Proposed BIG changes to borrowing, reference, eligibility, rules of conduct, and internet access policies (UPDATED)
UPDATE: We have attached a document that describes in more detail some of the changes proposed by the Borrowing Committee.
Happy Thanksgiving Week! We are proposing some pretty big changes to a few public services policies, especially AM 100 Borrowing. Please read the attached policies and share what you think would positively or negatively impact your ability to provide excellent customer service in your job. The first page is a briefing sheet the describes the major changes to each policy. Some of these changes are significant and we really want to know what staff thinks will and won't work.
We expect to take these policies to the commission's Public Services committee on December 15 or sometime in January. It will go to the commission on January 19 or February 16.
Below are the policy leads for each of the policies reviewed:
Borrowing: Meghan Attalla
Eligibility/Library Accounts: Chris Stofel
Internet Access: David Newyear
Reference: Erin Bedford
Rules of conduct: Tracy Simpson
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Here's some background on why the committee is proposing the removal of the card replacement fee. The goal was to improve customer service and member loyalty. It would also reduce time it takes to issue replacement cards, a plus for both the members and staff. The fee has a more significant impact on low-income populations. If they lose their card and don't want to pay the fee, they might not come back. This change should have a small positive impact on member retention.
It will have a small budget impact. The cards each cost $0.10, not including the cost of staff time to order, inventory, and issue. We were unable to gauge with certainty the direct affect on budget. MLS does not currently track how much income we receive from lost card fees; it is rolled into regular transaction fees. The best that could be done was tying a Patron ID change to the Replacement Card fee; with that data we can estimate an impact of no more than $16,712 and most likely less. To put that into perspective, fines and fees together comprise only 2% of library revenue [MLS Annual Report 2015]. As far as peer libraries, Pioneer Library System does not charge a lost card fee; Tulsa City-County Libraries does charge a $1 replacement fee.
I agree that the $1 fee for a new library card has a greater impact on low-income populations. I've seen it working where I do in the system. All of our fees and fines can be a great barrier to some of our members who really need us the most. You mentioned in another post about the grace period for fines that the grace period acknowledges that people live busy, hectic lives and may have issues with transportation, work schedules and things that prevent them from always returning materials on time. I like both recommendations and I think that the money we may lose is insignificant in comparison to the member loyalty and member retention we will gain in the long run.
I'll never forget the father I spoke to on the phone last summer. He had three children, each with their own card, and each card had a block because of overdue fines or long overdue items that were marked lost. He asked me what he had to do so that his kids could just have a book or two to read over the summer. He knew those blocks were there and he and his kids just stayed away from the library because of them. Those are the members we can do a better job of retaining by these two changes.
Some of this is repetition, but here was the committee's reasoning for the grace period proposal. It shows we respect that our members have busy lives, are juggling multiple priorities, and may have economic and transportation constraints. Because studies and front line experience has shown fines are a barrier to access, particularly for our low income members, a grace period will ease this concern and improve market penetration and member retention. A set grace period will also provide a consistent experience for our members across locations. Currently, applying goodwill waivers varies depending on individual staff, locations, and the comfort level of members to provide potentially sensitive and personal information as to why they were unable to return materials on time.
Currently fines and fees are lumped together, making it difficult to separate how much income we receive from fines versus fees. However, fines and fees comprise only 2% of library revenue [MLS Annual Report 2015]. We believe the grace period will reduce the burden on members, while also allaying larger concerns that might arise with doing away with fees entirely for certain materials (e.g., children's books).
Peer libraries/Research: The Edmondton Public Library Report identified fines as being one of the "Top Five Barriers to Library Access." The detrimental effect fines have on access for low income communities is described in the 3/30/16 New York Times article, "In San Jose, Poor Find Doors to Library Closed." The committee reached out to the St. Louis County Library which started implementing a grace period in 2010. The library reported that it considers the grace period a gesture of goodwill to good customers. It stops the “nickel and diming” mentality. They said it saves staff time and has triggered a massive positive response.
