America's Star Libraries

In June, LJ announced the development of a new assessment tool for public libraries—the LJ Index of public library service output. “The New LJ Index” (LJ 6/15/08, p. 38–41) described the analysis informing its design. Here, we announce the results of the first LJ Index of Public Library Service, sponsored by Baker & Taylor's Bibliostat. It is based on 2006 data reported by local libraries to their state library agencies and compiled by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). We also identify factors that affect a library's Index score, discuss further the Index's design, and recommend how it can be used productively by all libraries. The top libraries are organized into star tiers, much like the Michelin guide, for example, with five, four, or three stars. Those without star ratings will be ranked in the online version of this article (available at www.libraryjournal.com/ljindex2009), and all included libraries will be available in a dynamic database format via Baker & Taylor's Bibliostat Connect.

As readers peruse the accompanying tables, they should be aware of the following characteristics of the LJ Index of Public Library Service:

• This is an index of public library service output only and as such is determined equally by four related per capita output indicators: visits, circulation, program attendance, and public Internet computer use.
• Libraries are scored in relation to other peer libraries based on total operating expenditures rather than on community population.
• Scores are calculated using statistical methods that make year-to-year comparisons more accurate than other ranking approaches.
• A library's standing on this index will be meaningful if its leaders thoughtfully examine the four service indicators and note its standing on each among peer libraries.

Because data is not reduced to ranks, a very high value on one indicator relative to the group average can earn a library a higher score than another that bests it on the other three indicators. This sensitivity will make the LJ Index a valuable tool for identifying exemplary performance as well as dubious data.

Because the number of star-rated libraries is large (256), we have focused on a few libraries—ones representing different star ratings, expenditures groups, and regions—to use as examples as we discuss factors influencing a library's service output: its community, its organization and funding, and its leadership and management.

The location of a library community or its demographics can have a dramatic impact on its service levels.

Columbus Metropolitan Library, OH (*****, $30 million or more), has more than 11 library visits per capita and more than 21 circulation transactions per capita. Director Patrick Losinski points out that it serves the Ohio capital, the state's largest city, home to thriving public institutions (e.g., zoo, libraries, colleges and universities, hospitals)—all beneficiaries of high levels of volunteerism and philanthropy.

Douglas County Libraries, suburban Denver (****, $10.0 million–$29.9 million), circulates almost 22 items per capita. Director Jamie Larue notes that in 1990 its population was about 65,000; today it is about 300,000. Rochelle Logan, associate director of research and collections, adds that it is a well-educated, high-income community whose residents value education and libraries (which got 93 percent approval in a recent poll).

Libraries in prosperous communities with well-educated residents are well represented in the star ratings. Several libraries in northern California's Silicon Valley are star-rated, including San José, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, Palo Alto City, Santa Clara City, and Redwood City.

Likewise, the educational and cultural milieu of greater Boston and Cape Cod must help to account for the star ratings of Boston itself as well as Newton, Dover, Vineyard Haven, Provincetown, Osterville, and West Tisbury.

Public libraries in very small but prosperous communities—like some suburbs and many resorts—also tend to have higher per capita outputs than other libraries.

Greenwich Library, CT (*****, $5.0 million–$9.9 million), finds itself at the center of the thriving intellectual and cultural life of its town. According to Director Barbara Ormerod-Glynn, the library is regarded as one of the town's treasures. Its high level of public Internet computer usage (almost 11 per capita) suggests that users are making the most of online resources.

Grandview Heights Public Library (*****, $1.0 million–$4.9 million) is in a suburb surrounded by Columbus, OH. Its 146 library visits and 131 circulation transactions per capita indicate a “magnet” library, drawing users from beyond its service area (the population of the latter being the relatively small divisor partly responsible for the library's per capita statistics).

