Chicago book returns surge 240% after city eliminates fines
abc7chicago.com
abc7chicago.com
CPL did a study of who held the cards with suspended privileges because of late fees, and found out that the vast majority were people in poor neighborhoods, and of those the vast majority were children.
Now with the new rules it opens up book borrowing again to tens of thousands of people who need it most.
/CPL cardholder.
Random anecdote: About 15 years ago, I was looking for a somewhat obscure book, and found that it was something like 6 months overdue. Later on, while hanging out with a friend, I mentioned this to a friend who had a common interest in the subject matter, with some comment to the effect of, "What happened there!?"
Well, this friend went over to his bookshelf, picked a book off the shelf, and handed it to me. It was the very same 6 month overdue book I had been looking for. He explained that he had lost it somewhere, and, by the time he had found it, the fines were already up to something like $50, which he couldn't afford, and he wasn't done reading it yet, so he figured he might as well keep it since it was the last library book he'd ever be checking out.
IIRC the statistic quoted when CPL announced this program suggests that some version of that story was playing out for thousands and thousands of books every year. Which negatively affects access to information for everyone in the city, not just the people who were getting slapped with fines.
Like, just, "please bring the books back, we'll disappear the fees and just take 'em back and all is forgiven"? Or did they just... reactivate the accounts and hope that history won't repeat?
(Genuinely curious -- the articles I've read on the subject, like this one, are all excited about more library everything, but quite light on real info)
The policy used to be that you had to pay whatever the library paid for it, which could be quite a penny if they bought one of the library editions. Now a $7 trade paperback will do.
It didn't get used too often, but it was a nice addition to the rotating book supply that was otherwise available. And it was also a nice learning experience for us small kids about how the libraries worked and we got to use computers.
I guess it’s a common scenario
As this the Good Will Hunting quote suggests, in many libraries these fees were small, $1.25 in late fees for a Harvard Education...
So it actually may have actually been detrimental.
Please have some empathy for poor children and children with unengaged parents and stop supporting punishing them for their failings by removing access to one of the things that might get them out of their position.
What is your point? Of course we all understand that being poor doesn't (directly) mean you can't return books. I could write a whole essay about how being poor could indirectly make it harder to return books (less free time from working, less access to easy transportation, etc) but that's not really a point worth making, and I don't think it would change your mind on...whatever it is you're trying to bring up.
What exactly is your point though? Just curious here. That the library directors made a mistake? That OP's point about library card suspension being correlated to income doesn't mean it's causation? Where were you trying to push the conversation here?
GP was bringing some additional clarity to the content of the article and the discussion about it. See the Chicago public library had conducted a study and found that by eliminating late fees, they'd increase traffic and usage of the library system. See they found that poor people and children were less likely to engage the library system once they'd begun accruing fines. The city felt this was a negative, and to address it they changed their policy.
Again, of course they're capable of returning things on time. But the city had found that 1-the fines weren't needed to keep the libraries functioning. 2- the fines had a greater impact on the poor than other patrons, which feels bad.
The poor and their usage behaviors were part of the decision making process, and knowing this may inform the discussion. It's extremely relevant.
it is the antithesis of the social darwinism that coldly dominates our culture.
I‘d initially thought that eliminating fines was a great idea, but since then I’ve changed my opinions on it.
Perhaps a better way to go about it would be to have a month (or 3 months) long jubilee when people could return the books they haven’t returned in years without any penalties and then switch over to a more reasonable and less punitive fine structure. Having zero fines implies that there will always be people who exploit the system. Lower but non-zero fines will be closer to the optima, IMO.
Did you speak to a member of staff and ask for a replacement book to be purchased?
The public library system here Ireland is by far the best I've seen, and it's a bit discouraging to see people exploit a public good.
Anecdote vs. anecdote.
Ultimately, I believe it’s too early to draw any conclusions beyond observing the number of books returned for now. It will certainly be interesting to see where the steady state will wind up, though.
(I’m a CPL member.)
You're maybe minimizing what the fines can amount to. As a parent of small children, I can say from experience that a load of books from the children's library, left forgotten for a week, is around $10 in fines, which is a pretty penny for a lot of folks. And if you're a busy parent and the nearest branch isn't too easy to get to - I used to live about 1/2 hour away from the nearest branch (Sulzer) - having a week or two go by before you can reasonably make it to the library is not at all unrealistic.
There are 81 branch libraries and you can return a book to any of them (you also can have your book reservations delivered to any branch as well).
