evaluation of the living libraries infrastructure program ... · regional libraries and local...

3 February 2015

Evaluation of the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program

Local Government Victoria

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation of 64

Contents

Contents ................................................................................ 2

Executive summary ............................................................. 3

Background ..................................................................................................................... 3

Findings and recommendations ................................................................................. 4

Introduction .......................................................................... 6

Overview .......................................................................................................................... 6

Evaluation scope ............................................................................................................ 6

Outcomes logic model ................................................................................................. 8

Evaluation methodology and data sources ............................................................. 8

Interviews.......................................................................................................................... 9

Survey ................................................................................................................................ 9

Evaluation limitations ..................................................................................................... 9

Findings ................................................................................. 10

Program delivery – summary data ............................................................................ 10

Appropriateness and relevance ............................................................................... 12

Key evaluation questions ............................................................................................ 12

Findings ........................................................................................................................... 12

Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 15


Findings ........................................................................................................................... 15

Initiative delivery and efficiency ............................................................................... 18


Findings ........................................................................................................................... 18

Lessons and future directions ..................................................................................... 20

Lessons on initiative design and delivery ................................................................ 20

Impact of stopping the initiative ............................................................................... 21

Conclusions and recommendations................................. 22

Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 22

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 22

Attachments ......................................................................... 23

Attachment 1: Evaluation design .............................................................................. 23

Attachment 2: Outcomes logic model .................................................................... 30

Attachment 3: Interview guide .................................................................................. 31

Attachment 4: Survey instrument .............................................................................. 33

Attachment 5: Survey data ........................................................................................ 38

Attachment 6: References ......................................................................................... 62

Attachment 7: Australian Library and Information Association Statement on

Public Library Services .................................................................................................. 63

Attachment 8: Australian National Audit Office Principles for Better Practice

Grant Processes ............................................................................................................ 64


Executive summary

Background

The Living Libraries Infrastructure Program is a four-year grants program designed to assist

regional libraries and local governments to provide high-quality and accessible public library

infrastructure that meets the changing needs of communities. These grants are additional to

and separate from core service funding to the library services by the state government.

The Living Libraries Infrastructure Program’s objectives are to:

• provide new or improved public library infrastructure;

• support the role of public libraries in strengthening communities and encouraging

opportunities for community participation;

• encourage and create lifelong learning opportunities for Victorian communities;

and

• facilitate free access to information and reading resources.

Grants range up to a maximum of $750,000. Around fifteen projects are approved each

year. Sixty-three projects have been approved over the last four years, with $17.2m of LLIP

grants contributing to projects of $180m total worth.

Local Government Victoria has commissioned an evaluation to provide information on the

effectiveness of the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program and determine whether the

program has met the appropriate policy objectives, planned outputs and desired outcomes.

The evaluation is also to inform the government's current and future policy and decision-

making around the program; a new business case will be developed early in 2015 for a

proposed new round of the program.

The evaluation has assessed the program against the requirements of the Department of

Treasury and Finance’s Evaluation Policy and Standards for Lapsing Programs:

• justification of the program and links to policy;

• effectiveness;

• funding/delivery;

• risk; and

• efficiency.

Evidence for the evaluation was gathered in December 2014 and January 2015. Evidence

sources included:

• document and data reviews;

• key informant interviews; and

• an online survey of library service managers.


Findings and recommendations

Findings

The key findings included the following:

• The 17.2m of LLIP grants was evenly divided between metro projects ($8.1m, 47%

of LLIP grants) and regional projects ($9.1m, 53%).

• The LLIP proportion of total projects’ expenditure was higher for regional projects

(22% of total projects’ expenditure) than metro projects (6%).

• Stakeholders interviewed and surveyed for the evaluation were overwhelmingly in

favour of the program and were unanimous in saying that much public library

infrastructure would remain unbuilt or left in a dilapidated state in its absence.

• Grant processes were said to be open, relatively transparent, and easy to comply

with. Local Government Victoria was praised for running a collaborative and

simple grants system.

• Libraries that have implemented infrastructure projects with LLIP grants assistance

report greater accessibility of services, increased usage rates and higher user

satisfaction ratings as a result.

• The increasing cost of buildings means that the maximum grant amount of

$750,000 is diminishing in significance compared to the total cost of a major new

library building.

• Stakeholders interviewed and surveyed for the evaluation described the range of

project sizes and scope funded by LLIP as being highly appropriate, as it responds

to the range of needs across the sector.

Conclusions

The Living Libraries Infrastructure Program (LLIP) is a grant funding initiative that is seen by

Victorian public library services as a vital and integral part of the sector’s annual

infrastructure funding. It contributes around 10% on average of public libraries’ infrastructure

spending and is considered to play a vital role in locking in counterpart funding from local

Councils.

Grant processes are viewed by applicants as efficient, open and transparent, simple to

comply with, and delivered in a collaborative manner between the Department and public

library services.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:

1. The Department review the maximum grant size.

2. The Department review the rationale for deciding the limitations to non-fixed

infrastructure for grant funding.


3. The Department review whether there is a case for articulating decision making

guidelines on a policy basis for annual division of the grant funds pool between

large, medium and small projects.

4. The Department articulate the grant decision-making principles in the guidelines

made available to applicants.

5. The Department consider changing the timing of the grant process to better fit

library services’ capital budget planning processes, for example by running

multiple grant rounds each year or a continuously open round. There may be

merit in running separate processes for large and small projects.


Introduction

Overview

Local Government Victoria supports public libraries through a range of grants and other

funding and is also responsible for governance issues relating to regional library corporations

and Mechanics' Institutes.

Local Government Victoria administers the Government's grants to libraries, including

managing three year funding and service agreements with:

• thirteen regional library services (each serving two or more councils);

• thirty-three single-council library services; and

• a state-wide library services for people with print disabilities.

These funding and service agreements cover two program areas:

• core funding, which helps councils provide public library services; and

• local priorities funding, which supports specific local services identified by the library

as a priority.

The Living Libraries Infrastructure Program is a four-year grants program designed to assist

regional libraries and local governments to provide high-quality and accessible public library

infrastructure that meets the changing needs of communities. These grants are additional to

and separate from core service funding to the library services by the state government.

The Living Libraries Infrastructure Program’s objectives are to:

• provide new or improved public library infrastructure;

• support the role of public libraries in strengthening communities and encouraging

opportunities for community participation;

• encourage and create lifelong learning opportunities for Victorian communities; and


Grants range up to a maximum of $750,000. Around fifteen projects are approved each

year. The sixty-three projects approved over the last four years are at varying stages of

completion.

Evaluation scope

Local Government Victoria has commissioned an evaluation to provide information on the

effectiveness of the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program and determine whether the

program has met the appropriate policy objectives, planned outputs and desired outcomes.

The evaluation is also to inform the government's current and future policy and decision-

making around the program; a new business case will be developed early in 2015 for a

proposed new round of the program.

The evaluation has assessed the program against the requirements of the Department of



• justification of the program and links to policy;

• effectiveness;

• funding/delivery;

• risk; and

• efficiency.

The top level questions and sub-questions have been provided in the brief, based on DTF

requirements:

1. Justification / problem: What is the evidence of a continued need for the program? What

is the role for government in delivering this program?

• To what extent does the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program continue to address a

demonstrable need and is responsive to the needs of Victorians?

• To what extent have options been investigated to address the identified need or

problem?

• Does the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program continue to be the best way to

respond to the problem and deliver the intended outcomes?

• How have the economic, environmental and social conditions changed since the

program was funded and how will continuation of the program meet these

conditions?

2. Effectiveness: What is the evidence of the program’s progress toward its stated objectives

and expected outcomes, including the alignment between program, its outputs (as outlined

in Budget Paper 3), departmental objectives and any stated government priorities?

• To what extent has Living Libraries Infrastructure Program progressed towards its

stated objectives and outcomes it was seeking to achieve (at start-up and any

revisions)?

• Why was this program approach considered the best way to achieve the outcomes?

3. Funding / delivery: (a) Has the program been delivered within its scope, budget, within

expected timeframes, and in line with appropriate governance and risk management

practices; and b) Has the department demonstrated efficiency and economy in relation to

the delivery of the program?

• To what extent has Living Libraries Infrastructure Program been delivered within its

scope?

• To what extent has Living Libraries Infrastructure Program being delivered within its

budget?

• To what extent has Living Libraries Infrastructure Program been delivered within the

expected timeframe?

• To what extent has Living Libraries Infrastructure Program been delivered in line with

appropriate governance and risk management practices?


• To what extent has Living Libraries Infrastructure Program been delivered at lowest

possible cost without compromising quality?

4. Risk: What would be the impact of ceasing the program?

• What would the impact be if DTPLI was to successfully exit from delivering Living

Libraries Infrastructure Program if the government so desired?

• What strategies have been identified to minimise any negative impacts of this exit?

5. Efficiency: What efficiencies could be realised?

• If ongoing funding was provided, what level of efficiencies could be realised?

Outcomes logic model

During the preparation of the evaluation plan the evaluator, in collaboration with LGV,

developed an Outcomes Logic Model (OLM) for the LLIP. The OLM is attached at

Attachment 2.

The OLM describes the program logic in a table to illustrate the links between policy,

strategies, inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes.

The OLM provides a guide to the evaluation design and data collection by illustrating how

the program is intended to work in producing outcomes for the beneficiaries and the

community.

Evaluation methodology and data sources

The evaluation design is attached at Attachment 1. In brief the approach is as follows.

1. Develop Outcomes Logic Model

2. Develop evaluation framework & key questions

3. Develop interview questions and guide

4. Develop survey questionnaire

5. Collect data:

a. Performance data, including PLVN annual performance statistics.

b. Key informant interviews of ten library managers.

c. Online survey of library services.

6. Analyse

7. Report


Interviews

Key informant interviews were conducted in December 2014 of ten library service managers

selected at random1 from the list of grant recipients.

Survey

An online survey was run in January 2015. Forty-two library service managers responded, a

91% return rate.

