Ryder Julie
Holmbury, Wheeler Lane, Witley, Surrey, UK.
Health Info Libr J. 2004 Sep;21 Suppl 2:5-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-3324.2004.00515.x.
To determine the current level of library service to people in their own homes in the United Kingdom and to compare it with results from previous surveys. It is many years since a similar survey has been undertaken or guidelines produced and it is hoped that this work will help fill the gap.
A questionnaire was sent in January 2004 to all public library authorities in the UK, a total of 208; 72% (149) were returned in the timescale allowed. The questionnaire covered the criteria for eligibility to receive a home library service; service structure and delivery: who delivers the service (specialist librarians or specialist non-professional staff, branch library staff or volunteers); training; range of material and services provided; reading aids; materials for reminiscence; information provision; transporting people to the library; services to people in residential homes, sheltered accommodation, nursing homes and day centres; reader development; lifelong learning; and publicity and promotion. The focus of the survey was on quality issues and good practice wherever possible.
The number of customers receiving a service to 'housebound' readers in the UK in 2001/2 was 123 407. In 1984 it was 43 807 people in England. This still bears little relation to the number of people who should be receiving the service. The majority used paid staff (88%). Volunteers supported 52% of the services, with most having links with staff. There were opportunities to improve and develop services under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The service was publicized and promoted by only 62% of the respondents. Of those that use paid staff and that answered this question, 73% provide disability equality training for staff. Only 21% provide disability equality training for volunteers. Only 36% are involved in reader development or lifelong learning and only 23% provide a newsletter in print, 11% on tape and 3% in Braille; 12% take laptops into people's homes.
Many authorities were still providing a tokenistic service and were reluctant to publicize for fear of not coping with demand, which makes them vulnerable legally under the DDA. However, there were some excellent examples of good practice where the full range of services are provided to a high standard.
确定英国目前为居家民众提供的图书馆服务水平，并将其与以往调查结果进行比较。距离上次开展类似调查或制定相关指南已有多年，希望这项工作能有助于填补这一空白。
2004年1月向英国所有公共图书馆管理部门发放了调查问卷，共计208份；在规定时间内收回了72%（149份）。问卷涵盖了获得家庭图书馆服务的资格标准；服务结构与提供方式：由谁提供服务（专业馆员、非专业工作人员、分馆工作人员还是志愿者）；培训；提供的资料和服务范围；阅读辅助工具；回忆资料；信息提供；接送民众前往图书馆；为养老院、庇护所、疗养院和日间护理中心的民众提供的服务；读者发展；终身学习；以及宣传推广。调查重点尽可能放在质量问题和良好做法上。
2001/2年度英国为“足不出户”读者提供服务的客户数量为123407人。1984年英格兰有43807人接受服务。这与应该接受该服务的人数仍没什么关联。大多数服务使用的是带薪员工（88%）。志愿者为52%的服务提供支持，其中大多数与员工有联系。根据1995年《残疾歧视法》，有改进和发展服务的机会。只有62%的受访者对服务进行了宣传推广。在使用带薪员工且回答了这个问题的受访者中，73%为员工提供了残疾平等培训。只有21%为志愿者提供了残疾平等培训。只有36%参与了读者发展或终身学习，只有23%提供印刷版时事通讯，11%提供磁带版，3%提供盲文版；12%会将笔记本电脑带到民众家中。
许多管理部门仍在提供象征性的服务，并且因担心无法应对需求而不愿进行宣传，这使它们在《残疾歧视法》下面临法律风险。然而，也有一些提供高标准全方位服务的优秀良好做法范例。
