Steal This Book?
My Local Public Library’s Recent Debate Over Eliminating Fines
It is one of the hit sitcom Seinfeld’s best episodes — “The Library.” The lead character, Jerry Seinfeld never returned a book to the New York Public Library that he took out in 1971. But, the library’s Lieutenant Bookman — played by the great Philip Baker Hall — was on the case. He was going to get Jerry to pay his 20 year old fine. When confronting Seinfeld, Lieutenant Bookman laid down the library law:
“Well, let me tell you something, funny boy. Y’know that little stamp, the one that says “New York Public Library”? Well that may not mean anything to you, but that means a lot to me. One whole hell of a lot. Sure, go ahead, laugh if you want to. I’ve seen your type before: Flashy, making the scene, flaunting convention. Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. What’s this guy making such a big stink about old library books? Well, let me give you a hint, junior. Maybe we can live without libraries, people like you and me. Maybe. Sure, we’re too old to change the world, but what about that kid…Doesn’t HE deserve better? Look. If you think this is about overdue fines and missing books, you’d better think again. This is about that kid’s right to read a book without getting his mind warped! … Well I got a flash for ya, joy-boy: Party time is over. Y’got seven days, Seinfeld. That is one week!”
This is what made Seinfeld — the show about nothing —brilliant. It could turn an every day situation into comic gold. In the 1990s, when library budgets were tight and being slashed, aggressive collection tactics were common. Many libraries brought those with outstanding fines or debts to small claims court; libraries hired collection agencies to recoup fines; some garnished tax refunds; and others put possible criminal sanctions in notifications to scare customers straight, including “imprisonment of up to six months.” As an executive director of a library on Long Island said at the time, “We’re not interested in the goodwill of deadbeats.”
It could have been a case of life imitating art or vice versa. Jerry was that “deadbeat” the library was going to bring to justice. Libraries were getting tough. But is it the right approach? Is it the most effective approach?
To Fine, or Not to Fine: That is the Question
Libraries have traditionally relied on monetary fines as the primary incentive of returning books and other materials — hopefully on time and in the same condition when they were borrowed. Libraries have debated the merits of fines for some time and the use of fines continues to be the dominant policy approach. But recently, libraries across the country have begun shifting their approach.
I saw the debate playing out in my hometown library — the Bethlehem Public Library — which is in a suburb outside the City of Albany, the capital of New York State. Like many other libraries, the Bethlehem Public Library currently charges fines for late returns. If you have more than $5.00 in fines your card access is suspended and you can’t do things like check out books until it is paid.
But are fines having the desired policy impact? Are fines aligned with the greater mission of public libraries providing access to knowledge? Are fines disproportionately impacting certain individuals? What is the taxpayer impact of cancelling library fines? These are some of the things the Bethlehem library trustees had to grapple with.
Fines and the Law of Unintended Consequences
A number of studies have found that small fines have an impact, but not what the intended goals of the policy are. Small fines, in particular, have been shown to have little impact on the stated goal of getting people to return materials on time. But fines have had the opposite effect of placing barriers to library access on certain groups — groups that need public libraries the most.
As a report prepared for the Colorado State Library found, “The profession has little empirical evidence that charging fines results in greater circulation of library materials, or indeed the return of items in a timely manner.” Analysis conducted by the Bethlehem Public Library supports this conclusion, finding that with fines, 90% of items checked out of the library are returned on time; and without fines, 80% of items are returned on time while 90% of items are returned up to three days late. In other words, it’s a wash.
Fines may not result in getting materials back to the library on time, but emerging data suggest library card suspension policies based on unpaid fines have a greater negative impact on kids and low-income households. A study in Chicago found that 20% of suspended library cards belonged to children under the age of 14. Similarly, 15% of the Bethlehem Library’s youth (under 18) cards are blocked from access services given they have more than $5.00 in fees or fines versus 12% of adult cards were blocked from access.
The outstanding fees disproportionately impact lower-income househoulds. For example, in New York City, lower-income communities were 6 times more likely to have blocked library accounts than other communities. In analysis conducted by the Bethlehem Public Library also found that the lower income households owed more fines/fees than wealthier households.
It’s even worse if you are a child from a low-income community. For instance, in New York City, 80% of all children/youth with holds on their library cards because of outstanding fines were from low-income families.
Fines and Protecting the Public FISC: Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze?
Several Bethlehem Public Library trustees voiced opposition to eliminating fees, in part, because they argued they had to be mindful of protecting taxpayers. It’s a fair point. Eliminating fees would mean a loss in revenue which would have to be made up somehow. However, a recent study by Sabrina Unrein from Syracuse’s School of Information Studies found that fines are a small portion of a library’s revenue — ranging from 0.2% to 1.3% overall. Other studies found collecting unpaid fines actually cost libraries more than what they ultimately collected.
Revenue from fines account for roughly 0.5% of the total Bethlehem Public Library’s more than $4.48M annual budget. Most of the library’s revenue already comes from the local taxpayers. In this regard, our wealtheir tax base allows for greater investment in our library where other communities may not have similar financial resources. In fact, the amount the Bethlehem Public Library raises from fines is roughly equal to what it gets in state aid. With an unprecedented multi-billion dollar state budget surplus, a better alternative to fines could be advocating for a small increase in state funding.
