55 (except national programmes n=52 ; photocopying / printing n=53; wifi n=54; inter-library loan service n=42; library service for schools n=42; newspapers / magazines available in library n=37; DVD / CD loans n=39; children and young people’s groups n=11; creative groups n=26; community events n=48; parent and baby groups n=44; reading groups n=35; digital skills classes / training n=27; local history archive n=35; e-magazines / newspapers n=22; e-book loans n=29; database research n=12; craft sales n=21; meeting room / work space hire n=33; shop n=10; café n=13; document laminating n=27; exhibition areas n=21; selling / providing advertising space n=13)^{[footnote 6]}

6.4 Barriers to growth

Libraries were asked to identify the main barriers to their library’s growth and/or services. The most commonly reported barriers reported by both CSLs and CMLs, as shown in Chart 7, included:

• volunteer availability, cited by 66% (16 CSLs, 22 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• funding 56% (12 CSLs, 20 CMLs and 2 ILs)
• building restrictions 43% (9 CSLs, 15 CMLs and 2 ILs)

The library’s relationship with the local council was cited as a barrier by 18% (3 CSLs, 7 CMLs and 1 IL); and staff availability by 8% (2 CSLs and 3 CMLs). Only one library (a CML) reported that they do not have any barriers to growth.

Our volunteer levels are low and it is a continual struggle to recruit people with the right qualities

The council have only agreed funding for a 4 year period. If funding then ceases, the remaining sources of funding would not generate enough income to keep the library open.

The library is small so this restricts some of the services that we offer and makes others unviable

communication is a perennial issue; for example logistics of deliveries can be difficult, usually owing to LA staffing issues, and on-going training is logistically almost impossible

Chart 7: Barriers to growth reported by community supported, community managed, and independent libraries

Base: 58 (except volunteer availability n=55; and relationship with local council n=55)

7. Resourcing the libraries

7.1 Volunteer and staff numbers

Library respondents were asked how their libraries were resourced in terms of numbers of paid staff and volunteers. As might be expected, the majority of respondents reported that their libraries have volunteers (98%, 60 of 61 libraries) and the total number of registered volunteers per library ranged from 9 to 100.

ILs and CMLs had the highest mean number of volunteers (42 and 42 respectively); followed by CSLs (mean number =33). This may be related to the degree of self-management led by the local community, in conjunction with a certain level of support provided by the local authority. Volunteers were most likely to be aged 60+ (70%), followed by 25-60 years of age (23%), 16-24 (3.5%) and under 16 (3.4%).

Only around one fifth of CLs (6 CSLs, 6 CMLs and 1 IL) reported that they have dedicated paid staff regularly in attendance at the library. Of the 13 CLs with paid staff, 8 reported that they have 1 FTE employee in paid employment by the library (5 CSLs and 3 CMLs). Four libraries said that they have 2 FTEs (1 CSL and 3 CMLs) and one IL said they have 9 FTEs.

7.2 Length of service

More than half of CLs surveyed reported that, since becoming a CL, their number of registered volunteers had increased (59%, 16 CSLs, 16 CMLs and 2 ILs). Just over a third (34%, 7 CSLs, 13 CMLs and 1 IL) said the number had stayed the same, and only 2 libraries (both of whom were CMLs) said the number of volunteers had decreased. One CML was unsure.

In addition, around half of the CLs surveyed reported that, on average, their volunteers stay involved with the library for more than 3 years (53%, 10 CSLs, 19 CMLs and 2 ILs). A further 16% (3 CSLs and 6 CMLs) said their volunteers are typically involved for between 2 and 3 years, and 10% (4 CSLs, 1 CML and 1 IL) said between 1 and 2 years.

By contrast, only 2 libraries (3%, both CML) reported that their volunteers are only involved for between 6 months and 1 year and 10 (17%, 6 CSLs and 4 CMLs) were unsure how long their volunteers stay involved with the library.

7.3 Volunteer and staff satisfaction

The majority of respondents reported that they perceive the volunteers and paid staff at their library to be generally satisfied with their role:

• 95% (20 CSLs, 32 CMLs and 3 ILs) felt that volunteers were either very or quite satisfied
• 92% (4 CSLs, 6 CMLs and 1 IL) felt that paid staff were either very or quite satisfied

No libraries reported that they felt volunteers were dissatisfied with their role, and only one library (a CSL) noted that paid staff may be quite dissatisfied.

7.4 Training

Of the libraries who have volunteers, a large majority (98%, 20 CSLs, 29 CMLs and 3 ILs) reported that they perceive training for volunteers as ‘quite’ or ‘very useful’ and that they currently provide formal and/ or informal training for all their volunteers (98%, 24 CSLs, 32 CMLs and 3 ILs).

As shown in Chart 8, training on the library management system was the most commonly reported form of training provided by CLs, by 92% of respondents (21 CSLs, 30 CMLs and 3 ILs). Other training for volunteers commonly provided by libraries included:

• health and safety (70%, 14 CSLs, 24 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• data protection and copyrighting (59%, 14 CSLs, 17 CMLs and 3 ILs)
• customer care (53%, 14 CSLs, 15 CMLs and 2 ILs)

Lastly, around a third of libraries also reported providing:

• basic IT training (37%, 6 CSLs, 15 CMLs and 1 IL)
• use of internet resources (37%, 7 CSLs, 14 CMLs and 1 IL)
• information / database control (36%, 3 CSLs, 16 CMLs and 2 ILs)

CMLs were proportionally more likely than CSLs to provide training on use of internet resources (44% of CMLs, compared to 29% of CSLs).

Chart 8: Types of training provided for volunteers reported by community support, community managed, and independent libraries

Base: 59

Of the 13 libraries with paid staff who responded, 62% (2 CSLs, 5 CMLs and 1 IL) reported that they provide in-house training. The types of training most commonly provided for paid staff included health and safety (100%, 2 CSLs, 5 CMLs and 1 IL); library management system (88%, 2 CSLs, 4 CMLs and 1 IL); and data protection and copyright training (75%, 2 CSLs, 3 CMLs and 1 IL).

8. Financial sustainability

8.1 Current income

Except for ILs, most libraries surveyed reported that they receive some form of financial and/ or in-kind support from their local authority. Unsurprisingly, CSLs were most likely to report that they receive core/ majority funding from their local authority (24 libraries; 96% of CSLs in total sample); most CMLs reported that they receive in-kind support (19 libraries; 61% of CMLs). As expected, all 3 responding ILs confirmed that they do not receive any funding or in-kind support from their local authority.

The most common forms of in-kind support provided by the local authority included^{[footnote 7]}:

• connection to the library management system (1 CSL and 8 CMLs)
• provision of new books (8 CMLs)
• provision of computers (7 CMLs)
• support and advice helpline (6 CMLs)
• professional library staff (5 CMLs)
• inter-library loan transfers/ returns (5 CMLs)

Around two thirds of respondents (66%, 14 CSLs, 23 CMLs and 1 IL) reported that they receive financial and/ or in-kind support from sources other than their local authority.

Of these, 32 libraries provided further details regarding the nature of this support. The most common sources included financial and/or in-kind support from their Parish Council (1 CSL and 10 CMLs); grants/ donations (2 CSLs and 5 CMLs); and fundraising/ earned income (2 CSLs and 4 CMLs)^{[footnote 8]}.

When asked about their income-generating activities, libraries tended to report a range of activities. As shown in Chart 9, the most common forms of activity cited by libraries were:

• paid for services (61%, 8 CSLs, 12 CMLs and 1 IL)
• fundraising / crowdfunding (55%, 6 CSLs, 12 CMLs and 1 IL)
• charities / trust donations (42%, 6 CSLs, 9 CMLs and 1 IL)
• precepts from parish and town councils (42%, 5 CSLs and 11 CMLs)
• direct trading and retail (34%, 6 CSLs, 6 CMLs and 1 IL)

Less commonly cited activities included:

• community infrastructure levy / section 106 agreements
• non-library service public contracts
• private sector service contracts / partnerships
• digital services

The most common paid for services that libraries reported providing were:

• room hire
• computer use
• printing / photocopying

In addition, ‘Friends of’ fundraising events were commonly reported; as were donations or grants from national charities/ organisations.

Chart 9: Types of income generating activities or marketing reported by community supported, community managed, and independent libraries

Base: 38

8.2 Future income

Around two thirds of CLs (67%, 39 of 58 libraries) reported that they have plans in place for funding/ income generation over the next 3 years. The remaining libraries did not have plans in place (21%, 12 libraries) or were unsure (12%, 7 libraries).

Where CLs said they have future funding plans in place, they reported that the local authority would continue to provide core/ majority future income (57%, 8 libraries) or minor funding (29%, 4 libraries). For CMLs, 36% (8 libraries) reported that they would receive minor funding from their local authority, whereas 67% (14 libraries) said their future income would come from sources other than the local authority.