Here are some articles and reports of potential interest related to grace periods and fines:
Armstrong, Christy. "D.C. libraries initiate grace period on overdue items." The Washington Times (5 April 2012). http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/5/dc-libraries-initiate-gra...
Kohn, Kara. "Fine (free) and dandy: libraries say good-bye to overdue charges." Illinois Library Association (30 November 2015). https://www.ila.org/publications/ila-reporter/article/21/fine-free-and-d...
Maguire, Peter and Laura Winton. "The top five barriers to library access and recommendations for elimitanting those barriers." Edmonton Public Library (10 March 2014). https://www2.epl.ca/public-files/reports/BarriersReport.pdf
Pogash, Carol. "In San Jose, poor find doors to library closed." The New York Times (30 March 2016).
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us/in-san-jose-poor-find-doors-to-libr...
Shohet West, Nancy. "Late at the library? Increasingly, that’s just fine." Boston Globe (8 April 2012). http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/04/08/m...
It is stated that "Borrowers will have a grace period of 7 days after the material’s due date to return the material, during which accrued fines will be waived." Will this be something that Carl-X will catch and not charge fines within those 7 days? Why not have a 4 week check out period instead?
The Idea behind the 7 day grace period is to help customers that check out several items at a time and when something out of there control keeps them from getting there books back on time or people that come in once a week they don't get slammed with $3 a day fees. Also the grace period is only for the 7 days after its dew that way if you check a book out and renew it to its max its just the max time plus the 7 day grace and not an extra week per renew. It is put in place so people with busy lives don't get punished for having them.
TLC apparently brought this service to our attention at a conference. Carl-X is absolutely able to handle a grace period. We also don't want people to confuse a three-week checkout period plus a grace period with a four-week checkout period; if you bring an item back a day late for the four-week checkout period, it's ten cents. If you bring an item back on the same date with the three-plus-one, it's 80 cents (and that's a difference that's going to add up quickly). The intent is to be understanding of those who may not be able to make it back in exactly three weeks due to unforeseen circumstances, similar to how insurance payments or a utility bill may be "due on the 1st, and late on the 10th."
My biggest qualm is with the renewals. Will patrons still be able to renew the item for the full amount of times immediately upon receiving the item? This can create problems even with the 6 weeks because items will gain in popularity (being posted on a staff recommends, being featured on Dr. Oz, becoming a movie, etc) . This seems pretty harmful given that some materials have times where they can't even be purchased because of edition changes (I'm thinking specifically of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them) that go in and out of being on demand. I know it seems like a rarity, but with Jfiction especially it seems like there are a lot of titles that make it to the library first then take off in popularity.
My other question has to do with the shelving of the reserves. If a location does have to buy more shelving because of this change in policy, does that shelving come out of their existing budget? Or if there seems to be a need throughout the system will that just be considered an additional expense that wouldn't come out of an already planned budget? The difference between 30 cd's on a shelf and 50 is pretty drastic in terms of space, and we have at least 2 or 3 people that do this with CD's regularly.
Hi Tess,
Cardholders will still be able to renew materials that don't have a hold up to the maximum lending period, currently 6 weeks. The popularity of titles like you mentioned would more than likely have holds that would prevent the title from being renewed. We didn't think this flaw in TLC's software should dictate member access & to fix this 'feature,' we would have to ask TLC to make software changes & from what we understand, this could not only take a while, but isn't currently one of the high priority issues we face with the ILS.
Hi Tim,
To piggyback off of Tess's question, or reframe it-- Just yesterday I had a member who had placed a hold that day on an item of which MLS only has one remaining copy. That copy is currently checked out and the member who has it checked out had already renewed it until early January. I am not against extending renewals to 6 months and can see the benefits, but I also envision scenarios like this in which a member has to wait weeks or even months for an item because the library's copy has already been renewed for an extended period before the member places a hold on it. Does that make sense?
Edited to add: Oops, sorry, I just saw that Jeannie made another similar comment later in the comments thread! It's still a concern of mine, though I realize that it probably won't happen that often and that we're limited by our software capabilities. Thanks for the explanation, though.
