America's Star Libraries, 2010: Article as it appears in LJ
The LJ Index of Public Library Service 2010 By Ray Lyons & Keith Curry Lance Oct 1, 2010
|
The statistics we keep to show stakeholders what our libraries deliver to our communities have always mattered, but they may now be more important than ever. In the face of the ongoing and broad cuts libraries are seeing nationwide, it is vital to illustrate the accomplishments of libraries. To that end, we offer the LJ Index of Public Library Service 2010, sponsored by Baker & Taylor's Bibliostat, based on 2008 data released by the Institute of Museum and Library Services a few months ago. Significantly, this data reflects service reported for FY08 (most often, calendar 2008, July 2007–June 2008, or October 2007–September 2008, depending on the state), which makes this the first round of national public library statistics since the onset of the economic recession in December 2007.
For this edition of the LJ Index, we asked star libraries to review the data they had reported for the four per capita service outputs—visits, circulation, program attendance, and public Internet terminal use—and reflect on why their figures rose. At first, it seemed there were as many explanations as libraries, but common threads emerged concerning the recession, funding, facilities, staffing, collections, technology, programs, policies, strategic planning and internal research, extraordinary circumstances, and data collection methods.
The recession arrives
As the recession took hold, libraries responded. Jan Sanders of Pasadena Public Library, CA ($10 million–$29.9 million, ****), notes that her library's Internet use seminars and job-related presentations drew "capacity" crowds that year. She credits spikes in children's services measures to "children whose families could [no longer] pay for private [child] care."
Across the country in New Jersey, Karen Brodsky believes Bernardsville Public Library ($400,000–$999,999, *****) saw high levels of use during 2008, "partly because numerous people were using the library to find employment and to hone computer skills toward that effort." She adds that "we believe that people were successful because use of the library decreased somewhat in late 2009 and early 2010 as more people were working."
Similarly, Cheryl Whistler Garrison thinks the impressive statistics from Kent District Library, MI ($10 million–$29.9 million, ***), "are due in part to the challenges resulting from Michigan's economic downturn. People are turning to the public library more than ever for entertainment, information, and job search assistance."
For some, annual increases in library traffic during 2008 masked even more dramatic increases late in the year. Christine M. Steckel of Lower Merion Library System, PA ($5 million–$9,999,999, ****), cites "the fourth-quarter explosion in all activity levels as the recession rolled through the international landscape."
The funding factor
While public libraries tend to see increases in usage when economic times are tough, some libraries maintain high usage because funding is both higher and more stable than that of other libraries.
Wellfleet Public Library, MA ($400,000–$999,999, *****), is in such fortunate circumstances. "Our small town has been cautious with budgets over the years. Most town departments' operating budgets have been level-funded for years, but they haven't been cut," says Wellfleet's Elaine McIlroy. She notes a range of support from Friends, trust funds, and a recent "significant bequest," as well as an effort to bring in stimulus funding. Some might attribute this library's success solely to its strong fiscal support, but it is what one does with funding that makes the difference. McIlroy also describes how the library has increased the number of public Internet stations and programs for all ages but especially tweens and teens. "In these difficult economic times," she adds, "free programs offered at the library are well attended and appreciated."
For decades, Ohio public libraries have been funded by a unique statewide funding mechanism, the Ohio Public Library Fund. In 2009, state fiscal pressures led to the first substantial decrease in funding via that means. Doubtless, this will impact the standing of Ohio libraries in the next two rounds of the LJ Index. Some Ohio libraries are weathering this storm better than others. For instance, Kent Oliver of Stark County District Library ($10 million–$29.9 million, *****) believes a "fairly recent operating levy" explains continuing increases in his library's "overall usage statistics."
Facilities that draw
One truism about public libraries is that use goes up after a new building opens or a renovation is completed. Star-level statistics for many libraries were chalked up to this factor. The building alone, however, is not enough. "New buildings might bring people in initially," says Carole Kowell of Medina County District Library, OH ($5 million–$9,999,999, ***), but it's what's inside that brings them back."
Upticks in statistics in new spaces may be owing to the novelty, longer hours, more space, specific building features, or reinvigorated programming. Cheryl Wright of Indianapolis–Marion County Public Library ($30 million and over, ****) credits across-the-board statistical increases to the remodel of the central library. "In the newly renovated building, we returned to our normal hours of four nights per week till 9 p.m. We experienced higher door counts, circulated more materials, and had expanded the number of public Internet computers," she says. "We also conducted heavy programming during that first year to bring people in to see and celebrate the newly renovated facility."