CLs reported similar planned future income generating activities to those they are currently undertaking. As shown in Chart 10, the most common forms of planned income activities were: paid for services (72%, 10 CSLs, 14 CMLs and 2 ILs), charity donations (54%, 6 CSLs, 11 CMLs and 3 ILs) and fundraising 20 (54%, 6 CSLs, 12 CMLs and 2 ILs).

In addition, some CLs reported they plan to generate income from direct trading and retail (33%, 6 CSLs, 4 CMLs and 2 ILs); precepts from parish and town councils (31%, 4 CLS and 7 CMLs) and community infrastructure levy/ section 106 agreements (28%, 4 CSLs, 5 CMLs and 1 IL).

Chart 10: Types of planned income generating activities or marketing reported

Base: 39

9. Community library user survey

As part of the research proposal, a separate survey of library users was developed and undertaken through the case study community libraries. The survey was undertaken to provide additional insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of community library service provision, and to enhance, compare and validate the views of community libraries that responded to the user satisfaction element of the online baseline survey.

9.1 Library demographics

In total, 161 users responded to a postal survey, representing a 39.2% response rate from the 410 surveys distributed evenly across 9 CLs.

Please note that due to variability in the number of responses to each question within the survey, percentages reported will vary due to differing bases and/or non-responses. Response numbers will be provided against each statistic reported.

However, given the small CL sample size, the survey cannot be considered as representative of user experience across the CL sector as a whole, but should be considered indicative of CL user experience across England.

Most respondents were aged 55 years and over (84%, 135 out of 161), with the remaining 26 respondents being between the ages of 16 and 54 years of age. Over half of the library users reported that they are ‘retired’ (61%, 97 out of 159). Two thirds of respondents who completed the survey were female (66%, 107 out of 160) compared to 33% males (53 out of 160).

38 respondents (24%, 38 out of 161) were either in full-time or part-time employment and 10 (6%, 10 out of 161) were currently unemployed. Only 3 library users (2% 3 out of 161) were students and 11 (7%, 11 out of 161) did not provide their current employment status.

9.2 Library usage

When asked how often they visit the library, respondents reported:

• 46% (74 out of 161) reported that they visit ‘once or twice a week’
• 32% (51 out of 161) visit the library ‘every couple of weeks’
• 10% (16 out of 161) visit ‘once a month’
• 7% (12 out of 161) visit ‘every day or almost every day’
• 4% (7 out of 161) visit ‘every few months’
• 1 user visits their library ‘once or twice a year’

Library users were asked why they used their community library and, as may be expected, (shown in Chart 11) a large proportion of respondents reported ‘taking out books / DVDs or CDs’ (88%, 142 out of 161) as one of their main reasons for using the library.

Other primary reasons for using the library included, ‘to meet people’, reported by nearly a third (28%, 45 out of 161) of users, and to ‘use the photocopying and printing facilities’ and/or ‘the computers / wifi’ (25%, 40 out of 161 and 25%, 40 out of 161 respectively).

Furthermore, around one fifth of respondents reported that they used the library to ‘attend community events’ and ‘attend groups or clubs’ (19%, 30 out of 161 and 18%, 28 out of 160 respectively). A small number of users attend their library ‘to learn new things and/or develop skills through classes’ (13%, 21 out of 161).

Chart 11: Frequency of library use by service amongst respondents

Base: 161 (multiple response question)

Respondents were also given the opportunity to specify any other reasons they use their library. 25 respondents provided comments, with the 2 most common reasons for using their library being ‘reading/relaxation’ (6) and ‘using the library for their children’ (4).

9.3 Types of library services used

In addition to the main reasons for visiting the library mentioned above, the libraries surveyed offered a wide range of other services that users could access. All provided the core services of access to wifi, computer access, book loans and photocopying and printing.

The vast majority of libraries also offered additional core services, including the availability of newspapers/magazines, inter-library loan service, national programmes, DVD/CD loans and a library service for schools. Having these services in close proximity within a community has been beneficial amongst library users, as indicated by user comments:

I can walk to choose my books to read, instead of having to include it as part of a major shopping trip in a nearby town.

A very important part of our village. Villagers would need to travel by car or bus / rail to reach the nearest (other) library.

Accessible books for all ages, especially important for those who cannot travel to libraries farther away. A welcoming space, where people are known, and care and attention is paid to the services being delivered.

Chart 12 provides a comprehensive view of the range of services that library users most commonly accessed^{[footnote 9]}. The most commonly used service was ‘book loans’ (87%, 140), and over half of the users reported accessing ‘inter-library loans’ and ‘book sales’ (56%, 22 out of 39, 52%, 49 out of 95 respectively).

Just under half of respondents currently use ‘newspapers/ magazines’ (44%, 66 out of 150) and over a third use ‘photocopying/printing facilities’ (36%, 58 out of 161). Similarly, just over a third also ‘access computers’ (34%, 54 out of 161).

Please see PDF for Chart 12: Range of library services accessed by users

Chart 12 also indicates a large proportion of respondents who ‘do not use’ a variety of services, such as ‘craft sales’, ‘data base research’, ‘parent baby groups’ and ‘laptop / tablet loan’.

This result is accounted for by a combination of not all libraries surveyed offering all services, and users not accessing all of the services that are on offer. However, despite the proportion of users who cannot, or do not, access specified CL services, there were additional less tangible benefits that users identified that having their CL provides, most notably, community cohesion and opportunities for volunteering:

…a meeting place for the community to engage with one another, creating a social forum.

…a place to meet and chat with the ‘locals’. It’s a lifeline for older, lonely people.

As with any community service it provides contact with the local population & events.

In a small market town like ours, it’s a focal hub where we can find local information ie bus times, what’s going on, talk with local police.

It completes community services within the village. It provides a service and an opportunity for people to volunteer.

The benefits of a community library have been getting to know local people, finding a lovely book to read, finding out what is going on in the community and having access to all the services it provides if needed.

9.4 Perceived efficiency of community managed libraries

Library users were asked how efficient they feel the library services are. The majority of respondents reported that they felt library services were running efficiently. In particular, 68% (109 out of 160) reported that they were ‘very efficient’, where all or most services are running efficiently.

Almost one third reported that they were ‘quite efficient’, with room for improvement for a minority of services (28%, 45 out of 160). Only 1% (2 out of 161) library users reported that they perceived the services to be ‘quite inefficient’, with room for improvement for the majority of services.

Only 1 user reported that they were ‘very inefficient’, where all or most services are running inefficiently and 3 users were ‘unsure’.

Regarding the importance of efficiency for library services, the majority of users reported that they felt that this was important to them, as illustrated by some of the user comments collected:

We all have busy lives and like to complete our actions without too much delay.

It is important for things to run efficiently, as long as people are paid attention to as individuals.

Being a volunteer managed library, efficiency (& effectiveness) becomes an important ‘credible’ issue.

Specifically, as Chart 13 shows, 28% (44 out of 160) reported that efficiency was ‘very important’ and around half of users reported (53%, 84 out of 161) that it was ‘quite important’.

22 respondents (14% 22 out of 161) were ‘neutral’ around the importance of the efficiency and only 6% (10 out of 161) of respondents reported that speed and efficiency were ‘not very important’. No users reported that efficiency was ‘not at all important’.

Chart 13: User importance rating of efficiency of library services

Base: 160

9.5 Satisfaction with library services

Library users were asked how satisfied they were with the services that were offered within their library. Overall, the large majority of users were satisfied, however each library surveyed offered a different range of services, and subsequently the base number of responses varies for each service. It is important to take this into account when interpreting the results.

Chart 14 illustrates that the majority of respondents were ‘very satisfied’ with the majority of core and some enhanced services, for example:

• book sales (81%, 17 out of 21)
• book loans (78%, 113 out of 145)
• community events (75%, 49 out of 65)
• inter-library loan service (71%, 47 out of 66)
• photocopying/printing (70%, 66 out of 94)
• local events information (67%, 4 out of 6)
• computer access (65%, 59 out of 91)
• creative groups (63%, 12 out of 17)
• wifi (59%, 41 out of 69)
• meeting room hire (53%, 16 out of 30)
• access to newspapers/magazines (50%, 52 out of 104)

There was very little or no dissatisfaction with any of the library services available across all of the libraries surveyed, demonstrating the ability of the CLs within the survey to deliver services to a generally high standard from a user perspective.

Chart 14: User satisfaction regarding library services

Base: 161 (except; book loans=144, photocopying / printing=92, computer access=91, newspapers / magazines=105, community events=62, inter-library loan service= 66, wifi=65, local history archive=43, national programmes=46, book sale=23, meeting room hire=30, DVD / CD loans=47, parent baby groups=33, creative groups=17, exhibition areas=22, health groups=17, Christmas readings=16, café=22, digital skills classes=22, craft sales=16)^{[footnote 10]}

For the ‘reading groups’ and ‘shop’ services, the response rate was lower than 10% (16 out of 160) although these are often referred to in the case studies, and therefore are of interest regarding satisfaction levels. The majority of respondents reported that they were either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘quite satisfied’ with ‘reading groups’ and ‘shop’ services (60% 9 out of 15, 75% 9 out of 12 respectively). No respondents reported being dissatisfied with these specific services.

