Rightscom
Funding and governance of library and information services for visually impaired people: international case studies

Part I: Summary Report

Executive Summary

This study aims to compare different approaches to the funding and governance of library and information services for visually impaired people, and to find out what impact these factors have on outcomes (see Part 3 Appendix A for a fuller version of the brief).

The methodology for the study was a combination of desk research and emailed questionnaires, supplemented by additional questions to elucidate replies and solicit further information, assisted by the expert guidance of the Advisory Group (see Part 3, Appendix B for the wording of the questionnaire).

Questionnaire responses were received from the key organizations in most countries but we were unable to complete a case study on one of the original target countries, Vietnam.

This Summary cannot substitute for the synthesis contained in the remainder of Part 1 or the detailed Case Studies in Part 2. It has been particularly difficult to make generalizations which are fully supported by the evidence.

In particular, the kind of quantitative evidence of performance on which to make valid comparisons between the services offered in different countries is seriously lacking, whether this relates to funding per person; annual production of alternative format materials; size of collections; percentage of material available in accessible formats or user satisfaction measures.

All these measures would be very useful, but either data is lacking altogether or varying definitions of the user groups served, the criteria for production (e.g. on-demand versus for stock) and the varied size of the universe of material to be converted, makes it impossible to be sure that comparisons are being made between like variables. Hence the use of the word 'perceived' in some of our findings.

There is, however, enough consistent information to enable us to arrive at a number of key findings:

1. There is a remarkable degree of consensus which emerges in terms of preferred models. With some exceptions, most respondents are in favour of:
   • a system of clearly defined and co-ordinated roles and responsibilities, whether these are fulfilled by private, voluntary or public bodies;
   • the funding of services by regular government expenditure;
   • the delivery of services as much as possible via mainstream physical and digital channels.
2. Definitions of the user groups to be served vary from inclusive, based on inability to use conventional print, to exclusive, based on medical criteria of vision loss. Many organizations favour functional definitions over overtly medical ones.
3. Service providers generally prefer to operate within models where there are clear roles and responsibilities, both in terms of government policy-making and funding, and service provision.
4. Models where multiple government departments share the overall responsibility can result in gaps in provision and a lack of co-ordination. In particular, the provision of materials for use in education often suffers as a result of divided responsibilities.
5. Relying mainly or purely on third sector funding is perceived to result in expenditure that is inadequate in relation to need. Regular government funding produces the best perceived outcomes, when both the relative affluence of countries and the effect of cultural factors (such as attitudes to disability) are taken into account.
6. Technological innovation is a key driver of change. Technology affects how reading materials are produced and delivered. It can also enable changes in models of production and service delivery and consequently the roles of organizations as service points.
7. Technology can to some extent allow more radical changes of organizational model (that is, the articulation of functions by different organisations which combine to create materials and deliver services) than would previously have been possible. It can, for example, enable faster, cheaper and more flexible delivery of materials direct to users or to local service points, or both. That means there can be changes in the 'tiered' approach to service between central providers and branch libraries, for instance, if that was regarded as desirable. Another example is the reduced need for central storage space through using print-on-demand for Braille materials. Clearly the extent to which technology can provide the support for new organizational models depends on a number of factors, including funding, users' income levels, infrastructure quality (e.g. telecommunications) and the acceptability of new technology to the user population. The point here is that it is now possible to think beyond the organisational solutions to delivery which were largely inescapable in the analogue era of paper and cassettes.
8. Changes in technology in society are potentially very positive for visually impaired people, but only if there is the effort (and money) invested by all the stakeholders in ensuring the accessibility of electronic information. Otherwise it could leave those unable to read conventional print no better, or even worse off, as more and more information and services move online.
9. Along with funding levels, copyright restrictions of various kinds, including the absence or narrowness of exceptions, were the most frequently cited barriers encountered by responding organizations.
10. It is possible for service providers to borrow and adapt from other countries' models, by seeing how particular functions in production and delivery can be fulfilled by particular organizations in their own countries and formulating a collective roadmap among all the stakeholders (including government) to reallocate roles, resources and responsibilities accordingly.
11. This is obviously not a process which can happen overnight. Reallocation of resources is critical . organizations cannot be expected to take on new responsibilities if the funding is not available.
12. The report concludes with recommendations addressed to the principal stakeholders, including national and local governments, service providers, IFLA, organizations representing user groups, other funders, the European Commission and WIPO.
13. Part 1 cannot capture all the experience and expertise which the survey provided, nor the thought-provoking ideas for the future which emerged. The reader is encouraged to explore the detail in the country studies in Part 2 as well as the rest of this summary report.