[Publib] Fines, Counterproductive Service and PR

[Martina Kominiarek]

I researched fines about two years ago and found some older but seemingly still relevant material. It seemed at the time and still seems there is need for updates that more nearly reflect current use patterns and impact of new technologies or services (such as self-renewals, e-mail overdues, automated phoning). I recollect that some of these below were reprints from book/s:
 
Library Overdues: An Update by Robert Burgin and Patsy Hansel; Library & Archival Security, Vol. 10 (2)
Managing Overdues: Facts from Four Studies, Paul Little, The Bottom Line, Volume 2, Number 2, 1998, pp. 22-25
The Fines-No Fines Debate, Barbara Anderson, copyright 1984 by the Haworth Press
"Hard Facts about Overdues" Burgin and Hansel, Library Journal, v. 108 (4), Feb 15, 1983 pp. 249-352
 
We did not do most of the following (below) when we increased fines a couple years ago- but here are summary notes regarding what seemed most effective as per the research in terms of getting materials back and turning them around. It would be interesting to hear from libraries doing some of it:
 
1.	Loan period of 14 or 28 days (with 21 as least effective) 
2.	Varied loan periods and fines based on demand-shorter overdues and higher fines for higher demand items, longer overdues and lower or no fines for lower demand items (this would be a practical compromise between fines and no fines) 
3.	1st overdue within 14 days and at least four notices, with the final notice being a bill; increasing fines per number of overdue notices rather than per day 
4.	Clearly and brightly label materials with heavy fines as further deterrent to lateness 
5.	Phone followups overall not effective compared to not phoning in terms of the "difference" it makes (I have staff that track return rate after phoning feel it's effective; but no data regarding whether the person would have brought it back "anyway" w/o the phone call) 
6.	After hours bookdrops and remote bookdrops (such as grocery stores or restaurants) to make swift return more convenient overall 
7.	Collection agencies rather than court. Collection agencies less effective for accounts over $60 (much has been done with collection agencies since the research period/s, so this may be the area most in need of update; overall the higher the fine the later the materials the less likely they'll come back-- decreasing returns relative to effort invested getting returns)
 
My impression overall was that a "no fine" policy would work best and and be best received (p.r. wise) in a very small town or small community environment. The data shows overall that no-fines mean longer checkout ("keeping the book" rates no matter what the policy states) periods (a month or so average) for high-circulation materials. This would definitely hurt access and turnover in a high-circulation environment. (i.e. If you don't have the dollars to invest in extra copies, keep the fines because the wait lists get lots, lots longer.)
 
My impression based on Publib postings and other miscellaneous readings was that as a side effect doubling fines would be an increase of revenue by about about up to 1/3 and that has turned out approximately correct in our case. The best place to find first-hand accounts of the positive/negative customer service and p.r. impact of fine increases/no fines for me has been summaries of actual implementation on Publib. How either mode comes across in a particular community seems highly contingent on how the library leadership promotes it as a policy and the justifications for it to its community.
 
Martina Kominiarek
Bucks County (PA) Free Library 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/attachments/20060903/cf8e7c54/attachment.htm