Evaluation limitations

The evaluation has worked within several constraints:

1. The time for the evaluation research and analysis is limited (one working month). 2. Evidence of the program’s long-term impact is necessarily indirect, as many factors

contribute to the creation of strong socially-inclusive, connected and active communities where people like to live, the LLIP being only one of them.

1 Grant recipients were assigned a sequence number and a random number generator app was used to select candidates for interview.


Findings

Program delivery – summary data

The LLIP has delivered $17.2 m of funding through sixty-three grants over the period 2011-14.

Summary data is shown in below.

Table 1: Funding summary 2011-14

Year Number of

applications

Number of grants

made

Amount

requested

Amount

granted

2011 15 10 $5.2 m $3.4 m

2012 27 22 $10.8 m $5.5 m

2013 20 13 $8.6 m $3.5 m

2014 24 18 $8.5 m $4.8 m

TOTAL 86 63 $33.1 m $17.2 m

Significant competition for the grant funding is illustrated by the fact that applications were

made for an amount of grant money almost double that available. At the same time, three-

quarters of grant applications by number were successful.

The size of grants ranged from $6,000 to the maximum amount under the scheme, $750,000.

Figure 1: Distribution of grant size – LLIP grants 2011-2014

Table 2, over, shows projects funded by type.

0

5

10

15

20

25

<$100,000 $100,000

to

$199,999

$200,000

to

$299,999

$300,000

to

$399,999

$400,000

to

$499,999

$500,000

to

$599,999

$600,000

to

$699,999

>$700,000

Nu

mb

er

of

gra

nts

Size of grant

Histogram of all LLIP grants funded 2011-2014


Table 2: Projects funded, by type, 2011-2014

Project Type Number

New Library/Relocation 23

Redevelopment 16

Refurbishment 18

New or enhanced Mobile 6

Table 3 below shows grants made by location type.

Table 3: Grants data by location type

Metro projects 22

Metro projects total allocation $8,131,000

Metro projects total allocation (% of total $) 47%

LLIP proportion of total projects’ expenditure, metro 6%

Regional projects 41

Regional projects total allocation $9,069,000

Regional projects total allocation (% of total $) 53%

LLIP proportion of total projects’ expenditure, regional 22%

Table 3 above shows that:

• Total grant monies over the period 2011-2014 are roughly evenly divided between

metro and regional library services.

• Grants make up a larger proportion of total projects’ funding in regional library

services compared to metro library services’ projects.

Figure 2 below shows that while library services in regional locations received almost twice as

many grants by number, the majority were for smaller amounts, clustered under $100,000.


Figure 2: Comparison of Metro and Regional LLIP grants 2011-2014

Appropriateness and relevance

Key evaluation questions

The key evaluation questions for Appropriateness and Relevance of the LLIP are as follows:

• What is the evidence of a continued need for the program?

• What is the role for government in delivering this program?




problem?





conditions?

Findings

The Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) articulates the need for public

libraries in the following way (ALIA, 2009):

“Freedom of access to public library and information services is essential:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

<$100,000 $100,000

to

$199,999

$200,000

to

$299,999

$300,000

to

$399,999

$400,000

to

$499,999

$500,000

to

$599,999

$600,000

to

$699,999

>$700,000

Nu

mb

er

of

gra

nts

Size of grant

Comparison of Metro & Regional LLIP grants

2011-2014

METRO

REGIONAL


• to enable members of the Australian communities, including new

residents and emerging communities to participate in all aspects of

Australian life, including the democratic process;

• to actively contribute to social inclusion for all members of the Australian

community; and

• to enable Australians to contribute to the economic wellbeing of their

families and the nation.”

Public libraries in Victoria are entirely funded by government2, with the majority of funding,

both operational and capital expenditure, by local government. The state government

provides block funding for operational expenditures, and the LLIP for infrastructure capital

expenditure. Library services may also be eligible for other state government grants, for

example Community Support Grants.

Victorian public library services provided a total of 354 service points to the public, including

265 branches and thirty mobile services, according to the 2013-14 PLVN Performance Data

report.

Significant research such as Libraries Building Communities (State Library of Victoria, 2005)

and Dollars, Sense and Public Libraries (SGS Economics and Planning, 2011) has established

the social and economic value of public libraries. Being The Best We Can (State Library of

Victoria and Public Libraries Victoria Network, 2011), a libraries evaluation and improvement

framework used by Victorian library services, summarised research as showing that libraries

provide the following to their communities:

• provide gateways to information, learning and leisure;

• build individual skills, capability and wellbeing; and

• develop social connections and build social capital.

Successive governments have recognised the particular role of public libraries in fostering

lifelong learning, and providing free access to information and a place for people to meet.

The LLIP is a response to identified needs around Victoria’s growth, changing community

needs, the demands of ageing infrastructure, and a need to respond to modern

developments in the library and information sector. Financial support is required to ensure

that libraries’ infrastructure continues to meet Victorian communities’ diverse and growing

needs,

The majority of Victorian public library services’ annual capital expenditure is provided by

local governments: $29m of a total $33m in 2013-2014. The state government’s LLIP

contributed an average $4.3m per annum to libraries’ infrastructure capital expenditure over

the period 2011-2014. The LLIP funding made up 9.4% of the capital expenditure funding for

projects by libraries over the period of the program. The proportion of the contribution made

by LLIP to libraries’ projects is actually higher than this figure suggests, as many of the larger

projects in the period were for multi-purpose buildings (e.g. Council ‘hubs’), so the library was

only a portion of the total project expenditure.

2 With the exception of a small amount of funding raised through user charges and other sources.


The need for continuing investment in library services’ infrastructure is supported by

interviewees and survey respondents in multiple comments about the value they have

obtained from the LLIP and what would likely happen without it.

“Buildings have finite lifespans. The purpose for which they were built, and the

changing nature of libraries, their buildings, and how they are being used and the

purposes for which they are being used is changing and evolving. There is a need to

recognise that by the state government. It is ‘public libraries’ still, despite what

everyone says – it’s a partnership between local and state government I feel, and the

contribution to the physical environment in which that happens is still very much a

responsibility of both.” – library manager, metro Melbourne interface (high growth

area).

The significance of the LLIP to the libraries’ infrastructure projects goes beyond the monetary

value. Most library managers interviewed for the evaluation stated that without matching

funding coming from the state government, their Councils would be much less inclined to

fund the library projects.

“I think that you can’t underestimate just how critical the grants program is to actually

getting commitment to capital funding. When you’ve got limited capital budget and

you’ve got so many different services that are all trying to get that capital funding,

when you can apply for a grant, it just adds so much weight to a capital bid to be

able to have that with it …when it gets to executive or council if there’s a

commitment of funding against it, they don’t want to knock back something where

they’re potentially going to have co-funding.” – library manager, metro.

The continuing demand for, and responsiveness of the grant program is illustrated by the

number of applications received over the period of the program. Of the forty-two

respondents to the evaluation’s online survey, thirty-four (81%) had applied for a grant under

the LLIP in the period 2011-2014. Thirty-three of these applicants were successful with one or

more applications. Of the eight respondents who had not applied for an LLIP grant, five did

not have infrastructure projects that would qualify under the LLIP, and one had an

appropriate project that was already fully funded. One other respondent said that while they

had not applied on behalf of their library service, three member councils of their regional

library corporation had successfully done so.

Interviewees, survey respondents and research papers on Victorian public libraries reveal

several other factors driving a continuing need for infrastructure investment:

• Emergence of new technologies and evolution of established ones mean that

buildings and library spaces need to change to meet the changing needs of ‘21st

century literacies’.

• Rapidly growing populations in metro Melbourne’s urban fringe regions are creating

great demand for local services, including new and expanded public libraries.

• The evolution of community use of local public spaces, especially public libraries,

and their growth in use by the community as a safe ‘third space’ means that spaces

in many long-established library buildings need to be reconfigured.


Effectiveness


The key evaluation questions for Effectiveness of the LLIP are as follows:

• What is the evidence of the program’s progress toward its stated objectives and

expected outcomes, including the alignment between the program, its outputs,

departmental objectives and any stated government priorities?



revisions)?


Findings

The LLIP’s long-term goal is to support the creation of strong, socially-inclusive, connected

and active communities where people like to live, by helping Victorian public libraries to:

• strengthen communities and encourage opportunities for community participation;

• encourage and create lifelong learning opportunities for Victorian communities; and


The LLIP does this by providing grant funding to public libraries for infrastructure, comprising

part of projects’ funding requirements. As a result, public library services are able to provide

new or improved library infrastructure (construction works, permanent fixtures or fittings, or

renovation works) that benefits their users and the community.

The LLIP has contributed $17.2m in sixty-three grants, towards infrastructure works of over

$180m over the period of 2011-2014.

According to the economic modelling in Dollars, Sense and Public Libraries, for every dollar

invested in Victoria’s public libraries, the average value returned is $3.56 in community

benefits.

Survey respondents rated the contribution made by the LLIP grant highly, as shown in the

following figure.


Figure 3: Contribution by LLIP grant

As described in the previous section, many interviewees and survey respondents stated that

the LLIP grant was vital in ensuring the project went ahead in the first place.

In addition, many smaller projects, especially in regional areas, received a significant

proportion of their total project funding from the LLIP. A number of these involved small

upgrades and/or expansions to smaller branches.

“We would not be able to provide the library facilities required by our growing

community without Living Libraries funding.” – survey respondent.

Large library projects have the potential to deliver very significant impact:

“Our old library, when it was on this site, used to have attendance figures or visitor

figures of up to 15,000 people a month. At the moment, we’re running at 25,000

visitors a month, so there’s been a significant increase in the number of people visiting

the facility. Our loans were of the order of 15,000 or 16,000 a month, they’re now

between 23,000 and 30,000 a month so there’s been also a significant increase in the

loans. In addition to that, other things like bookings of meeting facilities, we’re

probably running at something like 300 bookings a month.” – library manager, metro

interface (high growth) region.

