BEST VALUE REVIEW - PROJECT BRIEF
Service Review Title: School Library Service
Review Team Leader: Anne Marley Date: 05.05.2001
Departmental Lead Officer for Best Value: Nigel Hill
1. Goal
To complete a review of the School Library Service (SLS) by December 2001 which will identify means of securing best value.
2. Objectives
To ensure that the service is efficiently provided
To review the performance of SLS to ensure that it performs within the top quartile by comparison of the best alternatives.
To identify areas for improvement
To identify stakeholders and consult with them
To challenge the need for the service
To produce a list of the main findings
To produce an action plan detailing future work to be carried out based on the results of the review
To undertake an EFQM analysis to assist in identifying areas for improvement
To look at areas for competition, e.g. Book Purchase Scheme and test accordingly.
3. Approach
3.1 Service Review Team Members
A service review team has been set up to provide challenge to the review, comprising 2 County Councillors, 1 Head of neighbouring SLS, 1 Deputy Education Area Standards and Improvement Officer, 1 staff representative and three other members of SLS staff, one of whom is Lead Officer and Project Manager.
3.2 Challenge
The main method of providing challenge is by the Best Value Review Team. The analysis of consultation and comparisons with other SLS are likely to feed the challenge process.
The EFQM model for business excellence has been used internally to test the service's current strengths and weaknesses and the resulting areas for improvement will also be added to the challenge process.
As a result of the EFQM exercise, undertaken in March, several Areas For Improvement (AFIs) have been identified as priorities by SLS and these are now being investigated and acted on. These AFIs are:
· Production of cohesive SLS Policy documentation, drawing together information in disparate documents
· The further development of services to Special Schools
· Investigation of the provision of services to Pupil Referral Units (PRUs), given their changing status to schools in 2002
· Strategies for improving communication with HIAS and other elements of Education Department to facilitate partnership and liaison in improving standards
· Reviewing ICT implications for SLS
Stakeholders will be invited to comment on the SLS via means recommended by the Primary and Secondary Service Review Groups.
3.3 Compare
LISU statistics will be used for benchmarking purposes with our statistical neighbours providing a similar service.
(see sample information on Hampshire SLS performance on attached sheet)
3.4 Consult
Through appropriate methods with stakeholders; principally Headteachers, teachers i/c library, school library managers, and SLS staff on aspects of the service shown as areas for improvement from the EFQM analysis and identified in the Service Specification.
· Headteachers - via Profs survey
· Teachers, Governors, library assistants and other stakeholders - Focus Group meetings in north and south of the county.
3.5 Competition
There are no independent companies offering the range of services SLS provides to schools, and other neighbouring authorities operate to the `trading at the margins' convention. However, there are some areas of provision e.g. the Book Purchase Scheme that is open to competition and this area will be explored.
4. Scope
The review will not include Book Selection and book ordering, as these are part of the service provided in liaison with the public library service and operates within the Central Buying Consortium of Local Authorities which has secured very favourable rates of discount for book purchase and is regularly monitored.
The review will not cover an audit of financial procedures as there has been an audit of SLS of financial management which reported in March 2001. SLS received a good report, requiring no further action on any major issues.
The review will not cover Personnel Services as this is provided by the public library service and will dealt with in a later County Council review.
Access to SLS mobiles is covered by the public library service Best Value Review and included in their Action Plan, and so will not be included here.
The review will assess how well SLS meets the needs of schools in the provision of resources, advice, training and book purchasing.
5. Constraints
Information availability from LISU and authorities not providing information will constrain some statistical evidence provision.
Options for improvement may be limited by budgetary constraints.
6. Dependencies
Up-to-date benchmarking figures
7. Resource requirements
The review will require:
Staff time from SLS
Payment for expenses for stakeholder focus groups
Costs of survey design, printing, distribution, collection, collation and analysis
Costs of benchmarking data collection, collation and analysis
Costs of EFQM analysis