In 2019, the San Francisco Public Library (SFPL; the local library system I frequent) joined the pantheon of library systems across the country who opted to go completely fine-free (San Francisco Public Library, n.d.). I still remember the surprise and excitement I felt when this decision went into effect — subsequently erasing all the past fine fees that its users had accrued, something of which I was also guilty of at the time. Reflecting on this experience drew me to further exploring the concept of fine-free libraries — leading me to question why fines at these institutions should still exist, especially when users such as myself tend to use words such as “guilty” (like in the sentence before) when describing having them. Shouldn’t the library be one of the last places you feel guilty for visiting?
As it turns out, many library systems such as SFPL were thinking the same thing. Upon reflecting on the implementation of late fees, many libraries came to the conclusion that it was a practice that went against their mission statement and what libraries in general should stand for. Primarily, they came to the conclusion that fines contradicted and often impeded the library’s mission of providing free and equal access of information to its users, instead presenting another barrier to access (Gerber, 2022; Guest Commentary, 2019; Hotchkiss, 2019). The barrier that the existence of late fines presented had a profound negative impact in a number of ways.
Firstly, accruing fines can (and often does) lead to a negative perception of the library — which can hamper the community space that libraries are aiming to be. Fines, as mentioned in my own anecdotal experience of relating having them to a sense of ‘guilt’, can be a deterrent to patron use of the library. Patrons have mentioned having to “build up the courage” to go back to the library to return overdue materials (Coelho, 2020) — a time-consuming, vicious cycle which only further stacks up overdue fines and heightens the shame and stigma associated with it. Indeed, a number of librarians have observed that “the very existence of fines discourages people from using libraries” (Guest Commentary, 2019), leading to decreased repeat visitors when the threat of overdue charges are looming in the distance (Coelho, 2020). Additionally, libraries have noted that fines, and particularly the process of having to collect them, are perhaps “the single greatest point of friction between library staff and patrons” (Guest Commentary, 2019), only serving to sour relationships between the library and its userbase. Perhaps most disheartening is a quote from a SFPL patron before the library went fine-free: “When I owe money to the library, I do not feel comfortable using the resources of the library . . . It creates a sense of un-belonging [emphasis added]” (Hotchkiss, 2019).
The previous quote is a reminder of the importance of libraries as a community space — one that should prioritize the needs of its users. It is important to remember that the goals of whatever a library proposes and implements should be done in order to make the institution “a better library for the public” (Kenney, 2015). Punitive measures such as fines should, at the very least, be “reach[ed] for carefully, not reflexively” (Guest Commentary, 2019). However, more forward-thinking, would be to question the very idea of libraries as an entity with such punitive power. Libraries are not businesses nor are they a government (Sifton, 2009), and so perhaps the very notion of fines should be scrutinized. As some have posited, the system has “an air of paternalism that feels out of place for a service meant to encourage literacy and promote the magic of reading” (Coelho, 2020) and actually doesn’t really encourage people to return overdue materials (Coelho, 2020) — but more on that later. Instead of punitive measures, libraries should consider more humanistic, user-centered approaches that focus on the root of the issue of overdue materials and why patrons may not be coming to the library (Sifton, 2009). Instead of discouraging library use, as we have noted that fines often tend to do, libraries should instead implement “progressive policies to encourage and increase library usage” (Sifton, 2009). The last thing we want is for libraries and librarians to have the negative image of “an enforcer, a new taxman or bad cop to be feared” (Sifton, 2009). The goal is for libraries to remain a free, open spaces where people can come to connect to one another and the library’s plethora of resources and information. Libraries are “a rare exception to commercial spaces” (O’Brien, 2019) and one of the “few indoor public spaces [that] exist that are open to all (O’Brien, 2019)” — making it even more important to keep them as one of the rare ‘third spaces’ in society today.
But what about the economic benefits of fines? This is a question many may still wonder about. Perhaps surprising to some is the fact that fines are often not worth the hassle. While the numbers and significance of fine-collection certainly depends on the library in question, many libraries have found that the revenue it generates is negligible in the overall budget. In fact, in some cases the amount of time and resources it takes to train and get staff to collect fines is much higher than the return investment. For example, in the 2017-2018 fiscal year, “fine collections amounted to just 0.2 percent of the SFPL’s total operating budget. In contrast, library employees spend 1,155–3,464 hours a year collecting fines, which adds up to $64,000–$191,000 in staff capacity” (Hotchkiss, 2019). Getting rid of fines, in this case, would not impact the overall functioning of the library and instead would free up more time for staff to focus their efforts elsewhere.