9.6 Future needs

Of the 159 users who responded, 96% (153 out of 159) reported that they were ‘very likely’ to continue using their library in the future, with the remaining 4% (6 out of 159) ‘quite likely’ to return.

Additionally, respondents were asked to comment on the types of future service, if any, that they would like to see provided by their community library, which in turn would encourage them to visit more. Out of the 62 library users who responded, many provided a wide range of specific individual services required; the most common responses included; the use of café’s/coffee machines, children’s area/activities, computer lessons, more group sessions and more space within their library.

It is not possible to comment on whether the community libraries sampled will be able to provide these additional services, and the user survey cannot definitively represent users of community libraries nationwide. However it can be argued that there appears to be demand from users to integrate a wider range of enhanced services into community libraries, assisting them to remain relevant to local needs and encouraging greater local engagement.

10. Stakeholder perceptions of community managed libraries

10.1 Purpose

As part of this research, a total of 10 local council stakeholders representing between them all the 9 regions in England were identified and invited to take part in an interview lasting approximately 1 hour^{[footnote 11]}. In the interview they explored the following major themes:

• the library service history and provision of statutory services in the region; including if and how the local authority have been involved with community managed libraries
• where regional library services have adapted to include community managed libraries, what expectations were regarding their delivery; and perceptions of how efficiently community managed libraries perform
• opinions on the benefits or drawbacks of community managed libraries compared to pre-community managed models, particularly highlighting where community managed models have exceeded or under-performed against expectations
• views on the future direction and sustainability of library services, in the context of both local authority and community managed library models

Stakeholders were identified through the online baseline survey, interviews with library staff and volunteers, and consultation with the Libraries Taskforce and DCMS. They were sampled to triangulate the data and perceptions collected from other aspects of the research to provide a holistic view of the effectiveness and sustainability of CLs.

10.2 Moving to a CML model

Local authority representatives reported a small range of factors that led to their decision to move to a CL model. Most notably, and perhaps unsurprisingly, reducing budgets from central government drove the majority (7) of local authorities to identify areas where they could make considerable financial savings. The remaining 2 local authorities were guided to their decision through a review of usage, efficiency and statutory requirements.. A total of 5 regional stakeholders confirmed that they conducted a needs assessment to decide whether a CL would form part of their statutory library service. The remaining 4 indicated that their CLs were still considered part of their statutory offer. The criteria to determine CLs’ statutory service status tended to involve analysis of population density, numbers of library users, and the average time it would take for residents to access their closest library.

The number of CLs which local authorities were involved with at time of interview varied from as little as none to a total of 34; but generally each local authority had relationships with fewer than 10 CLs, as reported by 7 out of 9 stakeholders. Notably however, just under half of the stakeholders interviewed indicated that they were, as part of future plans, considering growing the number of CLs in their local authority.

We carried out a needs assessment based around what other local authorities reported. We looked at criteria, ranked libraries on a needs basis, and came up with list of what was affordable.

From our point of view we are still able to meet our statutory obligations with the network of libraries we currently own, therefore the 8 community libraries are outside of our statutory offer.

Our library needs assessment involved drawing up criteria on the demographics of the sites, including how many people use those sites and whether they have a 30 minute drive time.

There was some variation in the level and duration of future support local authorities indicated they would provide for CLs. 3 stakeholders confirmed that their existing level of support would probably continue for the foreseeable future; whilst 2 indicated that future support would be dependent on the continuing success of the CLs in their remit. One stakeholder suggested that provision would be in place until their CMLs were self-sustaining, and another advised that support would be capped after a period of 4 years. The remaining 2 stakeholders either had very limited involvement with CLs or were unsure what support for CLs would look like in the future.

10.3 Expectations for CMLs

Regional stakeholders reported having a variety of original expectations for CMLs; for some they had very few, whereas for others, support from the local authority was dependent on a number of indicators. 7stakeholders reported that they had set expectations for their CMLs, including maintaining existing library services (5), significant financial savings in comparison to when the library was run by the local authority (4), and a fixed number of opening hours per week (2). However, the remaining 2 suggested that, because they had no formal relationship with CMLs, they had no original expectations or felt unable to comment. 3 stakeholders acknowledged that, although they had either service level agreements in place or clear expectations for CMLs, those expectations were particularly low.

All 7 of the stakeholders who indicated they had original expectations believed that CMLs had either met or exceeded those expectations. 4 stakeholders commented on how CMLs had upheld the quality of service/met expectations. Other observations included how CMLs had maintained the number of opening hours, visitor numbers, and book issues they had originally agreed (reported by 1 stakeholder each).

However, 5 out of the 7 LA stakeholders who indicated they had initial expectations of the CMLs maintained that they had exceeded their expectations; and for some, this was on multiple levels. For example, increased social capital; improving the range of activities provided at the library; using the library space more creatively; and having a strong volunteer base were all commented on by 2 stakeholders each.

Additionally, it was agreed by 1 stakeholder that CMLs had exceeded expectations on financial savings; increased opening hours, visitor counts and book issues; and that user satisfaction was in some instances higher than local authority run libraries, due to the dedication of the volunteers.

10.4 Service delivery

In terms of CMLs delivering services more effectively than previous local authority run models, perceptions varied amongst the 9 stakeholders. 3 commented on how CMLs were much better placed to engage with local communities and tailor their services to the needs of their individual communities. A further 2 believed that CMLs were more effective at increasing visitor numbers. Other effective areas, noted by at least one stakeholder, included how they successfully increased new joiners and book issues; and their provision of jobs clubs, IT sessions, and children’s programmes throughout the summer.

It’s around the fact they have been able to engage with their local community. The one example I’ve got is that when we ran the library, the people living around it, the schools around it, the community groups around it, we struggled to engage with people, as they didn’t want to use it. Whereas now, because it’s run by them for them, there is more engagement. There’s lots of local fundraising. The activities are greater. Schools are engaging with it. And I don’t think we could have done that.

I think one area is where it’s a community resource. It’s really important for small villages – there is a motivation to keep library because what else is there? The library has a strong presence in the village. Members of the community share their knowledge, playing the cello, creating bunting… the library has a real role to play at the centre of the community and creates community cohesion

I know from knowledge of other areas that when a community gets together, the library is better

These successes were attributed to community cohesion; something which several stakeholders felt local authority run libraries were lacking in. However, 3 stakeholders could not identify any areas in which CMLs deliver more effectively than local authority run libraries. Indeed, 8 stakeholders highlighted examples of CMLs delivering less effectively than local authority run libraries, which were primarily due to factors such as:

• the smaller size of the library
• being in close proximity to larger local authority run library
• lack of support from the local authority
• having little or no responsibility to the local authority
• having a limited range of services

With regard to the most successful aspects and benefits of running a CML, the majority of stakeholders commented on the success of community cohesion; 2 of these suggested that this enabled libraries to tailor services to the needs of individual communities.

Absolutely community value. A sense of community ownership. The fact that they’re able to adapt what they offer for the environment that they’re in. They radically differ depending on what community they’re in. Also they have the ability to react more quickly than a council run library. They buy their stock quicker than we buy our stock. If somebody wants to do something different and want different opening hours they’re able to do it just like that. I think that’s actually a real benefit

CMLs challenge us in a good sense, they’ve taught us more about training and we’ve gone on to adapt training materials from CML training into local authority training. They [CMLs] don’t see the same barriers we do

They tick a lot of government and local government strategy boxes. They definitely have strengthened community resilience, offering job experience opportunities, access to information, and tackling social exclusion.

A further 5 stakeholders stressed that simply keeping the library open and maintaining a service which would not be there had it not been for the community, was a huge triumph and achievement. Other less tangible benefits highlighted by 2 stakeholders included how CMLs:

• provide opportunities for volunteering which improve job prospects
• act as a learning tool for local authorities in some instances
• address social exclusion and isolation
• improve the wellbeing of volunteers

However, 1 stakeholder commented they felt local authorities provided CMLs with much more than they received in return.

10.5 Delivery against the ‘7 Outcomes’

Regarding stakeholder perceptions of CMLs’ ability to deliver against the 7 Outcomes identified in Libraries Deliver: Ambition for Public Libraries in England 2016-2021, the majority felt that CMLs are particularly effective at delivering against the ‘stronger, more resilient communities’ Outcome, with all 9 agreeing that they are either ‘very effective’ or ‘quite effective’ at doing so, as illustrated in Chart 15.

Increased reading and literacy’ and ‘improved digital access and literacy’ were also considered outcomes that are delivered relatively effectively, however some stakeholders compared effectiveness to local authority run libraries, and felt that there was no difference; and in one instance, this was considered worse than local authority provision, where experienced paid staff were seen to be of benefit.