Not only have projects made impact on usage, but also on user satisfaction in the services,

as shown in the following figure.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither agree

nor disagree

Agree Strongly agree

Nu

mb

er

The LLIP grant made a significant contribution to

the infrastructure project


Figure 4: User satisfaction impact

One example of the type of impact achievable by a relatively small amount of infrastructure

funding was shown by surveys of user satisfaction before and after the redevelopment of a

library branch in a small coastal town. The rating given by users for the range and quality of

books increased from 9% to 67%, while the ease of locating a book went from 55%

satisfaction to 100%. Overall user satisfaction was 100% (‘Satisfied’ or ‘Very satisfied’).

Figure 5: Impact on usage

Both quantitative and qualitative effects on usage were described by interviewees and

survey respondents.

“Massive [impact] is probably the first word that comes to mind. In the first day we

had 120 people visit the library, we picked up about 33 new members.” – library

0

5

10

15

20

25

Strongly

disagree


nor disagree


Nu

mb

er

A measurable increase in user satisfaction has

resulted from the infrastructure project

0

5

10

15

20

25

Strongly

disagree


nor disagree


Nu

mb

er

Measurable increases in usage have been made

possible by the infrastructure project


manager, regional area, describing the effect of opening a new static branch

replacing a visiting mobile service.

“We’ll be able to make the library a breastfeeding friendly venue, and be a place

where mums can duck in and their older kids can read a book while they feed their

babies.” – metro library manager describing new spaces made possible by the

infrastructure investment.

Another example was given where the accessibility of services was increased significantly,

with infrastructure grants making it possible for two renovated branches to increase their

opening hours from fourteen hours per week to five and a half days.

Initiative delivery and efficiency


The key evaluation questions for initiative delivery and efficiency are as follows:


scope, budget and expected timeframe?





• What would be the impact of ceasing the program?





Findings

The LLIP has been delivered according to its scope, budget and planned timing – see Table 1

for details.

The cost of administering the LLIP is quite low, with one Equivalent Full Time (EFT) staff

administering $17.2m of grants over four years, and dealing with forty-six public library

services and other sector stakeholders. This resource is supplemented by convening of a part-

time Grants Moderation Panel, an independent body that assesses applications against the

grant guidelines and recommends successful applications for funding.

The Commonwealth Grant Guidelines, cited in Implementing Better Practice Grants

Administration (Australian National Audit Office, 2009), provide a framework of principles that

underpin better practice grant processes. The principles are:

1. Robust planning and design


2. An outcomes orientation

3. Proportionality

4. Collaboration and partnership

5. Governance and accountability

6. Probity and transparency

7. Achieving value with public money

Further details of the grants principles framework are shown in Attachment 7. Overall, the LLIP

performs well against these principles, as demonstrated by the following findings.

Grants are decided in an annual process that starts with an open call for applications in

February/March. The application process is relatively simple, using an Expression of Interest

(EOI) format. The Department works with applicants to help them focus their project

applications before they lodge them.

Interviewees and survey respondents alike rated the grants processes highly.

Figure 6: Survey ratings of LLIP grants processes

Assistance from Local Government Victoria was highly appreciated by library service

applicants.

“It [the grants process] was really good. I think mainly because we sat down with the

group straight away, and they explained the process and what was needed, and I

found that process really good and helpful.” – library manager, metro Melbourne

interface (growth) area.

“It’s one of the simpler processes that I’ve been through.” – library manager, regional

area.

1 2 3 4 5

Local Government Victoria dealt with queries

and other communications from us promptly

The grant funding was made available when

we needed it

The timing of the call for applications fitted

into our planning cycle

The grants were advertised far enough in

advance to allow adequate preparation

The grant application process was easy to

understand

Rating (scale 1 to 5)

Rating of the LLIP grants processes


Several interviewees and survey respondents did raise some issues around timing of the

grants process compared to the annual planning processes of their Councils, which

sometimes made it more difficult to get projects up in a timely manner.

“Formal advice of success was not received until July 1. Councils finalise their budget

process in April each year – it would be better if a result was known prior to finalising

the commitments of Council for each operating year.” – survey respondent.

Decisions on grant applications are made by the Grant Moderation Panel, which contains

representatives of the Department, Public Libraries Victoria Network (PLVN), the Municipal

Association of Victoria (MAV) and the State Library of Victoria (SLV). Interviewees and survey

respondents were satisfied that the grant requirements about the scope and type of projects

eligible for funding were adequate and reasonable, and were clearly expressed in the

published grant guidelines. However, several comments were made that questioned the

consistency of decisions made.

A significant proportion of interviewees and survey respondents commented that the size of

the maximum grant could reasonably be increased beyond $750,000 given the escalation in

building costs for new libraries. This is a significant issue for larger interface Councils and

Regional Library Corporations that are facing rapid population growth and are expected by

the community to respond with major new buildings. Even though the LLIP contribution to

such large projects may be a relatively small proportion of the whole, it can make a

significant difference to the overall quality of the finished product and also to a Council’s

willingness to proceed, according to a number of those interviewed for the evaluation.

Many interviewees commented that smaller grants often make very significant impacts on

smaller library services, especially in regional areas. Grants even of under $100,000 can make

large differences to the quality of users’ experience in smaller branches or mobile services.

Many interviewees and survey respondents commented that without the LLIP grant

component, their project would not have proceeded. A common reason for this is that, on

the one hand, the Council would not consider proceeding unless there was a matching

component form the state government, and on the other hand that once funding was

approved from the state government, it acted as a strong incentive to proceed, because

Council did not want to forego promised funds. These comments were reinforced by those

made by unsuccessful applicants, more than three-quarters of whom said their project did

not proceed because they failed to win the LLIP funds.

All those interviewed and surveyed for the evaluation agree that were the LLIP to be

terminated without replacement, the consequences for public libraries’ infrastructure in

Victoria would be significantly negative. Political fallout could be expected as a result,

according to a number of interviewees.

Lessons and future directions

Lessons on initiative design and delivery

Overall, the design appears appropriate and adequate for the purpose expressed in the

program objectives. Applications run at about double the amount of funding available each

year, so there is sufficient competition between grantees to ensure that good applications

proceed. Unsuccessful applications are often fine-tuned between grant calls, resulting in


better submissions that are more likely to succeed the following year. The Department plays

an appropriate role in ensuring applicants put their best proposal forward.

A wide variety of comments were made by interviewees and survey respondents about

potential improvements to the LLIP. The main themes were to:

• Increase the maximum grant size (some suggested a figure of $1m).

• Widen the scope of applicable infrastructure to cover a defined range of furnishings

(restrictive definitions of fixed infrastructure can limit libraries’ ability to respond to

changing usage needs).

Many of those interviewed and surveyed commented on the wide range of projects funded

under the LLIP. This was very much seen as a positive, because no-one was excluded. The

differing levels of matching funding on offer were widely commented upon as being

appropriate, as they reflected differing levels of need and financial circumstances between

library services in metropolitan Melbourne, regional cities, metro interface areas, and

regional and rural councils.

Impact of stopping the initiative

It is unlikely the Department could successfully stop delivering the initiative without there

being significant backlash from the public library sector, local government and the

community, potentially leading to political fallout. The state government is seen to be

responsible for providing public library services in collaboration with local government, and

cessation of the LLIP could be interpreted as withdrawal of the state government from its

publicly stated commitment to supporting and enhancing the quality of public library

services in Victoria.


Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions

The Living Libraries Infrastructure Program is a grant funding initiative that is seen by Victorian

public library services as a vital and integral part of the sector’s annual infrastructure funding.

It contributes around 10% on average of public libraries’ infrastructure spending and is

considered to play a vital role in locking in counterpart funding from local Councils.

Grant processes are viewed as efficient, open and transparent, simple to comply with for

applicants, and delivered in a collaborative manner between the Department and

applicant public library services.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:

1. The Department review the maximum grant size.

2. The Department review the rationale for deciding the limitations to non-fixed

infrastructure for grant funding.

3. The Department review whether there is a case for articulating decision making

guidelines on a policy basis for annual division of the grant funds pool between large,

medium and small projects.

4. The Department articulate the grant decision-making principles in the guidelines

made available to applicants.

5. The Department consider changing the timing of the grant process to better fit library

services’ capital budget planning processes, for example by running multiple grant

rounds each year or a continuously open round. There may be merit in running

separate processes for large and small projects.


Attachments

Attachment 1: Evaluation design

The evaluation design detailed below was designed to meet DTF requirements, including

recommendations for future program delivery improvements, based on evidence gathered

in the evaluation.

Purpose of the evaluation.

The purpose of the evaluation is to provide information on the effectiveness of the Living

Libraries Infrastructure Program and determine whether the program has met the

appropriate policy objectives, planned outputs and desired outcomes. The evaluation will

also inform the government's current and future policy and decision-making around the

program – a new business case will be developed early in 2015 for a proposed new round of

the program.

Scope of the evaluation.

The evaluation will comprise:

1. Collection and analysis of data relating to library services that have received

funding as part of the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program;

2. Analysis of relevant reports and surveys of library professionals; and

3. A review of relevant documents.

The main quantitative data collected will be derived from the 2013–14 public library statistics

compiled by PLVN on behalf of Local Government Victoria. Additional data may be

sourced from specific library services via formal surveys to help ascertain the benefit of

facilities built as part of the living libraries infrastructure program. Qualitative data will be

obtained through evaluation research, and LGV will contribute case study information from a

representative sample of eight libraries from around the state.

Target audiences.

The main audience for the evaluation is Local Government Victoria, which will use the

evaluation as part of its budget submission preparation.

Key evaluation questions.

The evaluation will assess the program against the requirements of the Department of


1. justification of the program and links to policy;

2. effectiveness;

3. funding/delivery;

4. risk; and


5. efficiency.

The detailed evaluation questions to be answered are as follows:

1. Justification / problem: What is the evidence of a continued need for the program? What

is the role for government in delivering this program?




problem?





conditions?

