Saturday, 26 April 2014

Public Libraries UK Plc or the ACE/Locality report on 'enterprising libraries'.

I'd just like to start off this post by saying that I'm not an academic so i do not have the ability to analyse a report in a trained and rigorous manner, these are just my initial untrained thoughts.

Recently Locality, the well funded armed wing of the DCLG, published a report entitled 'Enabling Enterprise in Libraries'. The report was commissioned by the Arts Council England (ACE), the underfunded unarmed wing of the DCMS.
The report looks at;
"if/how income generation might underpin a
step-change or service transformation in tangible locations, against a backdrop of
falling visitor numbers and growing interest in e-lending."
not just 'income generation but;
income generation"

In the opening paragraph they say that they are not (yet) looking at income generation as a replacement for core funding but as an add-on to improve services and make them more resilient.

They also say that out of all the people they surveyed the ones most interested in 'signicant income generation' are those from social and community enterprise libraries, i take from this they mean SocEnts, Trusts, Mutuals and the like. Although they do say that a small number of public library authorities have employed specific staff to "facilitate retail trading".

But what about volunteer-led so-called 'libraries', according to the Community Knowledge Hub for Libraries, under a telling section called 'How can a library make money?';

"If you are acting as an entirely independent Community Owned Library then you can largely choose what you charge for with the same kinds of freedom as any other enterprise."


"Before deciding what you would like to charge for you should be clear about the purpose of your library so that your pricing policy is not at odds with your Social Objectives e.g. charging for book borrowing when you are seeking to encourage reading among lower income families."

In the 'Enabling Enterprise in Libraries' report itself the issue of 'ethos' also pops up;

"The project seeks to support providers to intensify or widen their area of
operations in an enterprising way -
without losing or compromising their ethos
and core objectives"

So they are obviously very aware that many will see the raising of significant income from retail and commercial activities highly problematic for a statutory public service especially one that has at its core the belief that reading, learning and information should be free at the point of access. But then again the NHS also has this at its core and it hasn't stopped them from privatising and commercialising that beloved institution.

In the summary findings of the report they claim that;

"There is growing acceptance of ‘Enterprising Councils’, and an entrepreneurial culture underpins social and community enterprise libraries, although the same cannot be said of all volunteer-led libraries"

I can't disagree with this statement, over the last two decades, or longer, there has been a movement towards a neoliberal agenda in library policy and management as chronicled by Margaret Greene and David McMenemy in their paper "The emergence and impact of neoliberal ideology on UK public library policy, 1997-2010"

And this movement is being pushed further forward by the growth of alternative models of library service delivery by SocEnts, private companies, trusts, mutuals and independent volunteer-led 'libraries'.

The research is only at the first stages but as the summary findings makes clear ACE sees the development of income generation skills for staff/volunteers as a priority;

"Whilst there are challenges surrounding the capacity and skills of employees/volunteers who might be tasked with the design and delivery of income generating activities, development of the same is cited as a priority for future action in Arts Council England’s response to Envisioning the Library of the Future"

So what can we expect, a rise in charges and fines? Well no as they say they are looking for 'significant income generation' which examples of can be found at;

So the next time you issue a book to someone, if you ever get the chance due to self-serve, ask them the question "do you want fries with that?", your library buying new books or providing kids events might depend, in the future, on the the answer being "yes and a large coke"!

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

A library 'solution' without the staff!

Last night, Mick Fortune, an expert on library technologies especially RFID, reviewed a new product from Bibliotecha, a fully serviced staff-less library. It's called Open + and is described by the company itself as;

“a complete solution which extends library opening hours and improves service to the community” which “can automatically control and monitor building access, self-service kiosks, public access computers, lighting, alarms, public announcements and patron safety.”

Apparently the model has been piloted in Leeds and 60 users signed up for the service in the first 3 weeks of operation, which to me seems an incredibly low figure.