Sulzer has something like 5 branches within a 3 miles radius. As you get to the edges of the city, the number of nearby branches decreases (as you would expect). If you have no car and have to pay individually for bus rides, this starts to appear quite burdensome. Actually, having a car might not help so much because few branches have free parking lots.
I frequently drop books off for my kids because I work downtown and can head over at lunch (there is a place to get good cubano sandwiches across the street, so big bonus!). I doubt many people on the south and west sides have that luxury.
That said, my understanding of behavioral therapy is that you reward desired behaviors and ignore unwanted behaviors. Punishment is also on the table for flagrant violation of the rules, but it needs to be applied equally and immediately.
With that in mind, how does the library system reward good actors -- those that return books on-time, that sort of thing? It's really hard to shape behavior when you have a surplus of sticks and a notable lack of carrots.
People who are heavy library users aren't affected by this, they can do what they've been doing. People who want to hold onto a book for years can do that too (and the library might decide to buy more copies), but they're no longer exhibiting bad behavior and there's no reason to disincentivize them.
as long as you bring back books in good condition, and they are in the library catalogue. (the library may not want to take multiple copies of books that are unpopular)
of course paying for books up front does affect low income families and users who need many books at once.
another side effect of these models is that you can swap books with your friends.
you get 10 books, and i get a different 10 books and we swap with each other until we are through all 20 books together, and then each of us brings any 10 books back.
One thought would be to take a page from airlines and institute the equivalent of status tiers. For example, returning books on time gets you further towards the front of the line when waiting for items on-hold and earlier access to new releases.
Also, as for the stick, perhaps temporary suspensions for consistent bad behavior would work.
You can get 5 books at a time, initially, and you can keep them for 21 days, and you can renew by phone once per book (so long as they're not on reserve for someone else).
If you have had your card for >90 days, and have borrowed and returned >10 books, you instead are allowed 20 books at a time (no more than 5 per topic/category), and can renew twice before returning. But if you run up too many fees, you go back to the 5-book-limit.
A reward of an increase in their simultaneous loan allowance might be warmly received perhaps, whilst not actually taken advantage of to any detrimental extent.
http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what...
I dunno, but I'm going to stop paying rent if there is no penalty.
People squat on apartments all the time. Some people go from home to home never paying rent, and never see a real punishment for it.
But it's unethical, and against social norms.
Just like keeping books forever (stealing) just because there's no late fee.
But taxes for the rich are often not. Greece has a proud tradition of this...
https://aeon.co/ideas/voluntary-taxation-a-lesson-from-the-a...
Also safety nets for poor are begrudged because they are funded by Government taxes but safety nets for the rich are welcomed because they are funded by banks, and money of depositors and investors, since individuals who bail you out can (expected value) personally do better inside the bank than individuals who foreclose and help the bank (eg Trump’s bailouts after Taj Mahal etc.)
My only point was that if things are optional to pay for, lots of people will take the thing, and not pay. That's why the grocery store hires cashiers, rather than being on the honor system.
The cashier is there for when you decide to pay for your goods.
If you try and walk out with them, the cashier will not stop you. For legal reasons, even the security probably won't touch you.
The reason most people who don't steal isn't the punishment, it's because they don't want to steal.
Likewise, removing the fine doesn't make a late book not late.
People do not have some inherent want to break social conventions like stealing or overstaying your lease on something.
Regardless, I don't agree with your theory. It might work for a while, but as soon as people see other people getting things for free, and the prices they pay go up to compensate, they tend to decide not to be the suckers anymore.
I mean, look how quickly looting can start. Look at all the people willing to exploit loopholes in the system to cheat people out of money. Look at corruption in countries where it isn't effectively policed against. Look at how crime is celebrated in a significant amount of American culture (especially music).
And especially, look at how hard it is to make a buck by offering your software or music or what-have-you as "donation ware."
The reason people don't want to steal is that they have been in environments where, if they are dishonest, people eventually are onto them and don't trust them and otherwise "punish" them, even if just by social pressure and shaming and such. If they are in environments where this isn't the case, especially if they have been in such environments for a long time, they adapt to those environments.
Do you really think a grocery store would stay in business long if there was absolutely no tangible downside to just walking out without paying?
You're describing a vast minority of stores in the US, I don't know who you're trying to fool...