I see that as the role of the library. There’s a huge effort in promoting reading, book displays and they’re happy to run literary events and book clubs’

Where CMLs receive no support from the council they are quite ineffective because they lack professional advice and expertise’

Chart 15: Stakeholder perceptions of CMLs ability to deliver against the '7 Outcomes'

Base: n=10, except communities and economic growth where n=9 ^{[footnote 12]}.

10.6 Future direction

In terms of barriers to growth for CMLs, all 9 stakeholders agreed that the capacity of communities and community organisations to run libraries were limited by what they could provide. Factors such as drive and determination, and volunteer availability and expertise can drastically affect the success of the library.

Funding was also, perhaps unsurprisingly, considered a major barrier to growth for CMLs; 5 stakeholders perceived there to be a lack of funding sources, and that this was partly due to the lack of recognition of CMLs.

Notwithstanding these barriers, stakeholders identified areas where local or national support could improve the future prospects of CMLs. The majority concluded that there was a requirement to expand and promote the good practice toolkit and CLs peer support network. In addition, better recognition of these tools would raise the profile of CMLs, thus highlighting the service they provide.

The desire and appetite of community organisations for this will affect growth. I don’t think there’s an abundance of organisations out there to take these types of things on.

The nature of the volunteers they have are quite often very part time. They come in for very few hours and may have limited skills. In order to be able to grow that community library, again we’re back to people. And unless you’ve got the people within that set up who have the expertise and skills to be able to take it further then it’s not going to go any further.

Four stakeholders also emphasised the need for more funding opportunities to be made available for CMLs; this could range from minor support in the form of reduced rates or much more substantial grant funding. One stakeholder highlighted how it is easier to bid for funding for activities rather than library services, which would be considered a statutory requirement by some funders.

10.7 Sustainability

Stakeholders held mixed views when comparing the sustainability of CL models as opposed to other library delivery models. Four stakeholders considered local authority run models as more sustainable because they have a larger support network; fulfil a statutory requirement that gives them an element of security; and because funding is generally maintained each year for such libraries.

However, a further 2 stakeholders believed that CML models were more sustainable because continuous rounds of budget cuts to local authorities put pressure on library services budgets.

When making comparisons between different CL models, stakeholders outlined a range of factors which could affect sustainability. Most notably, 4 stakeholders felt that CL sustainability was dependent on funding from the local authority. In addition, it was considered by 3 stakeholders that access to expertise, whether in the form of paid staff from the local authority or experienced volunteers, could affect the sustainability of the library.

Support regarding building responsibilities was also felt to be paramount to CL sustainability by 2 stakeholders. Finally, one stakeholder commented on the importance of support from the parish council, and how this has an impact on sustainability.

In terms of stakeholder confidence in CML sustainability, only one felt they were ‘very confident’, and this was due to the ongoing engagement they had with the CML’s business plan. On the contrary, the majority of stakeholders (6) believed that sustainability was dependent on support from the local authority, both financial and in-kind. One stakeholder also commented on how CMLs often rely on one or two pivotal volunteers to keep the whole service running; if those volunteers are no longer able to stay engaged with the library, sustainability is at risk.

The majority of stakeholders (8) considered alternative funding sources to local authority provision, as ‘very important’ or ‘increasingly important’ to the sustainability of CMLs. This was mainly because these funding sources increase the chances for the library to maintain or improve its service. However, they also highlighted that local authorities will be increasingly challenged financially and that a lack of funding from local authorities puts additional pressure on CMLs to fundraise, which can have the effect of taking the focus away from delivering services.

Finally, all 10 stakeholders reported that they were ‘very comfortable’ with the idea of income generation or ‘enterprising’ activities undertaken within a library context to improve library services and enhance the resilience and sustainability of CMLs. It was felt such activity allows CMLs to expand their service offer, outside of what may be considered traditional services. Other comments suggested volunteers were better at fundraising and maximising income because they have a greater imperative to do so.

11. Community library case studies

Nine detailed case studies, one for each of the regions of England, are provided in Annex 2. Each case study was selected based upon a range of typological, geographical, demographic, community library model and age; an overview of which is provided in Chart 16.

The purpose of the case studies is to provide greater depth and understanding about the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of CLs through an open discussion about the specific issues pertinent to each CL featured as a case study. The case studies enable the capture of CL views with regards to the effectiveness of CL services, and assist in triangulating the data captured in other areas of the research in order answer the main research questions.

Developing the case studies involved telephone and in-person interviews with library service managers, staff, volunteers, and other relevant stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews were used to enable an in-depth exploration of topics covered in the baseline survey as well as open discussion regarding the issues pertinent to each respondent.

Please see PDF for Chart 16: Case study location, typology, demographics and library model type^{[footnote 13]}.

11.1 Summary of case study findings

The case studies in Annex 2 highlight the variability in how services are provided across different CL models. This variability is the result of a number of factors, including the different library models operated, the financial and physical restrictions associated with the historical context of the community library, and limitations to future growth based on geographical and typological differences. This suggests that the CL sector cannot be fully understood by segregating library types into operational models alone.

Although the case studies showed that CLs share common barriers to growth, such as volunteer availability and capability, funding sources and building restrictions, they also illustrated that CLs are determined to ensure their future sustainability. Despite limitations to their ambitions to grow whilst they remain reliant on some form of centralised support, all of the case studies reported being confident regarding their future.

However, the case studies illustrate that the likelihood of success for sustainably financed and resourced CLs is dependent on a broad set of both internal factors, such as drive, determination, volunteer availability and expertise, as well as external factors such as the impact of local authority policy and resource availability.

CLs demonstrated a desire to be officially recognised, both in terms of national statistics and the local authority library service, for the role they play in delivering library services to local communities and their growing importance. They also voice their ambition to be on an equal footing with local authority run libraries on things like sharing learning, resources, services and good practice where relevant.

CLs commonly cited their wish to see greater cohesion and learning developed between themselves through a nationwide peer support group, that, separate to engagement with local authorities, aimed to share learning and good practice across specific issues that they face.

12. Financial sustainability analysis

As part of the research, libraries responding to the online baseline survey were asked to provide basic income and expenditure data for their libraries for the latest full financial year. An income and expenditure analysis was performed on data received from survey respondents (see section 12.1)

CLs responding to the online baseline survey were also asked for consent to be contacted regarding collecting more detailed financial information. A small sample of the CLs who gave consent provided additional financial information for (up to) the previous 3 years, or from the first full financial year of trading, to assess their financial sustainability over the longer-term (see section 12.2 and 12.3). The small sample analysed included CSL, CML and IL model types. The analysis was performed by assessing CL performance and sustainability through comparison of a number of financial indicators. The financial indicators and results of the analysis are provided in the following sections.

The analysis cannot be considered representative of the CL sector as a whole due to the small sample size. However, it can be taken as indicative of the types of financial issues faced by the sector.

12.1 Online baseline survey: income and expenditure analysis

52% of total respondents (32 libraries) provided financial information. Chart 17 provides an overview of the distribution of income against expenditure for the latest full financial year by community library model type.

Chart 17: Annual income against expenditure 2015/16 by community library model

Base: 32

There is a significant gap between the levels of income and expenditure reported by ILs and CMLs and CSLs, with ILs reporting significantly greater income and expenditure levels on an annual basis. Given the small number of IL respondents in the online baseline survey, it is not possible to draw detailed conclusions for this difference. However, analysis of the type and number of services offered by the different library models found that ILs offer twice the number of income generating services of CSLs and one third more enhanced services than CMLs. Although these differences cannot fully account for the gap in revenue generation, it does provide some indication as to the approach ILs take to increase revenue streams. However, to truly understand these differences, it is recommended that further research is undertaken to investigate IL strategies for income generation and operational expense control.

There is greater correlation between CMLs and CSLs, with income and expenditure levels being broadly similar. However, as income levels grow within CMLs, expenditure levels exceed that of comparable CSLs. This is potentially a factor of lower overhead expenses reported by CSLs, which may be a result of financial or overhead support for buildings owned by the local authority.

Except for 2 libraries, all CL respondents reported a break even or excess of revenue generation over expenditure. Further analysis to explore other factors of financial sustainability such as profitability is not possible from the available data. However, simple analysis of these results indicates general financial healthiness within the CLs that provided responses to the survey.

12.2 Community library sample - typology and selection

The small CL sample consisted of 1 IL, 2 CSLs and 6 CMLs. They were selected based on library consent to provide additional financial information and on a suitable mix of typology and model type to provide a cross section of CL operation. The libraries in the sample have been in operation for following number of years:

Model type	Number of years established
CML	<1 year
CSL	<1 year
CML	<1 year
CML	<3 years
CML	>3 years
CML	>3 years
IL	>4 years
CSL	>4 years
CML	>5 years

As in section 4.2, the library models were classified and assessed in line with the definitions in the ‘Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit’. However it is worth noting operational differences between the 2 CSL’s sampled. The CSL operating for one year provides, in the main, core services only and is effectively run as a local authority library. The CSL operating for 4 years however shares some characteristics of a CML, as in addition to providing core services, they also provide a greater number of enhanced and income generating services. This operational difference is notable in the analysis within the following sections. Therefore, for the purposes of distinguishing this CSL, it will be referred to as CSL* for the remainder of the financial sustainability section of this report.

