MIDDLESBROUGH COUNCIL

LIBRARIES AND COMMUNITY HUBS – FUTURE DIRECTIONExecutive member for Culture, Leisure and Sport: Councillor Lewis Young and Executive Member for Supporting Communities: Councillor Mick Thompson.Executive Director for Economic Development and Communities: Kevin Parkes3rd November 2015

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1. To inform the Executive of the findings of the public and stakeholder consultation and to confirm the future strategic direction of the existing network of libraries and community hubs in the town.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

2. It is recommended that the Executive notes the consultation findings and agrees the future strategic direction for community hubs.

IF THIS IS A KEY DECISION WHICH KEY DECISION TEST APPLIES?

3. It is over the financial threshold (£150,000)It has a significant impact on 2 or more wardsNon Key X

DECISION IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE

4. For the purposes of the scrutiny call in procedure this report is

Non-urgent XUrgent report

1

EXECUTIVE REPORT

BACKGROUND AND EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

Background

5. In March 2015 the Executive considered outline proposals to carry out a consultation exercise to inform the planned transformation of libraries and community hubs.

6. The previous report set out the reasons for the transformation as:

a. the need to ensure that the local authority maintains relevant and viable facilities that have real impact on the communities they serve;

b. the financial challenges faced by the public sector mean that methods of delivery need to be revised as resources decline; and,

c. the success of the existing community hubs presents an opportunity to work in a more collaborative way with partner agencies and local communities.

Summary of Consultation Process

7. Following the meeting of the Executive in March 2015 a consultation exercise has been undertaken with both stakeholders and residents to explore the current and future offer. The surveys were circulated as follows:

a. via Middlesbrough Council’s consultation portal;b. paper copies made available in all community hub and library buildings;c. to all Councillors; and,d. to Community Councils.

8. The focus of the consultation was as follows:

Stakeholder Survey Residents SurveyQuality of current provision Quality of current provision and what

services they would like to access from hubs

Services considered important for residents Knowledge and interest in specific library services ie: e-books and housebound services

Level of interest in providing services or extending provision

Services which residents would be interested in, if they were available at a local community hub

Suggestions for how stakeholders can get more involved in hub management.

Summary of Responses – Stakeholders

9. Over 100 responses were received from stakeholders, and the results can be summarised as follows:

Focus of Survey Stakeholder Response2

QuestionQuality of current provision

The majority of stakeholders rated the quality of services as good or very good at most libraries/community hubs.

Thorntree (83%) Newport (79%) North Ormesby (88%).

Stakeholders were less decisive in their quality ratings for Berwick Hills/Neptune Centre (57%) Rainbow Hub (78%)

Services considered important for residents

Respondents stated that the key services which were important to local residents were:

Local multi agency support for individuals/families (86%) Opportunities to engage parents and young children (80%) Employment support (75%) Community learning (72%) Access to social/leisure activities (72%) Financial support (71%)

Level of interest in providing services or extending provision

Importantly nearly half of all stakeholders (48%) stated they were interested in providing/extending service provision and just over a third would be interested in doing so outside of traditional opening hours

Suggestions for how stakeholders can get more involved in hub management.

Only 14 stakeholders responded to this question, and out of these, only 3 responses were relevant to this question, and suggested a partnership of service providers

Summary of Responses – Residents

10. A total of 452 residents completed the resident survey. Of these, 37% were male and 63% female. In terms of age of respondents, 66% were aged 55 and over, with only 9% between the ages of 16 – 34. Of those residents taking part in the survey, the majority (29%) said they have visited Easterside Library/Community Hub most frequently (almost every day) in the last 12 months, followed by Thorntree (55%), Grove Hill (55%) and Hemlington (54%) where over half of all respondents said they visited at least once a week. Newport was the hub local residents were least likely to visit with only a fifth (21%) visiting at least once a week. The results from the resident surveys can be summarised as follows:

Survey Question Resident ResponseQuality of current provision and what services they would like to access from hubs

Residents were very positive about the following community facilities:

Acklam (93%) Easterside (91%) Hemlington (90%)

Libraries/hubs rated as good/very good included helpful and knowledgeable staff, variety of services on offer, service standards and cleanliness.

