Reconsidering Overdue Fines in The Midst of A Pandemic

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 6

Public Services Quarterly

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wpsq20

Reconsidering overdue fines in the midst of a


pandemic

Frances Chung

To cite this article: Frances Chung (2021) Reconsidering overdue fines in the midst of a
pandemic, Public Services Quarterly, 17:2, 136-140, DOI: 10.1080/15228959.2021.1899101

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2021.1899101

Published online: 29 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 637

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wpsq20
PUBLIC SERVICES QUARTERLY
2021, VOL. 17, NO. 2, 136–140
https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2021.1899101

FUTURE VOICES IN PUBLIC SERVICES


Miriam L. Matteson, Column Editor

COLUMN DESCRIPTION. The Future Voices in Public Services column is a forum for graduate stu-
dents in library and information science programs to discuss key issues in academic library public
services, to envision what they feel librarians in public service have to offer to academia, to tell us
their visions for the profession, or to share research being conducted in library schools. We hope
to provide fresh perspectives from those entering our field, in both the United States and other
countries. Interested students in library and information science programs are invited to contact
Miriam L. Matteson, [email protected].

Reconsidering overdue fines in the midst of a pandemic


Frances Chung
College of Information, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Fines place a negative light on libraries and create a barrier to access Access services; public
that is most damaging to low-income groups. Recognizing the harm, services; library fines;
public libraries have implemented programs and new policies to circulation; loan policies;
academic libraries
reduce or eliminate fines, which have consistently been met with
positive comments and an influx of item returns. Many academic
libraries have followed, resulting in different impacts on return rates
and overdue items. The coronavirus pandemic has taken a financial
toll on college students and sped up the process of going fines free
at the University of North Texas Libraries. While there are plenty of
arguments both for and against fines to be discussed, forgiving fines
certainly puts libraries in a favorable position.

The current pandemic has increased the financial stress faced by many students, and
unfortunately in some cases, library fines add to this stress. Students who are no longer
able to stay in town and return their library materials worry that overdue fines will
accrue until they are able to return to campus. Similarly, they are concerned that these
fines will block them from enrolling in classes or receiving financial aid. While the
impact of library fines on students is not new, there is a growing number of calls for
overdue fines to be eliminated or reconsidered. Fines traditionally served as an incentive
for the timely return of items, but libraries have realized that the financial stress they
place on patrons varies greatly, and disproportionally affects students with lower
incomes, and have questioned their necessity. Though perceptions of fines have not
been thoroughly studied in academic libraries, the potential of fines influenced library
use by low-income families in Australian public libraries (State Library of Australia,
2008). Sifton (2009) and other critics say that fines conflict with libraries’ mission of

CONTACT Frances Chung [email protected] College of Information, University of North Texas, Denton, TX
76203-1277, USA.
Comments and suggestions should be sent to the Column Editor: Miriam L. Matteson, School of Library and
Information Science, Kent State University, 274 E. First Ave., Columbus, OH 43201, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
ß 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
PUBLIC SERVICES QUARTERLY 137

service by creating a barrier to access and discouraging patrons from using the library.
As university libraries work to address inequities within higher education, their policies
should also align with their goals. This column provides an overview of fines in public
and academic libraries, discusses arguments around fines, and covers changes that the
University of North Texas Libraries made to its circulation and fines policies since
the pandemic.
Traditionally, fines along with loan periods and renewal limits work to ensure that
library materials are returned on time. Before electronic notification systems were avail-
able, fines motivated patrons while also supplementing library budgets. Long overdue
items often “appeared” in discreet areas or with an apology note, while others never
returned. Fortunately for some patrons, libraries will offer fine amnesty periods during
which all overdue fines are waived when materials are returned. In extreme cases, libra-
ries hire collections agencies to get their items back, but ultimately, libraries would like
to retain both their items and patrons. Accomplishing these goals together through fines
has proved to be a difficult balance. This never-ending debate has many arguments on
both sides, but a growing number of libraries are eliminating overdue fines. Multiple
studies conclude that the impact on return rates from assessing fines varies across aca-
demic libraries. At two mid-sized academic libraries, patrons were more likely to return
items prior to the due date with a fines policy in place (Sung & Tolppanen, 2013).
Additionally, faculty and graduate students were more likely to return items on time
compared to undergraduate students, who have a shorter loan period and fewer renew-
als allowed. However, a similar study at Vancouver Island University library concluded
that fines did not affect return rates (Reed et al., 2014). The percent of overdue items
also decreased slightly when fines were removed and loan periods were extended. While
at New York University’s Bobst Library, there was an increase in overdue items after
removing fines, but significantly less billed as missing (Rupp et al., 2010). Since many
factors play into patron return behavior, going fines free is a decision for each library
to make for itself.
The main arguments for fines are that they encourage community-mindedness and
ensure material is circulated efficiently (McMenemy, 2010). Though they may have
accomplished those goals historically, the demands for resources have shifted. While
fines may ensure access to physical copies, nowadays services like interlibrary loan and
instant access through electronic resources have lessened the demand for physical cop-
ies. Keeping an item longer than expected has less of an effect on other patrons when
they have other access options for checked-out items. An additional benefit of electronic
resources is that they are not associated with late fees and can be viewed by multiple
users simultaneously. Others note that monetary punishment is not a fair motivator and
it is not the library’s job to teach civic responsibility. Returning items late is often a
simple mistake with little consequences and not indicative of a delinquent borrower tak-
ing advantage of the library’s generosity. With many alternate motivators such as email
reminders and automatic renewals that encourage timely returns without relying on
punishment, this argument is less applicable in a time of plentiful services.
At the same time, arguments against fines have already encouraged many libraries to
go fines free. Most notably, fines are a barrier to access, making it less likely that those
with no expendable income will access resources they need. Fines also put libraries in a
138 F. CHUNG

position as punisher, straining the relationship between patrons and employees and
scaring patrons from seeking out help. At universities, students pay a library use fee
that supports the collections, so charging overdue fines for items that they funded seems
redundant. Consequently, justifying fines as additional income has become less popular
over the years as it conflicts with a library’s commitment to access and service (Wood
& Almeida, 2017).
Public libraries face the same dilemma as patrons fund their budgets through taxes
and other systems. Those who count on the library for access to information and tech-
nology the most are especially affected by fines they often cannot afford to pay. A 2019
analysis by Chicago Public Library (CPL) indicated that patrons in low-income neigh-
borhoods are more likely to be blocked due to fines, but not necessarily because they
accrue more fines. Instead it is the ability to pay overdue balances that causes this dis-
parity. CPL’s announcement of going fines free was well-received, leading to thousands
of item returns and patrons revisiting their local branch. Public libraries have therefore
been on the forefront of this issue with many fine free approaches paving the way for
academic libraries. In some public libraries, patron groups such as veterans and children
receive fine free cards, while in academic libraries, faculty and graduate students usually
have more generous checkout privileges and fines policies. There are also programs for
kids to “read down” their fines and those that accept food donations for local or cam-
pus food pantries in lieu of fines. The most popular, however, seem to be amnesty peri-
ods in which large library systems have received tens of thousands of overdue items
and subsequently unblocked thousands of patrons (Dixon, 2017). Instead of calculating
fines, some systems opt to add replacement fees after a certain amount of time, which
are then removed if the item is returned. There is still no overdue fine in this case, but
the charges may motivate patrons to return their items. Reviewing the experiences of
public libraries can inform other libraries on how to best reevaluate their fines policies.
Library fines not only burden patrons, they also burden employees who want to be
helpful. Eliminating fines would allow them to focus more on improving services for
patrons, which could have the additional benefit of increasing their job satisfaction.
With less time spent handling cash or delivering bad news, they could redirect their
time to supporting other projects and public services, potentially redefining their job
descriptions. Economically, maintaining a fines system is costly, especially in terms of
staff time, and sometimes requires more spending than the amount in fines collected
(Mosley, 2004). Overall, fines account for less than one percent of the library’s budget
on average, which could be saved by staff time spent on fines, but moving forward, any
plans should account for changes in revenue and job descriptions. Having a flexible
pricing structure for other services such as room rentals and 3D printing could be one
way to make up the difference. While some libraries may face a minor setback in their
budget, they will leave a lasting positive impression on their community.
A simpler argument against fines is that practicing forgiveness instead of punishment
is an act of kindness to both patrons and staff. By not gaining anything from patron
blunders, employees are less likely to be confronted. As a result, patrons may feel more
obligated to return items on time without the ability to pay off their guilt. Those who
are set on paying can be redirected to a donation or “guilt” box. This mutual trust will
strengthen the connection between a library and its community, putting the library in a
PUBLIC SERVICES QUARTERLY 139

