> There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have.
Late fees do have one benefit – what if someone has a strong interest in one particular book (or a handful of books, which fits within their borrowing limit). Maybe it is a textbook or reference book for a course they are doing. Maybe they are just an obsessive person. They want to borrow a book for far longer than the standard borrowing term, or even indefinitely. They don't care if doing so blocks them from borrowing any further books, because they are more interested in the book(s) they have currently borrowed than in any of those.
Before, if they didn't return it, they would start getting late fees. Some people may be so intent on possessing that book, they may consider the late fees worth it – viewing it as a rental fee rather than a fine. But others, the late fee may be enough to convince them to return it, whereas merely suspending their borrowing privileges would not.
And this can make a difference to other library users. Ever wanted to read a book, or even borrow it, but you can't because it is out on loan? Abolishing late fees runs the risk of making that negative experience much more common than it was before.
So obviously, the policy isn’t perfect - no policy is perfect.
Keep in mind that most of the really important books, especially reference books, have never been allowed to be checked out from the library.
Chicago did this same policy about 2 years ago. It has similar demographics as New York, so you would assume that any problems New York is going to face would have already been seen in Chicago. And as far as I’ve heard, the benefits have far, far outweighed the problems. My family never had problems with late fees at the library (maybe $5 per year?), but the new policy definitely changed our library experience for the better.
Also, New York, Chicago, and many other library systems have extremely strong philanthropic organizations attached to them. It is very prestigious to be on the board and it is very prestigious to raise or donate money to the library. They are very well run and very well funded. Losing/Replacing 1-2% more books per year is not a financial issue for them. The ridiculous cost of eBooks are more of an issue than lost paper books.
Making sure one copy stays in the library is probably a larger challenge then the problem it seeks to solve.
But for sure, large library systems have lots of copies of popular books. I just went over to the NYPL website and clicked on some links to get a list of popular books last year. Here's an example where they have 81 copies of the book:
You can also see that some books are far more popular in some locations than others. New York Public Library has "only" ~20 copies of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" while Chicago Public Library has 360 copies:
I haven't seen those kind of labels on library books in a really long time!
But yes, each book has a "barcode" that uniquely identifies it. The thing is, these large library systems have dozens of physical buildings all over the city (a paradox? The larger the city, the more likely it is that everyone can walk to the library) and a specific copy of the book lives in a specific library building.
If you decide that one specific copy is the "reference" copy, then nobody can check it out from their local library branch while people that live everywhere else in the city can check it out from their local library branch! So you are going to need to make the "reference" copy a dynamic thing, which is a lot of effort to solve a problem that in real life is really minor.
Big city libraries (at least in North America - I know Toronto is the same) are amazing, because libraries get better with scale. And perhaps because of their nature, they seem to attract the kind of people that are really good at managing them. I doubt you can find a big city library where the residents think it is a cesspool of corruption. They've got the resources and management to just buy extra copies of books - it's not worth doing anything else.
I'm curious how the new policy in Chicago changed your family's experience for the better. Can you say more?
Side note: late fees were always an incentive for me to return books. Not necessarily on time, mind you. But, soon enough. While I'm down with the new rules (Brooklynite here), I also worry about an increase in books just never being returned. Already a minor nuisance even with fees.
The main difference is that you stop worrying about things.
In the past, if you took a book out, you'd have to remember in the back of your mind that you have to return it by a specific date. My kids like to have dozens of books out at a time. In the past there was always the worry that you would take a stack of books back but forget one or two; you'd search the whole apartment just in case.
That's all gone now. If the library needs the book back, they email you and then you go look around for it. Otherwise, you do everything on your own schedule, whenever it is convenient. And if your kid wants to keep a book for 6 months or more, that's also fine.
I'm sure that NYPL will need to buy more books as part of the adjustment. But they can. It's totally worth it.
As another commenter pointed out, the library will still automatically charge a "replacement fee" if the book is 30+ days overdue. That fee may be subsequently refunded if the book is eventually returned.
That to me seems like the best incentive: you are automatically charged what is still essentially a "late fee" at some point, and that charge goes away if you return the item.
Library fines are not known to increase rates of item return and in reality are a commonly-cited reason why library users never return at all.
A few other points: 1) Libraries replace items all the time for all kinds of reasons, especially if the title is in demand, so a book walking away with a patron who wants to keep it isn't really a business-stopping problem. 2) Patrons can always ask library staff to request an items they need from another library; the library is likely to accommodate, especially if the item is long overdue and they don't have immediate plans to replace it. 3) If the item is somehow absolutely irreplaceable, it probably isn't circulating anyway.
Yeah, I've anecdotally heard from a lot of people that they've stopped using the library because they've racked up fines.
It's often not necessarily that they can't afford the fines or are unwilling to pay, but they're too embarrassed or intimidated or aren't sure what the right procedure is, so they just stop going to the library.
Hey, that's me. I returned a few books a day late due to flooding and racked up an $0.80 charge. I can't pay it online because the minimum allowed online is a dollar. I'd pay the dollar if it allowed me, but it doesn't. I don't care enough to figure out how else to pay the fine, so I just don't go to the library anymore.