12.3 Longer term financial sustainability analysis of selected sample

Indicator 1: sustainable growth rate

Sustainable revenue growth provides an indication of how much additional revenue an organisation can attract according to the resources available within the balance sheet, for example the maximum level of revenue that can be generated using the resources available within the organisation.

Except for one library, all CLs analysed indicated a neutral or positive sustainable growth rate. Chart 18 provides the sustainable growth rates for those libraries sampled. Given the sustainable growth rate indicator is based upon growth trends over time, it was decided that CLs trading for less than one year should be discounted from the analysis to prevent distortion of the results.

Two points can be taken from the sustainable growth rate analysis. First, there is significant variability between CL model growth rates based upon their number of years in operation. This variability is driven by differences in efficiency in generating revenue against available assets, and levels of re-investment into enhanced or income generating services over time.

CLs operating for 3 years reported having comparatively high levels of growth, indicating the generation of sufficient levels of revenue against the available assets they possess. However, these CLs are re-investing revenues at a smaller scale than CLs who have been in operation for 4 years or more, who despite generating comparable revenue figures are re-investing more into new assets for future revenue generation. Given the small sample size it is not possible to translate these results to the CL sector as a whole. However, the results do provide some indication as to the journey CLs make from start-up to more mature enterprises. Notably, early stage CLs focus on generating as much revenue as possible to establish themselves and consolidate their financial position. Once established, and with confidence in the reliability of revenue streams, they begin to re-invest revenues into diversification of services to grow their asset base.

Secondly, when comparing the CML models to the CSL model, the CSL has a neutral growth rate. This could be attributed to the nature of the CSL model, where core funding from the local authority, and subsequent re-investment into diversified services is controlled by the requirements of local authority. However, CSL’s lower but more stable revenues may ensure they benefit, outside of local authority core funding changes, from being insulated from market forces affecting revenues.

Chart 18: Sustainable growth rate (%) by community model type and years in operation

(n=6)

Indicator 2: pricing index

Pricing index is a function of dividing total revenue by the cost of goods sold (COGS) for example. the cost of generating those revenues. When the index increases, so does the gross profit margin generated, and vice versa. Therefore, a higher pricing index indicates a higher gross profit margin and subsequently a better cash flow, which is required for sustainably maintaining business on a day to day basis.

As indicated in Chart 19, all libraries indicated the ability to generate positive or neutral gross profit margins based on their current revenue generating activities. The majority of revenue generation relates to delivery of core library services (see Annex 1 for a list of core and enhanced services). Enhanced services, where provided, were focused on main meeting room hire and running additional clubs/group forums.

The analysis found no particular feature that accounted for the variability in pricing index recorded between CMLs, CSLs or ILs, and therefore it is assumed that the ability to generate greater gross profit margins is dependent on the specific set of circumstances of each of the libraries analysed, rather than any correlation or differences between model types. However, the level of gross profit margin generated by all library models and age groups is positive. This is encouraging, particularly considering this has been achieved by the delivery, in the main, of core services alone.

Significant price indices relate to CL models that offer a greater number of enhanced and income generating services. Enhanced services have boosted revenue generation for CMLs and they compare favorably to CSL models that focus on providing core services alone. The one exception is CSL* which, as mentioned previously, shares characteristics with a CML model. The result in Chart 18 provides further evidence of this with CSL* indicating a comparable pricing index with other CMLs analysed.

The results imply that if the CMLs analysed as part of this sample were to continue to develop enhanced services, in addition to maintaining good cost control, their ability to consolidate their future sustainability will be greatly improved. However, to achieve this, factors outside of financial metrics alone need to be considered – things that relate to the CMLs own ambitions and ability to market their enhanced services within their local community.

This entrepreneurial requirement is a point that has been validated by CMLs in the case studies, who identified raising awareness and profile of CML services as an area where greater support, or a better relationship with their local authority to support this entrepreneurial drive, would be beneficial.

Chart 19: Average pricing index by community model type and years in operation

(n=9)

Indicator 3: operating expense (fixed or overhead cost) ratio

The operating expense ratio is a useful indicator for analysing if an organisation can generate a profit when fixed or overhead costs are considered. A ratio below the value of 1 indicates a greater control over operating expenses.

The level of operating expense control across all the CL models analysed is generally positive, and indicates good levels of cost control. This result may be related to the fact that all the libraries analysed had comparatively low overhead costs when compared to income. Chart 20 provides an overview of operating expense control ratios across the sample set. Fixed costs such as rent and utilities were generally low and except for one library, who employed 1 FTE member of staff, all libraries made sole use of volunteers, eliminating staff cost. Where a paid staff member was used, salary costs were borne by the local authority as part of the CSL model.

The one exception is the CML operating for 5 years, which reported a far higher ratio than the other CLs analysed. This higher ratio represents proportionally greater exposure to overhead expenses against net revenues generated by the library. Subsequently, the ability of this CML to manage their costs through revenues could be more challenging. The impact of this can be seen in other analysis in this report, which indicate proportionately lower gross and net profit margins of this CML when compared to others. This also suggests that this CML is more exposed to full economic costs than other CMLs or CSLs. It is not possible to say why this may be the case, but may be attributable to the specific circumstances of this CML.

Chart 20: Average operating expense control ratio against community library model and years in operation

(n=9)

CLs that have been in operation for 3 years or more generally exhibited higher ratios. As per the Indicator 2: pricing index section, this relates to the number of enhanced services offered, with each incurring additional overhead expenses associated with maintaining new assets. However, these libraries still indicate good cost control, which is a positive indicator for longer term sustainability when considered alongside the libraries ability to generate sufficient gross profit margins as discussed in the next section.

Indicator 4: Gross and net profit margins

Gross and net profit margins indicators assess financial health by revealing the proportion of money remaining from revenues after accounting for the cost of goods sold (COGS) and overhead expenses, for example how much of each pound earned is translated into net profits.

As indicated in Chart 21, gross profit margins across the majority of CL models were proportionately high, indicating good financial health. However, despite high margin values, the actual value of revenue the CLs generate is relatively low in real terms. In addition, the low cost of goods and overheads CLs reported leads to higher net profit margins, as a greater proportion of income is translated directly into profit. The high conversion rate of revenue to net profit is increased, as all CLs reported they pay no tax and, except for one library, only make use of volunteers which eliminates salary costs.

Therefore, CLs are highly sensitive to factors affecting gross and net profit margin, for example increasing overhead costs through rent or utility bill rises. Given the relatively small value these margins represent in real terms, small changes to overheads or income can have proportionately significant impact, risking longer term sustainability.

Chart 21: Average gross and net profit margin (%) by community library model type and years in operation

(n=8)

Differences among CL models are between CMLs in operation for 3 years or more offering enhanced services, and CSLs in operation for 1 year or less offering only core services. Despite gross profit margins being broadly similar across CL models and age range, those CLs offering enhanced services generated greater revenue in real value terms against those libraries that have not. This additional revenue, combined with good operating expense control, is re-invested to support the libraries future sustainability and mitigate gross and net margin sensitivity.

The overhead expense rate of the 2 CSLs sampled is relatively similar, with an overhead cost of approximately 40% of total revenue in both cases. However, in comparison, the overhead rate for CMLs is much more varied, with overheads as a proportion of overall revenues ranging from 18% to 75%. The overhead rate is important when considering net profit margin, as it directly impacts the profit a library can generate after the costs of goods sold is accounted for.

The steady overhead rate of CSLs could be considered a feature of their model, with core funding for the delivery of services being provided by the local authority. This provides a stable base from which to operate, but reduces the opportunity for CSLs to grow, as profits are re-directed back into running core services, rather than developing enhanced or additional income generating services.

In contrast, the variability of overhead costs in CMLs indicates varying degrees of ability by CMLs to manage or influence their operating expenses. This is highly influenced by the set of specific circumstances that affects each individual CML. Contributory factors range from physical building restrictions to the transition arrangements experienced by the CML when moving from local authority led library provision.

Therefore, the ability for CMLs to grow sustainably is not only reliant on the level of revenue the library can generate. In the case of the CMLs sampled, despite positive performance, additional less tangible factors are likely to play a significant part in their ability to expand and/or consolidate their future financial sustainability.

Indicator 5: net cash flow

Net cash flow refers to the difference between cash inflows and outflows in a given period, and provides an indication of an organisations ability to maintain liquid assets to service regular, day-to-day, trading.