more favorable position (Yeung, 2010). Sharing the news of eliminating fines can also
encourage the community to re-explore what their library has to offer and invite new
users to visit for the first time. Overall, there is little doubt that removing monetary
punishments will put libraries in a positive light.
At the University of North Texas Libraries, patrons are always encouraged to fill out
a fines dispute form to have their balance waived or reduced or to donate canned food
instead. However, when the pandemic hit, the library decided to eliminate overdue fines
for general items. This policy change had been in discussion for some time, but with
much of campus closing and students leaving town, there was an urgent need to ease
worries about overdue fines. Furthermore, the libraries extended due dates for most
items by several months and only accepted returns from those who are permanently
leaving town. Not only did this resolve most questions about fines, it also greatly
reduced the need for in-person transactions while most employees worked remotely.
Other permanent changes include extending the loan period for undergraduate students
from three weeks to six weeks and reducing fine rates for course reserves and equip-
ment. Most equipment fines were waived as well. Then, existing overdue fines for those
items were waived, removing blocks that prevented former students from ordering their
transcripts. Although the new fine rates and loan periods were updated online, they
were not publicly announced on the library’s home page or in the building. When
patrons hear of this news, they are relieved and grateful that there is no rush to return
items. Hopefully this relaxed policy will encourage them to continue using online serv-
ices and return once it is safe.
As libraries navigate through these unexpected circumstances, it is more important
now than ever to keep the needs of patrons in mind. There are many reasons to elimin-
ate fines for the benefit of the library, and even more for the benefit of patrons, but this
decision is ultimately up to each library as fines may be critical to some library budgets.
However, as fines have always been a barrier to access, eliminating them is a sure step
toward more equitable access, especially in a time of financial uncertainty. The library
budget may find itself with a little less, but it is a small price to pay in exchange for a
more positive service environment.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Dixon, J. A. (2017). Doing Fine(s)? Library Journal, 142(6), 40–44.
Mayor Lightfoot and Chicago Public Library announce elimination of late fees, outstanding debt
to increase access to libraries citywide. (2019). Chicago Public Library. https://www.chipublib.
org/news/mayor-lightfoot-and-chicago-public-library-announce-elimination-of-late-fees-out-
standing-debt-to-increase-access-to-libraries-citywide/
McMenemy, D. (2010). On library fines: Ensuring civic responsibility or an easy income stream?
Library Review, 59(2), 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242531011023835
Mosley, P. A. (2004). Moving away from overdue fines: One academic library’s new direction.
Journal of Access Services, 2(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J204v02n01_03
140 F. CHUNG

Reed, K., Blackburn, J., & Sifton, D. (2014). Putting a sacred cow out to pasture: Assessing the
removal of fines and reduction of barriers at a small academic library. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 40(3–4), 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.003
Rupp, E., Sweetman, K., & Perry, D. (2010). Updating circulation policy for the 21st century.
Journal of Access Services, 7(3), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2010.484787
Sifton, D. J. (2009). The last taboo: Abolishing library fines. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of
Library and Information Practice and Research, 4(1), 935. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.
v4i1.935
State Library of Australia. (2008). Connecting with the community, part D: Low-income families.
http://www2.slv.vic.gov.au/pdfs/aboutus/publications/lbc_final_lowincomefamilies.pdf
Sung, J. S., & Tolppanen, B. P. (2013). Do library fines work?: Analysis of the effectiveness of
fines on patron’s return behavior at two mid-sized academic libraries. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 39(6), 506–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.011
Wood, E., & Almeida, J. (2017). If we charge them, will they come?: Fostering positive relation-
ships with students by remaining fine-free. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56(3),
158–161. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.56n3.158
Yeung, M. (2010). Library fines, trust games and reciprocity. Reinvention: A Journal of
Undergraduate Research, 3(1). http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/reinventionjournal/archive/volu-
me3issue1/yeung

You might also like