AGENDA #5f
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: HAPLR Index 2002 Ranking of the Chapel Hill Public Library as First in the State.
DATE : November 11 , 2002
This memo includes information about the recently published Hennon’s American Public Libraries Rating (HAPLR) Index., which compares public library indicators for excellence (Attachment 1). The Index ranked North Carolina 29th in the nation and the Chapel Hill Public Library 1st in the State, with a rating of 800 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 Federal-State Cooperative System web site may be found at the following web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=041#052
The fourth edition of the Hennon’s American Public Libraries Rating (HAPLR) Index was released by the U.S. Department of Education in July 2002. The Index used 2000 data from the Federal-State Cooperative System and service measures to calculate public library performance nationwide.
As in three previous editions, the HAPLR Index gave the Chapel Hill Public Library the highest score of any public library system in North Carolina (800). This year, Henderson County Public Library scored second (721) and New Hanover County Library in Wilmington scored third (716) in the State. Rankings for all North Carolina public libraries may be found at the following website: http://www.haplr-index.com/States/nc.html
What the HAPLR Index Measures: The HAPLR Index includes weights and scores for fifteen factors (six input; nine output). Each library is evaluated 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 measures traditional data for print services, reference service, funding, staffing and book checkouts. Approximately one third of the HAPLR Index is sensitive to materials circulation.
In the future, additional measures will be added to evaluate these non-print and less traditional library services. Currently, the HAPLR Index does not 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 report electronic use or Internet service because federal data on these services are not currently available nationally for comparison.
Usefulness of the Available Data: Ten population categories are included in the fourth edition of the Index. This breakdown allows libraries to compare themselves to same-sized libraries in similar communities. Same size libraries in Chapel Hill’s population category received HAPLR ratings of 859-925 and included:
Washington-Centerville Public Library, Centerville, Ohio (925)
Carmel Clay Public Library, Carmel, Indiana (897)
Westlake Porter Public Library, Westlake, Ohio ((895)
James Prendergast Library Association, Jamestown, New York (880)
Stow-Munroe Falls Public Library, Stow, Ohio ((869)
Cary Memorial Library, Lexington, Massachusetts (866)
Bettendorf Public Library Information Center, Bettendorf, Iowa (865)
Urbana Free Library, Urbana, Illinois (863)
Concord Pike Public Library, Wilmington, Delaware (861)
Middleton Public Library, Middleton, Wisconsin (859)
We believe that 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 similar public libraries located 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 additional service comparisons possible within five years.
CONCLUSION
This report is presented for the Council’s information. We would be pleased to provide further information desired by the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. “Great American Public Libraries: The 2002 HAPLR Rankings” American Libraries, October 2002 (p.3).