Orange Beach Public Library, AL (***, $400,000–$999,000), serves a Gulf Coast beach resort. According to Director Bonnie Lee, its clientele include year-round residents, summer vacationers, winter snowbirds, and a diverse foreign workforce. As with Grandview Heights, only residents make up the divisor of its per capita statistics. Yet, for example, it attracts a high level of public Internet computer use by residents and nonresidents alike (more than ten per capita).

Nonetheless, a library does not have to serve a major metropolitan area or a resort community to excel. Many libraries outside such areas also appear in the starred categories. Examples of these include public libraries in Lewiston, UT (*****, $10,000–$49,000); Neodesha, KS (****, $50,000–$99,000); Centralia, MO (****, $100,000–$199,000), and Sarah Hull Hallock Free Lib., Milton, NY (***, $100,000–$199,000).

Library service output can also be influenced by how a library is organized and/or funded.

Columbus Metropolitan Library is often recognized as a successful public library. Losinski credits that to both how the library is governed and funded. Like all Ohio public libraries, Columbus benefits from relatively healthy base-level state funding. But Ohio's unique funding approach obscures the fact that libraries are governed independently. This makes library politics easier there, because libraries don't have to compete with other public services to get on the ballot. These funding and governance advantages help explain why more than two dozen Ohio libraries are star-rated. Larue and Logan note similar advantages for Douglas County at the local level.

Like their counterparts, Ormerod-Glynn (Greenwich) and Lee (Orange Beach) say secure funding allows staff to take risks and try new endeavors, and they depend on their foundation and Friends group, respectively, for additional funds.

Beyond these external factors, service levels can also be affected by how public libraries are run and the philosophy management espouses.

Most of the library leaders interviewed point to strong customer service as one certain explanation of their library's high service outputs. Losinski credits his predecessor with establishing the customer service ethic, which he strives to maintain and strengthen. Director Mary Ludlum (Grandview Heights) attributes her library's star rating to friendly and responsive staff and warm and inviting facilities. Lee notes that the Orange Beach library is called a Cheers library because people are greeted by name. She also observes that, in a resort community, many users are local business owners who expect strong customer service. Both Losinski and Larue attribute strong library-community relationships to professional public relations and marketing staff.

Leaders also credit high service outputs to staff involvement in organizational development. Losinski cites Columbus's Lean Six Sigma (a continuous improvement process), strategic and tactical planning, and regular staff feedback to administrators. Logan notes that all Douglas County staffers are encouraged to participate in community affairs, ensuring the library a seat at the table with local agencies and organizations. Ormerod-Glynn believes Greenwich's service levels can be traced to management responsiveness to both staff and community input. And Lee reports that Orange Beach's flat organizational structure reduces barriers to staff implementing new programs and services and involving patrons in collection development.

Innovation is another characteristic associated with high service outputs. Logan credits Douglas County's user traffic to buildings that are attractive to patrons and well stocked with the latest materials in many formats. Lee reports that Orange Beach was the first public library in Alabama to offer services such as wireless Internet access and downloadable audiobooks.

Traditionally, many public library decision-makers have focused on circulation alone as the performance indicator. Today, the full range of services includes electronic access, facilities use, and programming. So there is no compelling reason to give greater weight to one type of library use over another. Besides, weighting is an arbitrary process that it is best to avoid.

In the accompanying tables, the four per capita outputs are listed alongside the LJ Index scores to show why one library has a higher score than another. A library will score higher to the extent that it performs better on all four statistics. Frequently, higher scores go to those with the most visits or highest circulation—usually double-digit figures. Sometimes, higher scores are based on better program attendance or more public Internet computer uses—usually in the single digits (or less). Program attendance tends to produce smaller numbers than visits because a library event is only one reason to visit and programs provide in-depth experiences. Furthermore, Internet usage numbers are smaller than circulation because they count computer uses, not the number of resources accessed. Given these contexts, one would not expect figures on the same scale, nor could one safely conclude from the varying ranges that one type of use is more important than another.

The LJ Index of Public Library Service groups public libraries by total operating expenditures rather than population of legal service area. [See table at left.]

