This is the 15th year in which Library Journal has scored U.S. public libraries on the LJ Index of Public Library Service and awarded Star Library ratings. The 2022 scores and ratings are based on FY20 data from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) Public Library Survey (PLS).

Every year, Star Libraries changes. The numbers of libraries reporting and qualifying for Star Libraries changes. The summary indicators for each expenditure category—the drivers of the index calculations—change. And the level of service output of each library changes, both in relation to past performance and compared to the performance of other libraries. The year 2020, however, brought unprecedented change.

U.S. public libraries were affected dramatically by COVID shutdowns and restrictions. Obviously, that impacts the statistics they report, on which the LJ Index is based. Moreover, those statistics were impacted unevenly from library to library and state to state. In part, that’s because some places were harder hit by the pandemic, and/or implemented more aggressive restrictions to contain the spread. However, there’s also a major difference in reported statistics driven by the fact that not all states report on the same fiscal year schedule. A library whose fiscal year includes only a few months of COVID impact is going to look very different than one whose year includes mostly pandemic months. And the changes libraries made in response to COVID challenges also changed how they delivered, measured, and reported the outputs used to calculate their Index scores.

TABLE 1

NEW SERVICES, OLD QUESTIONS

While the statistical definitions of the eight service outputs used to calculate LJ Index scores were unchanged, the circumstances in which they occurred changed radically for some libraries. How libraries chose to report their adapted service transactions impacts their scores.

Some libraries extended physical loan periods indefinitely. How did that affect circulation statistics? IMLS directs libraries to count renewals as new circulation transactions. Many libraries renew circulation transactions automatically. A library that renewed such extended loans automatically until it reopened would see its circulation figure impacted less severely than the same statistic for a library that did not renew loans automatically.

If a library was providing curbside service, was a pickup counted as a library visit?

Did public libraries that pivoted to virtual programs count their viewership as program attendance, as website visits, both, or neither? Libraries that were unable to produce virtual programs, or that were serving populations with less digital access, will see their program attendance numbers more impacted.

In addition, public libraries that extended the reach of their Wi-Fi into parking lots and established additional hotspots in community locations would have had more Wi-Fi sessions to report than those that could not extend their Wi-Fi coverage beyond the building.

WHO QUALIFIED

For 2022—based on 2020 data—5,359 public libraries received LJ Index scores, and 258 received Stars. That is the lowest number of libraries scored ever; little surprise, given the addition of new service outputs to the LJ Index in recent years and the pandemic’s impact on item response rates. For the first time ever, this year’s 140 new or returning Star Libraries outnumbered the 118 repeat Star Libraries. (See Table 2.) Two factors seem to explain this unprecedented turnover. First, the varying reporting periods from state to state. Of calendar 2020’s 10 months impacted by COVID (March to December), some libraries were affected for only four months during their reporting period (those reporting for July 2019 to June 2020), others for seven months (those reporting for October 2019 to September 2020), and yet others for 10 months (those reporting for January to December 2020).

TABLE 2

Second, item non-response—libraries declining or being unable to report specific data points—meant that many libraries that routinely received LJ Index scores and often received Star Library status in the past received neither in this round.

As usual in recent years, each library’s index score and its component statistics were subjected to an outlier test. If any of the statistics was three or more standard deviations from the mean for its spending category and accounted for 50 percent or more of the library’s overall raw score, that library was disqualified, to prevent a single extreme statistic from giving a library Star status. For the 2022 round, 283 public libraries did not pass the outlier test. That is up slightly from the 2021 round. This is likely explained by this year’s addition of library website visits to the LJ Index or by extremely atypical figures for other index statistics. The “Find Your Library” file at libraryjournal.com includes a tab for these libraries, reporting their LJ Index scores and indicating which of their statistics did not pass the outlier test.

WHAT'S IN A YEAR?

As outlined above, the single issue most affecting the Star Library ratings this round is the reporting period of the state or library. Because IMLS collects data via independent surveys conducted by 50 state library agencies and systems in DC and other territories, there is considerable variety in the 12-month period for which libraries report. In ordinary times, one 12-month period is as good as another. Between March and December 2020, however, times were anything but ordinary. (See Table 3.)

TABLE 3

Twenty-two states—the largest group—reported data for July 2019 through June 2020. Data for those states were only affected for four months. Five states reported data for October 2019 through September 2020. Data for those states were affected for seven months. Some 13 states reported data for the 2020 calendar year, meaning that their data were affected for 10 months. And 11 states either reported for fiscal years beginning earlier than July 2019 or allowed individual public libraries to choose their own 12-month period on which to report.