I had to pay a 60€ fee for 6 books as student and never recovered from it.
At first I wrote an open-source tool to download the list of borrowed books from the website and renew them automatically. Then I thought it is pointless and decided to never go again to any library.
Unfortunately, now people are using my tool, and every time the library changes the website, I get mails that I need to make an update. So I am forced to go to the library just to see what changes they made to the website
These libraries issues are stressing me so much I could only sleep 5 hours tonight
This is really interesting. I've definitely been incentivized to return late books sooner than I might have due to fines accruing (and the email reminders that tell me so). But, now that you mention it, I've also probably held onto books longer and not returned sooner bc of the guilt or not knowing what other restrictions on my usage might apply.
It could do the opposite, borrowers may feel that the late fees justify them keeping the book for longer, since they are paying for their excess usage.
Kahneman talks about a study done in Israel that adding a modest fee for people who are late picking up their children from daycare actually increases lateness - people view it as a fair transaction, whereas previously they would feel shame if they were late.
For me, it is the opposite. I don't feel any shame from a computer marking a book as "late" in its database. I do feel shame from having to walk up to the library desk and tell the librarian that I owe them $0.50 in late fees. I'll go well out of my way to return books on time, to avoid this shame and not the relatively trivial fee itself.
I think that perhaps strong shame requires a social interaction. (However, I would also be ashamed to pick up my child late from daycare, so maybe my feelings aren't broadly representative.)
Wouldn't most libraries nowadays allow paying fees online?
KCLS (King County Library System in Washington) allows that for example.
You can maybe try looking at it from another angle and feel proud of supporting your library by giving them money...
Right. I think this is mentioned in the book, Doughnut Economics, in reference to monetizing interpersonal social interactions (tho I may have that reference slightly off. Sorry, in bed and book is sooo far away).
I have heard about that before also. I think at our childcare, it's $15 per minute. Enough that if we get stuck in traffic, we call a relative and hope they can get there faster.
Wow. Is there at least some capping ? I've never been late to childcare but there are so many reasons I could have been that your $15 are frightening me. I'm not even sure that late fees where I am are above 1 or 2€ per 15 minutes.
I don't think it's ever applied. Never actually read further to see if there was a cap; just remember thinking "OK, always get there before 6pm!" It's in AUD, BTW.
You can drop off any time after 6:30am and pick-up any time before 6pm. Not really a window as such. I've always assumed the number is just a deterrent - I've been late by a couple of minutes in the past and never noticed a fine. Though that might've been at the discretion of staff (e.g., to penalise lazy, repeat offenders rather than isolated case of traffic due to an accident).
So it's not only extortionate, but also arbitrary? Which favors people who are able to talk themselves out of any situation? Great (not for me though)...
Perhaps the penalty should be a limitation on future book borrowing, then. So that way it's clear it isn't a mutually beneficial (or just zero-sum) transaction, but rather a punishment for being late.
We as a society spend upwards of $10,000/student/year on education. In this context, I don't particularly care whether people occasionally outright keep library books if they are learning something from them!
If they’re using the book in a reasonable way (like a textbook for a course) then I don’t see the problem. If the book warrants extended use then the library isn’t accomplishing its goals better by loaning it out to many people for short periods.
Checking out a textbook for the duration of a course may seem reasonable, but there are internal incentives at university libraries not to provide this service. At my U, the bookstore would lose textbook sales.
I can see this being the case sometimes, but I don't think it's always true that university libraries want to discourage textbook loans or funnel students to the bookstore. the one I work in, for instance, has staff dedicated to working with academic departments /and/ the bookstore to reduce course materials costs through ebook acquisitions, OER adoption, etc.
maybe it helps that our bookstores are fully owned and operated by the university rather than being leased to e.g. Follett or B&N.
Many libraries, such as my university, have no regular late fees, but do have a fee if the item is recalled by another user after the loan expires and not immediately returned.
This can be solved by NYPL having a silent policy to replace presumed-stolen books after X time passes. This spending mustn't be so large that it nixes the no-late-fee policy, I suppose.
The article you cited points out this was a rush of people returning books after the amnesty, not a change in ongoing book return rates - as the article says
"The Chicago Public Library system’s 240% jump in book returns may even out in upcoming months, since the new policy change is likely what spurred library goers to take advantage of their newly bestowed late fee amnesty,"
Late fees do have one benefit – what if someone has a strong interest in one particular book (or a handful of books, which fits within their borrowing limit). Maybe it is a textbook or reference book for a course they are doing. Maybe they are just an obsessive person. They want to borrow a book for far longer than the standard borrowing term, or even indefinitely. They don't care if doing so blocks them from borrowing any further books, because they are more interested in the book(s) they have currently borrowed than in any of those.
Before, if they didn't return it, they would start getting late fees. Some people may be so intent on possessing that book, they may consider the late fees worth it – viewing it as a rental fee rather than a fine. But others, the late fee may be enough to convince them to return it, whereas merely suspending their borrowing privileges would not.
And this can make a difference to other library users. Ever wanted to read a book, or even borrow it, but you can't because it is out on loan? Abolishing late fees runs the risk of making that negative experience much more common than it was before.