At the San José Public Library, CA ($30 million and over, ***), Jane Light identifies the beginnings of recent statistical increases with more space via the "reopening of several branches that had been closed for construction. Those buildings are over twice as big as the old buildings."
Sometimes, though, it's the creature comforts that pay off. Robin Yuran of Norfolk Public Library, CT ($400,000–$999,999, ****), believes most of her library's 2008 statistics reached all-time highs because of "[t]he redesign of the Great Hall with cozy alcoves, new furniture, and Wi-Fi."
The setting also helps. "Our location in the heart of a beautiful new development was probably the biggest factor in our explosive growth," says Barbara D. Hathaway of Bee Cave Public Library, TX ($200,000–$399,999, *****). "Parking is plentiful, and visibility is very high. The library is literally in the center of the development, facing the outdoor amphitheater where free concerts and fireworks are a big draw."
Sometimes, exceptional statistics reflect what is going on with another library. "Hard times in other libraries have resulted in more traffic in ours," notes Jean Campbell of Forsyth Public Library, IL ($200,000–$399,999, ***).
Sue Seamans of Falconer Public Library, NY ($100,000–$199,999, *****), illustrated this further with an example that may just explain a repeat of their star library status next year. "[L]ast fall, our largest Chautauqua-Cattaraugus System Library (James Prendergast Library) was closed due to asbestos abatement and renovations.... We experienced a large number of ‘Prendergast Refugees,' as we called them, looking for library services.... We were very busy (and frantic some days), but it was a rewarding opportunity for us to help another library."
In some cases, a public library facility houses more than a public library. E. Leslie Polott of Hudson Library, OH ($1 million–$4.9 million, ***), reports, "We were created [in 1910] as both a historical society [and] a library," while Laurie Sundborg of Tulsa City-County Library ($10 million–$29.9 million, ***) notes that "a 420-seat children's theater [is] attached to [our] Regional Library.
Of course, deliberate efforts to promote user traffic can be powerful, too. Andra Addison reports that Seattle Public Library ($30 million and over, *****) celebrated completion of its "Libraries for All" capital building campaign by distributing "library passports" and encouraging people to visit all the new locations to get their passports stamped.
Staffing savvy
Several libraries attribute high—and, in many cases, still increasing—numbers to staff changes or additions.
Beth Kramer, of West Tisbury Free Public Library, MA ($200,000–$399,999, *****), credits her library's recent increases in program attendance to "the creation of a program director.... [W]ithout community outreach and response to community needs, our library would become disconnected and our services would not necessarily meet our community's [needs]," she says. "We [also] changed our YA librarian's position to focus on programming and outreach.
The Palo Alto City Library, CA ($5 million–$9,999,999, ****), says Diane R. Jennings, saw a rise in program attendance owing to an increase in the number of school-based programs after the creation of a half-time school liaison position to work very actively with "students, faculty, and parents to promote our city's library resources and services."
Conversely, of course, this issue cuts both ways: staffing reductions can be an obvious explanation for reduced service outputs.
Collections with range and depth
Diverse collections—both in format and language—are credited for high circulation and other outputs by many libraries.
"Record-breaking" circulation, says Mary Hastler of Harford County Public Library, MD ($10 million–$29.9 million, ****), resulted from "getting materials out to the branches by street date, an emphasis on purchasing popular materials, providing a wide array of formats, and adding new formats to the collection, such as Playaways.
Greg Bodin reports that collection development at San Mateo County Library, CA ($10 million–$29.9 million, ****), focuses on "popular materials such as...movies and books-on-CD" to supplement new books and classics. He also notes the library's world languages collection of "over 12,500 [heavily used] items in…Chinese, Hindi, Russian, and Spanish."
Depth in the collection also means a lot at the San Francisco Public Library ($30 million and over, ***). "Chinese-language items make up about seven percent of the total library collection, [but] they represent 14 percent of circulating items," says Jill Bourne. "In 2008, the highest circulating fiction title was a book in Chinese—Lao Fuzi."
The touch of technology
Explanations for high and/or increased computer use in libraries include adding more computers, upping the functionality of those already available, and being a source for high-speed connectivity in areas where people cannot take it for granted.