Another important economic factor to consider against fines is the fact that they disproportionately affect patrons of low-income and racial-minority communities (Hotchkiss, 2019). Such a noted disparity surely goes against the library’s mission statement of equitable access to all? Fines are hardly a deterrent for those of greater economic means, which makes the punitive measure a barrier to those who may need libraries the most (Coelho, 2020; Guest Commentary, 2019). It is important, also, to remember the distinction that this does not mean that those from disadvantaged backgrounds are accruing more library fines. It simply means that they are the ones who often have the most difficulty in paying back their overdue fines (Guest Commentary, 2019). Overall, patrons miss deadlines at similar rates, regardless of income (Guest Commentary, 2019).
But don’t fines incentivize materials being returned on time? Not really. The issue is nuanced and library-dependent, to be sure. For example, while some fine-charging libraries in 2017 noted that the system resulted in fewer late-returns, the items that were overdue tended to stay out longer (Guest Commentary, 2019). This seems paradoxical to the supposed claim that fines will get people to return to materials sooner. Overall, research has also noticed a plateau of the effectiveness of fines. In a ten year study of library fines, it was noted that there was an initial drop in delayed returns by 34%, but that over time this measure lost its effectiveness — only deterring the undesirable behavior for the short-term, with even less of an impact on those who were wealthier (Albegaria, 2019). Once again, this brings libraries back to the question of whether such a questionably effective, often negligible source of revenue is worth the negative impacts against the patrons that we are supposed to serve?
Going fine-free is not a new phenomenon. Libraries have been implementing versions of this policy since the 1970s. SFPL, for example, eliminated fines for children and teens in 1974 (San Francisco Public Library, n.d.). Furthermore, implementing such a policy is not without its benefits. Many libraries have noted positive changes within their institution — such as “increases in patron satisfaction and participation and to staff morale” (Gerber, 2022). A librarian in Minnesota even noted an increase in the return of both materials and patrons that had been away from the library for years (Gerber, 2022). According to a Library Journal survey, about a quarter of libraries have noted that going fine-free has increased circulation in their libraries — with about 50% saying that they were unsure whether the lack of fees were attributable for the circulation changes, but that it was certainly a possibility (Gerber, 2022). The other 25% did not notice an increase, but this doesn’t mean that the fine-free policy was detrimental.
The decision to go fine-free is definitely a big one. It is an issue that library policymakers must look at with a wide scope, considering both the pros and cons of such a change. Is the revenue from late fees worth the time, money and effort to collect? Is it worth the negative benefits, including an access barrier, that some patrons face? Are there, perhaps, alternative methods and amnesties that libraries unable to get rid of fines can enact instead? Indeed some libraries do incorporate alternative methods for both fine repayments and to discourage overdue materials. However, even these alternatives (such as accepting food bank donations or volunteer service instead of money for fines), are subject to a whole host of new complications and nuances. (For example, would an economically disadvantaged patron have the means to donate food bank items, or the time to volunteer? Or would this just be a convoluted solution that leads to the same issues as before?) The ideal vision of what a library should be vs what it often has to be can sometimes diverge. Still, it is important for libraries to do their part in attempting to bridge that gap as much as possible — prioritizing their patrons in a way that no for-profit business can, allowing them to stand on their own in comparison to the competition.
References:
Albergaria, M. A. (2019). Effects of monetary sanctions on behavior: evidence from library fines. Economic Analysis of Law Review, 10(3), 236-249.
Coelho, S. (2020, January 30). Library fines are trash and people are taking notice. Book Riot. https://bookriot.com/fine-free-libraries-trend/
Gerber, A. (2022, September 28). Fine farewells: LJ’s 2022 fines and fees survey. Library Journal. https://www.libraryjournal.com/story/Fine-Farewells-LJs-2022-Fines-and-Fees-Survey
Guest Commentary. (2019, February 28). Why California libraries are ditching fines on overdue materials. CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/education/2019/02/library-fines/
Hotchkiss, S. (2019, September 16). San Francisco Public Library eliminates all overdue fines. KQED. https://www.kqed.org/arts/13866475/san-francisco-public-library-eliminates-overdue-fines
Kenney, B. (2015, November 13). Lessons from Seattle’s failed bid to rebrand its public library. Publishers Weekly. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/68666-brand-awareness-lessons-from-seattle-s-failed-bid-to-rebrand-its-public-library.html
O’Brien, C. (2019, June 24). How San Francisco’s public libraries are embracing their changing role. Shareable. https://www.shareable.net/how-san-francisco-public-libraries-are-embracing-their-changing-role/
San Francisco Public Library. (n.d.). Fine free library. https://sfpl.org/about-us/fine-free-library
Sifton, D. J. (2009). The last taboo: Abolishing library fines. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 4(1).
