June 18, 2018

Nashville, Salt Lake City, Columbus Eliminate Fines

Starting the first week of July 2017, the Nashville Public Library (NPL) and the Salt Lake City Public Library system (SLCPL) have joined the increasing number of public libraries in the United States that no longer collect overdue fines from patrons. These changes will also wipe out fines that users have already accrued. The SLCPL policy took effect July 1, while the Nashville policy started July 5. For both systems, this shift reflects their missions to remove a barrier to library borrowing—blocked card privileges due to fines and to provide equitable access to as many patrons as possible.

TRADING MONEY FOR ACCESS

According to Emily Waltenbaugh, public information officer with NPL, library staff were concerned about the number of accounts that had been blocked because of fines exceeding a $20 limit. They discovered that as many as 50,000 cards were blocked at any given time, out of a total of 300,000 cardholders. This is a “huge percentage,” she said, and the library was eager to “bring patrons back to the library.”

Library books in Nashville will still receive a due date, and librarians do not think that this shift will have a meaningful impact on whether or not patrons return materials on time. Patrons will still receive reminders when a due date approaches and when it has passed. In addition, once 31 days have passed after a due date, the materials will be considered “lost” and patrons will be billed. If patrons have two more “lost” items on their account, their card will be frozen until they pay for or return the materials. In this way. there is “still accountability,” said Waltenbaugh.

The move to a fine-free NPL received overwhelming support from local government as well as from the library board, which officially endorsed the eradication of fines in February 2017. The change removes approximately $159,000 collected in fines each year from the local Nashville general fund; Mayor Megan Barry reflected this reduction in the budget approved in June. This amount works out to .02 percent of Metro Nashville Government’s $1 billion budget.

As Waltenbaugh told LJ, “it’s not an insignificant amount of money, but in the scope of the larger [metropolitan Nashville] budget, it’s something that to us is worth losing if it means more access to patrons.” She noted that for patrons who hit the library’s previous $20 limit, simply knowing that their library card was blocked could make them stay away from the library. The library does not “want any barrier, whether it is financial or psychological,” she explained.

The amount of fines collected had been declining in recent years because of the increasing popularity of electronic materials, which automatically return on their due date. The library has no plans to make up the reduction, as fines were never meant to be revenue generating, Waltenbaugh said. “We just want the items back, we don’t want to profit off patrons.” According to NPL Director Kent Oliver, “accessibility for all in our community is a core value for Nashville Public Library; it’s at the center of how we view our library. That’s why it makes sense to do away with late fines.”

FOCUSING ON THE COMMUNITY

SLCPL had similar reasoning to Nashville in cancelling fines, as the library community realized that overdue fines did not noticeably increase item returns, but did have a negative impact on equitable access to the library. The disproportionate impact on lower-income users was stark—according to executive director Peter Bromberg, several branches serving lower-income communities accounted for about 14 percent of materials checked out but 30 percent of blocked cards.

Soon after starting as executive director in September 2016, Bromberg introduced the idea of going fine-free to the library board and the local community; board members expressed support and encouraged him to research the idea. The board voted unanimously (with one abstention from a new member) to approve the change.

“I’m really proud of the staff here for being really behind it,” said Bromberg, and “really proud of the board for saying absolutely, this is part of our mission and part of our values, and we are about equal access and fines are an inequitable barrier.”

Bromberg also received a positive response from City Council members, who fast-tracked the shift, and connected with local community councils to share the purpose of eliminating fines and how it could help the library serve patrons.

Bromberg researched and workshopped extensively, connecting with other library directors who had overseen a change to fine-free libraries and speaking with community groups to see what would work best for SLCPL. This research prepared him for common questions and concerns, in particular worries that doing away with fines would reduce patron accountability for returning materials. The library will continue to hold patrons responsible for lost books, billing their account and blocking their card if they do not return a book after four weeks.

When advocating for getting rid of fines, Bromberg recommends that library directors focus on the needs of their local community, gathering opinions and numbers. The statistics on inequality in the library system “really resonated,” he said, and helped him make a connection between access to books and the long-term success of children from less privileged backgrounds.

SLCPL anticipates a loss of about $75,000 from fine revenue, in light of the trend toward electronic materials that do not accrue fines. Like Nashville, those voting on the policy change determined that a small decrease in income is worth an increase in meaningful access, and that the library is “not philosophically looking to make money on the backs of a public that has already paid for the library through their taxes,” said Bromberg. The Salt Lake City council unanimously approved a 23.3 percent budget increase at the same time that the library eliminated fines, so the shift has not led to a decrease in the budget.

The library also introduced an autorenewal system on July 1—any item without a hold on it will be automatically renewed three times before it must be returned.

Bromberg described the customers and library staff as “giddy” over the change in library fines and the new autorenewal policy. “We want materials in the hands of patrons,” he explained. Books are “better on their bookshelves than on ours—collections are for use. This really supports our core value of having books out in the community.”

COLUMBUS AS ROLE MODEL

Leaders at both the NPL and SLCPL looked to other libraries that have gone fine-free for ideas. Waltenbaugh cited library systems like the Delaware County District Library in Ohio—which has not charged fines since 1986—as well as the Washington, DC; San Francisco; and Pima County, AZ, libraries, which do not charge overdue fees for children’s or teen accounts. Both Waltenbaugh and Bromberg looked to the Columbus Metropolitan Library (CML), OH, which abandoned fines in January 2017, as one inspiration. Like Nashville and Salt Lake City, the staff and board in Columbus abandoned fines because too many of the patrons who need the library most—particularly children and people from neighborhoods with limited resources—had their cards blocked owing to fines. According to CML’s CEO Patrick Losinski, “it just seemed, as we thought deeply about it, that it was unconscionable that we were not providing access to those groups.”

