Public Libraries Seminar Discussion #7: Policies and Funding
13 October 2024
A known access barrier for economically disadvantaged patrons are overdue fees and fines. Frequently, a late return, a lost book or a damaged book means a patron can no longer access library materials, public computers, and other services if they cannot afford to pay the fines. In a resolution in January of 2019, the ALA declares that “monetary fines ultimately do not serve the core mission of the modern library” and resolves that “The American Library Association asserts that imposition of monetary library fines creates a barrier to the provision of library and information services”(ALA, 2019).
Recurring themes for charging overdue fees are that libraries need the revenue, and that late fees teach patrons to be responsible. Some libraries rely on collecting fines and fees in order to place them in their operating budgets, which must cover a growing number of materials and service demands. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, however, there has been a dramatic increase in libraries going fine free. Libraries have found creative solutions to replace the revenue lost by going fine free.
Below provides a bulleted overview of our annotated bibliography on library fines and fees:
• Most resources address how the charging of overdue fees is a matter of equity and inclusion, as such fees disproportionately affect economically disadvantaged patrons.
• Resources address both the benefits (equity, material recovery, community goodwill) and consequences (lost revenue, lack of personal responsibility) of going fine free—though not always giving balanced attention to each side of the argument.
• Several resources are from the American Library Association (ALA) and offer “offical” guidance on library fines and fees. Interest in going fine free seems to have greatly increased around the time of ALA’s 2019 writings on this topic, though it is unclear if their guidance prompted or was a reflection of the increased interest.
• Finally, a few resources look beyond late fees to think about the equity, access, and logistical implications of charging for library services more broadly.
After reading through the materials listed on the annotated bibliography, please answer the following questions.
1. Using the library of your choice, exam the library’s policy on overdue fees and compare how they meet the standards set forth by the ALA Resolution on Monetary Library Fines as a Form of Social Inequity. Why does their policy on overdue fees align or not?
2. In his article Income Generation in Public Libraries: Potentials and Pitfalls (2014), Pautz examines several authors’ arguments against library fees. In summarizing the views of Pete Giacoma (1989), Pautz writes:
According to Giacoma, fees are comparable to censorship: they reinforce already existing inequalities; they lead to the tailoring of all services towards the needs of the few…. Giacoma rules fees in public libraries unjust…. everybody has the same right to the same services. This is only possible if the library is completely free at the point of use, and it also means that if a service cannot be offered to everyone for free, it must not be offered at all. The argument that as long as core services are free, others may be charged for is invalid as services that are not fundamental to a library as a public institution should not be offered at all (Pautz, 2014).
For the library you chose, investigate if they charge for anything: holds, lost cards, copy/print/fax services, research services, special programs, lost items, passport processing, etc. How do you view these services in light of Giacoma’s position? Do you think your library should continue to offer them, if they cannot afford to do so without charging?
At the beginning of last year, Central Rappahannock Regional Library (CRRL) eliminated all overdue fines for all items, perhaps the inevitable end of a process that began with the removal of fines for children and teen items in July of 2017, and the suspension of new fines at the onset of the pandemic (CRRL, 2022). Whether or not the American Library Association's (ALA) Resolution on Monetary Library Fines (2019) were a factor in this decision, the announcement post checks all the common boxes: that fines served as a barrier to low-income patrons and thus removing them increases inclusion, that the system received an influx of returned materials at the news of fine removal, and that the revenue brought in by fines was too low to put staff through the often futile efforts of collecting them (Library Journal, 2022).
This isn't to say that CRRL hasn't gotten rid of financial penalties entirely, though: patrons that lose or damage an item are still charged an item's MSRP, but if said items are returned in good condition, they can at least avoid lost fees. Moving into the realm of conjecture, I'm guessing the obvious use case is if one of the selectors decides to repurchase an item, because from what I can tell, fines haven't brought in enough revenue to be recorded, or maybe just never a primary source at all. I can't find any fiscal documents prior to the 2020 to make a comparison with any certainty, but the bulk of the system's budget is provided by CRRL's municipalities themselves, with funds for other sources used to shore up specific areas (CRRL, 2024).
While these policies bring the system in line with a lot of the other large systems in Virginia, CRRL differs from every single other I know of in the state with arguably the most used digital service behind internet access: printing, copying, and faxing papers is completely free. This would probably plop it within the "examples of things not to do" section were it included LaPierre's survey of printing policies (2024)—and indeed, I can attest that all the listed abuses save small-business-mass-promo-material-printing have happened at my branch. Yet even though free printing has been available the whole two years I've been at CRRL, these incidents happen so infrequently that none of the branches have had to put any printing limits or other deterrents in place (probably because our printers are prone to mechanical errors after every few jobs). This is entirely funded by CRRL's Friends of the Library foundation, which seems to have a solid reservoirs of donors fed by a steady stream of sales from all the used item sales happening around the system. Of course, the strings attached to this is that color printing is unavailable to the public, nor can they use their own paper with our printers. Still, the fact that CRRL can offer such to its community for free probably makes it exemplary among its contemporaries in facilitating patrons' access to their necessities.
References
American Library Association. (2019, January 28). Resolution on monetary library fines as a form of social inequity. https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/aboutala/content/Resolution%20on%20Monetary%20Library%20Fines%20as%20a%20Form%20of%20Social%20Inequity-FINAL.pdf
Central Rappahannock Regional Library. (2022, 16 December). CRRL goes fine free. Retrieved October 12, 2024, from: https://www.librarypoint.org/news/fine-free/
Central Rappahannock Regional Library (2024). FY25 Budget proposal at a glance. Retrieved October 13, 2024, from: https://www.librarypoint.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/60/2024/06/Old-Business-A-FY25v3-Budget-Update.pdf
LaPierre, S. S. (2024, October 10). The cost of free printing [BiblioTech]. Information Today. https://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/may24/LaPierre--The-Cost-of-Free-Printing.shtml
Library Journal (2022). Public library fines & fees survey report. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ImageCloud/Research/2022/LJ+Fines+and+Fees+Survey+Report+2022.pdf