Now there are many who would argue that volunteer-led libraries are basically staff-less and that the whole concept is not a new one with Denmark, Taipei, US and Ireland leading the way but one thing that worries me is that this 'new' model will be used by councils purely as a cost cutting exercise.
You've got to remember that the public library sector especially in England is incredibly fragmented with no real leadership, standards or strategy, with each local authority cutting, closing and divesting until a legal challenge lands on the desk of the borough solicitor.

Mick has pointed out to me that the Danish model didn't result in job losses and says in his review that;

"Bibliotheca make it very clear in all the marketing literature that their intention is NOT to accelerate the demise of the public librarian"

But, and its a big but, this is not how most local authorities will see it.

Mick also goes on to mention 'My Community', another Bibliotecha product, which although is not RFID or library related is being marketed by the company as an add-on for self-serve, it basically allows library users to access other council services, which could be seen as library budgets being used to hasten the downfall of other public services. Basically if you can pay for your council tax through a library kiosk then councils could use this to cut dedicated & trained council tax staff. Lambeth Libraries have recently invested in this product.

Bibliotecha also claim that Open+ will;

"increase community value
Increasing library access and new service delivery to meet the needs
of the whole community. Increase membership, footfall, value and secure
a resilient and relevant service for present and future generations."
now some might say that this is a highly contentious and inflammatory statement, especially in the current climate. Do communities want staff-less libraries? Have they got a choice? Is there a mandate for this? Is a library a library without library staff?

In Ireland recently a union representing library staff, Impact, called on it's members not to cooperate in plans to pilot staffless libraries there so it will be interesting to see what response, if any, there is here to all this.

"So, for the cost of some computer cameras and a card-based door entry system, your library can also get rid of all of its staff apparently. While I am not opposed to a holds-pickup station somewhere in your community, I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to call it a “library.”

for more on unstaffed or staff-less libraries see:


Friday, 18 April 2014

A library glossary #2

In January 2012 I wrote a post listing some of the new library buzz-words/concepts and my interpratations of them see;

and it's now time to add some more.

'Associate Libraries' - volunteer-led 'libraries' in Sheffield.

'Co-operative Libraries' - volunteer-led 'libraries' in Bexley.

'Community Book Exchanges' - what most library campaigners prefer to call volunteer-led 'libraries'.

'Inspiring Libraries' - what Hertfordshire CC calls it's plan to cut libraries.

'An enhanced online offer' - what Hounslow Council call their plans to cut the book budget by 50%.

'Community' - often used by local authorities, councillors, politicians and policy holders when describing a decision, new model of service or/and cuts that have been forced upon a community, for example 'community hub' or 'community library' see my post on this

'Save or Saved' - often used by the local/national press, councillors, volunteers etc to describe what happens when a library becomes volunteer-led, when in fact all that really has been achieved, in many peoples view, is keeping the building open. For a classic example see;

'Little Free Libraries' - tiny wooden structures containing books, which are not 'public libraries', often found in the US but now appearing in some trendier UK communities, if you can call Walthamstow trendy?

Public Sector Mutual - an agenda being pushed by the Cabinet Office to offload more public services and open them up to the rigours of the market. York Libraries and Archives have gone down this route with Birmingham maybe to follow.
Not, and i repeat Not, a road to Damascus moment when the government suddenly decided that it wanted more worker control in the public sector.

'Co-operative Councils' - a model favoured by the Fabians and the Labour Party to dress up cuts, with Lambeth as the testing ground. Not, and i repeat not, a road to Damascus moment when the Labour Party suddenly decided that it wanted more worker control and community involvement in the public sector.

'Devon Centre' - a collocated, shared services kind of library type thing in Devon.

'Library Consultation' - a process whereby a council makes a decision to cut, close or divest libraries then asks the public to ratify it and even if they say NO they still go ahead with it. See Lincolnshire, Herefordshire, Doncaster, Gloucestershire etc.

'Broader Community Offer' - no one is quite sure what this means but it's been heard mentioned in Devon.