Residents were less decisive in their quality rating for Neptune 3

Centre, Grove Hill and Thorntree, with 31%, 24% and 23% respectively stating quality was neither good nor poor.

Knowledge and interest in specific library services ie: e- books and housebound services

Nearly 1 in 10 (15%) were not aware of the e-book service, but were interested in finding out about it. Over 1 in 10 (11%) residents said that they have used the e-book service and two fifths (43%) said they were aware but not interested in using the service.

The survey found that 5% have not used the housebound survey but would be interested in using it. Around 2% of residents said they had used the service

Services which residents would be interested in, if they were available at a local community hub

Residents indicated they were most interested in the following services:

Social and leisure services (65%) Free Wifi (60%) Physical activities (52%) Health related activities and support (52%).

Residents were least likely to be interested in:

Financial advice and support (37%) Volunteering opportunities (39%) Employment support (30%).

Although this does not correlate with stakeholder opinion, it is perhaps representative of the demographic responding to the survey, in that 46% of the respondents stated they were fully retired and 19% in full time paid work.

Utilising the Survey Responses

11. The information secured through the resident surveys would be critical in determining the nature of the offer to be provided in each facility, and the profile of respondents provides information on who is (and consequently who is not) using the facilities. For example, it is clear that further work would be required to understand whether the low proportion of 16-34 year olds responding to the survey reflects a lack of engagement of that group, and whether the current offer is not seen as relevant by that demographic, or the facilities themselves do not meet their needs.

12. There are also issues identified that may require further consideration in how the Council delivers its ‘digital by default’ strategy, as 54% of respondents were either ‘not very/not at all’ interested in access to Council Services via touch screen technology (although 60% stated they would be interested in support for IT and self-serve technology). Clearly this can be taken to reflect people’s views of accessing current services, rather than how services would look in future, but it reinforces the need to ensure any changes include support for residents to assist with the transition.

13. The feedback received from stakeholders would also play a significant part in determining how some of the future issues around sustainability can be addressed, and how the multi-agency delivery in each facility can be broadened out. One of the

4

key considerations would for example be that whilst support for greater multi-agency working from stakeholders is clearly evident, some organisations may themselves rely on continued funding from the Council or other public sector routes to achieve this.

Confirming the Future Direction

14. The previous Executive Report set out a broad strategic direction for the future of libraries and community hubs, and the consultation exercise has allowed some critical components of this to be tested. Taking this into account, the future strategic direction can now however be confirmed, as follows:

All facilities would be branded and operated as community hubs15. All existing libraries would be rebranded as community hubs, and the range of

services available within them would be expanded to reflect the wider role. Other than Central Library, Middlesbrough would no longer operate any facilities as standalone libraries.

Literacy would play a key role in all hubs16. Although there would be no more standalone libraries, and the library service is no

longer a discrete, identifiable service within the Council’s structure, the role of improving literacy and encouraging learning would be strengthened, not diminished. The availability of books (particularly children’s books) and digital library resources would remain at the heart of the core offer in each hub (and the places where they are made available would be expanded), but how the books are used to support individuals and families, and who are they having an impact upon, would be viewed as being more important than how many books are on display.

Hubs would be truly multi-agency, with a combined offer reflective of local need

17. The survey results would enable the Council to identify specific partners and encourage them to participate in the hub model, to provide access to services being sought locally. Broadening out the range of agencies working within hubs would help address some of the gaps identified by residents, and potentially attract the demographics that appear to be less engaged.

The local community and wider partners would be encouraged and supported to maximise their role in managing and delivering hubs

18. The Council would seek to build the role of the community or partner agencies in each hub, with the longer-term aim of the Council being an overall facilitator of hubs rather than the lead deliverer. This would be addressed on a hub by hub basis, with different levels of support, staffing and investment provided by the Council depending on the local capacity available to take hubs forward.