Sure you can go to a some neighborhoods and find stuff under lock and key and aggressive security, but the vast majorities of stores do not rely on that (in other words, the system as a whole does not rely on that, even if there are special cases for specific stores)
You're waxing poetic about rioting and people driven to extreme enough poverty they feel the need to steal Tide to sell for drugs... yeah it turns out disenfranchised people in extreme situations will not respect societal norms, not some deep insight.
We're talking about library books. You're straying into the most extreme ends of society to try and what exactly?
Feel free to identify as someone who only doesn't steal books late fees, I assure you you'll be in the minority.
>Look at how crime is celebrated in a significant amount of American culture (especially music).
Also, what kind of non-sequitur is this?!
In areas where people are living on the extremes of society and in poverty (most people in food deserts are from low-income families) they're driven to go against a social norm (not stealing), and that act is enough to drive out stores because of razor thin margins, and they close.
That literally shows LP is not what's keeping stores open, it's the people choosing not to steal.
The only difference affecting shrinkage between the stores that close, and the stores that stay open is the people shopping in them. As soon as the people start to steal, the store can't literally can't afford matching increases in LP to counteract it, and closes.
If even a minor percentage more people decided to steal, many stores would literally not work.
Unfortunately in some places "taking what can be taken" is a social convention. I know people who are saying: "People in europe are idiots, i can take anything i want from supermarket, and the policemen doesn't even dare to search me, though knows that i have taken something".
(Indeed, California recently reduced the penalty for theft -- making it a misdemeanor that is very rarely prosecuted for thefts under $950, and suddenly there's a massive increase in theft, because it turns out that you can make decent money stealing stuff $949 at a time)
But you can bet that they’ll be sending the video recording with you waltzing out to the local police station…
It's not a binary outcome. Self-checkout increases shrinkage, of course there are people who steal when not watched as carefully.
But the vast majority of people walking in a store are not stopped from stealing because of the odds of being caught.
Like, stores would literally not work if that was the case. Margins these stores have a razor thin. The amount of shrinkage they'd have to deal with, and the amount they'd have to invest in LP would be insane.
Similarly, the vast majority of people who are borrowing books would not steal them instead just because there was no late fee (it's not like there's no due date).
And similarly, libraries would not work if that was not the case. When you keep a book, it still has to be replaced before someone else can use it, and if you don't pay the late fees/replacement fees the library either eats the whole cost, or sends it to a collection agency and eats part of the cost.
How many libraries could afford to deal with a populace hellbent on stealing books regardless of late fees?
I imagine that self checkout doesn't get all that many cheaters because people think there are cameras, and being busted for stealing is a pretty humiliating big deal most people wouldn't want to risk, even if the risk is small.
If this is true, and I'm not sure it is, I bet the money they lose to theft is dwarfed by the amount they save by laying off most of their checkers.
In one neighborhood the machine can be configured to be extremely sensitive to weight and quick to give loud warnings as soon as a mismatch occurs, in another it can be configured for easier use, by ignoring single weight mismatches and allowing voiding of cheaper items without employee oversight
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/retail/marketing/pdf/sco/RTE03002-USEN-00.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330214157_SELF-CHEC...
But yeah, the increase in theft is probably a lot less than the savings from having to pay more checkers (since they typically can have one observer per 4-6 self-checkout kiosks)
Even if that’s the case, I guess they can just have an amnesty every once in a while.
Even with fines, (most) people return books when they’re a day or a week late.
FTFY Coding standards. ;-)
It’s a bit like saying that people wouldn’t pirate a movie that only costs $2.
The most expensive thing in the world is people that are unemployable, ignorant, need support and vote for the politicians we deserve!
There should be like a national policy where kids get paid for reading, every penny spent will payoff 100X.
Something tells me if you opened an online bookstore, you could make a nice little business...
This doesn't seem to have happened, which is super encouraging! But I'm also very surprised!
(I haven't read the policy but I guess there must still be some restrictions to prevent abuse.)
Smart move imho. Bravo CPL.
I bet the same result happens elsewhere independent of assumptions about desire to pay.
> [C]hecked-out books automatically will renew as many as 15 times, as long as no one else places a hold on them...Items will be marked as "lost" and accounts will be charged a replacement fee one week after the last due date, but the charge will be cleared if the item is returned
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-libr...
Curious to see some library data guru openly analyze the consequences...
If i could chuck the book into my mailbox to return it I’d stop by more often.