For libraries spending less than $5 million annually, the groups are designed to be similar in size (each with about 1100 to 1200 libraries). The smaller number of libraries spending more than $5 million warrants creating the three smaller groups of libraries with the highest annual spending.

LJ Index of Public Library Service scores are based on a library's standing on the four per capita outputs relative to the averages for its peer group. Scores are determined by combining the four indicators in a statistically appropriate manner that avoids disadvantages of using ranks or percentiles. Exaggerated higher scores are useful “red flags.” They may indicate either exceptional performance or a need to review local data collection procedures. Why these particular measures matter is detailed in “The New LJ Index.” As a measure of library output, the LJ Index does not purport to assess library quality, excellence, or value.

“The New LJ Index” proposed a new “ranking” system. However, since then, we have decided to make the LJ Index of Public Library Service a library “rating” system. Because per capita differences among libraries are often miniscule (a few 1/10ths of a point), it is inappropriate to attach excessive importance to a precise score. This is why the LJ Index uses a star-rating system to identify three groups of deserving libraries in each expenditures peer group. Five-star libraries claim the top ten places, while four-star libraries are the next ten, and three-star libraries are the next ten. The exception is the top group—libraries spending $30 million or more (31 libraries). Each of its star categories consists of only five libraries. Also, in the $5 million–$9.99 million category, there are 11 three-star libraries, owing to a tie.

And, remember, the star-rating group in which your library may appear—and whether or not it continues to appear—will be influenced by self-exclusion from these ratings by libraries that do not report data. In other words: you have to be in it to win.

Here are a few ideas regarding what should be done with the LJ Index of Public Library Service ratings.

Your library's LJ Index rating is just one assessment. Your library undoubtedly uses other statistics, for instance, your state's annual statistical report, the Bibliostat Connect and IMLS peer comparison tools, the federal Public Libraries in the U.S. reports, and so on. If you are not using some of these other sources, please try one.

Since the LJ Index rates libraries on four representative service outputs, it measures what may be thought of as “prerequisites” for library quality and value. A library that excels on the Index is very likely to be headed in the direction of high service quality and excellence. No index based on standard library statistics can legitimately claim to identify “the best” public libraries. Rather, we offer the LJ Index to help paint part of a picture of overall library performance. The ratings should be one among several sources of information indicating your library's performance in your community. Whether your library receives a star rating or not, examine each of the indicators in the context of the libraries ranked around yours—not just your library's final score. If you find that statistical differences with peers are meaningful to your library, decide how to incorporate the LJ Index in a more comprehensive assessment process. Your library also has data on other service outputs for which national data is unavailable. You should also consider more qualitative input, such as results of user outcome surveys and focus group interviews.

If the LJ Index of Public Library Service project is to be successful, its design cannot be cast in stone. LJ has instituted this index as an incentive for libraries to improve and expand their data, maximize its use, and thereby increase the capacity of public library data as one resource for making better decisions about library services.

What other outputs are being tracked in your state or by your library? The four outputs in this initial version of the LJ Index are not the only conceivable ones. Yet for new indicators to be incorporated, IMLS and the state library agencies must agree to collect and report them.

Finally and most important, when your library reviews its LJ Index of Public Library Service status each year, please give it more than superficial attention. If your library is in a starred category, it will be tempting to brag and no more. Don't use your score—or any other statistics—like a drunk uses a lamppost, “more for support than illumination.” If your library is not in a starred category, don't ignore this project. With the resources on the LJ web site and Bibliostat Connect and the insights from your peer libraries, you can engage in more in-depth assessment and more improvement-oriented planning. If you experiment with any of these uses of the Index, be in touch. The online version of this article has a “Models You Can Use” section to share your success stories and how you use these ratings. There's also a feedback section, where all can debate current and future versions of the LJ Index. [Go to www.libraryjournal.com/ljindex2009.] Our hope is that thoughtful review and use of the LJ Index of Public Library Service will make true “winners” of as many public libraries as possible.