[Publib] America's Star Libraries: the LJ Index of Public LibraryService

[Michael Golrick]

I have a print out of the LJ article, of Tom Hennen's latest, and the
feature article from the November-December issue of Public Libraries
sitting on my desk.

 

I also have a document started on my desktop to analyze and explain to
the lay-librarian what they all mean. I need to read and understand what
the LJ index does, and to understand how it is different from Hennen's
work.

 

One item to note, and it is particularly important in Louisiana, is that
while the LJ article is called the 2009 index, it is based on 2006 data.
For us that is important because many of the southern parishes (i.e.
counties) in the state were just beginning to recover from the effects
of Katrina and Rita. The last of the temporary branches to replace
destroyed libraries only opened in December 2008, and I attended a
ground breaking a week or so ago for the first permanent replacement
branch. [And at the same time the use figures were way up in communities
which housed those displaced by the storm.]

 

I will share my thoughts when I have finished my analysis. Meanwhile, I
thank Steve Benson for his observations.

 

Michael A. Golrick

Public Library Consultant, State Data Coordinator

State Library of Louisiana

mgolrick at slol.lib.la.us

 

ALA Councilor-at-Large, Candidate for ALA Councilor-at-Large, 2009

________________________________

From: publib-bounces at webjunction.org
[mailto:publib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Steve Benson
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:03 AM
To: publib at webjunction.org
Subject: Re: [Publib] America's Star Libraries: the LJ Index of Public
LibraryService

 

Let the debate begin . . .

 

My initial response, after a quick review of the ratings, is that some
libraries I'm very familiar with were rated incorrectly.  Libraries A, B
and C, all in a common budget category, were in the wrong order.  There
were measures and intangables not taken into consideration that clearly
would affect how patrons would express their preferences.  While I
recognize flaws in any ranking system and understand the criticisms
leveled at the Hennen ratings, somehow his calculations seemed to better
capture relative quality amongst the libraries I'm familiar with.

 

I suggest that the explanations accompanying the LJ rankings fall short
of sound reasoning in some places. The explaination of the focus on
output measures and the exclusion of input measures included a caution
that measures such as staffing or materials budgets are figures we may
not want to tout to the public lest they be seen as an excess ripe for
budget cuts.  The number of staff can relate to the quality of
interactions between staff and patrons - more staff allows you to spend
more time with each patron.  The materials budget directly relates to a
size and depth of collections which shouldn't be ignored in any measure
of library quality.

 

It's a good thing to have multiple rating systems because it puts
pressure on each to justify it's assumptions and refine itself.  So,
congrats to the folks that have put together the LJ ratings and a
renewed thanks to Mr. Hennen for his efforts.

 

Steve Benson

Director of Library Services

Richardson (Tx) Public Library

 


 

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Miller, Rebecca (RBI-US)
<miller at reedbusiness.com> wrote:

Colleagues,

The new LJ Index of Public Library Service, by Ray Lyons and Keith Curry
Lance, rates 7,115 public libraries on four per capita output measures
(circulation, visits, program attendance, public Internet use) and gives
stars (think Michelin guides) to the top libraries in each category. 

Check it out at 

http://www.libraryjournal.com/ljindex2009

 

Regards, 

Rebecca

 

Rebecca T. Miller

Executive Editor

Library Journal

www.libraryjournal.com <http://www.libraryjournal.com/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/attachments/20090219/4c75a34b/attachment.htm