HAPLR 2009: Tenth Anniversary Edition

Thomas J. Hennen Jr.
June 2009

This year marks the 10^th Anniversary of Hennen’s American Public Library Ratings (HAPLR).  In 10 years HAPLR has become widely recognized in the public library world.  The rating system has critics as well as fans.  I am proud of HAPLR and what it has done for libraries in the nation.  I will continue to refine HAPLR based on the advice of both fans and critics. 

Hundreds of newspapers, radio stations, and television stations have covered HAPLR ratings for libraries throughout the country.  Thousands of libraries have purchased HAPLR reports on their libraries, reports that compare a library to comparably sized libraries in the state and nation.  Many more thousands of libraries have used the HAPLR website to make quick comparisons on library data.  A total of 39 states have had at least one top ten library. A quarter of all top 10 libraries were in Ohio, another quarter were in New York, Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota.

Just 11 libraries have appeared in all 9 editions.  They are listed in the table below. A total of 173 more libraries appeared on the list two or more times.  In all, 299 libraries have appeared as a HAPLR top ten library in one of the 10 population categories over the years.  Some libraries changed population categories during that time and thus appeared in more than one of the categories.  

Libraries in All Editions of HAPLR

Since the first edition I have noted and lamented the problems with electronic data use in libraries.  Ever increasing amounts of library budgets are going into full text databases and other forms of electronic use, both in libraries and from library user’s homes while the resulting output measures have been wanting.  For years the state data coordinators tried to come up with definitions of library spending and outputs for electronic use. 

For the most recent edition of the dataset, the Institute of Museums and Library Services began reporting “Public Internet Users.”  The LJ Index uses this new set of data, but I have chosen to wait a bit.  The data are, in my opinion, still too skewed.  When I compare the high numbers of Public Internet Users to the low numbers, they are far more disproportionate than any of the other numbers used by either HAPLR or the LJ Index.  Either the reporting libraries do not understand the questions being asked about their library’s electronic use data, or there is something else wrong. 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  So, I am deeply flattered by the LJ Index.   Competition is a very good thing.  I am sure that having a competing rating system will lead to improvements in both systems.  HAPLR includes both input and output measures while the LJ Index uses only output measures.  I discuss further comparisons on the LJ Index Response page. 

I must add that it has taken me 10 years to realize the courage that American Libraries Editor Leonard Kniffel demonstrated when he published HAPLR ratings for the first time in 1999.  He and American Libraries were criticized because publication appeared to imply endorsement of the ratings by the American Library Association even though he repeatedly noted that this was not the case.  Thanks Leonard.

Home Ratings Order Samples Press FAQ Misc

April 2010

© haplr-index.com
Webmaster: thennen@haplr-index.com