As indicated in Chart 22 all but one of the CLs analysed indicated successive positive year-end cash reserves for the financial periods they reported against, for example cash left in the bank after cost of goods, overhead and re-investment expenses had been accounted for. However, 2 CMLs and CSL* indicated a net reduction in cash reserves over time. From the data provided, it is not possible to comment as to why net cash reserves reduced specifically in the case of these libraries. However, given year end cash reserves remain generally positive over the time periods they reported, it could be assumed this is a result of general cash flow fluctuations, rather than issues with cash flow management.

CLs in operation for 1 year or less also reported positive year-end cash reserves. Given their short period of operation and starting from a nil or minimal cash position, this result could be considered as encouraging for their future sustainability.

Considering the 2 CMLs and CSL* mentioned previously, the remaining CLs indicated a stable or increasing net cash flow position. Where cash flow reserves varied in CLs that have been in operation for 3 years or more relates directly to their level of re-investment into enhanced services. This difference marks a change in confidence levels to re-invest when comparing CLs operating for longer periods to those that have been created within the past year. Overall, the reported cash flow reserves indicate that the CLs analysed are highly capable of servicing regular, day to day, trading.

Chart 22: Net cash flow growth / decline (£s) by community library model and years in operation

(n=9)

Indicator 6: staff / volunteer productivity

Employee productivity (sometimes referred to as workforce productivity) is an assessment of the efficiency of a worker or group of workers. Productivity is evaluated in terms of the output per employee and provides an indication of the efficiency of workers to generate profit for the organisation. In the case of CLs, this refers to the financial value each volunteer generates for the CL based on overall profits generated, for example the profit remaining after total revenue minus the cost of goods sold and overheads are accounted for. The productivity ratio is a function of overhead expense and profit generated, for example the cost associated with staffing and running of the library against the profit generated, and can be thought of as a multiplier of additional value created by each volunteer for each pound invested, such as a productivity ratio result of 1.50, indicates that for each pound invested in the running of the library and its volunteers, 50 pence is created in terms of profit.

As can be seen from Chart 23, there is significant variation across the different CL models with regards to productivity ratio and average profit contribution by volunteers. There is no apparent correlation between CL model type and productivity levels, however, certain CLs have highly productive volunteers, the highest raising £6.49 of profit for every £1 invested^{[footnote 14]}.

Except for one CSL, who reported they had no overhead costs due to core funding from their local authority, all CLs demonstrated that volunteer productivity and contribution to overall profit is positive. This highlights the importance of attracting and maintaining volunteer numbers and efficiency to maintain sustainability. This is echoed in the case studies, where CLs expressed the importance of volunteers. Of note is the baseline survey analysis which cited the availability of volunteers as the greatest barrier to the continued operation of CLs. Combined with their importance for generating revenue and subsequently profit, it is suggested that further research is undertaken regarding volunteer recruitment, satisfaction and retention.

Chart 23: Staff / volunteer productivity ratio by community library model and years in operation

Concluding points

Overall, the financial sustainability analysis indicates generally positive growth of the CLs sampled. However, all of the library models demonstrate a high dependency on volunteer performance and availability, and a high level of sensitivity to additional financial burden, such as increasing overhead costs. Therefore, local authorities should be encouraged to continue ‘non-financial’ and ‘provision of expertise’ support to CLs, where feasible and relevant. This will support CLs in the short to medium term period (Years 1 to 3) of consolidation required to ensure their sustainable development. It is also recommended that further information and support is provided to CLs to identify, prepare and apply for local and national grant funding sources. This information and support could be provided through the ‘Libraries shaping the future: good practice toolkit’9, the ‘Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit’5, the ‘Community Libraries Peer Support Network’7 or by local authorities assisting CLs by providing access to information and training.

13. Conclusions and recommendations

The research presented within this report was limited to the number and typology of CLs that responded to the initial online survey, and subsequently provided consent to be contacted for further investigation. Therefore, the information collected cannot be considered a representative sample of the community library sector as a whole. Subsequently, any conclusions and recommendations are indicative only, however a number of clear messages emerged from the findings.

13.1 Position and role of community libraries

At the initial stages of this research, a desk based review of available information regarding community libraries within existing literature, specifically concerning their effectiveness and sustainability, was found to be limited. The review found only a small number of research papers and generalist reviews regarding community library development, main features and services.

This lack of existing literature could be attributed to the relatively recent, for example within the last 4 to 5 years, focus on CLs being considered as a viable alternative for local authorities who face ongoing resource constraints in managing their local statutory library services. That being said, CLs are not a recent phenomenon and have been in existence in various forms for some time. However, the focus on their ability to provide effective and sustainable services to the public has intensified with the general consensus that the use of CL models will grow in the coming years as local authority budgets continue to come under pressure. This fact is echoed in the stakeholder analysis where just under half of the stakeholders interviewed indicated that they were considering future plans to grow the number of CMLs in their local authority area.

Learning from existing literature consistently points towards the requirement for greater communication, understanding and strengthening of formal or informal links between local authorities and CLs.

Increased communication is cited as important to improving and expanding service provision, supporting skills development within staff and volunteers, and exploring the sharing of common resources, services and good practice. Certainly, these aims are echoed within the research by an overall desire from CLs to engage on a more frequent and formal basis with local authorities.

CLs also voiced their ambition for their libraries to be on an equal footing with local authority run libraries on things like sharing learning, resources, services and good practice where relevant. One aspect of this ambition was the desire by CLs to be officially recognised, both in terms of national statistics and the local authority library service, for the role they play in delivering library services to local communities and their growing importance.

CLs also cited their wish to see greater cohesion and learning developed between themselves through a nationwide peer support group, that, separate to engagement with local authorities, aimed to share learning and good practice across specific issues that they face. CLs felt that, even with the range of different operational models, there are common challenges that CLs face which would benefit from such a peer network. Stakeholders interviewed echoed this ambition, with the majority indicating that there was an urgent requirement to expand and promote the existing good practice toolkit and peer network.

This promotion could also provide a valuable opportunity to gather views from local authority staff directly involved in delivering library services on the barriers that they face in engaging with CLs.

13.2 Potential barriers

Several potential barriers to CL effectiveness and sustainability were identified. First, despite areas of commonality across the CSL and CML models, there is a great deal of variability in how services are provided. This variability is the result of a number of factors, including the different library models operated, the financial and physical restrictions associated with the historical context of the community library, and limitations to future growth based on geographical and typological differences across the 9 regions of England.

This theme of variability is borne out throughout the research and is evidenced within the online baseline survey, case studies, stakeholder interviews and financial sustainability analysis.

It is reasonable to say that the CL sector cannot be fully understood by segregating library types into operational models alone. The likelihood of success for sustainably financed and resourced CLs is dependent on a broad set of both internal factors, such as drive, determination, volunteer availability and expertise and external factors such as the impact of local authority policy and resource availability.

As has been highlighted, what could be considered as typologically similar CLs operating within comparable local areas, demonstrate significantly different attributes in terms of their operation and potential to grow sustainably.

Second, the online baseline survey and subsequent case study interviews identified volunteer availability and capability as a significant barrier to their future sustainability. This specifically related to the challenge of managing the varying frequency and skills sets associated with the volunteer time that is offered to community libraries, such as ensuring sufficient and suitably trained volunteers are available to ensure efficient running of the library.

CLs reported that managing volunteer availability was challenging, as they recognised and appreciated any time a volunteer can provide is valuable. Subsequently they are reticent to impose set timetables for volunteering time, or increase the training burden. This friction between ensuring sufficient volunteer time and skillsets against effectively managing the delivery of library services is further emphasised when taking into consideration that volunteers represent a critical resource for revenue generation, as identified in the financial sustainability analysis.

Some CLs have dealt with this friction by providing diversified and interesting/fun activities that volunteers can support, without the need for additional training above that of a basic nature. The cost of providing these additional activities are mitigated further by sharing financial risk with third parties who wish to use the library space. This approach has the effect of providing additional income, minimising training ‘burden’ on volunteers and providing a different set of activities that have the potential to attract a different demographic of volunteers, for example younger age groups.

This is particularly important as many CLs reported their volunteer base to be predominantly 60+ years old, with limited involvement of volunteers from younger age groups. Despite many CLs reporting that volunteer numbers have remained the same or grown slightly in the past 3 years, the issue of longer term volunteer availability raised concerns with CLs, who identified the potential gap in volunteer availability becoming greater as older volunteers reduced or ceased providing their time.

Finally, availability of funding and building restrictions are major barriers to CLs. Tackling these barriers is likely to be challenging given that any solutions will be limited by external factors, such as the availability of localised funding and the physical building constraints that libraries operate from.

These barriers have been mitigated relatively successfully where ongoing support has been provided by local authorities, often on a small scale, or ad-hoc basis. Examples include preferential lease or rental rates, or discounted/free access to central library systems. This has enabled community libraries a window of opportunity to consolidate their volunteer base, ensure effective service delivery and, in the case of CMLs, develop enhanced or income generating services which have contributed to their long-term sustainability.

Interestingly, stakeholders also emphasised this approach, highlighting the need for more funding opportunities to be made available for CMLs; ranging from minor support in the form of reduced business rates or much more substantial grant funding.

