Frequently Asked Questions on the HAPLR Index

• What led you to do the HAPLR ratings?

• Why don’t you consider electronic measures?

• Why don’t you consider square feet for the building?

• Isn’t it really quality of service that counts, why rate quantity only?

• Who is the HAPLR author?

• How does the author's library rate on the HAPLR Ratings?

• What has the response been to HAPLR Ratings?

• Are there similar rating methods for libraries?

• How many libraries are there in each population category?

• Can one compare rating numbers between two or more population categories?

• How can you mix both input and output measures in the Ratings?

• What does a given rating number mean, and how should I interpret it?

• Is a score of 500 considered median for all categories?

• Can you provide specific information and ratings on my library?

• What are the differences between the editions?

  What led you to do the HAPLR ratings?

Practically every time you pick up a magazine or newspaper there is another rating system for universities, places to work, hospitals, mutual funds, you name it.  But there was none for libraries.  Worse than that, the Money magazine listing of best places to live covered libraries by measuring only books per capita.  I was certain that a more comprehensive tool was needed. 

  Why don’t you consider electronic measures?

For a long time I have wanted to do so and finally for the 2005 edition, I can.  Up until now, the  Federal State Cooperative Service data, on which I base the ratings, did include such measures.  For details, see the electronic measures page.  Nevertheless, I have still not incorporated these measures into the HAPLR scores because I believe them to be too unreliable. 

  Why don’t you consider square feet for the building?

Up until now, the  Federal State Cooperative Service data, on which I base the ratings, did not include such measures.  For details, see the building size page. 

  Isn’t it really quality of service that counts; why rate quantity only?      

Of course quality counts.  As I said in the January 1999 issue of American Libraries, “data measurement cannot capture a friendly smile and a warm greeting at the circulation desk.  Nor can data measurement alone measure the excitement of a child at story time or a senior surfing the Internet for the first time.”  But we have no accepted and nationally consistent measures of quality in library services that would allow for comparisons like the HAPLR Index.  I agree that numbers alone do not identify truly great libraries, quality counts too.  On the other hand, I do not believe that a library can be truly great with poor numbers.  As my logic professor taught me, the numbers are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Who is the HAPLR author?

Thomas J. Hennen Jr., the author of the HAPLR Index, has over 25 years worth of experience in public libraries. He is Director of the Waukesha County Federated Library System.  He has a Masters Degree In Library Science from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.  From 1983 to 1999 he was Administrator of Lakeshores Library System in southeastern Wisconsin.  From 1975 to 1983 he was Director of Watonwan County Library in southeastern Minnesota.  He has published in Library Journal, American Libraries and in other American Library Association publications. He had a column on rural library materials for the American Library Association's Booklist magazine. He has been a speaker for library associations throughout the U.S. and Canada.

How does the author's library rate on the HAPLR Ratings?

I coordinate the activities of 16 libraries in Waukesha County.  In a federated library system the activities of individual libraries are locally determined.  The federated library system deals with interlibrary relationships and provides leadership and overall direction.  Nevertheless, the scores of libraries in the county are mostly very good. 

What has the response been to the HAPLR Ratings?

Overwhelming would be a good description to the response to the first edition.  The web site (HAPLR-Index.com) averages about 1,000 unique annual visitors per month.  The visitors are from all over the globe, but primarily from the U.S. of course.  Press coverage has also been excellent.  In the last several years, scores and scores of newspapers covered the index with feature or front-page coverage about their local library’s rankings. 

   
What do you say to those who note that the information on which you base your index seems out of date?

Anyone involved with data gathering and statistics wishes that they could be timelier, but we do what we can.  HAPLR 2006 is based on 2004 data reported in calendar year 2005 and published by FSCS in July 2006. The information was collected by the states and submitted to the Federal State Cooperative Service (FSCS).  Information is checked for internal consistency by FSCS and then published first on the Internet.  The FSCS imputes data for the 2,000 libraries that did not report the data necessary to calculate their rankings for this edition. Data from FSCS for 2000 was nearly a year late in being published, so the 2001 edition was cancelled.  As states increasingly automate their data collection and allow for filing over the Internet, the data will become closer and closer to “real time,” rather than the belated information we are now working with. 

Are there similar rating methods for libraries?

The HAPLR Index is the first of its kind for libraries in the United States.  There are no similar programs in either Canada, Australia or New Zealand.  I know that there is some interest in developing a similar index in Australia and New Zealand, because I published an article on the topic in APLIS, the Australasian Public Library and Information Science magazine.  

Great Britain adopted national standards, and in 2000 the Audit Commission began publishing both a summary annual reports of library conditions and individualized ratings of libraries.  Audit Commission personnel base the reports on statistical data, long-range plans, local government commitment to the library, and a site visit.  The Audit Commission is an independent body.  Every library is assigned a score. The scoring chart displays performance in two dimensions. A horizontal axis shows how good the service is at present, on a scale ranging from no stars for poor to three stars for excellent.   A vertical axis shows the improvement prospects over time of the service, also on a four-point scale.  The narrative reports, which are about 40 pages long, are very specific and quite blunt in their assessments and recommendations for improvement.  This is not quite the same thing as the HAPLR Index, but close.  See their site 
http://www.bestvalueinspections.gov.uk/

There is a project funded by DG13 of the European Commission within the Telematics Applications Programme. They are using Internet communications to develop a continuously updated database of statistics about library activities and associated costs in the context of their national economies. This project does not develop an index similar to the HAPLR-Index, however.  That information may be found at http://www.cordis.lu/libraries/en/publib.html

Finally, and the closest thing to the HAPLR Index is being developed in Germany.  The project sponsored by the Bertelsmann Foundation is called "BIX- The Library Index."  