The primary role of Hubs would be to encourage self-help and self-sustainability

19. Regardless of the services on offer within each hub, the principles underpinning the delivery should be about reducing dependency on public services and building greater personal resilience. Any investment in delivering services at a local level needs to be undertaken within the wider strategic direction of the Council such as the emerging customer strategy.

5

Hubs would provide access to a range of services previously only available in central council locations

20. By utilising online technology, residents would be enabled to maximise digital opportunities, embrace self-service technology and work towards digital inclusion. The principles of self-serve and digital by default must underpin how things are delivered in hubs (accepting the community’s current reservations as expressed in the consultation).

21. Taking the above into account, the definition of a community hub would therefore simply be described as:

A focal point for local communities, where groups and organisations come together to deliver a core offer of services and support essential to the wellbeing and needs of local people.

Implementing the Change

22. Many of the changes identified above would be incremental, and how they are implemented would vary from hub to hub, reflecting existing variations in the engagement of partners. The fundamental changes that would need to be implemented to make significant progress towards delivering the full vision can however be summarised as follows:

Rebranding23. The rebranding of hubs would require modest investment in signage, promotional

materials and engagement events. Some initial work with staff would also be required to ensure the ethos of hubs is embedded in those originating as libraries. This would take place during the remainder of 2015/16, with all facilities fully branded as hubs (and promoting themselves as such) by April 2016.

Broadening the Offer24. The gaps identified through the consultations, and the additional service delivery

opportunities identified by stakeholders would be followed up during November and December, with the aim of broadening the offer available at each hub throughout the remainder of 2015/16. This activity, combined with the rebranding exercise would necessitate some form of relaunch, or promotional campaign in April 2016.

Agreeing the Support Offer25. As outlined briefly in the previous report, three levels of support would potentially be

available to each individual hub, which can be summarised as:

Management of the Hub

Delivery in the Hub

Basic Infrastructure (i.e. buildings, maintenance, insurance etc.)

Delivery Infrastructure (i.e. books, self-serve terminals, computers)

Minimal No Council involvement

No Council involvement

Provided by the Council

Provided by the Council

Mixed No Council involvement

Supported by Council staff

Provided by the Council

Provided by the Council

Full Supported by Council staff

Supported by Council staff

Provided by the Council

Provided by the Council

6

26. Anything beyond the ‘minimal’ level of support would require a full Community Asset Transfer, and would follow the policy previously agreed by the Executive to cover such arrangements.

27. The majority of hubs currently receive the ‘full’ support package, and this would continue until such a time as the community, or other partners are able to take on a greater role. Plans would however be developed for each hub to identify the aspirations of the community and partners (based on the consultation), their capacity to take on a greater role. This would clarify the steps required to increase their involvement - and decrease the level of support that is needed from the Council. This work would be completed by April 2016, with a plan in place for each hub by that stage.

28. To support the overall strategic direction, the long term aim would be to move every hub to the minimal level of support, although the timescales for this would be dependent upon local circumstances. Achieving such a position with the hub arrangements within wider Council facilities such as the Neptune and Rainbow Centres would naturally be more difficult, but should not be ruled out at this stage.

29. Other changes requiring the alignment with wider Council initiatives such as self-serve, and digital by default would be implemented in line with the timescales driven by those corporate initiatives.

Monitoring Future Impact

30. To ensure that the hubs are able to drive the desired impact in communities, it would be necessary to change the emphasis of performance data being collected to ensure that what is measured is not only the number of people using the hubs, but the nature of their engagement, and the benefits that arise from it. A performance framework would therefore be developed to identify engagements on a service by service basis, underpinned by regular satisfaction and impact surveys. The extent to which local people are engaged in the management and delivery of each centre would also be measured. This framework would be in place by April 2016, and would form part of the balanced scorecards within the Supporting Communities Service.