2. Effectiveness: What is the evidence of the program’s progress toward its stated objectives

and expected outcomes, including the alignment between program, its outputs (as outlined

in Budget Paper 3), departmental objectives and any stated government priorities?



revisions)?


3. Funding / delivery: (a) Has the program been delivered within its scope, budget, within

expected timeframes, and in line with appropriate governance and risk management

practices; and b) Has the department demonstrated efficiency and economy in relation to

the delivery of the program?


scope?

• To what extent has Living Libraries Infrastructure Program being delivered within its

budget?

• To what extent has Living Libraries Infrastructure Program been delivered within the

expected timeframe?





4. Risk: What would be the impact of ceasing the program?





5. Efficiency: What efficiencies could be realised?


Logic model.

The program outcomes logic model for the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program is shown in

Attachment 2.

Interview guide and survey questionnaire.

The interview guide is shown in Attachment 3; the survey questionnaire is shown in

Attachment 4.

Evaluation plan and timetable

The evaluation plan timetable is shown in Figure 7 below, and explained in the following

paragraphs.

= milestone deliverable

Figure 7: Evaluation timetable


Commencement meeting

At the commencement meeting we will confirm the evaluation scope as being to determine

the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of program delivery and to assess achievements

against intended program objectives and outcomes.

The evaluation will consider:

• Program justification: the need that the program addresses;

• Program effectiveness: the level of achievement of the program outcomes, including

an assessment of success factors and constraints and linkages to departmental

objectives and stated government priorities;

• Funding/delivery and efficiency: program management and processes;

• Risk: impact of ceasing the program; and

• Efficiencies realisable in a continuing program.

Review documentation

At the commencement meeting, or immediately following it, LGV will provide as much of the

relevant program documentation as is practicably available for us to review.

Develop program logic model

As this evaluation examines outcomes and also seeks to discover program improvement

possibilities, we will start by articulating in summary form the program design and

implementation steps and the objectives they were intended to achieve.

Working from program documentation and discussions with LGV, we will formulate an

overview of the program logic, articulating how resources were intended to be mobilised,

what processes were used for implementation, what outcomes were expected, and what

longer-term outcomes are anticipated.

Stakeholder analysis

In consultation with the project manager, ACIG will develop a list of stakeholders to be

consulted and develop a consultation plan.

We expect that we will consult selected stakeholders through an appropriate mix of face to

face and telephone interviews.

Develop evaluation framework & key questions

Having confirmed the overall program logic, we will use it to inform the evaluation

framework.


To frame the evaluation, we will firstly confirm in consultation with the evaluation project

manager the set of questions that the evaluation is to answer. The top level questions and

sub-questions have been provided in the brief, based on DTF requirements.

The detailed list of evaluation questions will form the basis for data collection tools such as

interview plans and surveys.

Develop interview questions & tools

To ensure consistency we will develop an interview plan that lists key discussion points to be

covered during the course of the interview, without circumscribing the conversation. We will

use the interview plan as a prompt, then probe the interviewee for further depth or follow up

on issues raised.

Finalise methodology and evaluation plan

We will then finalise the detail of the evaluation plan, working from the agreed framework.

The evaluation plan will include:

1. Purpose of the evaluation.

2. Scope of the evaluation.

3. Target audiences.

4. Key evaluation questions.

5. Logic model – diagram and narrative.

6. Evaluation indicators – both quantitative and qualitative.

7. Methods for key informant engagement and data collection, aggregation and

analysis.

8. Interview guides.

Collect Data

Both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected for analysis in the evaluation. Our

primary sources of evidence will be: quantitative data provided by LGV; documents

provided by LGV; survey data; and key informant/stakeholder interviews. We will create a

data collection matrix that will serve both as a data collection guide and as cross-

referencing summary table for the initial analysis.

Quantitative data analysis

We will analyse data provided by LGV that may include (but is not limited to):

• Program funding and resourcing;

• Data evidencing before-project and after-project situations, to enable assessment of

change attributable to a sample of projects funded by the Living Libraries

Infrastructure Program grant, for example:


- Spaces (e.g. amount, type, availability for specific usages)

- Collection stock (e.g. type, quantities, average age)

- Membership numbers

- Loans

- Availability and accessibility data

Qualitative data analysis

The following qualitative data will also be analysed:

• Existing qualitative feedback received from grant applicants;

• Review of grant project outcomes;

• Information from surveys of and interviews with grant applicants and LGV program

officers;

• Information on the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program grants process, including

program guidelines and evidence of the implementation of the process; and

• Examine the most efficient program delivery mechanism (i.e. the market place or

government) where possible.

Online survey

We propose developing a brief online survey to ascertain the benefit of facilities built as part

of the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program. The survey will be sent directly to grant

recipients. We have over 20 years of experience in survey design and analysis, so we know

how to structure surveys in order to obtain clear and practical results.

Key informant interviews

Based on our understanding of the brief, we anticipate up to twelve key

informant/stakeholder interviews, depending on the final stakeholder analysis. Although the

Terms of Reference do not explicitly mention interviews, we regard interviews with key

stakeholders an essential part of the data collection, for triangulation purposes.

We will seek LGV’s assistance in initially contacting interviewees and validating our interview

request. Most interviews will be less than one hour long, and we expect to be able to

conduct most (if not all) of them by telephone.

Document review

We will carefully examine the program documentation provided to seek evidence about

processes that were implemented, and outcomes that have been achieved through those

processes. These data will be cross-referenced in the data collection matrix. We will include

review of information on best practice government grants administration processes such as

the ANAO guidelines.


Preliminary analysis

Having tabulated the relevant evidence in the data collection matrix, we will examine each

evidence cluster to assess the extent of achievement of intended outcomes to date. We will

review the documentation for evidence of unintended outcomes (positive or negative) and,

if necessary, follow up with enquiries for clarification.

Assess improvement opportunities

We will review the complete data set – quantitative and qualitative – to develop a list of

potential program improvements. We will consult further with LGV to refine those

opportunities for improvement, as it is important at this time that we leverage the in-depth

program knowledge held by department staff.

Draft report

We assume that the audience for this evaluation report is internal to government. The report

is to meet DTF’s Evaluation Policy and Standards for Lapsing Programs and (as specified by

DTF) shall have no more than thirty pages in the body. Our findings will be documented in

this report, which will address the core lapsing program questions.

The draft report will include the following sections.

• Executive Summary

• Introduction

• Findings

• Conclusions and recommendations

We will present a final draft of the report to the evaluation project manager for any final

comments, before circulating it for wider review.

Circulate report for review

We will rely on DTPLI/LGV to ensure the review is completed and comments and revisions

returned to us in time for the report to be finalised according to the department’s timetable.

Finalise report

Following the report review period we will finalise the report.


Attachment 2: Outcomes logic model

Strategies

Encourage investment in new and

improved public library infrastructure

by part-funding projects by library

services with grants up to $750,000

Goal

Provide support by renewing public

library infrastructure and addressing

gaps in service provision.

Policy

The Victorian Government

recognises the particular role of

public libraries in fostering lifelong

learning, and providing free access

to information and a place for people

to meet.

Problem

Victoria is growing, and support is

required to ensure that libraries

continue to meet Victorian

communities’ diverse and growing

needs, and respond to the demands

of ageing infrastructure, changing

community needs, and modern

developments in the sector.

Inputs

Government

funding.

Activities

Annual infrastructure

grants program.

Outputs

Grant funding provided

to public libraries for

infrastructure, comprising

part of projects’ funding

requirements.

Clients

Potentially – all fifty-two

Victorian public library

services.

Key stakeholders


services.

Local Government

Victoria

Public Libraries Victoria

Network

Municipal Association of

Victoria

Outcomes

Short-term

Public library services

provide new or

improved library

infrastructure

(construction works,

permanent fixtures or

fittings; or renovation

works).

Outcomes

Medium-term


facilities improved.

Regional libraries and

local governments

provide high-quality and

accessible public library

infrastructure.

Outcomes

Long-term (Impact)

Public libraries supported

in:

• strengthening

communities and

encouraging

opportunities for

community

participation;

• encouraging and

creating lifelong

learning opportunities

for Victorian

communities; and

• facilitating free access

to information and

reading resources.

Strong socially-inclusive,

connected and active

communities where people

like to live.


Attachment 3: Interview guide

Objective

Grantee interviews for the evaluation explore the following key evaluation questions:

• To what extent has the program met stakeholders’ expectations?

• What outcomes has the program achieved?

• What would happen if the program (or similar infrastructure upgrade/replacement

funding process) did not exist?

• Is there a continuing need for the program and does LGV have a continuing role to

play in improving public libraries’ infrastructure?

Introduction

Thank the interviewee for giving the time for this interview. Ask permission to record the interview, to enable accurate note-keeping.

Local Government Victoria has engaged the Australian Continuous Improvement Group (ACIG) to undertake an evaluation of the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program. ACIG is an independent management consultancy engaged in evaluation, benchmarking and continuous improvement for clients for more than twenty-two years.

This independent evaluation will be conducted within the Department of Treasury and Finance guidelines and will be used to inform the development of the 2015 budget funding submission.

Data collection for the evaluation includes document review, surveys and interviews. You have been chosen as part of a random sample of the 63 projects funded over the past four years of the program. We would like to ask you some questions about the program and your experience of it.

Please feel free to be open and frank in their answers. All information will be de-identified in our report to LGV.

(Be prepared to answer questions about what access there will be to the final evaluation report.)

Opening

Confirm the interviewee’s role and the type and scope of their involvement with the program: grants applied for; grants won; projects completed and in-progress.

Grant application(s)

What has your experience been with the grants process?

Were there any problems?

How could the process be improved?

Project delivery

Was funding made available when it was needed? As planned?

Were any obstacles encountered? How were they dealt with?


What could have been done better? In what way?

How well do you feel the LGV program office communicated with stakeholders?

Were there any issues? What caused them? What could have been done better?

Outcomes

What outcomes were achieved as a result of the grant funding?

Do you have data on improved outcomes, e.g. increased usage of library services, changes in community satisfaction, increased access to resources, etc.?