Santa Clara County Library, CA ($30 million and over, ****), increased Internet access by replacing "thin-client terminals" with "full-service Internet computers so that all public access computers now offer all the functionality patrons need to link to a URL from the library ILS catalog or online databases," says Melinda Cervantes. "This is critical when completing job application forms online and attaching or linking to cover letters and résumés. Additionally, the library added wireless access points to meeting rooms and other public spaces."
Lisa Wenner, of Meekins Public Library, Williamsburg, MA ($100,000–$199,999, ***), reports that "the hill towns…in western Massachusetts do not, for the most part, offer broadband or high-speed Internet.... So, many people depend on the public libraries in the area for…Internet [access], which is certainly always faster than dial-up."
At the other extreme, dozens of star libraries say that use of public Internet computers, while still high, is beginning to level off or even decline as libraries expand Wi-Fi access. Ellen Stuckey, Butler Public Library, IN ($200,000–$399,999, ****), speaks for all of them when she says "we are discouraged from counting people on their own laptops using our wireless Internet [access]." Unfortunately, to date, the IMLS and the states count only uses of public Internet computers in libraries.
Well-targeted programs
Many libraries attributed exceptional statistical performance in 2008 to programming—in terms of both its direct impact on program attendance and its indirect impact on the other service outputs.
Theresa M. Tyner of North Manchester Public Library, IN ($200,000–$399,999, ***), credits her library's standing to the community's centennial celebration events as well as the addition of a "weekly teen program...that consistently gets 15–22 teens" and "a cinema series."
In 2007–08, the Coffey County Library, KS ($1 million–$4.9 million, ***), according to Jenifer Trimble, saw "a 21 percent increase in attendance at children's programming and a 51 percent increase in attendance at adult programming." Popular 2008 programs included "Senior Citizen Brown Bag Lunches, Scrapbooking Programs for all ages, very interactive story times, and a detailed after-school program that includes rocket building, beginning cooking, and gardening."
Ellen Brown, of Mercer County Library, NJ ($10 million–$29.9 million, *****), gives some credit for high program attendance to extraordinary outreach efforts, such as library programming delivered to the county's Youth Detention Center (Great Stories Book Club) and clients of HomeFront, a nonprofit that aims to eliminate homelessness in the county (literacy education).
Of course, library programs are just part of a larger mix of uses. The Princeton Public Library, NJ ($1 million–$4.9 million, ****), says Leslie Burger, has achieved widespread community acceptance as "the community's living room. People come for programs, to borrow materials, [and to] use our computers, but just as often they come to meet a friend, grab a quick bite in the café, watch a sporting event, or…to hang out."
Policies that foster access
Library service output statistics can also be affected by dramatic changes in library policies that foster access to library resources.
Tim Kambitsch, of Dayton Metro Library ($10 million–$29.9 million, ***), describes a strategic set of policy changes related to the library's Urban Initiative. "We found that our fine rates were punitive [and] reduced our video fine rate from $1 per day to 10¢ per day. We also eliminated overdue fines for children's materials and waived all outstanding overdue fines from our records. At the same time, we publicized the amnesty with targeted mailings," he says. "A second initiative [took] advantage of the upward trend in demand for urban literature. We set up an additional special materials fund for urban literature and targeted placement in these branches. We conducted programs with urban lit authors. Use of library materials shot up dramatically throughout our system of urban, suburban, and rural branches, but the urban branches had the biggest changes within that first year."
Strategic planning
Many public libraries maintain and sometimes see dramatic increases in service output statistics as a result of implementing strategic plans and conducting internal research studies.
For the Salt Lake County Library System ($30 million and over, ***), 2008 was "the second full year of our strategic plan," notes James D. Cooper. Customers benefited from "advancements in our ability to more efficiently purchase, process, and move materials through our system, getting high-demand materials into customers' hands quicker," he says. "In addition, our web services and technology resources were enhanced; we continued implementation of RFID and self-service checkout; and our outreach and programming services were expanded through improved focus and efficiencies."
Changes based on research spurred use at the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County ($30 million and over, ****). "In 2007 we started a project to redesign our main library. We consolidated several departments, added a couple of new departments, and kept some of the previous departments," says Kimber L. Fender. "The whole redesign was based on data we gathered by actually observing how people were using the main library. The project was completed in early 2008, and that year the main had a circulation increase of 16.1 percent. In addition to facilitating use, the new design is much more efficient, resulting in annual operating savings of about $1 million."
Exceptional circumstances
Sometimes a library's statistics look exceptional, because the library operates in exceptional circumstances. As we have noted in earlier rounds, public libraries in resort communities and certain suburban enclaves can have an advantage in the LJ Index, because the scores are based on per capita statistics. In such communities, it is common for the perfectly correct official resident population figure—the basis for per capita statistics—to represent only a fraction of the actual user community. In resorts, for example, part-time residents who are often owners of luxury second homes are seldom included in the official population. Similarly, students in some college towns are not counted. Resort and college towns, however, are by no means the only types of communities where this disconnect between official and real populations is in play. In any case, the libraries in such communities are often taking great pains to serve the needs of these groups.
Consider the circumstances at Unalaska Public Library, AK ($400,000–$999,999, *****), described by Dan Masoni: "[Our l]ibrary serves the #1 U.S. Fishing Port (by volume). The actual community of Unalaska consists of roughly 5000 hearty individuals…located on Unalaska Island, 800 miles southwest of Anchorage, AK, between the Bering Sea and the North Pacific. As fishing seasons come and go, the population ebbs and flows to as high as 12,000.... The library is heavily used by both permanent residents and transient workers who support the fishing industry. A simple explanation of our success is that, ‘as fishermen aged, they found that they needed more access to books than…bars.' We are that alternative, by providing a quiet place to read and surf the net for people who toil in one of the most dangerous working environments in the world."
The Borough of Avalon Free Public Library, NJ ($1 million–$4.9 million, *****), might look like a typical resort library, serving a coastal community with a seasonal population that ranges from 2100 to over 25,000, according to Norman Gluckman. However, in this case, population dynamics are being addressed with exceptionally ambitious outreach to nonresidents. Gluckman reports that the two-year-old library studied its patronage and learned that "64 percent were nonresident homeowners…spread out over a five-state area. To give them better value for their library tax dollar," he says, the library created "a virtual library community…not bounded by geography.... By the end of the year, 622 mailers containing an average of two items apiece were sent to patrons in Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York." With that kind of extraordinary outreach, it is little surprise that this library is a star.
Data collection methods
All too frequently, year-to-year changes—up and down—in library statistics are explained simply by changes in how data are collected or estimated.
A statistic can go up dramatically from one year to the next, because previous figures were reported only for the main or central library and not branches. Once usage at branch libraries is added, a far larger figure can be reported in subsequent years.
While a library may have been estimating a statistic in good faith, when a way to automate that count is found, it is learned that the estimation method resulted in a figure that was substantially high or substantially low.
Some respondents to our appeal for explanations of star library figures confide that, in years past, they had simply misunderstood the definitions for some of the service outputs in ways that "low-balled" their counts or estimates.
Others report having two versions of some statistics—one following the IMLS definition and another based on local data reporting requirements or wishes. Generally, the local versions of these statistics result in higher figures (though they do not play a role in the LJ Index).
Representatives of some libraries speculate that they undercount routinely, owing to the persistent use of primitive, labor-intensive, typical-week methods of estimating that they believe miss some use. One might wonder why a library's administration would intentionally undersell its performance. One correspondent offers a frank explanation: "We librarians aren't a numbers-oriented group." What seems clear from our correspondence with star library leadership is that staff in most public libraries are doing the best they know how to provide honest, complete, and accurate data. It is equally clear that some are uncertain of how to go about collecting some data and how to improve those efforts.
Our hope is that seeing the reported data on which LJ Index scores and star library ratings are based and discussing the results will lead public library directors and others to share their data collection methods as well as their exemplary practices. Then public libraries will identify models of practice—and data collection—to use in improving their own statistics out of a genuine desire to represent accurately what they deliver to their communities.
Whether that happens or not depends in part on the efforts of people at the state level: Chief Officers of State Library Agencies and their State Data Coordinators. Go to the web version of this article at www.libraryjournal.com/ljindex2010 to see what a handful of veteran representatives of these groups say about the challenges they face in collecting complete and accurate statistics from public libraries.
Staying motivated
In a political and fiscal climate that demands data-based decision-making, it is in everyone's interests to do whatever can be done at federal, state, and local levels to improve the quality of public library statistics. While data collection problems never seem to stay solved for long, the diligence required to keep trying has payoffs that are measureless:
There is no branch of library economy [i.e., management] more important, or so little understood by a librarian as helps to himself, as the daily statistics which he can preserve of the growth, loss, and use (both in extent and character) of the collection under his care. The librarian who watches these things closely, and records them, always understands what he is about, and what he accomplishes or fails to accomplish. The patrons to whom he presents these statistics will comprehend better the machinery of the library, and be more indulgent toward its defects.