Hi Elisabeth,
That makes total sense. In proposing this change, we didn't want to be limited by this bug in the ILS, especially if we can request that TLC change it. There's currently no guarantee that the member who has checked out this title will return it on time, much less return it at all. Our best hope is that they do return it & while I don't have the numbers in front of me, I would wager that the vast majority of our members return checked out items closer to their due date than further from it. If the 6 month worth of renewals starts to be a problem, maybe we can use some tools currently at our disposal like purchasing another copy or placing an ILL request for this title. Does that make sense/is that helpful?
Yes, that helps, thank you. I agree that we don't want to be limited by the quirks of our ILS, but wanted to make sure we consider all of the implications. Regardless, I really appreciate that all of our policies are undergoing such a thoughtful review process.
Many of our members browse new books. If items are kept six months I believe this would hinder the process. Also, is it possible that some members are not familiar with the reserve process and might wait for a book (a test guide for example) or other materials to come in, and not gain access to it? Members also browse movies. If members go to different branches on different days and have two or three children, does it bother anyone that there could possibly be 300 items checked out to a family?
Hi Cheryl,
We felt that a change in the maximum renewal period wouldn't affect the availability of our new titles because many of our new items are not only checked out, but also have holds on them that would prevent them from being checked out for 6 months at a time just as it currently prevents them from being checked out for more than 2 weeks at a time. And if some members are unfamiliar with our reserve process, it sounds like a great opportunity for us to educate them about the convenience of being able to place a hold anywhere they have internet access.
Re: the maximum amount of titles one can check out, we felt that with a physical collection of over 1.3 million items coupled with digital collections containing 100s of thousands of titles, members would still have access to a healthy collection regardless of the number of items an individual card holder could check out.
I hope this helps!
But isn't that better than having 300 items sitting on our shelves, not being read or checked out, taking up valuable space? I think, too most members will not be as hoggish as feared. Sure, there will be a few but we have been thru this before. Relax!
I really feel everyone is blowing this way out of proportion - 50 holds - that's only 20 more than they can currently have but they can check out 70 items more than they can now. 50 holds on the shelf means you get creative with how you put them - I saw up at ED where they stacked them on their side up - like this __ instead of this l l l .
__
__
I think the real issue is change and come on, people, we've been thru it before. stay positive and it will all work out in the end.
The main concern seems to revolve around the ability of our members to browse materials. This is a completely understandable concern, and it’s wonderful how committed everyone is to making sure our members have great experiences at the library. If it helps though, here's another way to think about this. As others have said, even with these changes, there isn't going to be a mass exodus of materials. Besides, we want our materials flying off the shelves! =) That’s an important indicator of success and one of the big reasons why we are here.
While it might sound counterintuitive, having fewer materials on the shelf will more likely enhance the browsing experience for our members. With Library Unbound and Collection Anywhere, we are putting more focus on providing enriching experiences for our members. Fewer materials means more faceouts, more room for creative displays, and more opportunity for our members to discover materials in a way that’s easier and more enjoyable.
There’s the related uneasiness that people are going to “miss” something. Yet, we might want to consider that more streamlined collections will instead facilitate finding those hidden gems, simply because they are less hidden. Weeding provides a similar analogy—weeding drives circulation up, not the other way around. Plus, if the system moves towards floating collections as part of Collection Anywhere, members who mostly find materials through browsing will be able to visit their favorite section(s) and stumble upon different materials each time, materials they might never see now because they are only at a library across town.
Granted, our catalog doesn’t currently support a friendly online browsing experience, but I’m confident that will change. Overdrive already does a good job of letting members browse the digital collections. While I don’t think our members will have more trouble serendipitously finding great reading material, if they do, they can always talk to their friendly library staff! We’ll point them in the right direction and can let them know about the many other resources and services they might otherwise have never known about.