How significant to the project outcomes was the LLIP program funding received?

What would have happened if you had not received the LLIP funding for the project? Would the project have still proceeded? What changes would have been necessary?

Do you have any comments about:

• the size of the grants offered, • the conditions of the grant, or • what types of library services are or should be eligible for them?

Do you feel there is a continuing need for this type of grant funding for library infrastructure from the State Government?

If the program ceased, what would be the impact?

Closing

Thank the interviewee once again for their time. Leave them with contact details, should

they have any further comments or questions.


Attachment 4: Survey instrument


Attachment 5: Survey data

41.46% 17

58.54% 24

Q1 What is your library service type?

Answered: 41 Skipped: 1

Total 41

Single Council

RegionalLibrary...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answer Choices Responses

Single Council

Regional Library Corporation

1 / 24

Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey


21.43% 9

11.90% 5

66.67% 28

Q2 What type of area do you service?


Total 42

# Comments Date

1 Three Libraries across small rural shire 1/15/2015 7:36 AM

2 4 Council service combination of regional city and rural council 1/14/2015 8:35 AM

3 Serve three councils 1/13/2015 2:09 PM

MetropolitanMelbourne

MetroMelbourne:...

Regional/Rural

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Metropolitan Melbourne

Metro Melbourne: Interface

Regional/Rural

2 / 24



80.95% 34

19.05% 8

Q3 At any time in the period 2011-2014 didyour library service apply for a Living

Libraries Infrastructure Program grant?


Total 42

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

3 / 24



0.00% 0

83.33% 5

16.67% 1

0.00% 0

Q4 Please describe the reasons why your

library service did not apply for a Living

Libraries grant in the period 2011-2014

(choose all the reasons that are applicable).


Total Respondents: 6

# Other (please specify) Date

1 We are a Library Corporation - our member councils are responsible for buildings and therefore they are the

ones to apply for grants. Three of our four member councils have successfully applied for Living Libraries

Funding in this time frame, without which basic works such as painting and re-carpeting would not have taken

place.

1/19/2015 11:01 AM

2 We had a refurbishment of a mobile library in mind, but because we are classified metropolitan we were

advised by the department we would be wasting our energy by putting in an application as mobile

refurbishments were only considered for rural services.

1/14/2015 3:51 PM

3 The only infrastructure that Wimmera Regional Library Corporation own is the mobile library and we

successfully applied to LL in 2009 to replace the mobile. Several of our member council did, however,

successfully apply for LL funding during the survey period and were successful.

1/14/2015 11:17 AM

We were notaware that t...

We did nothave any...

We hadinfrastructu...

We had applied

previously b...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


We were not aware that the grants were available.

We did not have any infrastructure development projects in that period that would qualify.

We had infrastructure development projects in that period but they were already sufficiently funded.

We had applied previously but been rejected.

4 / 24



97.06% 33

2.94% 1

Q5 Was one or more of your LLIP grantapplications successful?


Total 34

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

5 / 24



Q6 Please rate the grants process bychecking the boxes that most closely reflect

your opinion.


0.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

54.84%

17

41.94%

13

3.23%

1

31

4.43

0.00%

0

6.45%

2

12.90%

4

41.94%

13

35.48%

11

3.23%

1

31

4.10

0.00%

0

19.35%

6

19.35%

6

29.03%

9

29.03%

9

3.23%

1

31

3.70

0.00%

0

3.33%

1

6.67%

2

46.67%

14

43.33%

13

0.00%

0

30

4.30

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

33.33%

10

66.67%

20

0.00%

0

30

4.67

# Comments Date

1 Timing of the call for applications varied from year to year, so difficult to know when to expect it to happen 1/19/2015 12:17 PM

2 I was not involved in application process for our grant, only the project delivery once it funding had been

achieved.

1/15/2015 2:16 PM

3 An option to nominate the financial year for expenditure of grant funds when making an EOI or application

would address the planning cycle issues faced by local government. Securing in-principal financial support

from Council is a time consuming inform and consult process. To secure matching funds, undertake a tender

process, deliver a large project and expend funds in a 12 month financial period is extremely challenging!

1/14/2015 10:30 AM

4 LGV are extremely helpful in providing advice and assistance during the application process 1/14/2015 8:29 AM

5 We found the process very straightforward and the relationship with DTPLI in answering queries, dispensing

advice and making the process a s streamlined and straightforward as possible was appreciated.

1/13/2015 2:44 PM

6 Formal advice of success was not received until July 1. Council's finalise their budget process in April each

year - it would be better if a result was known prior to finalising the committments of Council for each

operating year.

1/13/2015 2:40 PM

The grantapplication...

The grantswere adverti...

The timing ofthe call for...

The grantfunding was...

LocalGovernment...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Disagreestrongly

Disagree Neither agreenor disagree

Agree Agreestrongly

N/A Total WeightedAverage


understand.


advance to allow adequate preparation.

The timing of the call for applications fitted into

our planning cycle.

The grant funding was made available when

we needed it.


and other communications from us promptly.

6 / 24



7 MUNICIPALITIES APPLIED FOR GRANTS AND WERE SUPPORTED BY THE REGIONAL LIBRARY

CORPORATION.

1/13/2015 2:32 PM

7 / 24



Q7 Please rate the outcomes made possibleby the grant, by checking the boxes that

most closely reflect your opinion.


0.00%

0

3.13%

1

3.13%

1

28.13%

9

65.63%

21

32

4.56

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

15.63%

5

31.25%

10

53.13%

17

32

4.38

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

25.00%

8

34.38%

11

40.63%

13

32

4.16

# Comments Date

1 The project is yet to be completed therefore it is not possible to measure impact. 1/22/2015 12:56 PM

2 We would not be able to provide the library facilities required by our growing community without Living

Libraires funding

1/20/2015 7:28 AM

3 We received a small grant for minor improvements, therefore there was no impact on usage 1/19/2015 12:54 PM

4 Not possible to measure the last one. 1/16/2015 2:13 PM

5 The project would not of proceed without LLIP grant. All feedback of finished project has been highly

complimentary. Only recently finished so unable to measure increases, however library is enjoying full

useage.

1/15/2015 2:16 PM

6 Our project has not been completed yet, it is just starting and the grant we received is only recent last year so

unable to comment on the last 2 questions however we expect that there will be a considerable increase in

usage to the library and its services.

1/15/2015 7:49 AM

7 Project is not yet complete so unable to measure changes in patronage 1/15/2015 7:38 AM

8 The LLIP funds were used to purchase a purpose built Mobile Library vehicle. While usage has not

necessarily increased, the experience for our customers is of a comparable quality to our static branch so our

service level provision is quite equitable.

1/14/2015 10:30 AM

9 The money we received was applied to formalising a public computer area which has enabled better disabled

access and was made safer due to the installation of proper cabling for the public access computers.

1/14/2015 9:52 AM

The LLIP grantmade a...

A measurableincrease in...

Measurableincreases in...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Disagreestrongly

Disagree Neitheragreenordisagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Total WeightedAverage

The LLIP grant made a significant contribution to the

infrastructure project.

A measurable increase in user satisfaction has resulted from

the infrastructure project.

Measurable increases in usage such as user visits, loans

and/or opening hours and/or number of service access points

have been made possible by the infrastructure project.

8 / 24



10 One example is at Whittlesea where the new library has replaced the Mobile library stop. The new library

issued 18,000 loans in its first 3 months; by comparison there were 4,268 loans at the same time last year

from the Mobile. Similarly following the refurbishment of Lalor, visitors increased from 19,203 in November

2013 to 25,966 in November 2014.

1/14/2015 8:29 AM

11 Project is still under construction so the benefits are not measurable at this point in time however look very

promising.

1/14/2015 7:35 AM

12 The LLIP grant was a reasonably significant contribution, not so much in dollar terms, where it was less than

5% of the total Project cost, but in acknowledging the value of the project to the broader community, sending a

message to our community stakeholders that others were committed to the project and its value and also

possibly enabling other government contributions towards its cost to be realised. The total funds realised from

State and Federal sources was $5.25 Million, which was around 20% of the project.

1/13/2015 2:44 PM

13 The Library project was a high priority of Council, but could not have been completed without the LL Grant

funding. The Airconditioning has been very effective since it became operational, but it is too early to measure

any specific increases in usage.

1/13/2015 2:40 PM

14 The LLIP is the only grant that the library/Council was eligible to apply for to contribute to the funding strategy

for the new library and assisted in gaining Councillor acceptance of the business case

1/13/2015 2:34 PM

15 For a small Rural Council , these grants were essential and useful 1/13/2015 2:23 PM

9 / 24



Q8 In your opinion, what would havehappened with your project if the LLIP grant

application had not been successful?


# Responses Date

1 The project may have still gone ahead however the LLIP funding did provide some much needed funding to

ensure the project proceeded.

1/22/2015 12:56 PM

2 Project would not have proceeded 1/21/2015 12:05 PM

3 Our Council received the maximum amount available for Local Councils for a multi-million dollar building

project. Although the percentage contribution was small in comparison to Council's and other funding bodies,

had we not been successful some of the small but significant features of the project would not have been

achievable.

1/20/2015 9:35 AM

4 The community would have received reduced levels of service, facilities and amenities. 1/20/2015 8:23 AM

5 New library facilities would not have been provided to the community at an early stage. Newly forming

communities need libraries - communities are strengthened when library facilities are provided.

1/20/2015 7:28 AM

6 Only one of the projects would have proceeded. 1/19/2015 1:20 PM

7 There would not have been an upgrade to the library building and it would not have proper temperature

control and would continue to look run down

1/19/2015 12:54 PM

8 The project would most likely not gone ahead, the grant funding was critical to the project happening. 1/19/2015 12:17 PM

9 Matching funding may not have been possible. Redevelopments and new libraries would not have occurred at

same rate if at all.

1/19/2015 12:01 PM

10 The infrastructure improvements would not have proceeded without the funding assistance. 1/19/2015 11:34 AM

11 The Library project still would have gone ahead however we would have had to pull money from a different

project and therefore that project may have been delayed or reduced.