The impact of these different reporting periods on this year’s Star Libraries is not surprising, given the extraordinary conditions facing public libraries during the first months of the pandemic. Comparing this round of Star Libraries with last year’s provides clear indications of the pandemic’s impact. (See Tables 3 and 4.) In 2021, libraries reporting for July 2018 to June 2019 accounted for over a third (36.3 percent) of Star Libraries; this year, those libraries reporting for July 2019 to June 2020 accounted for more than half (53.9 percent). Conversely, in 2021, libraries reporting for calendar 2019 accounted for more than two out of five (44.9 percent) Star Libraries, while this year, reporting for calendar 2020, they accounted for only one out of six Star Libraries.

TABLE 4

MISSING ANSWERS

There are two kinds of missing data that prevent libraries from being considered for the LJ Index: libraries that don’t respond to their state library agency’s annual survey at all, and libraries that don’t answer all of the particular questions that the Index is based on. Comparisons of 2019 and 2020 data show that there was no dramatic increase in libraries not answering the survey at all associated with the pandemic.

TABLE 6

TABLE 7

However, there were several states where not answering a specific question was a significant problem. While the vast majority of states are at or near 100 percent reporting of the LJ Index’s four original variables—print circulation, library visits, program attendance, and public internet computer use—that is not the case for the newer four measures. Reporting of circulation of electronic materials is similarly high for all but three states, but the three newest statistics in the LJ Index—Wi-Fi sessions, electronic retrievals (database use), and, this year’s addition, library website visits—are problematic for several states. Twelve states have response rates below 90 percent for electronic retrievals; 21 have comparably low response rates for Wi-Fi sessions, and 33 states have similarly low response rates for website visits. Because to receive an LJ Index score a library must report all of the data required to calculate it, those states tend to be underrepresented among this year’s Star Libraries.

Ohio is particularly noteworthy in the 2022 cycle, given its long history of large numbers of Star Libraries. For the 2020 data year, three out of four Ohio public libraries (74.9 percent) did not report library visits. That is more than three times as high as the state with the next highest level of missing visits data (Wisconsin, 22.9 percent). Nationwide, only 6.1 percent of libraries meeting the basic LJ Index qualifications declined to report library visits. LJ contacted the State Library of Ohio to ask why this occured, and State Data Coordinator Kirsten Krumsee explained, “Most Ohio public libraries calculate annual visits based on a ‘typical week.’ Due to there being no typical week in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we asked that libraries input ‘not available.’ ” (Nationally, just over 30 percent of all responding public libraries indicated that their figures for library visits were based on “typical week” extrapolations.) Because so many Ohio libraries did not answer that question this year, many of those libraries that have been Star Libraries over the preceding 14 years were not eligible this year. In 2021, Ohio had 26 Star Libraries; in 2022, it has three. This opening up of almost two dozen Star Library slots created an opportunity for other libraries to achieve Star status for the first time.

OVERALL SERVICE LEVELS FELL

Another factor affecting the 2022 Star Libraries is the level of service outputs generated by all public libraries, as well as individual ones. (See Table 5.) It is little surprise that, nationwide, most 2020 service output totals were down compared to 2019. Predictably, the one service output that increased from 2019 to 2020 was circulation of electronic materials. It is also noteworthy that library website visits—added to the LJ Index for the first time this round—declined by 21 percent, even though more libraries reported website visits for 2020 than 2019. This may be because patron interaction with library websites frequently happens during library visits, using library computers—and those two statistics declined the most. Of the six outputs that declined, the drop in library website visits was the smallest.

TABLE 5

GAINED STARS

From 2020 to 2021, 27 U.S. public libraries improved their Star Library ratings while remaining in the same spending categories.

Nationwide, six public libraries moved from three to five stars: Oregon’s Multnomah County Library ($30M+), Michigan’s Kent District Library ($10–29.9M) and West Bloomfield Township Public Library ($1–4.9M), Illinois’s Des Plaines Public Library ($5–9.9M), Colorado’s Dolores County School/Public Library (Dove Creek, $100–199.9K), and Iowa’s Maxwell Public Library ($10–49.9K).

Eleven libraries moved from four to five stars. Among libraries spending $30 million or more, these include San Francisco Public Library and Missouri’s Saint Louis County Public Library. Among libraries spending $10 to 29.9 million, these include South Carolina’s Charleston County Public Library System and Virginia’s Henrico County Public Library. Among libraries spending $1 to 4.9 million, these include New York’s Westhampton Free Library and Jericho Public Library. Among libraries spending $400,000 to $999,999, these include Alaska’s Homer Public Library and Snow Public Library in Orleans, MA. Alpine County Library/Archives, CA, is the only library spending $200,000 to $399,999 to move from four to five stars. Among libraries spending $10,000 to $49,999, Iowa’s Garnavillo Public Library and Tennessee’s Tellico Plains Public Library moved from four to five stars.

