Can't get to the library? Then we'll come to you. A survey of library services to people in their own homes in the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To determine the current level of library service to people in their own homes in the United Kingdom and to compare it with results from previous surveys. It is many years since a similar survey has been undertaken or guidelines produced and it is hoped that this work will help fill the gap. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent in January 2004 to all public library authorities in the UK, a total of 208; 72% (149) were returned in the timescale allowed. The questionnaire covered the criteria for eligibility to receive a home library service; service structure and delivery who delivers the service (specialist librarians or specialist non-professional staff, branch library staff or volunteers); training; range of material and services provided; reading aids; materials for reminiscence; information provision; transporting people to the library; services to people in residential homes, sheltered accommodation, nursing homes and day centres; reader development; lifelong learning; and publicity and promotion. The focus of the survey was on quality issues and good practice wherever possible. RESULTS: The number of customers receiving a service to 'housebound' readers in the UK in 2001/2 was 123 407. In 1984 it was 43 807 people in England. This still bears little relation to the number of people who should be receiving the service. The majority used paid staff (88%). Volunteers supported 52% of the services, with most having links with staff. There were opportunities to improve and develop services under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The service was publicized and promoted by only 62% of the respondents. Of those that use paid staff and that answered this question, 73% provide disability equality training for staff. Only 21% provide disability equality training for volunteers. Only 36% are involved in reader development or lifelong learning and only 23% provide a newsletter in print, 11% on tape and 3% in Braille; 12% take laptops into people's homes. CONCLUSIONS: Many authorities were still providing a tokenistic service and were reluctant to publicize for fear of not coping with demand, which makes them vulnerable legally under the DDA. However, there were some excellent examples of good practice where the full range of services are provided to a high standard.