31. Further information would be collected around the use of self-serve etc. but this would be as part of wider corporate initiatives.

Summary of Actions

32. The following actions would be undertaken as described above:

Action Timescale LeadRebranding By 1st April 2016 Head of Stronger Communities

Relaunching/promoting the revised offer

During April 2016 Head of Stronger Communities

Agreeing long-term support plans By 1st April 2016 Head of Stronger Communities

Developing monitoring framework By 1st April 2016 Head of Stronger Communities

7

IMPACT ASSESSMENT (IA)

33. An impact assessment has been undertaken for the proposed approach. No negative impacts have been identified as part of this assessment. (Appendix I)

OPTION APPRAISAL/RISK ASSESSMENT

34. The following options and risks have been identified:

APPRAISAL OPTION

POSITIVE NEGATIVE/RISK

No change Least disruptive options Services do not meet community needs

Residents do not benefit from digital opportunities

Poor alignment with Council priorities

Lack of engagement with stakeholders

Lack of positive impact made on local communities would leave hubs open to ‘salami slicing’ approach leaving hubs vulnerable to closures

Follow report recommendations

Community buy-in Better stakeholder

partnerships Enhanced services

available locally Enable communities to

work towards becoming ‘digital by default’

A more coherent integration of libraries and community hubs and the services they provide

Sustainability of partner organisations who themselves rely on external funding to provide services

Stakeholders willing to provide/enhance services within hubs may not be those that residents see as important to them

Seek Community Asset Transfer for all hubs

Reduce the costs to the Council for the management of the buildings

Costs not attractive to partners The need to ensure that

independently run hubs would still align with Council priorities

Uncertainty about the financial sustainability and long term future of hubs within this delivery model

FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND WARD IMPLICATIONS

Financial 8

35. The recommended approach does not in itself require additional expenditure, other than that required to complete the rebranding exercise. As this is expected to be achieved through existing service and maintenance budgets, no additional revenue funding is required from the Council to progress the future direction.

36. It is clear however that delivering the full move towards more of a longer term facilitation role would require some investment in the infrastructure to support a community led approach. The nature of this investment would be difficult to predict, but should be achievable largely through existing revenue budgets. It may however be necessary on occasion to seek additional internal resources in relation to this approach, but this should only be done on a clear ‘invest to save basis, with the appropriate business case to demonstrate the payback period.

37. Developing the hub offer in a more multi-agency way may also open up opportunities to secure external funds, which would be pursued on a joint basis where appropriate. Some external investment in hubs is already being sought, with an application to the Arts Council for £60,000 being submitted for the installation of Wifi in some buildings.

Ward Implications

38. Any changes to the hubs would have potential implications across all wards in the future. This report seeks to inform about consultation findings regarding the future role of Community Hubs and to set out a strategic direction based on these findings. Members have been included in the stakeholder consultation and would be included in further more localised work to determine the plans for individual hubs.

Legal Implications

39. Any reforms to service delivery would need to ensure that the Council could still execute its duties as outlined in the Public Libraries & Museums Act 1964. The act makes the following provisions a statutory duty for local authorities, as councils must:

a. provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons in the area that want to make use of it; and,

b. lend books and other printed material free of charge for those who live, work or study in the area.

40. Although the word ‘library’ would disappear from the name of buildings, and the name of the service supporting them, the commitment to delivering these provisions remains unchanged.

RECOMMENDATIONS

41. It is recommended that the Executive:

9

a. notes the findings of the consultation; and,

b. agrees the future strategic direction for community hubs.

REASONS

42. The proposal to transform the future operation of the existing network of libraries and community hubs provides an opportunity to improve and modernise service delivery to communities and is also essential to meet the financial demands set by Central Government.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Libraries and Community Hubs (1st stage report) Community Asset Transfers: Strategic Approach

AUTHOR: Diane FleetTEL NO: 01642 729417______________________________________________________Address: Website: http://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk

10