<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The weirdly limited information world of public libraries	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2017/03/the-weirdly-limited-information-world-of-public-libraries.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2017/03/the-weirdly-limited-information-world-of-public-libraries.html</link>
	<description>What&#039;s happening to your library?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Apr 2017 19:54:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: librariesmatter		</title>
		<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2017/03/the-weirdly-limited-information-world-of-public-libraries.html#comment-8090</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[librariesmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:44:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/?p=12254#comment-8090</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I couldn’t believe the farce of the Libraries Taskforce published dataset which is just a list of libraries with no other information. I know it is a first release but it is obvious that the DCMS/LGA don’t want to release anything meaningful.  

Over the last decade disclosure about English public library performance has collapsed. We’ve seen:  
- The abolition of library standards and the reporting of performance against  those standards.
- The abolition of National Indicators including the indicator on library use. 
- Public summaries of the CIPFA annual public library data have dried up. The CIPFA data is always hopelessly late and the data is treated as private. The DCMS does nothing about it.
- The DCMS funded public library profiles have stopped. 
- The DCMS’s annual statement on public libraries to Parliament avoids reporting anything about performance. 
- The poor quality of DCMS answers to parliamentary questions about public libraries. 

It is ironic is that data collection and public reporting has never been easier, but disclosure about public libraries has never been worse. 

The democratic process isn’t working. There needs to be a public revolt over the inability of government to account for their stewardship of the public library service.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I couldn’t believe the farce of the Libraries Taskforce published dataset which is just a list of libraries with no other information. I know it is a first release but it is obvious that the DCMS/LGA don’t want to release anything meaningful.  </p>
<p>Over the last decade disclosure about English public library performance has collapsed. We’ve seen:<br />
&#8211; The abolition of library standards and the reporting of performance against  those standards.<br />
&#8211; The abolition of National Indicators including the indicator on library use.<br />
&#8211; Public summaries of the CIPFA annual public library data have dried up. The CIPFA data is always hopelessly late and the data is treated as private. The DCMS does nothing about it.<br />
&#8211; The DCMS funded public library profiles have stopped.<br />
&#8211; The DCMS’s annual statement on public libraries to Parliament avoids reporting anything about performance.<br />
&#8211; The poor quality of DCMS answers to parliamentary questions about public libraries. </p>
<p>It is ironic is that data collection and public reporting has never been easier, but disclosure about public libraries has never been worse. </p>
<p>The democratic process isn’t working. There needs to be a public revolt over the inability of government to account for their stewardship of the public library service.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
