[Michlib-l] Responses to

[Dave Ewick]

Below are the responses I received answering my question about eliminating overdue fines. 


Discussion on Removing Overdue Fines

 
Colleagues,
 
I read with interest the recent Slate article on eliminating overdue fines and wondered if any local libraries have taken this step? If you have, please respond to me off list. I will compile the responses I get and repost them. Here's the link to the article in case you missed it: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2017/02/librarians_are_realizing_that_overdue_fines_undercut_libraries_missions.html 
 
While I'd like to take the plunge and eliminate fines, I'm worried about 1) sending a message to patrons that we don't need the revenue; 2) the actual loss of revenue it could cause; and 3) whether it would cause issues with our neighbors if we removed fines from residents but kept them for reciprocal borrowers and other non-residents. I welcome any thoughts on the issue, even if you haven't done it. 
 
Thanks,
Dave

Cromaine: We have never charged fines. It is highly unlikely we would. As our trustees have explained (and me, and our staff), the labor cost of counting nickels & dimes is absurd. 
Because we never have, it isn't a loss, although some patrons have told us that we should. These, I suspect, are patrons who either do not use us or who are OCD on returning on time. I have seen a fines budget of $90,000 per year (Bloomfield, I think?). And, as a relatively new (one year) member of SAS, you bet it causes our neighbor libraries problems. But those are their problems and not ours. We have not seen a big uptick in patrons driving out of their way to northeast Livingston County in order to return their materials at a library that does not charge fines. Having fine structures that differ by "class" of library cardholder? Ick, both in communications and the actual day-to-day attempt to deliver positive service. 

Highland: Thanks for raising the question. The article had caught my eye, too.
 
Part of what was of interest is that cards are blocked for those with items "more than three weeks overdue." So, it's not that there's no consequences - in fact, I think the blocking of the card happens a little sooner in this scenario than our current time frame for billing for an item as assumed lost. Lost/damaged fines still apply. So, emphasis falls on materials recovery not on due date rules.
 
Don't think we're ready to take the leap - concern for lost revenue - but I made sure my Board saw this article, with the line about empowering staff to use good judgement in waiving fines highlighted. Weigh lost revenue against good will, time spent in haggling over fines and negativity that generates and I'm honestly not sure how that would fall out.
 
When Cromaine/Hartland (Highland's neighbor) joined the Shared Automated System I was initially worried because they are fine free and I didn't know how that would affect us. But at this point, without really digging into it, I can't see it's been a major problem.

 
Independence:  We did not eliminate fines but we did turn on the auto-renew feature on our ILS. It has reduced late materials, increased circulation, and made for happier patrons. We have a max of 2 renewals on most items. Some would say that the increased circulation is a false inflation of the stat but in my opinion, if the patron keeps an item past the due date we should be counting that as an additional circulation. We did have a campaign to educate patrons about the importance of holds when you need an item and how that prevents auto-renew. Auto-renew has reduced revenue somewhat but fine revenue has always been less than 1% of our budget anyway so we decided it was a positive feature for patrons without giving the impression that we don't need the money at all, as you said.
 
I remember that Capital Area District Library used to be fine-free when I was working in Lansing about 11 years ago, but reinstated fines shortly thereafter...I'm not sure of the exact reasoning. I believe that while Lance Werner was their director he increased the fine rates in an effort to improve revenue but it backfired in that regard and resulted in patrons getting better about returning their materials on time which, as he said when he was telling me about it, is really the point of fines in the first place. If you want an accurate account you should really contact him about it.
 
It will be interesting to hear what you find out.

 
Gross Pointe:  It is something we are thinking about in Grosse Pointe, although still in a very conceptual way at this point. I am eager to hear the results of your query from other TLN libraries!

 
Flat Rock: Interesting read. I would not completely eliminate fines because the materials we have are for everyone to use and the fines are for several reasons, including patrons feeling more compelled to return the item they checked out. More importantly, patrons are at a disadvantage when item isn't returned at the due date. That being said, overdue fines can be waived or payment plans can be created for those who are unable to pay the full amount or if the patron doesn't have a "history" of overdue/lost fines. These are case by case scenarios, of course.

 
Garden City: My initial thought was "what about the revenue?" But then I considered what a small percent of our revenue that is. In Garden City, as with the libraries in the article, overdue fees amount to only 1% of our revenue. I think that might be a fair exchange for the good will and positive PR. (I am less confident my Board would see it this way.)
 
I do not think the public will see it as "we don't need the money". Especially if your staff have a consistent Message with which to respond. Something akin to "Fines were never about generating revenue." 
 
If I were to eliminate overdue fines, I would do so equally for all my users (resident or not). My question would then be, what about other library's materials borrowed here, or returned here? My users might be confused as to why they owe a fine for this book but not that when they are both late. On the other hand, should I be waiving fines on your library's materials as a standard procedure, just because the book passed through my library to the user?

 

David L. Ewick, MLS, MS
City Librarian
Southfield Public Library
26300 Evergreen
Southfield, Michigan 48076
248 796-4300
dewick at southfieldlibrary.org 
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail3.mcls.org/pipermail/michlib-l/attachments/20170307/b5d0d16f/attachment.html>