In addition, the overall revenue collected from the Bethlehem Library has been decreasing over the years, although the pandemic has likely skewed the past several years (for example, fines were temporarily suspended in 2021). Regardless, even if you remove the pandemic years, fines were already a small portion of the overall Bethlehem Public Library budget and only getting smaller.
For such a small portion of overall revenue, is the juice worth the squeeze? And if libraries need more revenue there should be a policy conversation of how to provide additional financial assistance without fines that are shutting off access to those individuals who need libraries the most. We do have to worry about tax impact, but the overall barriers to access it creates outweigh this small fiscal impact.
Social Justice or a License to Steal?
There is also an economic and social justice underpinning of eliminating library fines. But some opponents have argued, how do you enforce library policy if you don’t have penalties? Does it create a license to steal?
Evidence suggest that contrary to creating an incentive to steal, it has resulted in more people using libraries AND returning overdue materials. For instance, when Chicago provided an amnesty period — wiping away fines in 2019, not only did 15,000 more people start using libraries again, $800,000 worth of materials owned by the library were returned. During Chicago’s 2012 amnesty more than 29,000 people renewed or applied for library cards with nearly $2M in overdue items being returned. When the policy was made permanent, Chicago experienced a 240% increase in returned books. With apologies to Abbie Hoffman — it wasn’t a license to steal; it was an incentive to return the overdue materials to its rightful owners — the libraries.
When Chicago provided an amnesty period wiping away fines in 2019, not only did 15,000 more people start using libraries again, $800,000 worth of materials owned by the library was returned. With apologies to Abbie Hoffman — it wasn’t a license to steal; it was an incentive to return the late materials to its rightful owners — the libraries.
There are still ways of incentivizing the return of books and other materials. For instance, in Albany, New York the library puts a hold on accounts until the materials are returned.
Trying an Alternative Policy Path
In the end, the fictional Lt. Bookman was right when he said, “If you think this is about overdue fines and missing books, you’d better think again. This is about that kid’s right to read a book …” Unpaid fines resulting in account suspensions mean that we’re shutting off access to vital services to children and low-income households at a time when only 35% of our nation’s 4th graders 34% of our 8th graders are proficient in reading. And the library isn’t getting their money or the materials returned to boot. So in many ways, it’s a lose/lose situation. So why not try an alternative policy path?
Unpaid fines resulting in account suspensions mean that we’re shutting off access to vital services to children and low-income households at a time when only 35% of our nation’s 4th graders 34% of our 8th graders are proficient in reading. And the library isn’t getting their money or the materials returned to boot. So in many ways, it’s a lose/lose situation. So why not try an alternative policy path?
That’s what the Bethlehem Public Library is doing — forging an alternative policy path. After nearly a year of study with the formation of a special sub-committee to review the issue, the Bethlehem Public Library Board of Trustees recently voted to eliminate fines by the end of 2022 — joining a number of libraries across the country like Chicago, New York City’s three public library systems, and the neighboring Albany Public Library. But it wasn’t easy and the trustees were divided — 4 in favor and 3 opposed. As the recent draft meeting minutes note, “there was a difference of opinion despite a thoughtful and robust back and forth.”
But not every part of the country is taking this approach. On the other end of the spectrum places, like the Charlotte Library are doubling down with even greater penalties with one system bringing criminal charges for those unreturned books. Talk about a perverse case of life imitating art, except in this case there is no laugh track and Lieutenant Bookman isn’t funny. It may get the book back, but it’s likely going to have a chilling effect on others who need the library in the future.
Even with emerging data and anecdotal evidence, there is an overall dearth of research on this issue. In order to fully measure the new policy’s impact will take time and more information. It will be interesting to see how this policy shift ultimately impacts the Bethlehem Public Library. It may work as advertised or it may need tweaking. Better and more uniform data could help pave the way to improved or different policy choices or it could reinforce that the policy is sound.
The ultimate goal is to continually strive to increase access to library services and materials. It’s the DNA and mission of public libraries. Bethlehem Public Library took a giant step towards that noble endeavor. Trying different polices like this takes political courage — especially when you are an elected board of trustees. But it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. And the Bethlehem Public Library, like many other public libraries across the country, is trying. That’s worthy of respect.
Post Script: It Always Comes Back to Seinfeld
Hat tip to Deborah Fallows who wrote a great piece in The Atlantic called “Why Some Libraries Are Ending Fines” which also references this classic episode of Seinfeld as a hook. A friend sent me her article after I began writing this piece, but referencing this classic episode was too good to pass up.
In another classic episode, “The Bookstore” (Season 9, Episode 17), Jerry’s Uncle Leo is caught stealing a book from a bookstore. Uncle Leo thought he would be able to get away with it given his age. It was Jerry who ratted his Uncle out to security with Jerry’s friend George saying, “Alright, Leo. Sticking it to the man!” George is more Abbie Hoffman than Lieutenant Bookman in this case.