1/19/2015 10:52 AM

12 The works would not have been completed. 1/16/2015 2:13 PM

13 Significant reduction in project scope, or possibly Library would not have been incorporated in the community

facility project, resulting in a negative impact on this community service.

1/16/2015 10:50 AM

14 The project would not of proceeded and the Library would of languished in it's historic state and failed to meet

the growing needs of our community.

1/15/2015 2:16 PM

15 Without the support of the LLIP grant monies we would have needed to source this from another funding

source or applied for more monies to be allocated in the Council budget which would have been difficult given

that other projects also required monetary assistance from Council.

1/15/2015 7:49 AM

16 The project would not have proceeded. Alternatively we would have made a much lower investment in the

facility and not be achieving the vision that the community is aspiring to.

1/15/2015 7:38 AM

17 We would have been unable to offer a Mobile Library service to our community. 1/14/2015 10:30 AM

18 The project would not have proceeded 1/14/2015 10:23 AM

19 The project would not have been completed in the timeframe it was. 1/14/2015 9:52 AM

20 None of the projects would have gone ahead. 1/14/2015 8:29 AM

21 Huge demise to the overall project and inability to maximise community library activity and borrowings. 1/14/2015 7:35 AM

22 The project would not have gone ahead. 1/13/2015 4:02 PM

23 Without the funding we would not have been able to set things up the way we did, which means without the

funding the community would not have benefited as much as they did.

1/13/2015 3:38 PM

24 Some of the works would have still gone ahead, but the LLIP grant REALLY added to what we could achieve.

The works that we would have been able to complete would have been only

functional/operational/maintenance requirements. The LLIP grant allowed us to make improvements to the

whole library so that it is now a modern space that our community wants to go to.

1/13/2015 2:55 PM

10 / 24



25 The project would have proceeded, but there may have been some revisiting of the scope of the project. 1/13/2015 2:44 PM

26 Would not have gone ahead. 1/13/2015 2:43 PM

27 The airconditioning project would not have been undertaken. 1/13/2015 2:40 PM

28 Projects would not have happened. Communities would be very disappointed in facilities and service provided

in inadequate buildings.

1/13/2015 2:32 PM

29 No 1/13/2015 2:23 PM

30 The Corporation would not have undertaken the upgrade projects 1/13/2015 2:12 PM

11 / 24



30.30% 10

69.70% 23

Q9 Did you make any LLIP grantapplications that were unsuccessful, in

addition to your successful applications?


Total 33

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

12 / 24



Q10 In your opinion, what was the impacton your proposed project of the LLIP grant

application being unsuccessful?


# Responses Date

1 Project did not proceed. 1/21/2015 12:06 PM

2 It was a mostly aesthetic improvement to a library building. 1/19/2015 1:21 PM

3 Means that our services to rural and isolated communities through mobile service is compromised. Not able to

provide full potential of services. The Shire and our service unable to fund new mobile without assistance.

1/19/2015 12:02 PM

4 Small regional community is unable to consider bringing their local library up to current standards. 1/15/2015 2:17 PM

5 Staff are struggling to deliver customer service in a space that also deals with workflow processing. 1/14/2015 10:35 AM

6 project did not commence 1/14/2015 10:23 AM

7 The project was reliant on obtaining funding from two State Government sources and as both were

unsuccessful the project has not proceeded (to date)

1/14/2015 8:37 AM

8 Council needed to find the money to renovate the library. 1/13/2015 3:39 PM

9 In 2012 we applied unsuccessfully for a grant to install a lift to make the building accessible to the first floor.

This project was eventually funded through an RDV Putting Locals First project, with the new lift installed at

the same time that the Library air-conditioning project was undertaken.

1/13/2015 2:45 PM

10 Community disadvantaged by utilising old inadequate facilities. 1/13/2015 2:34 PM

13 / 24



Q11 Please rate the grants process bychecking the boxes that most closely reflect

your opinion.


0.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

44.44%

4

44.44%

4

11.11%

1

9

4.50

0.00%

0

11.11%

1

22.22%

2

11.11%

1

44.44%

4

11.11%

1

9

4.00

0.00%

0

44.44%

4

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

44.44%

4

11.11%

1

9

3.50

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

11.11%

1

0.00%

0

77.78%

7

11.11%

1

9

4.75

# Comments Date

1 I haven't undertaken grant application process myself. 1/15/2015 2:17 PM

2 This question 10 is the same as question five!!! 1/14/2015 10:35 AM

3 Municipalities undertook the Grants process supported by RLC 1/13/2015 2:34 PM

The grantapplication...

The grantswere adverti...

The timing ofthe call for...

LocalGovernment...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Disagreestrongly

Disagree Neither agreenor disagree

Agree Agreestrongly

N/A Total WeightedAverage


understand.


advance to allow adequate preparation.

The timing of the call for applications fitted

into our planning cycle.


and other communications from us promptly.

14 / 24



Q12 Do you have any other comments youwould like to mention?


# Responses Date

1 Think about establishing a funding category to help with 'feasibility' or scoping projects. 1/14/2015 10:35 AM

15 / 24



90.00% 27

70.00% 21

63.33% 19

Q13 Do you have any comments about:


# The size of grants offered under LLIP? Date

1 No 1/22/2015 12:59 PM

2 Grants need to increase to take account of major projects. 1/21/2015 12:10 PM

3 For smaller library services located in smaller municipalities the funding needs to be a much higher ratio as it

is often difficult for smaller municipalities to allocate a large amount of funding to large projects such as a new

library building. With rate capping being brought in it will be even more difficult for small rural councils to

allocate funding for infrastructure such as library buildings.

1/20/2015 4:15 PM

4 Should be larger (and increase over time) to match the increasing costs of building / renovating Libraries 1/20/2015 9:39 AM

5 the size of the grants should be increased to enable continuous improvement 1/20/2015 8:29 AM

6 The funding needs to be increased to 1 million 1/20/2015 7:29 AM

7 the amount for major projects is a very small portion of the overall project cost 1/19/2015 2:14 PM

8 The size of the grants is not the problem, the issue is the co-contribution expected by councils. 1/19/2015 12:53 PM

9 On smaller projects, such as refurbishments the size of grants (and funding ratio) is suitable, but for a major

rebuild or new library, the quantity of funding would not be in scale to the overall cost to Council.

1/19/2015 12:32 PM

10 builing costs have risen dramatically. Would like to see an increase in total funding pool as well as in the

maximum available grant. Please keep the 3:1 ration to rural services

1/19/2015 12:08 PM

11 considering the rising cost of infrastructure and also the amount on infrastructure required in the growth areas i

believe the amount offered should potentially look at funding a percentage of the project rather than a fixed

sum. Particularly regional libraries.

1/19/2015 11:54 AM

12 Size of grants were appropriate for proposed infrastructure works. 1/19/2015 11:39 AM

13 Adequate for our capacity for matching contribution 1/15/2015 7:47 AM

14 cannot recall 1/14/2015 3:56 PM

15 Perhaps smaller grant categories could be considered for quick fix refurbs or shelving repplacement projects. 1/14/2015 2:17 PM

16 Maximum funding amount needs to be increased particulary for major redevelopments 1/14/2015 10:25 AM

17 30000 1/14/2015 10:01 AM

18 Consideration should be given to providing funds to support establishment of new or substantially

redeveloped facilities. The current level of funding availble under the program doesn not adequately support

these types of projects

1/14/2015 8:42 AM

19 They are too small, they do not reflect the reality of building new libraries. With new buildings costing millions

of dollars, the State Govt contribution is very small

1/14/2015 8:35 AM

20 More would always assist of course! 1/14/2015 7:44 AM

21 see answer to Q6. The contribution in dollar terms for interface councils does not go anywhere near the cost

of delivering new infrastructure and, whhilst any contribution is welcomed, some consideration for unique

cicumstances faced by growth areas would be appreciated.

1/13/2015 2:54 PM

22 Consideration should be given to the size of councils. 1/13/2015 2:44 PM

23 Generally insufficient to complete projects entirely, including all furniture and fittings. 1/13/2015 2:39 PM

24 Too small in relation to the millions needed to effectively build either a new library or refurbish it properly.

Very disproportionate to what Local Government contributes.

1/13/2015 2:26 PM


The size of grants offered under LLIP?

The grant conditions?

What types of library services should be eligible for the grants?

16 / 24



25 No 1/13/2015 2:25 PM

26 The" cap" for LLIP no longer reflects the building costs of libraries/facilities being constructed. 1/13/2015 2:23 PM

27 Grants were reasonable, but would have prefered larger amounts. 1/13/2015 2:18 PM

# The grant conditions? Date

1 No 1/22/2015 12:59 PM

2 OK 1/21/2015 12:10 PM

3 The grant conditions are acceptable 1/20/2015 4:15 PM

4 fine 1/19/2015 2:14 PM

5 The sliding scale from $ to $ to $4 to $1 is an appropriate recognition of the ability of smaller services and

shires to fund infrastructure projects.

1/19/2015 1:23 PM

6 Even at a ratio of $1-3 it can be difficult for smaller rural councils to allocate sufficient funds for library

buildings

1/19/2015 12:53 PM

7 It is difficult when the funding is locked to capital only, as there are some items such as freestanding furniture

which are often required to complete a refurbishment, but don't meet the funding requirements.

1/19/2015 12:32 PM

8 Would be goo to be able to fund all capital with grant or at the very least to be able to include the dollar value

of IT, Furniture etc as matching funding for grant.