'Working Smarter or leaner' - delivering a service with fewer staff.

'Service reform/Synergies/Doing more with less/Restructuring/Reorganisation' - delivering a service with less staff and a reduced budget.

'Library Core, Library Local and Library Extra' - a 3-tier library structure in Staffordshire with town centre folk getting more and rural folk getting less.

'Customer Service Assistant (CSA)' - a library assistant.

'Innovate don't save' - a phrase beloved of the self-styled library guru who has given up the fight and expects everyone else to. Can also be replaced with "if all people hear is 'saving' then no wonder they think libraries are dying". Uniformly hated by the vast majority of campaigners/supporters.

'Outreach Libraries' - What Manchester City Council calls unstaffed 'libraries' based in community centres, housing offices etc.

'Buddy Library' - a 'library' in Manchester that supports an 'outreach library'.

'Flagship Super Hub' - a massive co-located service centre containing a library presence in Cardiff.

'Community Partner' - what Lambeth Council are looking for to help run Waterloo Library, could be a voluntary organisation, SocEnt or volunteers?

Modernise - a word used by councils, recently by Bristol, to justify cutting services. For a good example see;
"Seven libraries in Bristol could close under plans by the city council to save money and "modernise" its service."

'A new chapter' or 'turning a new leaf' - a favourite headline used mostly be local journalists to describe the handing over of a library/ies to volunteers.

My submission to the Sieghart Advisory Panel on Public Libraries.

Written submission by Alan Wylie to the William Sieghart Advisory Panel on Public Libraries.

Alan Wylie is a Reference Librarian with over 20 years’ experience working in public libraries. He is a library campaigner and blogs at
He is also a Unison member, a member of Voices for the Library (VFTL), sits on the organising committee of Speak up for Libraries (SUFL) and is a member of The Library Campaign (TLC) but wishes to submit evidence to this panel in his own personal capacity.


According to Public Libraries News 470+ public libraries have closed, or at risk of closure, or have been taken out of council control since 2009/10.

CIPFA estimates that 3000-4000+ library jobs have been cut since 2007/8.

23,000+ volunteers working in or running libraries, 425+ libraries managed, or partially managed, or in the process of being handed over to volunteer groups, equates to approx. 12% of all public libraries.

Data taken from CIPFA estimates that in real terms investment in English public libraries fell by 16% in the first two years of the current government.

For more information on the cuts to the public library service see ‘The public library service under attack’ by Steve Davies, University of Cardiff:

Furthermore library users are now called ‘customers’, libraries ‘re-branded’ as 'Idea Stores', ‘Discovery Centres’, ‘The Hive’, ‘The Lounge’, library staff are now ‘customer service assistants’, self-serve is rife (often linked to cuts in staffing budgets) and the whole vision is for a more market led service with choice as the new mantra. But the concept of ‘choice’ is often delusionary and is linked to class and access to services and resources.

Library services are also being over-diversified to the point where they are barely recognisable as libraries, turned into ‘hubs’ that offer a whole host of services not organically or traditionally linked with libraries. This has led, for example, to proposals for children’s advisory services in Northamptonshire to be collocated with libraries, a situation that has raised concerns regarding privacy and dignity. There are more proposals to collocate libraries with post offices, police services, birth & death registration, health services and a whole host of other services being ravaged by cuts.
Communities have been fighting back against these proposals with, for example, the Save Wolverhampton Libraries campaign publishing their 'hubs mythbuster', see:

Four library services in the UK, Ealing, Harrow, Hounslow and Croydon, are now run by the construction firm Carillion. Two more, Wandsworth and Greenwich, are run by Greenwich Leisure Ltd. (GLL), a charitable social enterprise. Carillion have recently served redundancy notices to staff in the four services they manage and GLL allegedly use zero-hours contracts. There is no mandate for this, in every consultation in every authority that has chosen to privatise their library service the public and users have said NO (74% inHarrow) but have been ignored.
For more information on the privatisation and outsourcing of public libraries see my blog

The Arts Council England, the body given the developmental remit for public libraries in England, has had its funding cut and serious concerns have been raised by many about its ability and 
effectiveness in fulfilling its remit and by its focus on funding partnerships between the arts and 
public libraries. See my written evidence to the The Culture, Media and Sport Committee;

We also have a Secretary of State who not only refuses to intervene when councils slash library services but publicly states that the service is in rude health!

