Accounting for differences in library performance

1
Accounting for differences in library performance

• Helen Greenwood
• LISU, Loughborough University

2
Introduction

• Background
• Approach
• Key findings
• Ongoing work

3
Background to the study

• Library performance evaluation based on data
  reported to CIPFA
• Suspected inconsistency in the compilation of
  data
• Need to draw valid comparisons between similar
  library services
• Some authorities appear to be high spending but
  low performing

4
Comparing apples to oranges?

• idiom used to indicate that two items or
  groups of items have not been validly compared
• (Wikipedia, 2007)

5

• I am aware of the criticisms from colleagues
  within the profession that some of the data we
  collect are no longer relevant and that some
  collection methodologies leave much to be
  desired (Lightfoot, 2003)

6
Numbers should be interpreted with care!

• Rseearch at Cmabrigde University shwos it desont
  mttaer in what order the ltteers in a word are,
  as long as the frist and lsat letters are in the
  rghit palce
• If only the same were true of numbers!

7
Approach

• For the study to be relevant and valuable in
  practical terms it was necessary to identify
  similar authorities
• Based on
• - geographical factors
• - statistical benchmarking based on CIPFA data

8
Geographical factors

• Counties only
• Population distribution information was not
  readily available so approach taken used the
  ratio between population density of the two most
  densely populated districts of each county
• Where the most densely populated district was
  more than nine times more densely populated than
  the first, these counties were excluded

9
Statistical benchmarking

• Proportion of population aged under 15 and over
  60
• Average population per service point
• Expenditure per capita
• Book stock per capita
• Total population, county area pop density

10
Nearest neighbour analysis

• Each measure was standardised across the counties
• ?
• Average distance from Leicestershire calculated
• ?
• Distances ranked and plotted
• ?
• Possible authorities identified
• ?
• Key output measures consulted

11
Distance from Leicestershire
12
Selecting the benchmarking group
Output measures considered to assist
decision-making

• issues (book AV)
• requests
• enquiries
• visits
• cost per visit

• population per professional staff
• staff expenditure
• materials expenditure

13
Accounting for differences in the data

• A working group of seven local authorities was
  formed
• Key areas were examined

• expenditure

• visitors
• premises
• stock
• transport
• staff
• services
• ICT
• income

14
Accounting for differences in the data

• How these data were compiled was discussed during
  in-depth interviews
• gt In groups individually
• gt Opportunity to talk openly about concerns with
  the data seek important contextual info
• Seminar focusing on visits, staff and ICT
  expenditure data
• gt Forum for the exchange of questions,
  concerns approaches and ideas

15
Key findings

• Considerable variation in data collection,
  compilation and reporting to CIPFA
• Particular issue with catch-all categories e.g.
  miscellaneous support services expenditure
• Reasons for inconsistencies include
• gt Organisational differences
• gt Difficulties apportioning central costs
• gt Different accounting protocol
• gt Insufficient guidance from CIPFA
• gt Lack of respondents notes
• gt A desire to present favourable data!

16
Visits

• Definition of a visit
• Counting at events shared-use buildings
• Methods of counting
• e.g. Manual count 3.26M visits
• Automatic count 3.10M visits
• A difference of gt150,000, yet both methods are
  acceptable
• Calibration of people counters
• Views on reliability of figures
• Which figures reported to CIPFA

17
Staff costs

• Cost of central support
• Salary scales/grades/rates
• Overheads - part-time staff
• Training costs
• Contribution to wider objectives of the authority

18
ICT

• How ICT infrastructure is managed funded
• gt same type of expenditure found in three
  different categories within the group!
• Non-financial computing costs
• What provision includes
• Equipment replacement policy sustainability
• Measuring use of electronic services

19
Ongoing work

• Leicestershire and Warwickshire continuing to
  work together
• Staffing structures formulas
• Further examination of accounting procedures
• Adopted same approach to submitting data to
  CIPFA
• Reporting to Midlands Performance Group

20
Further information

• Anonymised report available to download
• www.lboro.ac.uk/depts/dis/lisu/pages/publications
• Nigel Thomas NThomas_at_leics.gov.uk
• Ayub Khan ayubkhan_at_warwickshire.gov.uk

21
(No Transcript)