Connecting Librarian

Busy blogging day, but Dewey and fines are related in terms of borrowers, but they are also big enough to warrant their own entries. So here’s to fines.

My public library service was very late in coming to fines. Our service has been in existence since 1970 with one branch, but we didn’t introduce fines until the early 1990’s (either then or the late 80’s). At that time, the average loan period on items was 6 weeks - our loans periods then were 4 weeks on print and audio books and 1 week on other AV. I was never a big fan when we were introducing them, but grew to love them when I could see how they worked. We don’t make tons of money from fines, but what is earned is sown back into buying more for our collections - patrons paying overdue fines get a some satisfaction from that at least.

Now in 2006, with 7 branches, our library manager is reconsidering having overdue fines - which is also at a time when the issue has been popping up in several of the blogs I regularly read. It is interesting reading both sides of the issue, particularly when I have been on either side at one time or another.

I think my first awareness of the issue in the blogosphere, was when several of the blogs I regularly read pointed me to an article in the Christian Science Monitor - “Is the lifting of library fines long overdue?” Interesting too was the poll which followed up a month later at http://www.csmonitor.com/poll/index.php?poll_id=421 - be sure to read the disclaimer.

It turns out this was another link in a chain of discussions which surfaces on a regular basis, but as I am relatively new to the blogosphere, was new to me in this format. There is no middle ground on the blog entries I have come across, they are either vehemently for or against library overdue fines. Check out some of the discussions on this and other library policies and rules, with ensuing comments at Information Wants to be Free, Walking Paper, Librarian.net and Librarian in Black, just to name a few. Whilst doing some more background for this entry, I did a search on Google Blog search on library fines and got over 22,000 hits. Its definitely a topic of discussion in blogs.

So where do I stand now on overdue fines? In all I have read, from both sides I can find no basis for disagreement. All the arguments are well reasoned and have solid bases. I have a history, as I said earlier, of vacillating between the two sides and its time for the pendulum to swing the other way. At a time where our society is changing, the library needs to change too and this is one of the areas I think we can make a positive change - a great PR move if you like.

If my library service goes down this path, as I believe it might, we will still have policies in place to get our stock returned, as we do now, but we won’t penalise late returns. Most of our fines are small - because items are only a little overdue. Many of these borrowers are regular late returners but only ever by a few days at most. To them we would give the freedom to be a little late. To those who bring back items late or never return them or don’t borrow due to the fear of fines, maybe they’ll come back earlier, bring them back altogether and return without fear of penalty. The small percentage that don’t return items, we will follow up with existing long overdue policies which includes using a collection agency and charging the borrower their fee.

In reference to the concerns about request for books being unsatisfied, think how much cheaper and easier it would be to satisfy those unfilled holds by being the odd extra copy of a title as required. In the meantime, we have a better situation at the front desk, less disputes, more happy people - both staff and borrowers.

So yes, I believe dropping library fines is a good idea. Its a big change in library policy and could be considered a risk, but I think its one worth taking.

A lot of what I have been reading in library blogs lately is matching up with many of the things that our library has been doing and our CEO has been considering.

First off has come the move towards rearranging non-fiction collections into genres, rather than strict dewey order. Quite a few public libraries in Melbourne have done this - and we have just opened a new branch with this feature applied to the adult non-fiction collection. Several of our other branches have done it already and the others will follow in due course. So far, the anecdotal evidence has been positive with regards to the move, hopefully the statistical evidence will follow. It has been hard to judge thus far, as we have also made other changes which have impacted loans.

One of those changes was loan periods. We previously had 4 week loan periods for all books, magazines and audio books and 1 week loans for all AV. This was with the option of one renewal - if the item was not overdue or reserved. About this time last year, we extended the AV loan period to 2 weeks, and reduced the magazines loan period to that same 2 week period. A grace period of several months was set on magazines to help our borrowers to adjust and now a year later, I can say that anecdotally, it has been well received and utilised by our borrowers. Our renewal period has not changed.

An interesting viewpoint on Dewey and spine labels can be found in “Spine labels and De-Dewefication” by Michael Casey at Library Crunch. He asks why we need Dewey at all on non-fiction books - why not just subject labels, especially in libraries which have already genrified their non-fiction collections. Going with that is why we even need author labels on fiction, as the author’s names are in a large font on the side of the books already. His entry is thought provoking, as are the many comments which accompany it, both agreeing and disagreeing with his stance.

Where do I stand? I was not keen at first on the whole idea of genrification, but I can see that for the borrower, in most instances it will be easier for them to find what they are looking for. It might be harder for staff (at least until the become familiar with how and where the genres are located in their branch), but once past that, they will go to the shelves in the same way they go for a book in normal dewey order. It will be confusing for borrowers seeking a particular book, but I don’t think it will be any more that straight Dewey is now and at least when they get to the area, they will be able to find other titles which may interest them.

Our library service has genrified by gathering Dewey numbers together in one area and linking them with a colour coded genre label. We have nine genre categories, with the rest of the stock still filed in straight Dewey order. On the point of having just those genre labels, there is something to be said for using just author order within that area. However, we are not at the point where that can happen. Firstly, we have several libraries with large collections - one with approximately 40,000 non-fiction items. I believe this is too large a collection to organise this way. We also have smaller branches, but our users tend to be mobile and we don’t want to further confuse them by having different systems at different libraries. Secondly, not all our non-fiction is in genres. Do we again add to the confusion by having these books in dewey order, but others in genres. We are trying to make it easier for our borrowers and by having the genres we are taking the steps we can take to do this. As for the fiction - if all fiction books had easy to read author names, then I think we could justify dropping the author spine labels. But considering how long it takes me to find books in bookstores without labels, I think I am happier to stick with the system we have.

What is good in all this, is that all these things are being considered and reconsidered in light of our changing society and users. We can’t just stick to the way things are because that’s the way we have always done it. It is good to take the time and realistically consider and then maybe take a risk and try something different.