What are the core principles of a public library service into the future?

Public libraries need to adapt to technological, demographic and socio-economic changes within the communities they serve and in wider society but at their core there should always be a set of basic guiding principles.
In 2013 Voices for the Library, in consultation with thousands of library supporters drew up the following manifesto which outlines what I believe a public library should be and provide:

A wide-ranging, quality book stock available to borrow without charge.

Up-to-date ICT that is available to access free of charge and without restrictions, supplemented by support from trained staff.

Access to ebooks remotely and without charge.

A wide-range of quality online services at no charge.

A space free from commercial influence.

Dedicated services for teens.

A service managed by professionals that allows for greater freedom for staff to enhance the service.

Volunteer opportunities but only as a support to paid staff, not as a substitute.

Library buildings that provide a modern, welcoming space.

A service owned by the public, not private companies or a sub-section of the community.

I would also add to this my belief that libraries should provide access to and foster the following; a joy of reading, literacy (including digital), lifelong learning, freely accessible information & knowledge, social equity, democratic involvement and community empowerment/resilience.

Is the current delivery of the public library service the most comprehensive and efficient?

I believe that the responsibility for public library services should remain within the control of each local authority and that each authority should plan and deliver a service that it is responsive and accountable to its local communities. Library authorities should however share good practice but I’m not convinced by the shared services model, Unison Scotland also share my concerns, see;

Community consultation and partnership are key to this process but not the kind of sham consultations that we've witnessed recently in Herefordshire andLincolnshire where the voices, signatures and concerns of many thousands have been totally ignored.
Each public library service should have as its backbone a network of local libraries, run by paid and trained library staff.

The public library service instead of being ‘comprehensive and efficient’ as stated in the 1964 Act is now fragmented with each local authority looking to see what they can get away with before a legal challenge lands on their desks. A postcode lottery has emerged in respect of which level and model of service you are lucky or in most cases unlucky to have in your local area. It could be council run, a collocated ‘hub’, a trust, a mutual, a volunteer-led service or a private firm.

The formation and development of volunteer-led ‘community libraries’, which although was originally put forward by Labour and has been taken up as a desperate option by many communities who have had a gun put to their heads and told “run your library or we’ll close it”, is now being administered by ‘Locality’ and advertised on '' as a viable alternative to statutory public libraries.
This fragmentation is further execrated by the issue of class; middle/upper class communities often have more time and resources to fight cuts and to run and develop services themselves which often means that working class communities lose out. As a recent report appears to show, the Big Society works better in more affluent areas.

Having fewer paid staff (4000+ cut since 2007/8) poses major problems; outreach programmes are reduced, staff are put under severe stress and strain, specialist knowledge is lost, morale and motivation levels plummet and ‘ethos’ is eroded. Slowly but surely the service is ‘hollowed out’ leading to a less accountable, responsive, professional and user-focussed service. The introduction of self-serve into libraries can also lead to staff cuts and can erode the personal relationship between users and staff.

Having fewer static local libraries and mobile library stops, or none at all, often means that some of the poorestmost vulnerable and less mobile members of the community may have to travel further to use the service and if they haven’t got enough money for petrol or a bus or train fare then they are denied access. This is often worse in rural areas as this article I wrote for Age UK clearly outlines

Many library users can access e-books and online resources but there are still many, an estimated 7 million, caught up in the digital divide without internet access or the skills needed to utilise these resources.