The stats show the majority of those currently maxing out their renewals are staff. It is a pretty small number of members who do that. =)
blank
The first thing that jumps out at me is to wonder how all this impacts interlibrary loan. Although ILL lenders have varying loan periods, MLS has benefitted from using a standardized two-week, no renewal checkout period for our members. This encourages members to use the material and return it in a timely manner, allowing us to return to owning libraries and maintain good relations for future loans. As of now, about 50% of ILL materials are returned past the owning library's due date, so I would expect that percentage to increase if the loan period increases. I would not want the no-renewal policy to change.
Would the 7 day grace period apply to ILL materials? It seems to me that it would essentially increase the loan period to 4 weeks, which would mean more materials returned to owning libraries overdue (based on lender's due date) and could reduce our overall access to ILL lenders.
Currently, ILL overdue fines are 50 cents per day. This is not mentioned in the updated policy. The higher fine amount is important in encouraging members to return ILL materials on time.
Can someone let me know what was considered for ILL?
Hi Pauline,
We did not review AM 200 ILL as part of this review. I believe most of your concerns are covered in that policy (fees, fines, renewals, checkout period, etc). Though, your post does illuminate that it is a little confusing to have the ILL borrowing policies off in a separate policy. Perhaps we will move those into AM 100 when AM 200 comes up for review. So, for now, I don't think these changes will impact ILL. Let me know if you think it will.
Thanks!
Vicki
It seems like a lot of the discussion around who is purchasing the Annual Fee cards is based on the idea that these users are middle class or above. While I would assume that is often the case, it is certainly not always the case. With our current data, there doesn't seem to be any way that we would know.
$40 might not seem like a lot to many and even $72 seems small when compared to some people's taxes. That said, we see frequently that even small fines (or the fear that they might have fines) prevent people from accessing our services for years. We've moved toward changing this and some of the proposed changes here help that as well. Still, it happens.
The option of an installment plan might really help this transition and it would mirror how Netflix, hulu, and even public radio allow for people to subscribe. If that isn't possible, perhaps we could make this change more slowly with smaller increases over more years.
(Side note: although renters do not pay property taxes directly, landlords and property managers certainly aren't just writing off taxes and insurance costs. The cost of these added expenses are part of how they determine how much to charge for a unit. )
I think you're onto something with the monthly library subscription. Many people might find $6 a month easier to swallow than $72 at once. If we had the ability to offer auto-renewal it would be great too!
I like this idea......but would the entire $72 have to be paid over the course of the year or could it be a month to month account to be paid as needed?
Great question! So, we never actually decided on this. We proposed the monthly installment idea, but did not include it in the policy because we felt like it was procedural. There was a lot of back and forth on whether it would be too cumbersome for frontline staff and finance. The last thing we wanted to do was complicate the circulation process. Currently, this is not part of the proposal, but since it would be procedural, I'd encourage you all to think about it and talk to your supervisors about it if you are interested. I don't have the authority to say so, but perhaps this could be a local decision?
Good job everyone who has been working on this! It is a huge undertaking and all the comments of the committee show how much thought has gone into each proposed change. Plus the comments people have made here are thoughtful and respectful and obviously in the spirit of putting our members first. It's nice to read :)
Fear not, Kate, there's still plenty of time for us to let you down. I'm about 3 comments away from invoking Godwin's law. ;)
I'm here for that!
I have faith in us!
I really like the idea of "visitor accounts" but I'd like to see a different name used. Many people who will use this account type are not visitors- they just don't have a permanent home address. A while back there was a proposal for a “welcome card”, could this or a name like it be considered? Thanks!
Hi Ashley,
We went back and forth on this as well. We don't *love* Visitor Accounts either. We just couldn't find a better alternative. We also considered "Guest Accounts" since they will essentially be replacing Guest Passes, but we thought that might be confusing. We didn't want to use the Welcome Card title since this doesn't include the essence of the Welcome Card, which allowed members without addresses to checkout physical materials. We also wanted to leave that open for a Welcome Card in the future. What are your thoughts? Do you (or any other staff) have any other suggestions for names?
Thanks!
Vicki
I'd like to propose calling them "Spindles."
You're welcome, Tim.
Considering the name has provided me a lifetime of 2nd rate customer service, I'd sign on to this.