1/19/2015 12:08 PM

9 Conditions were appropriate. 1/19/2015 11:39 AM

10 Reasonable 1/15/2015 7:47 AM

11 cannot recall 1/14/2015 3:56 PM

12 Consider encouraging 'staged' projects where additional funding would be availabale contingent on

satififactory progress and co-contribution from Council

1/14/2015 2:17 PM

13 retain the 3:1 for rural and remote. 1/14/2015 12:00 PM

14 I can't recall 1/14/2015 10:01 AM

15 They are fine 1/14/2015 8:35 AM

16 Needing to expend the money within the same year as receiving it can be difficult as the funding committment

for the project budget is needed in the year prior to construction commencing

1/14/2015 7:44 AM

17 Out library now looks great, but has some old daggy furniture. It would have been good if we could have also

replaced some of the furniture as part of the grant

1/13/2015 2:56 PM

18 All were reasonable in this instance 1/13/2015 2:54 PM

19 No 1/13/2015 2:25 PM

20 Payment arrangements and conditions were as expected. coverage of fitout most beneficial 1/13/2015 2:23 PM

21 Good 1/13/2015 2:18 PM

# What types of library services should be eligible for the grants? Date

1 No 1/22/2015 12:59 PM

2 All services 1/21/2015 12:10 PM

3 All public library services should be eligible 1/20/2015 4:15 PM

4 All - smaller matched contributions for councils in regional areas 1/20/2015 9:39 AM

5 all public libraries 1/19/2015 2:14 PM

6 All public library services should be eligible. 1/19/2015 12:53 PM

7 Should be available to all Victorian Public Libraries that are eligible for membership of PLVN. 1/19/2015 12:32 PM

8 All public libraries. 1/19/2015 12:08 PM

9 as per previous question; when running a mobile service, it shoudl not matter whether you are metroploitan or

rural

1/14/2015 3:56 PM

10 All 1/14/2015 10:25 AM

17 / 24



11 All types 1/14/2015 10:01 AM

12 All 1/14/2015 8:42 AM

13 All public library services in Victoria 1/14/2015 8:35 AM

14 All public library services in Victoria 1/14/2015 7:44 AM

15 All Library Services for infrastructure projects, because there are differing needs and projects within the

broader Victorian community.

1/13/2015 2:54 PM

16 All 1/13/2015 2:44 PM

17 Fit out of leased facilities. 1/13/2015 2:39 PM

18 No 1/13/2015 2:25 PM

19 static and mobile services 1/13/2015 2:23 PM

18 / 24



Q14 What changes could be made toimprove the Living Libraries Infrastructure

Program?


# Responses Date

1 Bring forward application dates so RLC /council contributions cab be properly budgeted. 1/21/2015 12:10 PM

2 Change the ratio of $ for $ funding for smaller single council library services 1/20/2015 4:15 PM

3 As above 1/20/2015 9:39 AM

4 None that I can think of - you have already made a significant change in streamlining the application process -

a big thank you for this!!!

1/20/2015 7:29 AM

5 The grants should include works on staff areas that include major efficiencies in service delivery (ie removal

of circulation desk to change workflow to service circulation

1/19/2015 2:14 PM

6 Provision should be allowed for furnishings - newly renovated librares without appropriate shelving or furniture

because coucils could not afford it on top of their contribution to a renovation can be self-defeating.

1/19/2015 12:53 PM

7 Annual submission dates provided in advance for the life of the program to allow for forward planning,

increased funding to encourage the renewal and improvement of library facilities. Automatic eligibility for

funding, for example for major projects would assist in getting approval and buy in for major building projects.

1/19/2015 12:32 PM

8 Greater pool of funding. A People Places style document for Victorian Libraries or at the very least some

quality standards including minimum space,, evidence of service planning rationale.

1/19/2015 12:08 PM

9 One concern is the inconsistent determination about the amount of funding to be allocated - not necessarily

based on what required / requested in the funding application, so therefore this always adds budget

uncertainty and added complexity when part of a multi-purpose facility, e.g. - applying for $700,000 and

receive $250,000. This results in either a variation (reduction) to the project scope or Local Gov't having to

meet the shortfall, far exceeding the funding ratios. The process would be improved if there was

communication (DTPLI & LG) prior to the notification of successful grant outcome of a lesser amount - to

determine if the Living Libraries funding was still sufficient to deliver the project without significant change to

the project scope, and to still meet the objectives for the building development.

1/16/2015 11:09 AM

10 Some fine tuning/tinkering with exactly how it is applied (in relation to infrastructure/furniture) - modern day

library's have evolved so that they are more than just shelves & books but a fully interactive community space.

As a result technology and flexiblity are key considerations in any future designs. I would highly recommend

that future improvements to the program focus-on/include/emphasise these elements (i.e. use of flexible

furniture, multi-purpose rooms, IT, etc.)

1/15/2015 2:21 PM

11 Perhaps improved description of what can and cannot be funded. A greater variety of categories, e.g. -

building upgrade / furniture and fittings

1/15/2015 7:47 AM

12 I can't recall the exact conditions, as it is years ago since I looked at it in any great depth. I do recall that the

need for Councils to come up with at least 50% of the funds is having a detrimental effect. Councils are

already picking up more and more of the public library service bill.

1/14/2015 3:56 PM

13 The term 'infrastructure' is not strictly an accurate term if items such as shelving are now eligible. 1/14/2015 2:17 PM

14 Current guidelines are excellent - fair and equitable 1/14/2015 12:00 PM

15 Increased funding pool 1/14/2015 10:25 AM

16 More money should be available for modernising libraries to adapt to changing use. 1/14/2015 10:01 AM

17 Set up categories for minor and major projects. 1/14/2015 8:42 AM

18 More funding. Otherwise it works very well. It is good that it can be used for big and small projects. A

renovation of $250,000 (half this through LL) has made a huge difference to one of our branches.

1/14/2015 8:35 AM

19 I would like to see a separate section for the creation of new infrastructure to deliver facilities in growth areas

where none currently exist, run in tandem or as an adjunct to the existing and previous LLIP tranches. An

amount of money in excess of the current limit to make more meaningful contribution to the capital cost of a

new facility would also be welcome.

1/13/2015 2:54 PM

19 / 24



20 Continuity from program to program. Councils cannot commit $ in budget before applying as grant is large

proportion of total cost. A commitment to fund if grant successful should be sufficient.

1/13/2015 2:39 PM

21 Less onerous application, more grant money available for major projects 1/13/2015 2:26 PM

22 None , appreciate if the program continues 1/13/2015 2:25 PM

23 Boost the fund to $40m over 4 years. Review the cap to better reflect the partnership of service provision in

Victoria. Include RLC support facilities in the grant conditions.

1/13/2015 2:23 PM

24 None 1/13/2015 2:18 PM

20 / 24



Q15 Please rate the need for a continuinggrants program of this type by checking the

boxes that most closely reflect youropinion.


0.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

7.32%

3

92.68%

38

41

4.93

# Comments Date

1 As mentioned previously the recognition received via the LLIP funding does help push the case locally for

library projects.

1/22/2015 12:59 PM

2 Highly successful program with a lot of kudos for the State Government. 1/21/2015 12:10 PM

3 The grant is an important way to assist public libraries to 1/20/2015 4:15 PM

4 As the role of libraries in the community change, so do the needs of libary buildings - councils need assistance

to update infrastructure

1/19/2015 12:53 PM

5 Libraries are important community hubs. Without the financial support of the Victorian State Government

many regional and rural libraries would no longer exist. Libraries have evolved into much more than a book

lending service and the LL program is essential to support the adaption of these facilities to meet

contemporary expectations, subsequently supporting participation.

1/15/2015 7:47 AM

6 Council needs all the encouragement possible and as much financial incentive to invest in cultural and

community services.

1/14/2015 2:17 PM

7 With diminishing State support for operating cost Council's need all the help they can get to enable the

ongoing service provision.

1/14/2015 10:01 AM

8 The Living Libraries program has made a significant improvement to the quality of library buildings in Victoria,

and encourages Local Government to invest in libraries.

1/14/2015 8:35 AM

9 The program needs to continue in its current format as it provides vital funding support for capital

infrastructure projects at our libraries.

1/13/2015 2:48 PM

10 The program is a definite catalyst for improvement of pl infrastructure across the state. Cnls more likely to

propose a project if its partnership funded.

1/13/2015 2:23 PM

There is acontinuing n...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Disagreestrongly

Disagree Neitheragree nordisagree

Agree Agreestrongly

Total WeightedAverage

There is a continuing need for this type of grant funding for

library infrastructure from the Victorian Government.

21 / 24



Q16 In your opinion, were the LivingLibraries Infrastructure Program to cease,

what would be the impact on Victorianlibrary services?


# Responses Date

1 I think that you would definitely see a decline in the number of excellent renewal projects that have been

implemented across the state over the past few years.

1/22/2015 12:59 PM

2 Return to the bad old days of no new or refurbished libraries which are pivotal assets in our communities. 1/21/2015 12:10 PM

3 There would be a reduction in the number of new libraries built and the number of libraries refurbished. Library

infrastructure would become out dated and unable to keep up with the regular changes required to continue to

provide a relevant library service to the community.

1/20/2015 4:15 PM

4 Much needed renovations / new constructions not going ahead particulary in regional areas to keep up with

the changing needs of communities. Reduced partnership between the State and Local governments in

developing libraries.

1/20/2015 9:39 AM

5 Severe impact. The scale and quality of upgrades and redevelopments would be compromised; Victorian

public library users would be disadvantaged. It's important that Program not only continue but be expanded.

1/20/2015 8:29 AM

6 It would be difficult to get new library facilities into newly forming communities at an early stage. 1/20/2015 7:29 AM

7 It is often the state government funding that is the catalyst for local government to make improvements to

library building and that enables new buildings. I believe that without LLIP many Victorian public libraries

would not be able to provide welcoming contemporary spaces for communities. This funding makes a

significant difference to libraries and services for the Victorian community. It should also be acknowledged that

Victorian Public Libraries lag behind libraries in many other parts of the world and if Victorian is to successfully

transition to a knowledge economy then then vibrant public libraries support this transition.

1/19/2015 2:14 PM

8 Unequal library service provision would be exacerbated. 1/19/2015 1:23 PM

9 Councils would not be able to build new libraries, or renovate or extend existing ones without Living Libraries

funding. As buldings became less functional, services would decline. Libraries would be in danger of being

just another run-down council service - we have seen what happens to municipal swimming pools when there

is insufficeint investment in maintianing and upgrading them! Libraries are one fo the few remaining "free and

accessible" public spaces, we need to maintian them so that they are avialable for the whole community.