New libraries are being built but they are often large, based in town centres and are often manacled to costly PFI contracts.

What is the role of community libraries in the delivery of a library offer?

I assume in this context ‘community libraries’ means volunteer-led libraries, or partially volunteer-led libraries with some professional input, and not local council operated libraries run by paid and trained staff.
Communities all over the UK have had a gun put to their and told “run your library or we’ll close it”, this has got nothing to do with choice, empowerment or innovation it’s purely cuts based. If you live in an affluent area where people are more likely to have the time and wherewithal to volunteer and the knowledge to fight for resources then you might end up with a relatively nice book exchange/internet cafĂ© masquerading as a public library but those in poorer areas will struggle.
Volunteers come and go and aren’t under contract to come into ‘work’, they are also not contracted to adhere to the laws, procedures, guidelines, frameworks and the code of conduct that public library workers have to, including;

Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964
Race Relations Act 1976
Obscene Publications Act 1959, amended 1964
Sex Discrimination Act 1975
Video Recordings Act 1984
Public Order Act 1986
Local Government Act 1988
Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988
The Children's Act 1989
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Data Protection Act 1998
Human Rights Act 1998
Terrorism Acts 2001 & 2006
Racial & Religious Hatred Act 2006
Local Government & Public Involvement in Health Act 2007

“We suppose the only way we’ll ever find out about the extent to which volunteer-led libraries meet their obligations under the Data Protection Act is if something goes wrong or someone blows the whistle.  Until then, many library users will just have put their trust in a fragmented and unregulated service.”
Volunteers can add great value to the service by assisting library staff in delivering specific programmes relating to literacy (including digital) etc. but they should never replace staff.
This ideological experiment masquerading as ‘Localism’ is untested, unsustainable, unaccountable and undemocratic.
“To put it simply, what is being proposed regarding community ownership of public libraries goes again everything the public library movement has achieved since the mid-Victorian era.”

Public Libraries play a crucial part in the socio-economic wellbeing of many, they offer free, although many now charge for IT use, access to lifelong learning opportunities and information which can lead to an increase in community empowerment, resilience and social equity, a recent article I wrote for the Guardian clearly outlines their impact and value:

I would recommend that the panel consider the following;


The setting up of an independent advisory body for public libraries made up of users, staff, academics, campaigners, unions and policy holders.

The ring fencing of public funds for libraries.

Central and local government and library senior management adopting a back to basics approach where funds and resources are concentrated on books (e-books), local libraries, staff & ICT. This should also include a total restructuring and rethinking of staff recruitment, induction, training and management where ethos and community involvement is encouraged and fostered.
More joined up thinking in central and local government linking public libraries with policies and strategies on literacy, education, poverty reduction etc.
The reintroduction of Public Library Standards for England in line with the Welsh Standards and the Scottish Public Library Quality Improvement Matrix (PLQIM).


Friday, 11 April 2014

346 staff cut from London libraries since 2011/12.

The following is a very basic breakdown of the data relating to staffing and volunteers in London's Public Libraries, for the period 2011/12 to 2012/13, taken from the latest CIPFA Public Library Profiles.
I did the same thing in December 2012, but that time looked at the period covering 2007/8 to 2011/12 see

Hillingdon and Newham didn't submit data.

According to my calculations approx. 346 FTE library posts have been cut between 2011/12 and 2012/13. So add to this my previous figure of 562 (2007/8 - 2011/12) and we've lost approx. 908 FTE staff since 2007/8.
The tri-borough project (Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea and Hammersmith & Fulham) alone lost 52.5 although Westminster, the lead borough, recorded an increase of 4.6!

The authorities with the biggest cuts are Lewisham with 56 staff lost, Camden with 52.6 and Havering with 48.3, the lowest are Merton with 0.7 and Sutton with 1.4, believe it or not there are actually some authorities that report an increase and they are Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Westminster and Croydon.

