The True Measure of a Library
We'll give the awards, knowing the criteria are often subjective
John N. Berry III, Editor-in-Chief -- Library Journal, 5/15/2003
On the other hand, it is equally simplistic to assume that per capita support for a public library located in a "poor" community will always be depressed. Notable examples refute this conjecture. Indeed, a politically skillful librarian can win more tax support in a fiscally challenged community by, for example, proving that decent library service contributes significantly to economic development.
Still, I'm not so naïve as to assert that the economic climate in a community doesn't impact its libraries. It is true that examples of inadequate funding in affluent suburbs and/or generous budgets in depressed places are so rare that it is easy to assume that fiscal support is driven by local economic conditions.
Despite that, I maintain that political skills and good library service also have great influence on library finance. So while it is true that per capita support is probably not the best measure of a library, it is also true that solid funding is an indication that the librarians are providing good service and have built significant political connections. Those are among the keys to creating an award-winning library.
These ruminations were triggered by my recent experience as a judge for the Gale Group/Library Journal 2003 Library of the Year Award. We often argue about the meaning of levels of library support. This year I disagreed with the judge who said, "The X— Library is too rich! It is not a valid example for others." I also disagreed with the judge who said, "I consider $20 per capita just too low. It is a disgrace for a library to have to function on that amount! It would be a bad example."
Other assertions related to funding may be more valid. I look more closely, for example, when someone says, "It deserves an award for providing such great service on so little money." I take special notice when a judge says, "Did you see those incredible per capita numbers? That librarian is some politician!"
If per capita support really doesn't tell us very much about a library, it at least alerts us to libraries that may deserve special attention because their support is either very high or very low. After all, no criteria will definitively tell us enough to rank one library over another. Circulation is counted in so many ways that it isn't really valid as a comparative measure. The same applies to hits on web sites, reference questions, collection size, and many more of our other favorite standards. Indeed, fiscal strength is more likely to predict excellence in library service than many of the other measures.
Thomas Hennen has come up with an elaborate mix of criteria to produce his annual Hennen's American Public Library Ratings. Those connected with the libraries that come out on top rave about the system and use the results in local publicity and to get credit from colleagues. Those from libraries lower on the list complain about the scales, dismissing the rankings as unfair and invalid.
All the same, awards and rankings are very useful to the winning libraries. They attract praise, civic pride, and often gifts and increased support. Other libraries often turn to the winners for ideas, models of service, and ways to get increased funding. While we realize that our judgments are laced with subjectivity, we will continue to give awards because they do a lot of good. We won't worry that we have not yet come up with the true measure of a library.