Ten libraries moved from three to four stars. Louisiana’s East Baton Rouge Parish Library is the only library spending $30 million or more in this group. Libraries spending $5 to 9.9 million in this group include California’s Newport Beach Public Library and Illinois’s Champaign Public Library and Vernon Area Public Library District. Libraries spending $1 to 4.9 million in this group include: Harrison Memorial Library in Carmel, CA, New York’s Bronxville Public Library, and Utah’s Park City Library. The three remaining libraries moving from three to four stars are the public libraries in Norwich, VT ($200–399.9K), Britton, SD ($100–199.9K), and Olin, IA ($10–49.9K).

SAME, FEWER, AND LOST STARS

In addition to the 27 public libraries that gained stars in 2022, 57 libraries retained the same number of stars for 2021 and 2022, and 29 libraries received fewer 2022 stars than they received in 2021. While there are 140 new Star Libraries for 2022, 138 Star Libraries for 2021 lost star status.

STILL STARS, NEW CONSTELLATIONS

A dozen public libraries remained Star Libraries while moving from one expenditure category to another between 2021 and 2022. Half of those libraries moved up one spending category, while the other half moved down one category.

The six libraries that remain Star Libraries after moving up from one expenditure category to another are: Califonia’s Palo Alto City Library (four to five stars, $5–9.9M to $10–29.9M); Oregon’s Port Orford Public Library (four to five stars, $100–199.9K to $200–399.9K); Nebraska’s Ashland Public Library (maintaining three stars, $100–199.9K to $200–399.9K) and Ravenna Public Library (maintaining three stars, $50–99.9K to $100–199.9K); Iowa’s Elk Horn Public Library (five to three stars, $10–49.9K to $50–99.9K); and South Dakota’s Lemmon Public Library (five to four stars, $10–49.9K to $50–99.9K).

The six libraries that remained Star Libraries after moving down from one expenditure category to another are: California’s San Mateo County Libraries (maintaining five stars, $30M+ to $10–29.9M); Missouri’s North Kansas City Public Library (maintaining five stars, $1–4.9M to $400–999.9K) and Carrollton Public Library (four to five stars, $200–399.9K to $100–199.9K); New York’s Red Hook Public Library (maintaining five stars, $400–999.9K to $200–399.9K); Vermont’s Craftsbury Public Library (four to five stars, $100–199.9K to $50–99.9K); and Eleanor Daggett Memorial Library in Chama, NM, (three to five stars, $50–99.9K to $10–49.9K).

ALWAYS STARS

What is perhaps most extraordinary about the 2022 round of Star Libraries is that it identifies 25 public libraries that have been Star Libraries in every edition for 15 years. Considering the changes in the services provided by public libraries over that period, and how those changes have been reflected in the evolution of the LJ Index—not to mention a seismic event like 2020’s onset of COVID—it is remarkable that there should be any.

Of the 25 always-Star Libraries, two are especially noteworthy. Michigan’s Ann Arbor District Library and Massachusetts’s Wellfleet Public Library have been five-Star libraries in every round for 15 years. (See below for a Q&A with the Ann Arbor library’s leaders.)

Fourteen states have one or more always-Star Libraries. New York state has the most with seven, followed by Nebraska with three. Three states—Colorado, Illinois, and Massachusetts—have two
always-Star Libraries each. And eight states have one always-Star Library each: Alabama, Alaska, California, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, and \Texas. Notably, the states with always-Star Libraries represent every region of the nation: Northeast (MA, ME, NY), South (AL, TX), Midwest (IL, MI, NE, OH), and West (AK, CA, CO, MT, OR).

STATES WITH MOST AND FEWEST 2022 STARS

As discussed above, reporting period had a significant impact on states’ gains and losses of Star library status. The 23 states with libraries reporting for July 2019 to June 2020 had 93 Star Libraries in 2021 and 137 in 2022, a net gain of 44. Of these 23 states, four gained five or more new Star Libraries in this latest round: Iowa, 11; Illinois and Massachusetts, seven each; and Arizona, five. Eleven of those states gained between one and three new Star Libraries; six states neither gained nor lost Star Libraries; and two states saw minor losses—Montana, one, and Alaska, two.

The 18 states with libraries reporting for calendar 2020 had 115 Star Libraries in 2021 and 42 in 2022, a net loss of 73. Of these 18 states, three lost the greatest numbers of Star Libraries: Ohio, 23; New York, 12; and Wisconsin, all eight of its 2021 Stars. Eleven states lost one to five Star Libraries each; one state, Louisiana, lost none; and three states saw minor gains—Alaska, two, and Maine and North Dakota, one each.

