evaluation of the living libraries infrastructure program ... · regional libraries and local...
TRANSCRIPT
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 Page 2 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
Key evaluation questions ............................................................................................ 15
Findings ........................................................................................................................... 15
Initiative delivery and efficiency ............................................................................... 18
Key evaluation questions ............................................................................................ 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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 3 of 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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 4 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 5 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 6 of 64
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
• facilitate free access to information and reading resources.
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
Treasury and Finance’s Evaluation Policy and Standards for Lapsing Programs:
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 7 of 64
• 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?
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 8 of 64
• 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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 9 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 10 of 64
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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 11 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 12 of 64
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?
• 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?
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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 13 of 64
• 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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 14 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 15 of 64
Effectiveness
Key evaluation questions
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?
• 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?
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
• facilitate free access to information and reading resources.
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 16 of 64
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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 17 of 64
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
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Nu
mb
er
A measurable increase in user satisfaction has
resulted from the infrastructure project
0
5
10
15
20
25
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Nu
mb
er
Measurable increases in usage have been made
possible by the infrastructure project
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 18 of 64
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
Key evaluation questions
The key evaluation questions for initiative delivery and efficiency are as follows:
• To what extent has Living Libraries Infrastructure Program been delivered within its
scope, budget and 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?
• 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?
• If ongoing funding was provided, what level of efficiencies could be realised?
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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 19 of 64
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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 20 of 64
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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 21 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 22 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 23 of 64
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
Treasury and Finance’s Evaluation Policy and Standards for Lapsing Programs:
1. justification of the program and links to policy;
2. effectiveness;
3. funding/delivery;
4. risk; and
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 24 of 64
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?
• 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?
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 25 of 64
• 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?
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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 26 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 27 of 64
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:
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 28 of 64
- 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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 29 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 30 of 64
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
Victorian public library
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
Victorian public library
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 31 of 64
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?
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 32 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 38 of 64
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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 39 of 64
21.43% 9
11.90% 5
66.67% 28
Q2 What type of area do you service?
Answered: 42 Skipped: 0
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%
Answer Choices Responses
Metropolitan Melbourne
Metro Melbourne: Interface
Regional/Rural
2 / 24
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 40 of 64
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?
Answered: 42 Skipped: 0
Total 42
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
3 / 24
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 41 of 64
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).
Answered: 6 Skipped: 36
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%
Answer Choices Responses
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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 42 of 64
97.06% 33
2.94% 1
Q5 Was one or more of your LLIP grantapplications successful?
Answered: 34 Skipped: 8
Total 34
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
5 / 24
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 43 of 64
Q6 Please rate the grants process bychecking the boxes that most closely reflect
your opinion.
Answered: 31 Skipped: 11
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
The grant application process was easy to
understand.
The grants were advertised far enough in
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.
Local Government Victoria dealt with queries
and other communications from us promptly.
6 / 24
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 44 of 64
7 MUNICIPALITIES APPLIED FOR GRANTS AND WERE SUPPORTED BY THE REGIONAL LIBRARY
CORPORATION.
1/13/2015 2:32 PM
7 / 24
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 45 of 64
Q7 Please rate the outcomes made possibleby the grant, by checking the boxes that
most closely reflect your opinion.
Answered: 32 Skipped: 10
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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 46 of 64
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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 47 of 64
Q8 In your opinion, what would havehappened with your project if the LLIP grant
application had not been successful?
Answered: 30 Skipped: 12
# 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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 48 of 64
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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 49 of 64
30.30% 10
69.70% 23
Q9 Did you make any LLIP grantapplications that were unsuccessful, in
addition to your successful applications?
Answered: 33 Skipped: 9
Total 33
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
12 / 24
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 50 of 64
Q10 In your opinion, what was the impacton your proposed project of the LLIP grant
application being unsuccessful?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 32
# 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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 51 of 64
Q11 Please rate the grants process bychecking the boxes that most closely reflect
your opinion.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 33
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
The grant application process was easy to
understand.
The grants were advertised far enough in
advance to allow adequate preparation.
The timing of the call for applications fitted
into our planning cycle.
Local Government Victoria dealt with queries
and other communications from us promptly.
14 / 24
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 52 of 64
Q12 Do you have any other comments youwould like to mention?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 41
# Responses Date
1 Think about establishing a funding category to help with 'feasibility' or scoping projects. 1/14/2015 10:35 AM
15 / 24
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 53 of 64
90.00% 27
70.00% 21
63.33% 19
Q13 Do you have any comments about:
Answered: 30 Skipped: 12
# 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
Answer Choices Responses
The size of grants offered under LLIP?
The grant conditions?
What types of library services should be eligible for the grants?
16 / 24
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 54 of 64
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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 55 of 64
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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 56 of 64
Q14 What changes could be made toimprove the Living Libraries Infrastructure
Program?
Answered: 24 Skipped: 18
# 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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 57 of 64
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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 58 of 64
Q15 Please rate the need for a continuinggrants program of this type by checking the
boxes that most closely reflect youropinion.
Answered: 41 Skipped: 1
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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 59 of 64
Q16 In your opinion, were the LivingLibraries Infrastructure Program to cease,
what would be the impact on Victorianlibrary services?
Answered: 38 Skipped: 4
# 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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 60 of 64
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
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 61 of 64
38 Library buildings would detoriate and may not be able to purchased new Mobile Libraries. 1/13/2015 2:18 PM
24 / 24
Local Government Victoria: Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Survey
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 62 of 64
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
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 63 of 64
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.
Living Libraries Infrastructure Program Evaluation Page 64 of 64
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.