Losinski noted that approximately a decade of preliminary efforts preceded the change, all aiming to increase access to library resources. CML implemented “read-off” programs for patrons to read in the library and earn money toward paying off their accounts; it also introduced special fine-free children’s cards and introduced automatic renewals.

While patrons are still expected to bring back books and will have their accounts frozen for lost items, the goal is to have the materials returned—not to make money. As Losinski explained it, “in some ways maybe [libraries] thought we could teach responsibility for the last 150 years, and I think that’s a failed experiment.”

Overall, Losinski told LJ, “libraries should think really deeply about their purpose [and] barriers that are imposed that no longer meet the needs of customers. We can get stuck in our traditions without closely examining them.” For libraries considering making the move to fine-free, he advised, “think about all of the steps involved—but then go for it.”

Share
Fund Your Library: Tools and Tactics for Getting to Yes!
Whether you’re going to voters, city councils, school boards, college board of directors, or any other funder, the fundamental issues are the same: how do you convince the stewards of a limited budget that the library is their best investment?

Comments

  1. Linda Conseco says:

    And when you find that 30% of your blocked cards due lost items are from lower-income patrons — what then?

    • spencer says:

      Fines are punitive and do not actually lead to getting materials back. Lost and damaged items are for replacement and not having them, regardless of how you divide those who owe, is irresponsible stewardship of public funds and property.

      Kudos for eliminating fines.

  2. curious librarian says:

    So what happens when a patron habitually, consistently returns his/materials late? When there’s no “incentive” to bring them back on time, what motivates them to follow the policy?

    Also, how are lost items handled? Are the fines eliminated too? Everyone talk about equitable access, but a lost public property has to be recovered by someone, the items has to be replaced and put back on the shelf.

  3. David Tulanian says:

    Re “Nashville, Salt Lake City, Columbus Eliminate Fines” by Jennifer A. Dixon (July 11), : It’s interesting that, according to your article, the Nashville Public Library does not “want any barrier, whether it is financial or psychological” to keep patrons from using the library. Yet on the other hand, when a patron’s account indicates he has three “lost” items, he may not check out further materials until he settles up. Why just three items, why not three hundred?

  4. Kevin MacKenzie says:

    It’ seems to me it’s all about where you draw the line fairly. The library collections are meant to be shared by everyone, and there should not be any exceptions in regards, to fines or due dates or what have you. Once we start treating someone differently than someone else the problems escalate. Standardization of policy is the easiest answer, but goes against the grain of what libraries are all about. A conundrum for sure.

    My question is this. It’s nice for the town or city to increase its budget, but how much of that increase goes to the library to make up for the lost monies collected from fines unless I missed it the article doesn’t say? Some libraries rely on fines to make up for cuts in the budget.

    Access is not the issue. I don’t know of a public library where you cannot gain entry because your card is blocked. A patron may not be able to use certain services, but the print collection, at least is available for use on-site.

    Finally, and in the larger picture library fines are punitive. Punitive for a reason. What kind of message are we sending our children when we say ‘ have it back by this date, but not really.’ There are no consequences until it’s lost. In this A.D.H.D world today that’s a recipe for disaster. When we do this we are not teaching our children self reliance or responsibility and in essence helping to set them up for failure as adults.

  5. In today’s society if people cannot read, due to lack of interest as a child, then as a teen, then as a young adult, then that lack will potentially impact the strength of that which furthers their development of interpreting and applying learning material, and the focus for their future, then they cannot be expected to function and pay their own bills without relying on the government to help with that later! Is help now cheaper in the long run, than help later in life, and for the rest of their life times, that of those majority of people with lower incomes, in which the government is progressing the failure not declining it!

Comment Policy:
  1. Be respectful, and do not attack the author, people mentioned in the article, or other commenters. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Don't use obscene, profane, or vulgar language.
  3. Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic at hand may be deleted.
  4. Comments may be republished in print, online, or other forms of media, per our Terms of Use.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through (though some comments with links to multiple URLs are held for spam-check moderation by the system). If you see something objectionable, please let us know. Once a comment has been flagged, a staff member will investigate.

We accept clean XHTML in comments, but don't overdo it and please limit the number of links submitted in your comment. For more info, see the full Terms of Use.

Speak Your Mind

*
https://lj.libraryjournal.com/2017/07/funding/nashville-salt-lake-city-columbus-eliminate-fines/
lj.libraryjournal.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-26
95038
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KKYCAF5PQNZ6QPDFXOH6HI4WEKYS5CPD
<urn:uuid:61a4dc15-e1db-41ba-b067-e1b09c80a446>
2018-06-19T02:44:59Z
216.70.86.237
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:X65Y5SAZRUE6B4OVLZ7LFDTPMVJJVXPQ
<urn:uuid:8cfb2626-3c84-47ee-9a80-d9c646765bf1>
https://lj.libraryjournal.com/2017/07/funding/nashville-salt-lake-city-columbus-eliminate-fines/
response
<urn:uuid:4f540827-8e96-448a-a072-eb266ea4c576>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-165-73-237.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-26
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf