TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager Director
DATE: November 13, 2000
SUBJECT: Chapel Hill Public Library’s National and State Statistics Comparisons: HAPLR Index 2000
The attached report includes information on the recently published Hennon’s American Public Libraries Rating (HAPLR) Index., which compares public library indicators for excellence. The Index ranked North Carolina 35th in the nation and the Chapel Hill Public Library 1st in the state, with a rating of 782 out of 1000.
BACKGROUND
Nationwide public library statistics are collected and disseminated annually through the Federal-State Cooperative System for public library data (FSCS). Statistics are collected from nearly 9,000 public libraries. The FSCS web site is located at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=041#052
The third edition of the Hennon’s American Public Libraries Rating (HAPLR) Index (Please see Attachment A) was released by the U.S. Department of Education in June 2000. The Index uses 1998 preliminary final data from the Federal-State Cooperative System and service measures to calculate public library performance nationwide.
As in two previous editions, the HAPLR Index gave the Chapel Hill Public Library the highest score of any public library system in North Carolina (782). This year, Southern Pines scored second (738) and New Hanover County Library in Wilmington scored third (719) in the state.
What the HAPLR Index Measures: The HAPLR Index includes fifteen factors (six input; nine output). The HAPLR Index weights and scores each factor. Each library is organized within one of ten population groups. The scores for each library within a population category are then added to develop a weighted score.
The HAPLR Index focuses on circulation, staffing, collection, reference service, and funding levels. This means that it currently measures traditional data for print services, reference service, funding, staffing and book checkouts. Approximately 40% of the HAPLR Index is sensitive to materials circulation.
The HAPLR Index does not currently include data on other items that could have been calculated from the federally gathered data, such as data on audio and video collections or interlibrary loan activity. Also, the Index does not currently measure electronic use or Internet service, because federal data on these services are not currently available for comparison at this time. In the future, additional measures will be added to evaluate these non-print and less traditional library services.
National and North Carolina Rankings: North Carolina’s public libraries ranked 35th among the states, with an average ranking of 449. Although its score of 676 was lower than that of the Chapel Hill Public Library, the Public Library of Charlotte Mecklenburg County was the only North Carolina public library to achieve a national ranking in the top 100 libraries. This is because the top 100 public libraries in the nation are comprised by the ten top-ranked libraries within each of the ten population groups. The Public Library of Charlotte Mecklenburg County ranked tenth in its “Over 500,000” population group (Please see Attachment A) and was therefore included in the 100 top-ranked public libraries in the nation.
Usefulness of the Available Data: As stated above, ten population categories are included in the third edition of the Index. This population breakdown allows libraries to compare themselves to same-sized libraries in similar communities. In the future and as more service measures are compiled for comparison, the HAPLR Index will provide Chapel Hill with increasingly useful statistics to compare its library services with other similar public libraries in academic communities.
Limitations of the Data: Critics state that the HAPLR Index cannot be used as a general measure of excellence for public libraries. This is because the Index does not measure all library services, such as electronic use. However, federal data have only been collected on a consistent national basis since 1981. The data gathering process continues to be refined to provide more, and more consistent, information. We believe that trend is likely to accelerate, making the additional service comparisons possible within five years.
Because the HAPLR Index currently omits comparison information regarding less traditional services, it is less helpful immediately to the Library Board, staff and consultant as we develop the Library Master Plan through the third quarter of this year. The Board and staff are currently working with consultants and intend to submit a report to the Town Council by April 2001.
CONCLUSION
This report is presented for the Council’s information. We would be pleased to provide any further information as desired by the Council.
Attachment A: “Great American Public Libraries: HAPLR Ratings, 2000.” American Libraries, November 2000 (p. 3)