STATES WITH NO STAR LIBRARIES

There are no 2022 Star Libraries in 14 states: Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Surprisingly, only four of these states—Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin—are ones whose reporting period was calendar 2020, the most disadvantaged schedule. Reporting period impacts were least for seven—Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Florida and Mississippi were in the middle, with report periods including seven months of exposure to pandemic-related impacts. The remaining state, New Hampshire, allowed libraries to report for 12 months between July 2019 and December 2020, so some reported on July to June and others the calendar year.

Despite the impact of reporting periods, the data do not point to the state reporting period as the explanation for a state having no Star Libraries. Instead, it is more likely that an absence of Star Libraries in a state can be attributed a relatively small number of public libraries, more libraries organized on a county or multi-jurisdictional basis (see the 2017 Star Libraries article), and/or relatively low per-capita funding.

It is noteworthy that 12 of the 14 states with no Star Libraries are ones where the average total operating expenditures per capita for public libraries scored on the LJ Index is lower—often substantially lower—than the average for the nation as a whole. (See Table 8.)

TABLE 8

Conversely, nine of the 13 states with five or more 2022 Star Libraries have average total operating expenditures per capita for libraries scored on the LJ Index that are higher than the national average. (See Table 9.)

TABLE 9

What these findings tell us about the relationship between library expenditures and service output is that, while superior funding levels substantially improve the odds of a library generating superior quantities of service output, it is not an ironclad guarantee. Factors difficult-to-impossible to quantify—community support, board and director leadership, and staff effort—also play critical roles. 

Q&A with Ann Arbor District Library

LJ spoke with Eli Neiburger, Library Director, and Richard Retyi, Communications & Marketing Manager, of Michigan's Ann Arbor District Library (AADL), on why they think the library has 15 years of Star status.

LJ : To what do you attribute your library being named a five Star Library for all 15 years of this project?

AADL: This library system is intensely utilized by the communities of our district. We see a lot of desire to use the library and we try our best to make it easy and pleasant to do so. We’ve worked hard to develop a responsive relationship with our patrons, so we get tons of feedback through all channels about everything we do and don’t do. Our staff excels at hearing this feedback and coming up with great ideas for sustainable services, exciting events, or unique collections that delight and inspire our patrons, making it easier, and more rewarding, for them to use their library.

Specifically, what do you believe sets apart your community of library users/board/ staff that drives your high per capita statistics? Can you give an example of a particular initiative, service, or project that influenced your library’s service output data?

Our patrons use AADL with great enthusiasm. Our staff’s dedication to excellent, responsive service and our elected board’s focus on effective governance are the keys to AADL’s high utilization. Every patron is looking for something different from the library, and AADL works hard to offer something for everyone.

In a March 22 press release, AADL attributes its perennial five-star rating to “many … public-facing and behind-the-scenes projects and services [such as its] video game tournaments, AADL’s tools collection, the Library’s Secret Lab, [its] publishing imprint Fifth Avenue Press and community audio incubator Fifth Avenue Studios, as well as a number of AADL’s ongoing festivals and programs, along with helping create [its] annual Summer Game.”

A Note About 2020 Electronic Retrievals Data

Each year, LJ Index scores are subjected to two outlier tests, and, if both tests are failed, that library is deemed ineligible to receive Star Library status. For the 2022 round, using 2020 data, a statewide reporting error—reporting of statewide e-retrievals for every library—was discovered for one state. The extreme values for e-retrievals resulting from this duplicative reporting practice meant that every library in that state—save one that narrowly passed the existing outlier tests—was eliminated from Star Library consideration due to unacceptable outliers. Because the data were submitted by the state library agency and accepted and released by IMLS—the agencies ultimately responsible for PLS data quality—and because LJ has a policy of not altering its outlier tests after the fact, one library in the state received Star Library status. For future rounds of Star Libraries, additional outlier tests will be developed to ensure that misreporting of this type and on this scale eliminates libraries from Star Library consideration. IMLS has also been made aware of this issue, and is taking steps to address it. It should also be noted that the disqualification of the state’s other libraries over inaccurately reported e-retrieval data may have cost some libraries Star Library status that they would have received based on accurate e-retrievals data.

Return to Star Libraries Landing Page

Keith Curry Lance (keithlance@comcast.net) is an independent consultant based in Boulder, CO. He also consults with the Louisville, CO–based RSL Research Group. In both capacities, he conducts research on libraries of all types for federal and state library agencies, state library associations, and other library-related organizations. For more information, visitKeithCurryLance.com.