Bertelsmann Publishing partnered with the German library association to produce BIX, a library index quite similar to HAPLR.  The main difference between BIX and HAPLR, aside from the publishing house backing, is that BIX was designed to provide comparisons of one library to another as well as over time. HAPLR compares all libraries to one another only during a given year.   An English language description of the BIX index is available at:
http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/documents/Projekt_Info_Englisch_010112.pdf

  How many libraries are there in each population category?

There are over 9,000 library entities included in the Federal State Cooperative Service database. Library systems with multiple branches are counted as a single entity. The population categories used are those used by the FSCS for other comparisons, with one exception.  The FSCS data includes another category of libraries over 1 million population, but that would have provided too few libraries for purposes of the Index. 

Can one compare rating numbers between two or more population categories?

With care, yes, one can do so.  There are variations in the highs, lows, medians, and so forth that vary by population sizes.  So a score of say 600 may be more easily attainable in some categories than others.  But the variations are not so extreme that no comparisons across population categories are possible.

   How can you mix both input and output measures?

Some have criticized the HAPLR Index for including both input and output measures in the same index.  They note that inputs like how much money is spent on materials or how many periodicals the library owns are different from outputs such as circulation per capita or turnover rate.  

Combining the two makes it possible to have a library with good inputs and poor outputs score moderately well.  Conversely a library shortchanged by its community on funding that manages through good management to provide excellent service outcomes may rank more poorly than a library in a rich community with only moderately good management and output measures.  

I expect to evolve the index to get closer to answering the “are you getting what you paid for” type of question.  At this point, it appears to me that 70 to 80% of the output is traceable to good input levels.  The rest is probably traceable to good management or other factors that may not be measurable.  

I hope to do further investigation on the correlation of input and output some day soon. (Research firms with grant money to spare, please take note J.)

What does a given rating number mean, and how should I interpret it?

The HAPLR Index is similar to an ACT or SAT score with a theoretical minimum of 1 and a maximum of 1,000.  Most libraries scored between 260 and 730, so scores above and below those numbers are remarkable.  

Consider the chart below for the libraries in the over 500,000-population category, for a short idea of the rating methodology.  A library above the 75th percentile for expenditure per capita of $38.50 will get a higher score on this measure than one below the 25th percentile. ]

Expenditure per capita is weighted more heavily than percent of budget devoted to materials.  In the HAPLR Index each library is compared to all others in its population category on all 15 measures.  The combined score is then transformed into an index score so that all can be easily compared with a single number.  For more information see the next question and follow the relevant links to rating methods.  
 

Where can I see the specific calculations behind the index ratings?

An index number is always an attempt to encapsulate a lot of data into a single number.  No such index number is perfect, of course.  An explanation of how the ratings are calculated is available on the explanation of ratings page. 

Is a score of 500 considered median for all categories?        

Just about, but not perfectly.  Blame it on Microsoft Excel, or the vagaries of prime numbers, if blame you must. Each of the 15 measures is a ratio, such as volumes per capita. When two non-prime numbers are involved in the ratio, it is possible for two or more libraries to tie on that measures.  When ties happen, the total number of points assigned are skewed towards a higher number than would otherwise have occurred.  In the grand scheme of things, this matters little, because the median scores are affected only very marginally.

 Can you provide specific information and ratings on my library?

Not for free, this is not my day job and there are almost 9,0000 libraries in the database. The HAPLR Index provides a comparative rating system that librarians, trustees and the public can use to improve and extend library services in the third millennium. Order a rating sheet for your library today.  See a sample report, then get a customized report for your library. Remember that you are granted permission to reprint any reasonable number of copies needed as long as HAPLR copyright notice is included on each copy.  Standard reports are available for $15each, specialized reports are also available.   All reports include:

ü     your library's HAPLR score, rank of all comparably sized libraries and percentile scores.

ü     a graphic comparison of the percentile ranking of your library for the 15 input and output measures.

ü     a detail report on the library's score on each of the 15 factors and the library's rank among like sized libraries.

ü     comparisons to the 5 closest sized libraries in state and nation.  

What are the differences between the editions?

This seventh edition of HAPLR Ratings is based on 2004 data from FSCS as published on the World Wide Web in July of 2006.  The federal agency, FSCS, compiles the annual reports as reported by state library agencies for nearly 9,000 libraries into a single dataset. 

A Fall 2001 edition of HAPLR had to be postponed and then abandoned because of delays in FSCS publication of the data.  The results for 1999 data should have been available in Spring 2001, allowing publication of HAPLR scores in Fall 2001.  But those results were delayed for almost a year and not published until May of 2002.  The 2000 data were published just 8 weeks later in July 2002.  FSCS indicates that it is their intent to publish the data in a more timely fashion from now on.  Let us hope that is true.  For the years since the 2001 cancellation, they have done so.

The first edition was in the January 1999 issue of American Libraries, the second in the September issue.  The third edition is in the November 2000 issue of American Libraries.