How about something that doesn't imply anything about the user, but rather focuses on what the card can be used to accomplish? Something like an "Internet Access Card" or "Computer Access Card" would remove biased language re: guest status or homelessness.
Love this Annie!!
What about using something related to our Audience Engagement Clusters like Staying Connected card or a Connection Card?
That's a really cool idea Andrea. I know Tim would like it :) I love the idea of referencing the strategic plan. Do you think it would be difficult for frontline staff to have another account that doesn't have a descriptive title? (I'm not sure because I don't work the desk) Would it be hard to remember what it is?
I don't think it would be hard to remember, but I am an aide and not on the desk either. From informal discussions here at Belle Isle, it seems like it might be confusing to have a card with no check-out privileges and that people (members and staff) might not automatically associate Connection Card with Internet access. Any one else have input?
Along with "or preparing meals" in the, "Using restrooms other than for their intended purpose, including for bathing, shampooing, doing laundry, or preparing meals." edit, could we add shaving in there also. This is a common occurrence Downtown, and I've heard of it happening at a couple of other libraries. It monopolizes the sink and believe helps to clog the drains to the sink as well. Example: • Using restrooms other than for their intended purpose, including for bathing, shaving, shampooing, doing laundry, or preparing meals.
Hi Justin,
In the process of reviewing this policy, we looked at a number of other library systems and how they word this portion of their policies. Bathrooms can be used for any number of purposes, as we've learned-- both for things the library tolerates and those it does not. Trying to name any and all behaviors that we wouldn't tolerate would box us in. We've listed a few, but anything not specifically named (including shaving) would under "other than for... intended purpose." We'll leave it up to staff to identify and respond to those behaviors as needed.
Thank you!
As long as I have worked at the downtown library, Security has enforced an unwritten policy of no sitting or laying on the floor or ground. Sometimes when they approach and check on members, and or educate them about the unwritten sitting on the ground policy, the members ask or, in some instances, demand to see it in writing. Perhaps if we added the wordage "sitting" in with the "Monopolizing library space, equipment, materials, or facilities, preventing others from using them, including prolonged or chronic sleeping or lying down." rule, this would help alleviate the awkwardness of trying to enforce it.
It seems like "Blocking or impeding access of others " would be sufficient to address sitting in an area that was obstructing pathways or creating an unsafe environment. If someone argues this, they are then "Failing to comply with a reasonable staff request." I'm concerned that if we add language for all possibilities we will not only be expanding the policy, but also giving ourselves a harder time in the future by being overly specific- I can easily see people getting more agitated by not mentioning the one thing the member is argumentative about. We can still say, "This behavior falls under this Rule of Conduct." Usually when I have a conversation of this type with a member I take the ROC document highlighted for the rule that is being violated, and explain why their behavior violates the rule.
But sometimes it is appropriate to be sitting on the ground...for example, during children's programs participants often sit on the floor.
Our Children Reading to Dogs volunteers ( and the kids who are reading) often sit on the ground, and I when I had a small child, We often sat together on the floor to read a book. It seems that problematic ground-sitting is already covered as "monopolizing space."
If it isn't monopolizing space, is it still a problem?
In an effort to leave the language in this policy flexible to interpretation, sitting in a disruptive way or location would fall under "monopolizing library space," "failing to comply with a reasonable staff request," or "blocking or impeding access of others." While it may be awkward to help members understand this kind of wording, the goal is to empower staff to enforce these policies as they see fit.
Love that the "under 10" was removed from the unattended children section!
Does that mean any unattended children of any age will need to call for a ride? Or just make it more powerful when we choose to enforce it? We have unattended children in our library at any given moment...
We probably do need clarification for minors after closing procedures again given the age removal, though that doesn't belong in the policy.
My initial reaction is that it just gives us more support when we choose to enforce it, and also safeguard the system should something happen. Like the sitting on the ground issue at DN, unattended children are really only a problem if they are posing a safety risk (such as very young children unattended), being disruptive/destructive, or don't have a ride home. While teens may be old enough to drive or be in charge of their own transportation, I have always been uncomfortable leaving children of any age unattended. I think it's important to ask if they have made transportation arrangements even if they appear to be old enough to drive. We can use our core values to guide our decision making on how to handle those situations, though I often do choose to wait unless the teen identifies they have transportation and are just staying to use the Wi-Fi.