De-professionialisation continues to be a major issue, with 20 authorities reporting decreases in professional staff. The authorities recording the lowest figures for professional staff are Enfield (0), Waltham Forest (3), Tower Hamlets (4) and Greenwich (4.5). The highest is Camden who record all their 92.3 staff as professional, which is either a mistake when filling the forms in (i hope that this is what Enfiled have done also), a new model of library service provision or a radical re-definition of what a library professional usually means?
In relation to volunteers Merton, flagship for the Mayor's Team London 'Library Champions' project, comes out tops again with 603 voulunteers giving 35,630 hours of their time, followed by Croydon with 365 and Lewisham with 343. Islington and Greenwich both record 0 volunteers!
Yet again I'm not sure how this figure is calculated, do they include volunteers who assist (or run) the 'reading challenges', homework clubs, IT sessions etc or is it just purely volunteers who have replaced paid staff?

If you spot any mistakes in my calculations then please let me know.
City of London

Staff 2007/8 65.5 2011/12 89 (29 prof, 60 other) 2012/13 70 (33.5 prof, 36.5 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 12 2011/12 50 (696hrs) 2012/13 48 (1,367hrs)

Staff 2007/8 74.1 2011/12 54.2 (12.9 prof, 41.4 other) 2012/13 49.9 (14.1 prof, 35.9 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 1 2011/12 24 (551hrs) 2012/13 21 (534hrs)


Staff 2007/8 133 2011/12 68 (20 professional, 48 other) 2012/13 66.5 (16.5 prof, 50 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 0 2011/12 10 (240hrs) 2012/13 24 (2,393hrs)


Staff 2007/8 135 2011/12 144.9 (16 prof, 128.9 other) 2012/13 92.3 (92.3 prof, 0 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 0 2011/12 12 (1,908hrs) 2012/13 55 (2,411hrs)


Staff 2007/8 140 2011/12 123.4 (18.7 prof, 104.7 other) 2012/13 107.8 (15.7 prof, 92.1 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 0 2011/12 29 (800hrs) 2012/13 43 (1,075hrs)


Staff 2007/8 123.5 2011/12 99.5 (18 prof, 81.5 other) 2012/13 102.5 (8.0 prof, 94.5 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 38 2011/12 26 (1,486hrs) 2012/13 15 (1,134hrs)


Staff 2007/8 113.8 2011/12 79.9 (30.2 prof, 49.7 other) 2012/13 75.5 (28.5 prof, 47 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 8 2011/12 63 (1,1830hrs) 2012/13 59 (3,391hrs)


Staff 2007/8 94.3 2011/12 96.5 (10.5 prof, 86 other) 2012/13 92 (8.5 prof, 83.5 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 11 2011/12 14 (2,241hrs) 2012/13 93 (3,982hrs)

Hammersith & Fulham

Staff 2007/8 90 2011/12 86 (5 prof, 81 other) 2012/13 45.0 (12 prof, 33 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 0 2011/12 0 2012/13 35 (461hrs)


Staff 2007/8 101.2 2011/12 81.3 (7 prof, 74.3 other) 2012/13 79 (4.5 prof, 74.5 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 0 2011/12 0 2012/13 0


Staff 2007/8 109.8 2011/12 112 (9 prof, 103 other) 2012/13 97.9 (12 prof, 85.9 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 1 2011/12 2 (281hrs) 2012/13 20 (403hrs)


Staff 2007/8 105.3 2011/12 152 (27 prof, 125 other) 2012/13 96 (25.4 prof, 70.6 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 3 2011/12 336 (28,651hrs) 2012/13 343 (27,279hrs)


Staff 2007/8 61.5 2011/12 47 (4 prof, 43 other) 2012/13 46.3 (4 prof, 42.3 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 31 2011/12 539 (22,303hrs) 2012/13 603 (35,630hrs)


Staff 2007/8 171.8 2011/12 117.3 (15.4 prof, 101.9 other) 2012/13 109.2 (11 prof, 98.2 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 58 2011/12 167 (4,266hrs) 2012/13 181 (6,838hrs)