13.3 Effectiveness and sustainability

CSLs and CMLs deliver the majority of the core services provided by equivalent local authority run libraries. A large proportion of CMLs also provide a greater range of enhanced services, which are reasonably easy to provide within the CMLs financial and resource limitations such as providing meeting room hire and various group or club events.

The majority of CSLs and CMLs also reported that they intend to grow the number and scale of these enhanced services in the future, indicating a desire to increase revenues and support sustainable growth for the future. This motivation is shared with the majority of stakeholders who consider alternative funding sources to local authority provision, as ‘very important’ or ‘increasingly important’ to the sustainability of CLs.

However, these same CLs indicated that their core revenue streams will still be primarily sourced from the delivery of core services, indicating limitations to their ambitions to grow whilst they remain reliant on some form of centralised funding or support. Therefore, a question remains regarding the timeframe required before CLs become financially sustainable without reliance on core support structures.

As shown by the analysis in section 12.0, the sustainable growth experienced by the CLs should be considered fragile based upon the various financial indicators investigated. Despite all CL models indicating generally positive growth and the ambition to establish the library for the longer term, they indicate a high dependency on volunteer performance and availability, in addition to a level of sensitivity to additional financial burden, for example increases in the cost of goods sold or overhead expenses.

Excluding ILs, both CSLs and CMLs are broadly similar in terms of financial and resource sustainability. However, CMLs tend to provide a greater range of enhanced, or income generating services and demonstrate greater ambition in terms of the services they wish to provide. CMLs are in financial terms, broadly comparable with CSLs in terms of their stage of development and need support to consolidate their financial position in the short to medium term (Years 1 to 3). All CLs reported that they felt they were delivering efficient and effective services for the majority of those that they offer, a view that was confirmed by the user survey. Stakeholders also supported this view, with most indicating they felt that CLs had exceeded expectations on specific outputs such as financial savings; increased opening hours, visitor counts and book issues; and that user satisfaction was in some instances higher than local authority run libraries, due to the dedication of the volunteers and greater engagement with their communities.

13.4 Stakeholder perceptions

Stakeholders interviewed as part of the research were generally positive about CLs and their ability to deliver library services, whether that be CML or CSL models (stakeholders did not comment on ILs). When asked if they felt CLs were effective in delivering the 7 Outcomes as described in ‘Libraries Deliver: Ambition for Public Libraries in England 2016-2021’, the majority felt that CLs were ‘quite’ or ‘very effective’ in delivering 4 of the 7 Outcomes (‘increased reading and literacy’, ‘stronger, more resilient communities’, ‘cultural and creative enrichment’ and ‘increased digital access and literacy’).

However, stakeholders felt CLs were less effective in delivering the other 3 Outcomes (‘healthier and happier lives’, ‘greater prosperity’ and ‘helping everyone achieve their full potential’).

Although there were no clear arguments provided as to why stakeholders felt this, some reasons cited related to restrictions regarding the CLs buildings or available expertise to effectively deliver these outcomes. Stakeholders did not provide any evidence as to whether their opinion of CL effectiveness against the 7 Outcomes had improved or declined over time. This may be due to the limited timescales that some CLs had been in operation, and the depth of knowledge and engagement some stakeholders had with regards to the CLs they engaged with.

When moving to a CL delivery model, the majority of stakeholders reported they had set expectations for CL performance, and most felt that the libraries had either met or exceeded these expectations, commenting that CLs had maintained quality levels and increased social capital in the local area. However, a small minority of stakeholders reported that in some cases their expectations were set low to begin with, raising the question as to whether the performance of community libraries is being considered by stakeholders on an equal basis with local authority led libraries.

A point of interest is that some stakeholders reported that they felt that CLs were better placed to engage and tailor services to local communities than themselves. This was attributed to CLs generating greater community cohesion; something which several stakeholders felt local authority run libraries were lacking in. Stakeholders also reported that some CLs have exceeded local authorities expectations in increasing the number of library joiners, book lending, running clubs, children’s programmes and IT provision. This point reinforces the opportunity for greater communication regarding good practice between stakeholders and CLs.

However, stakeholders did indicate that they saw limiting factors that would affect CLs going forward. These factors were their size, proximity to local authority led libraries, a lack of ongoing local authority support and a limited range of services they can offer. These limiting factors correlate with views voiced by CLs who took part in the research.

However, 3 stakeholders confirmed that existing support would probably continue for the foreseeable future; and all stakeholders reported that they were ‘very comfortable’ with the idea of income generation or ‘enterprising’ activities undertaken within a library context to improve library services and enhance the resilience and sustainability of CLs.

13.5 Recommendations and areas of further support

Throughout the research, significant findings have been developed to provide recommendations that address specific issues for the CL sector. These recommendations take the form of areas of further support / development for the CL sector and areas of further research, where gaps in data or understanding were identified. These recommendations are summarised in the following sections.

Recommended areas of support for community libraries

Due to the variable nature of the CL models, it is challenging to recommend a set of support mechanisms that will address all the issues that CLs face. However, the research did provide 6 clearly identifiable themes of support that CLs and local authorities can benefit from in the short to medium term:

1) Consistently throughout the research, the theme of increased communication and sharing of good practice and learning between local authorities and CLs was cited by both CLs and stakeholders as a significant area of continued support. Of note was CLs desire to change the nature of the relationship, to that of both groups working on a more equal basis; with greater recognition of the role that CLs play.

Recommendation

It is recommended that ongoing engagement between local authorities and CLs is encouraged. This could be supported by the increased promotion of existing support materials, such as the ‘Stronger co-ordination and partnership working’ section of ‘Libraries Deliver: Ambition for Public Libraries in England 2016-2021’, by the LGA to its members, and by existing CL peer networks, such as the Community Libraries Peer Support Network.

2) CLs are also treated differently by local authorities across England, with some CLs being part of the statutory service and other CLs not being aware if they are part of the statutory service or not. Increased clarity of communications at a local level between CLs and local authorities could be supported by additional national guidance for local authorities on when to view CLs as potentially providing a statutory service. It could also provide example service level agreements (SLAs) or memorandum of understanding (MoUs) for local authorities to use in setting out clear expectations for delivery by existing and new CLs. This guidance should be provided by DCMS and consideration should be given about whether it could take a similar format as that produced by the Welsh Government in their publication ‘Guidance on Community Managed Libraries and the Statutory Provision of Public Library Services in Wales’.

Recommendation

It is recommended that additional national guidance for local authorities is provided by DCMS. This guidance should set out when a CL should, or should not, be viewed as potentially providing a statutory service and also provide examples of SLAs and/or MoUs templates that can be used by local authorities to set out expectations for CL delivery of services. This guidance could take the form as that produced by the Welsh Government in their publication ‘Guidance on Community Managed Libraries and the Statutory Provision of Public Library Services in Wales’.

3) CLs consistently identified limited sources of funding and building restrictions as major barriers. Tackling these barriers is challenging given that solutions are limited by external factors, such as the availability of localised funding and the physical building constraints that libraries operate within. Income generation activities are critical to CLs long-term sustainability, allied with ongoing support from local authorities, for example, through contributions to core funding (especially in the early years), free/discounted access to library management systems and IT, and reduced business rates and preferential lease rates. Both CLs and local authorities recognise there is a need for more funding opportunities to be made available for CLs, ranging from minor support to more substantial grant funding.

Recommendation

It is recommended that further information and support is provided to CLs to identify, prepare and apply for local and national grant funding sources. This information and support could be provided through ‘Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit’, the ‘Community Libraries Peer Support Network’ or by local authorities assisting CLs by providing access to information and training, ensuring that CLs are able to benefit from any funding streams that become available.

4) A regular theme identified by CLs is the value of ongoing ad-hoc or targeted support from local authorities that does not necessarily relate to direct funding, for example, informal advice, support with accessing local volunteer networks, and combined training sessions. This support has enabled CLs a window of opportunity to consolidate their volunteer base, ensure effective service delivery and, in particularly in the case of CMLs, develop new enhanced or income generating services that have contributed to their long-term sustainability

Recommendation

Local authorities should be encouraged to provide on-going ‘non-financial’ and ‘provision of expertise’ support to CLs, such as informal advice, or free/discounted access to library management systems and IT, combined training sessions or preferential lease rates. This continuing support is particularly valuable to CLs in the short to medium term period (Years 1 to 3) of consolidation required to ensure their sustainable development.

5) Current CL library models demonstrate a high dependency on volunteer performance and availability, and a high level of sensitivity to additional financial burden, such as increasing overhead costs. The dependency on volunteers is particularly important, with CLs citing volunteer availability and capability as a significant barrier. Volunteers represent a critical resource for revenue generation and future development, however CLs raised concerns regarding the gap in volunteer availability becoming greater as the number of older volunteers providing their time reduced or ceased.