While the library states we assume no responsibility for minor children, I'm not sure the public is aware of that. I think it is often assumed that we will be temporary care-takers, especially when after school programs are offered. While the affirmation that we assume no responsibility is important, I'm not sure it would hold up well if something really did happen to a minor left at the library at closing.
Thanks everyone-- you raise some important points that are absolutely worthy of revisiting. The committee decided to remove that specific age from the policy primarily because it can be difficult (if not impossible) to determine a child's specific age on sight. Additionally, there was much discussion about how not all 10-year-olds behave comparably in the library... and how unattended vulnerable adults are an entirely separate issue. So we'll continue this dialog for sure.
minors left after hours at all...though I do agree that clarification would be good here. I was thinking more along the lines of children left unattended during operating hours.
My concern is with having a rule set in writing that is not uniformly followed across the system. There are many libraries that have unattended minors in the building throughout the day, especially in the summer and when there are school breaks. I understand that there needs to be something in writing that allows us to request certain children NOT be left unattended (very young, disruptive behavior, chronic late pick -up, etc...), but this rule as written does not specify when that might be the case.
I do whole heartedly recognize, as well, the need for a policy statement that we will not be responsible for unaccompanied minors.
My concern is that when we have a written rule that we admittedly disregard a large part of the time, it can be problematic to enforce it conditionally.
From a customer's perspective, if staff approaches me to enforce the rule that "leaving children unattended is not permitted" while I am standing in a library full of unattended children, I would not be happy.
It is not entirely unusual at our location for us to be faced with customers who perceive biased treatment. It seems changing this language, and continuing to enforce it only conditionally, may run the risk of increasing this perception, possibly damaging "Integrity and and Trust in Us and by Us"
Are we really concerned with ANY child being left unattended, ever? If so, then we should keep the changes, and enforce it. I can tell you this would be a huge change at my location, as I am sure it would be at a few others, and may not meet our goals and core values.
It seems, though, that our main concern is two fold- we don't want to have the liability of unattended children (which seems to be covered in our liability statement) - and we don't want to see very young children left alone in the library.
If I am right about what our true goals are, then it seems the wording of the rules should match, and should be enforced with regularity rather than a case by case basis.
At many of our locations we have children unattended every afternoon, every school break. It is one of the ways in which we are encouraging lifelong learning and sparking interest in the library-- by being available to these minors whose guardians might not be able to bring them (not to mention encouraging teXperiences and playful learning.)
Having a policy that says these children can't be in the library, while knowing that we will not be enforcing it, seems to be setting up front line staff to make decisions that will inevitably lead to confusion and dissatisfaction amongst our members and, as mentioned, could damage our integrity. I think that when we talk about putting library members first, we need to start with clear expectations which will be applied uniformly across the system and this will be very hard for staff to enforce.
I have a real problem with this. Are you saying that I can check a book out, and immediately renew it for a total of six months, as long as there are no holds on it? So, if I want a book today, and someone checked it out and renewed it yesterday, I will have to wait 6 months before I can see it???
Hi Jeannie,
Because of the way TLC's software currently works, yes, someone could immediately renew a title with no holds for (according to our proposal) a total of 6 months. But we didn't feel that this bug in the software should dictate our policy. Instead, we felt that our proposal should go forth independent of the software we happen to be currently using because we do have the option to make a development request of TLC to curb/otherwise disable this feature, i.e. we don't want to propose policy based on the bugs/limits of our ILS. Another factor supporting our decision was a report we ran that found that very few of our members max out their renewal limit immediately after checking out a title. In spite of our current 6 week lending limit, we're not guaranteed that a member will return a title on time & it could end up being unavailable for 6 months or more like you mentioned. Thanks for your comment & I hope this info helps shed more light into our decision-making process.
Pages