Staff 2007/8 111 2011/12 78.5 (20 prof, 58.5 other) 2012/13 76.4 (19.9 prof, 56.5 prof)
Volunteers 2007/8 29 2011/12 35 (1,350hrs) 2012/13 167 (1,920hrs)


Staff 2007/8 124.4 2011/12 98.4 (26.7 prof, 71.7 other) 2012/13 89.2 (23.9 prof, 65.3 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 0 2011/12 0 2012/13 0

Kensington & Chelsea

Staff 2007/8 111.5 2011/12 84.8 (18.5 prof, 66.3 other) 2012/13 68.7 (18 prof, 50.7 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 21 2011/12 40 (2,693hrs) 2012/13 43 (1,412hrs)


Staff 2007/8 114.5 2011/12 108 (22 prof, 86 other) 2012/13 102 (10 prof, 92 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 14 2011/12 55 (1,508hrs) 2012/13 113 (7,109hrs)


Staff 2007/8 110 2011/12 89.5 (15 prof, 74.5 other) 2012/13 81.2 (7.5 prof, 73.7 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 156 2011/12 100 (3,336hrs) 2012/13 111 (3,800hrs)


Staff 2007/8 83.5 2011/12 69 (13 prof, 56 other) 2012/13 67.6 (11.5 prof, 56.1 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 18 2011/12 105 (1,946hrs) 2012/13 66 (5,570hrs)

Tower Hamlets

Staff 2007/8 131.4 2011/12 122.7 (4 prof, 118.7 other) 2012/13 137.5 (4 prof, 133.5 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 20 2011/12 14 (708hrs) 2012/13 92 (1,104hrs)


Staff 2007/8 127.4 2011/12 110.8 (37.4 prof, 73.4 other) 2012/13 95.0 (32.8 prof, 62.1 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 67 2011/12 79 (2,151hrs) 2012/13 145 (6,058hrs)


Staff 2007/8 145.1 2011/12 139.4 (31 prof, 108.4 other) 2012/13 144.0 (39 prof, 105 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 88 2011/12 313 (10,950hrs) 2012/13 248 (12,478hrs)


Staff 2007/8 113.8 2011/12 108 (20 prof, 88 other) 2012/13 115.5 (25 prof, 90.5 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 0 2011/12 14 (566hrs) 2012/13 49 (2,897hrs)

Waltham Forest

Staff 2007/8 75.9 2011/12 73 (5.8 prof, 67.2 other) 2012/13 61 (3 prof, 58 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 0 2011/12 4 2012/13 11 (7,252hrs)

Barking & Dagenham

Staff 2007/8 65.3 2011/12 71.2 (12.7 prof, 58.5 other) 2012/13 60.3 (10.8 prof, 49.5 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 0 2011/12 41 2012/13 47


Staff 2007/8 157 2011/12 122.5 (48 prof, 74.5 other) 2012/13 118.5 (47.5 prof, 71.0 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 38 2011/12 28 2012/13 83


Staff 2007/8 138 2011/12 89.3 (15.8 prof, 73.5 other) 2012/13 81.2 (12.5 prof, 68.8 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 110 2011/12 184 2012/13 273


Staff 2007/8 134.5 2011/12 100.4 (22 prof, 78.4 other) 2012/13 104 (23 prof, 81 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 25 2011/12 245 (3,008hrs) 2012/13 365 (9,400hrs)


Staff 2007/8 143 2011/12 128 (23 prof, 105 other) 2012/13 125.5 (0 prof, 125.5 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 31 2011/12 117 (1,647hrs) 2012/13 307 (2,737hrs)


Staff 2007/8 96 2011/12 104 (9 prof, 95 other) 2012/13 55.7 (9.1 prof, 46.6 other)
Volunteers 2007/8 96 2011/12 200 (3,880hrs) 2012/13 323 (6,371hrs)