1/19/2015 12:53 PM

10 The Living Libraries Infrastructure Program is critical to the future of library facilities in Victoria. Recent years

have seen a substantial improvement across Victoria in the number of new library facilities being built and

refurbished, making these well utilised facilities something that communities can be proud of. If the program

were to cease, it would affect the scope of future improvements and redevelopment projects for Councils who

have limited funding and significant renewal requirements for community facilities.

1/19/2015 12:32 PM

11 It would be a huge problem for library services. Would be difficult to maintain improvements at the rate at

which they ought be undertaken. Would compromise the quality of library services as the physical space is an

integral part of modern library services even in an age of ubiquitous technology.

1/19/2015 12:08 PM

12 Libraries will be even further delayed than they are right now. Libraries are a required resource, particulalrly

for a newly developing community as they provide a central meeting space. However Libraries are not at the

top of the list in regards community infrastructure as they cost alot of money. Reducing or removing the library

funding from the State Gov will only push these facilities back further.

1/19/2015 11:54 AM

13 Future developments and improvements to Library infrastructure would be placed in jeopardy if funding was to

cease.

1/19/2015 11:39 AM

14 The infrastructure would crumble. 1/16/2015 2:13 PM

15 Over many years, the LLIP has provided opportunities to deliver vital community outcomes and enhance

library facilities across multiple locations within a geographically large area ensuring that the entire municipal

population has access to these services. Potential loss of the LLIP would greatly impact on the ability for local

government to continually improve library services and meet essential community demands.

1/16/2015 11:09 AM

22 / 24



16 If Living Libraries was to cease, then I find it extremely likely that most libraries will be able to undertake any

form of expansions/renewal in line with their growing communities. Instead having to rely on either adopting

user-pay schemes, or become completely reliant on rate-payer subsidised hand-outs from their local council.

1/15/2015 2:21 PM

17 We believe that this would decrease the improvements to library services around Victoria, particularly smaller

regional municipalities who may not have the same capacity as other larger councils to allocate funds to these

types of projects. It would then mean that updated services could not be provided to communities that really

need them.

1/15/2015 7:51 AM

18 I anticipate the Library service would rapidly decline and the community would lose a valuable resource. The

LL program has been pivotal in reinvigorating the library service in general and stimulating learning and

participation across the broader community. Should the library service decline or no longer exist then the

health and well being of the community would be compromised.

1/15/2015 7:47 AM

19 Flagship buislings will probably still be built - regardless of Living Libraries grant monies being available, but

it's the smaller services and smalelr buildings that are in danger of being overlooked but that are in need of

some TLC that would suffer the most.

1/14/2015 3:56 PM

20 In our council, that would mean that any capital or 'infrastructure' funding support for cultural and community

services would be directly competing with other projects in this category in our organisation. Unfortunately

building roads and bridges generally takes precedence over other projects:(

1/14/2015 2:17 PM

21 It would be a shame. Library services exist in a changing environment. The introduction of One Victorian

library will impact on services. Need to have LLIP program to respond to the changing nature of the role and

function of the library with flow- on changes to the physical library environment. Need more emphasis on back

room dispatch and delivery and front of house more conducive to group sessions , group learning , business

pods, children's functions, maker spaces etc.

1/14/2015 12:00 PM

22 The library infrastructure would be severely impacted 1/14/2015 10:25 AM

23 Most definitely. 1/14/2015 10:01 AM

24 Library providers would be burdened with the total cost of redeveloping or establishing new facilities and these

types of projects will become increasingly unaffordable, especially for non metropolitan providers

1/14/2015 8:42 AM

25 There would be a big decrease in the quality of public library buildings and probably in the number of new

libraries built. This would directly impact the services and amenities provided to the community. It would be

particularly noticed in the growth councils.

1/14/2015 8:35 AM

26 Ceasing LLIP would have a negative impact on library capital works projects 1/14/2015 7:44 AM

27 Services would revert to very basic offerings and the value of libraries would not be recognised as broadly

across our communities; they play a major role!

1/14/2015 7:36 AM

28 The impact would be significant as the costs to library infrastructure is very comprehensive and it would be

hard for Councils, in particular rural ones, to find the money needed.

1/13/2015 3:40 PM

29 In regional areas we just dont have the budgets to do the types of works that LLIP can fund. Just the

essentials would be done if the program ceased. Visitation would be maintained or even decrease as the

library spaces became tired and old.

1/13/2015 2:56 PM

30 It would reduce the capacity of municipalities to enable libraries to offer relevant and required services.It

would particularly affect the muniicipalities with the least capacity and potentially the greatest need for

improvements or additions to infrastructure to offer vital public library services in the community

1/13/2015 2:54 PM

31 Difficult for country libraries 1/13/2015 2:49 PM

32 Regional libraries do not have the resources to enhance physical infrastructure. Without the LL Program it

would be very difficult for smaller and regional libraries to maintain and enhance facilities, to the detriment of

all users

1/13/2015 2:48 PM

33 Improvements to Libraries would significantly reduce which would reduce the quality of service that is

provided.

1/13/2015 2:44 PM

34 Minimal renewal or upgrading of facilities would occur across the state, particularly in the Regional and Rural

areas. Quality of service would suffer as municipal funds will be directed to maintenance.

1/13/2015 2:39 PM

35 High detrimental impact that would affect the smaller changes that a library can make with the grant, it is very

difficult for libraries to get into the infrastructure queue with their local Councils

1/13/2015 2:26 PM

36 Lack of quality facilities discourage user participation and reduce memberships 1/13/2015 2:25 PM

37 Ageing infrastructure, service degradation, out of date buildings, reduction in innovation and best practice.

More difficult for county services to upgrade pl stock thus deepening the divide between metro and country.

1/13/2015 2:23 PM

23 / 24



38 Library buildings would detoriate and may not be able to purchased new Mobile Libraries. 1/13/2015 2:18 PM

24 / 24



Attachment 6: References

Australian Library and Information Association. 2009. Statement on public library services.

Canberra.

Australian National Audit Office. 2010. Implementing Better Practice Grants Administration.

Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra.

SGS Economics and Planning. 2011. Dollars, Sense and Public Libraries. State Library of

Victoria. Melbourne.

State Library of Victoria. 2005. Libraries Building Communities – The Vital Contribution of

Victoria’s Public Libraries – A Research Report for the Library Board of Victoria and the

Victorian Public Library Network. Melbourne.

State Library of Victoria and Public Libraries Victoria Network. 2011. Being The Best We Can –

Key Results for Public Library Services. Melbourne


Attachment 7: Australian Library and Information Association Statement on

Public Library Services

Principle

Freedom of access to public library and information services is essential:

• to enable members of the Australian communities, including new residents and

emerging communities to participate in all aspects of Australian life, including the

democratic process;

• to actively contribute to social inclusion for all members of the Australian community;

and

• to enable Australians to contribute to the economic wellbeing of their families and

the nation.

Statement

Each member of the Australian community has an equal right to public library and

information services regardless of age, race, gender, religion, nationality, language,

disability, geographic location, social status, economic status and educational attainment.

A public library services its community through the provision of access to knowledge,

information and works of imagination through a range of resources and services. It does this

through access to materials in all formats in order to meet the needs of individuals and

groups for education, information and personal development through learning, including

recreation and leisure.

Public libraries have an important role in the development and maintenance of a

democratic society by giving individuals access to a wide and varied range of information,

ideas, opinions, and skills.

The role of public libraries is essential in developing an educated society through programs

that improve literacy and information literacy including lifelong learning opportunities. Public

libraries contribute to economic prosperity by helping people improve their skills and life

chances.

Public libraries provide the first point of access for information for the general public and for

the public's access to the national and international system of library and information

services.

The satisfaction of a person's information needs must be independent of an ability to pay.

Local, state/territory and Commonwealth governments have an obligation to work in

partnership to provide agreed public library services to all members of the library's clientele

without direct charge to the user.

The Australian Library and Information Association believes that public library services have

particular responsibilities to monitor and proactively respond to the changing demographic

characteristics and trends of their communities, to consult with their communities and to

meet information, learning and recreational needs of an increasingly diverse society. Public

library services should ensure that they have policies, guidelines, and procedures in place to

respond to and meet relevant legislative requirements.


Attachment 8: Australian National Audit Office Principles for Better Practice

Grant Processes

The Commonwealth Grant Guidelines, cited in Implementing Better Practice Grants

Administration (Australian National Audit Office, 2009), provide a framework of principles that

underpin better practice grant processes.

The principles are:

1. Robust planning and design which underpins efficient, effective and ethical grants

administration, including through the establishment of effective risk management processes.

2. An outcomes orientation in which grants administration focuses on maximising the

achievement of intended government outcomes from the available funding.

3. Proportionality in which key program design features and related administrative processes

are commensurate with the scale, nature, complexity and risks involved in the granting

activity.

4. Collaboration and partnership in which effective consultation and a constructive and

cooperative relationship between the administering agency, grant recipients and other

relevant stakeholders contribute to achieving more efficient, effective and equitable grants

administration.

5. Governance and accountability in which a robust governance framework is established

that clearly defies the roles and responsibilities of all relevant parties; establishes the policies,

procedures and guidelines necessary for defensible funding recipient selection and

administration processes that comply with all relevant legal and policy requirements; and

supports public accountability for decision‑making, grant administration and performance

monitoring.

6. Probity and transparency in which program administration reflects ethical behaviour, in line

with public sector values and duties; incorporates appropriate internal and fraud control

measures; ensures that decisions relating to granting activity are impartial, appropriately

documented and publicly defensible; and complies with public reporting requirements.

7. Achieving value with public money which should be a prime consideration in all aspects of

grant administration and involves the careful consideration of costs, benefits, options and

risks.

evaluation of the living libraries infrastructure program ... · regional libraries and local...

Documents