Many years ago, as a teenager, I went down to the main library to return some books I had borrowed. I knew I was late and I knew I had to pay a fee because of it, but I'd rather pay the fees with my savings than lose access to the library.
The librarian at the desk is the same man that has been driving the bus for as long as I can remember. He takes the books, taps at the keyboard a bit, hand me my receipt, smiles and wish me a good day. I ponder for a few seconds about the late fees, but decide against just walking away - I really don't want it to somehow result in suspending my card. So I tell him that I believe there is some late fees that I need to pay. His takes off his glasses and his face turns serious and say "Someone that has been visiting my bookbus since he was about this high (signaling around waist), don't have to pay just because his miss the return date by a week. You returned them, that's what matters".
I still think about this, and if he is still alive I wish I could somehow tell him this story. He was passionate about his job and he made a difference.
Lots of logistics and not very likely but I know it would remove my primary impediment to using the local library.
That and the durable plastic cases.
You could do this for small paperbacks in padded mailers, but it'd wear them down faster than they already wear.
I imagine the main cost-factor is size/weight of the books. The post office having to deliver an encyclopedia would be more costly than delivering a small paperback.
Maybe there's a way to work around that. It would at least encourage the readership of physical books (and maybe books in general). I don't go to to the library either, and really don't read books that much, but it certainly would be interesting to have the capacity to see reading materials online and have them mailed to me. Then again, if they are currently available for free at the library today, I suppose there's only so many excuses to make for my own laziness.
Not really. Fourth class mail used to be called "book rate." It's slow, but it's super cheap, and was established in 1879 to encourage reading and literacy.
I think a better innovation would be for one of the SV "tech" delivery companies to team up with local libraries to deliver and retrieve books from people in their offices.
Whether a library that starts with a no-fine policy can sustain that is highly doubtful. What are we going to resort to, the librarian calling each borrower and asking nicely?
Maybe we should eliminate penalties for everything in life, because they're discriminatory or inequitable towards people who can't afford them. Remove speeding tickets, late fees for unpaid taxes, etc.
In fact, we should just remove prices for everything -- prices tend to reduce access to everything and make things inequitable!
PS: Maybe the real way to fix this is paying a deposit upfront when becoming a member of the library, which is not high price, just the cost of an average book. You'd get this deposit when you decide to stop being a member.
How could that reframing work? Instead of free limited time lending plus optional fine after n days, make it a rental, but with the first n days free. If you return on time that's fine, but you're a freeloader then. Those who take their time with the books are the true supporters. Nobody will perpetually postpone returning because they feel uneasy about admitting wrongdoing (no matter how small).
[0] I believe it's only short term because bad habits usually take time to develop. Long term, the negatives will outweigh the positives. The person who would systematically take advantage of zero fine doesn't use the library, yet.
Now people will cancel their membership when they need their $15 back in fast cash. Probably the people who could use the library the most.
Do you have any idea how many people this would stop from using library services?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/01/canbe...
Or I wouldn't renew by email, and then staff would handle my payment next time I checked out. At ten cents a day, odds were staff would break a bill. Staff would write a receipt and enter stuff in the computer system.
Manual work for a few cents. Manual work that didn't help anyone use the library. Manual work that didn't make the library better. Manual work that wasn't worth doing.
It was petty work involving petty cash. Paying fines didn't make anyone happy. Collecting fines didn't make staff happy. The fines were just inertia. Fines never motivated me to return books on time. What motivated me to return books on time was believing that returning books on time was good for the library. That didn't change when fines went away.
The whole idea behind fines is that 1) imposing fines motivates people to return books on time and 2) disabling future borrowing motivates people to pay the fine, thereby making the motivation from 1 actually work. I don't think it's an "of course" level of obviousness that this scheme doesn't work in practice—otherwise libraries would have abandoned fines long ago.
Maybe it’s the case that the library has new information and/or is committed to a new or reinvigorated mission, and that this decision is an obvious step toward accomplishing that mission.
"Return our book and it will cost you $X. Keep it forever and it will cost you nothing". That's a poor mechanic.
Digital distribution has zero marginal cost and practically everyone has a device capable of reading the entire archive of humanity. Why do we still care about books per se?
Secondly, speaking as someone who is fully on-board on ebooks, for some books, such as large reference books, design/photography books and children books, physical books are still the way to go.
Plus extended reading on a tiny mobile phone is not feasible for many people, and not everyone can afford a large screen device for reading.
Instead of a fine with a cap ($5 iirc), they suspend your card.