Recommendation

It is recommended that additional information and support on how to increase volunteer recruitment and improve succession planning and retention is provided by local authorities and national organisations (such as the Taskforce and peer support networks) to CLs. This could include increasing connections with national partners such as the National Citizen Service (NCS), or exploring corporate volunteering opportunities. Learning and good practice developed through this support, and areas of further research into how to attract and retain volunteers of all ages with the right skills - as outlined in point 1 of recommended areas of further research - should be incorporated into the Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit and receive additional promotion by CL peer networks, such as ‘Community Libraries Peer Support Network’.

6) CLs cited their wish to see increased cohesion and learning developed through a nationwide peer support group that, separate to engagement with their local library service, shared learning and good practice across specific issues that CLs face; a view that was echoed by stakeholders interviewed. The shared learning and knowledge created by stronger networking would encourage self-ownership by CLs of the challenges within the sector, and provide a route local authorities to engage with CLs in a different manner. Peer networking could therefore play a more prominent role in catalysing development and enhancing the communication process between CLs, local authorities and other relevant stakeholders.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the public profile of existing networks, such as the Community Knowledge Hub8 and ‘Community Libraries Peer Support Network’, are supported, developed and promoted for further dissemination by the Taskforce and its members (particularly the LGA) to relevant stakeholders, local authorities and CLs.

Recommended areas of further research

Following on from the themes identified by the research, a number of additional areas have been identified that would warrant further investigation – either because insufficient information was available, or specific areas of enquiry fell outside the scope of this piece of work.

First, the availability and capability of volunteers within the community library sector was consistently identified as a major factor for the future sustainability of community libraries. Therefore, going beyond the recommendation regarding increasing volunteer recruitment and succession planning, further research is required to fully understand the main drivers and barriers in attracting, training, developing and retaining volunteers. The learning from this further research should then be applied to the ‘Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit’.

Secondly, due to the limited number of IL respondents, additional investigation into ILs is required to fully understand their operational models and methods of revenue generation. Initial insights indicated that the level of revenue and breadth of services ILs offer far exceeds that of both CSLs and CMLs. Therefore, to provide a holistic view of the CL sector, it is recommended that areas of IL good practice are examined and disseminated to CSLs, CMLs and local authority led libraries, through updates to the ‘Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit’ and through the ‘Community Libraries Peer Support Network’.

Finally, the desk-based review of available information regarding community libraries within existing literature, specifically concerning their effectiveness and sustainability, was found to be limited. The review did not conduct an exhaustive search of all available evidence, but rather captured main findings that summarised current levels of understanding. Therefore, there would be benefit in conducting a wider review of available evidence to inform future research, based on the findings in this report.

14. References and bibliography

14.1 References

Anon, (2017). Society of Chief Librarians (SCL) Universal Offers

Cavanagh, M. (2014). Are Community Managed Libraries Effective? Summary Report

Cipfastats.net. (2017). Public Library Impact Measures

DCMS (2007). (ARCHIVED CONTENT UK Government Web Archive – The National Archives Public Library Service Standards 2007

DCMS. (2016). Community managed libraries: good practice toolkit

Hull, D., Davies, T. and Swersky, A. (2016). Research Institute Report No. 4: The Community Business Market in 2016

Legislation.gov.uk. (2017). Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964

Libraries Taskforce. (2016). Libraries Deliver: Ambition for Public Libraries in England 2016-2021

Libraries.communityknowledgehub.org.uk. (2017). Community Knowledge Hub Libraries Community Knowledge Hub

Locality. (2012). Community Libraries Learning from experience: guiding principles for local authorities

Locality. (2013). Community libraries - Learning from experience: Summary briefing for local authorities

Locality. (2014) Enabling Enterprise in Libraries

Locality. (2015). Income generation for public libraries Learning and case studies from a national pilot project in England

Museums, Libraries & Archives (2011). Community managed libraries

Office for National Statistics - Neighbourhood Statistics. (2017). Retrieved from: Neighbourhood Statistics

Ordnance Survey - Election Maps. (2017). Retrieved from: Ordnance Survey

Power to Change. (2017). Community business peer network programme - Power to Change

Public Library Service Standards 2007, Foundation, I. (2017). (ARCHIVED CONTENT)UK Government Web Archive – The National Archives

14.2 Bibliography

Arts Council. (2014). Envisioning the library of the future

Arts Council. (2014). Evidence review of the economic contribution of libraries

GOV.UK. (2017). St Helens libraries: libraries as creative hubs - Case study - GOV.UK

GOV.UK. (2017). Foleshill library: serving a diverse community - Case study - GOV.UK

GOV.UK. (2017). Hampshire County Council: strategic library plan - Case study - GOV.UK

GOV.UK. (2017). Independent Library Report for England - GOV.UK

GOV.WALES (2017). Guidance on Community Managed Libraries and the Statutory Provision of Public Library Services in Wales

Wagg, S. (2017). Supporting libraries in the digital age - Libraries Taskforce blog

Libraries Unlimited. (2017)

Museums & Libraries Archive (2017)

Literacytrust.org.uk. (2017). Literacy Hubs

NFWI (2017)

Scottish Libraries and Information Council (2017)

The Reading Agency (2017)

15. Annex 1: list of core, enhanced and income generating library services

Core library services offered

• book loans
• newspapers/magazines available in library
• library service for schools including providing book collections or hosting class visits
• inter-library loan service
• national programmes such as the Summer Reading Challenge, Quick Reads, Books on Prescription
• DVD / CD loans
• photocopying/printing
• wifi
• computer access
• other

Enhanced library services offered

• laptop or tablet loan
• digital skills classes or training
• business advice
• health groups, for example Macmillan cancer support or dementia / carer’s
• healthy eating / cooking sessions
• creative groups
• reading groups
• parent and baby groups, for example rhyme time
• children and young people’s groups, for example homework clubs, code clubs, Minecraft
• job clubs
• language / conversation classes
• ebook loans
• e-magazines / newspapers
• local history archive
• community events
• toy library
• other

Income generating library services offered

• craft sales
• café
• shop
• vending machines
• providing sponsorship opportunities
• selling / providing advertising space
• parcel collection
• delivering front desk services for public services (for example the local police, parking services)
• database research
• document laminating
• meeting room / work space hire
• exhibition areas
• organised trips

16. Annex 2: case studies

• case study 1: Alford library, Lincolnshire, East Midlands
• case study 2: Jesmond library, Newcastle, North East
• case study 3: Castle Vale library, Birmingham, West Midlands
• case study 4: a library, Surrey, South East Libraries were given the option of keeping their identity anonymous. This one chose to do so.
• case study 5: South Chingford Library, Waltham Forest, London
• case study 6: Gargrave and Malhamdale Library, North Yorkshire, Yorkshire and Humber
• case study 7: Somersham library, Cambridgeshire, East
• case study 8: Delph library, Oldham, North West
• case study 9: Mitcheldean library, Gloucestershire, South West

1. Cavanagh, M. (2014). Are Community Managed Libraries Effective? Summary Report ↩ ↩²

2. CIPFA (2014) as cited in Locality (2015) ↩

3. Not all libraries provided a full list of services they provide as a result of their statutory library network membership ↩

4. Core, enhanced and income raising services listed by the highest proportion of respondents rating each service as very or quite effective. ↩

5. The income raising services of ‘shop’, ‘café’, ‘database research’, and ‘providing advertising space’ that were rated as very or quite effective by the highest proportion of libraries are derived from a low base number of responses. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than representative. ↩

6. The income-raising services of ‘shop’, ‘café’, and ‘database research’ that libraries were most likely to report that users were very or quite satisfied with are derived from a low base number of responses. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than representative. ↩

7. Percentage of CL responses is not available, as response numbers were derived from coded qualitative comments. ↩

8. Percentage of CL responses is not available, as response numbers were derived from coded qualitative comments ↩

9. Services listed received at least a 10% response rate of total library user respondents ↩

10. The core and enhanced services of ‘local events information’, ‘creative groups’, ‘book sales’, and ‘meeting room hire’ that the majority of respondents were ‘very satisfied’ with are derived from a low base number of responses. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than representative. ↩

11. Two stakeholders from the same region participated in an interview ↩

12. The base for ‘Stakeholder perceptions of CMLs ability to deliver against the ‘7 Outcomes’ is low. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than representative. ↩

13. Office for National Statistics - Neighbourhood Statistics, 2017 and Ordnance Survey - Election Maps, 2017 ↩

14. Comparing average profit contribution per volunteer in Chart 23 indicates a contradictory position, where lower productivity ratio indicates a higher average profit contribution per volunteer overall, and vice versa for the highest productivity ratio. This is explained by the number of volunteers working at the library. In the case of the highest and lowest productive volunteers, the highest productive library has a lower overall profit and number of volunteers, so even though these volunteers are highly productive the proportional value of the overall profit contribution by volunteer is less. In contrast, the lowest productive library has a higher number of volunteers and profit level, so even though volunteers are less productive overall, the proportional value of profit contribution per volunteer overall is greater. ↩