Brace yourselves: this quote comes from Public Libraries in the United States of America (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Education, p. 714), edited by S.R. Warren and S.N. Clark…in 1876!
More Libraries Rated
This round of the LJ Index of Public Library Service is based on 2008 data reported by public libraries to their state library agencies and compiled nationally by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The LJ Index 2010 gives five, four, or three stars to the top libraries rated. This year, 63 libraries received their first star ratings, with a total of 258 receiving stars. In addition, 139 more public libraries were given LJ Index scores this round for a total of 7,407, up from 7,268 in the LJ Index 2009, Round Two (LJ 11/15/09) (see table at right).
There were modest gains in the number of libraries in most of the nine expenditure categories (see table page opposite), but the bulk came in the $1 million–$4.9 million category, with 73 more libraries. That trend did not hold, however, for the $50,000–$99,999 and $200,000–$399,999 categories, which lost about 25 libraries each. As in the prior round, the overall difference is owing to a net gain in the number of scored libraries and a rise in the number of libraries reporting all four LJ Index per capita statistics. Another factor: libraries moving from one expenditure category to another as budgets shifted.
NEW STARS
Some of the new star libraries were unrated in the last round because they had unreported 2007 data. These newly recognized libraries include
Dry Point Township Library, Cowden, IL; Skidompha Public Library, Damariscotta, ME; Battle Creek Public Library, NE; Sheldon Public Library, IA; Bee Cave Public Library, TX; Sanibel Public Library, FL; Ligonier Public Library, IN; Birmingham Public Library, AL; Lower Merion Library System, Ardmore, PA; and bigger urban systems such as the San Francisco Public Library and Denver Public Library.
While the overall representation of states among the star libraries remains similar to the prior edition, there are some notable differences (see the current state-by-state breakdown at www.libraryjournal.com/ljindex2010). Both Arkansas and Louisiana can boast their first star libraries—Gravette Public Library, AR, and Ouachita Parish Public Library, Monroe, LA! Illinois added a remarkable five new star libraries to its roster. New York lost two star libraries, while Ohio gained three, putting Ohio at the top of the state-by-state count.
Some libraries did receive lower scores or fewer stars than in the LJ Index 2009, Round Two ratings. However, a library's lower index score does not mean the library's actual performance in its community declined. Score changes can be a result of statistics that went down due to changing library priorities, or the stiffer competition that additional libraries bring to the ratings, or both.
LJ INDEX BASICS
LJ Index scores are based on four per capita service outputs: library visits, circulation, program attendance, and public Internet computer use. These four measures are closely related to one another statistically. By definition, service outputs don't measure quality, value, excellence, or relevance of services to the community.
A library's LJ Index score is based on the relationship among its four statistics and the averages of those statistics among its peers based on total operating expenditures. Because we use only four statistics, a very high value on one or more statistics can compensate for lower values on other statistics. This "sensitivity" of the LJ Index is intended to encourage both the identification of exceptional levels of specific services as well as thoughtful review of the validity and reliability of local data reports.
To be scored on the LJ Index, a library must meet four criteria: 1) match the IMLS definition of a public library; 2) serve a population of at least 1000; 3) have total operating expenditures of at least $10,000; and 4) report all four of the service outputs on which the LJ Index is based. Any issues with data accuracy or completeness should be directed to local libraries and/or their state library agencies.
LJ Index ratings for all the included libraries and the data on which they are based are readily available via the LJ Index homepage at www.libraryjournal.com/ljindex2010. In addition to these data, national and state rankings and national percentiles may be accessed and analyzed graphically and interactively by those with access to Bibliostat Connect, which provides the value-added benefit for customized analyses by linking via LJ Index data to other data from IMLS, the Public Library Data Service, state library agencies, and the U.S. Census.
| Author Information |
| Ray Lyons is an independent consultant and statistical programmer in Cleveland. His articles on library statistics and assessment have also appeared in Public Library Quarterly, Public Libraries, and Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. Keith Curry Lance is an independent consultant based in Denver. He was the longtime director of Colorado’s Library Research Service and a founding member of the Steering Committee of the Federal-State Cooperative System (FSCS) for Public Library Data |
