The peer review process is becoming an established way of helping authorities which are underperforming but eager to improve. As the programme rolls out nationally, Sarah Wilkie looks at how Bristol reacted.
After three successful pilots in 2004, the public library peer review process is ready to roll out nationally, with a further six local authorities participating between now and the end of April.
Bath & North East Somerset, Bradford, Peterborough and the London Boroughs of Ealing, Merton and Newham, will be following in the footsteps of Bristol, Devon and East Sussex.
What is a peer review?
Peer reviews are a main plank of the Framework for the Future action plan, the programme to realise the government’s 10-year vision for public libraries.
The reviews help library services understand how well they are working and support them in making improvements. They are built on an established Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) model, which has a high profile and standing with local authorities. It is based on the principle that one of the most effective ways of learning is from your critical friends, who may challenge ways of working but can also provide practical advice based on real-life experience of similar situations.
The library authorities taking part are those that are underperforming against the national standards, but have the willingness and capacity to improve.
Peer review teams consist of three library experts, two drawn from comparable authorities (but not near neighbours), and one from different circumstances; a councillor who has, or has had, responsibility for a library service in another authority; and a managing officer from IDeA. It takes three days and involves interviews with staff, senior officers (not only from the library service, but also from education, housing, social services and other connected departments), the chief executive, councillors, partners and users, as well as site visits.
The review may identify issues of member and officer commitment, priorities, resources, customer focus, communication or performance management. On the final day, the review team presents its key findings to senior staff and, wherever possible, to members and the chief executive. These findings are later included in a more in-depth report to the authority, which then becomes the foundation of an improvement plan.
The MLA provides funding, through Framework for the Future, to enable the authority to carry out this plan. The funding is dependent on MLA (advised by the peer team and IDeA) being assured the plan is a reasonable and rigorous response to the review and will lead to practical improvement.
Bristol’s experience
Bristol was one of the three local authorities that volunteered to be part of the pilot programme.
The peer review was carried out in July by senior librarians from Birmingham, Liverpool and Norfolk, the lead member for libraries on Staffordshire County Council and IDeA. Over the three days, they visited libraries and met politicians and senior managers of the council through to frontline staff, volunteers and members of the library user group.
Stephen Wray, Director of Environment, Transport and Leisure, was behind the decision to put Bristol libraries forward as a pilot. ‘When the Audit Commission carried out a Comprehensive Performance Assessment in 2002, the council came out as “weak”. In 2003, we’d moved up to “fair” and they told us we were one of the most improved councils in England. You can only keep up that standard and speed of improvement if you’re prepared to admit that there are still some problem areas.
‘On the surface, you can feel pretty pleased about the library service in Bristol. The central library is in one of the city’s most beautiful buildings; the staff feel that the head of service and her senior management team are providing inspirational leadership; users find the staff helpful; and we’re introducing new services all the time. Within the team, though, we know there’s plenty of scope for doing things better.’
‘Under-resourced’
Bristol City Council’s net budget for the library service in 2004/05 was £5m. This sum paid for 27 permanent libraries and one mobile and 300 staff, equating to180 full-time positions. Opening hours were below the national target and the service also failed to meet the national target for number of books bought per annum.
Stephen Wray again: ‘Following the peer review, we had further evidence that we’re under-resourced compared with library services in similar-sized cities. We don’t add enough new books each year; reference material is out of date and the council doesn’t make best use of the spaces to support social cohesion, regeneration, education and well-being.’
However, the report not only identified opportunities for improvement, but also areas of strength, including frequent consultation with library users.
Kate Davenport, Head of Libraries, describes her initial reaction to the report: ‘The review only takes three days, which means you spend most of the time talking about the problems. I was pleased to see when the report came back, that it also covered the things we do well. Staff are enthusiastic about change and they welcomed the findings.’
A member of the library user group agrees: ‘We welcomed the opportunity to share our thinking with the peer reviewers. We felt we had contributed to protecting and improving the service. I am pleased that the report is neither a whitewash nor simply destructive and it sets out useful recommendations for improvement.’
Follow-through
The peer review team’s findings were slotted into IDeA’s diagnostic for library services, which is based on the Local Government Improvement Programme description of the ideal local authority, developed in co-operation with the Beacon library services.
It is at this point that other peer review processes in local and central government come to a full stop, but Framework for the Future takes it a stage further.
An action plan has been drawn up, with help from IDeA, the peer authorities and the Framework for the Future team. Stephen Wray comments: ‘It’s unlikely that we’re going to win a significant increase in our budget, but we’re looking for ideas from our peers about how we can use existing funds more effectively.’
One thing that has already been done is setting up an all-party scrutiny group, to be involved in and watch over the improvement programme.
Fine-tuning the process
After the pilots, some of those involved came together for a workshop (in September 2004) to look at how peer reviews could be fine-tuned before the roll-out this year.
The overwhelming view was that, while there were concerns about some of the practical arrangements, the reviews had been positive experiences for both the authorities and the peer teams. One chief librarian said that peer review had already made a significant difference to the way they were approaching some issues.
On the whole, the peers felt that they had gained as much as they had given, both in terms of their own personal development and in the lessons they were able to take back to their authority. It isn’t just about strong authorities helping the weak; all authorities have pockets of strength and weakness and can learn from each other.
An event organised by IDeA and MLA in December, with special guest Libraries Minister Andrew MacIntosh, marked the start of the national roll-out. It gave peers and the heads of service from the next six local authorities to be reviewed the chance to meet and talk about the issues to be addressed. The idea for this pre-meeting was one of the recommendations that came out of the September workshop.
Next steps
The early indications are that peer reviews will result in significant improvements in library service provision within a reviewed authority. Another tranche of local authorities will be participating in the second-stage roll-out later in the year.
Peer reviews have the potential to be a very positive force for change. MLA will be keeping track of the activities that result from the action plans and will compile a full evaluation of the results of the peer review programme at the end of the year.
Sarah Wilkie is Libraries Policy Adviser for the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (sarah.wilkie@mla.gov.uk).
Updated: 16 March 2005