Mayor Levar Stoney (left) and Library Director Scott Firestine
by James A. Bacon
The Richmond Public Library has joined 200 other public libraries across the country in eliminating the charging of fines for overdue books. Why? Because, in the words of City of Richmond press release, the fines, which make up less than 1% of the library’s total budget, “disproportionately affected low-income, African American and Hispanic communities.”
By eliminating fines, the city hopes that “residents of all backgrounds will feel more comfortable and welcome” to use library resources. Says Mayor Levar Stoney: “A welcoming library … provides a gateway to the world of learning and opportunity for personal progress. Ending fines … will alleviate the burden on our most vulnerable Richmonders.”
Added Richmond Public Library Director Scott Firestine: “Our library has removed a punitive, inefficient and misguided practice that was a barrier blocking our most vulnerable users. This is a giant step forward to inform, enrich and empower.”
Needless to say, my initial reaction to this idea was not a positive one. Eliminating fines erodes personal responsibility. It sends a signal to poor people that larger society won’t hold them accountable for their actions. You’re poor? You get a free pass. At the same time, I do believe in following the facts. Arguments that aren’t certifiably insane actually can be made that the idea is a good one.
The RTD editorial page notes today that wiping out fees encourages patrons to return overdue books. Chicago libraries saw a 240% increase in returned materials within the first three weeks. The city’s library commissioner contended that there had been many families who “couldn’t afford to pay the fines and therefore couldn’t return the materials, so we just lost them as patrons altogether.”
Also, I note, the Richmond library system still will charge fees “for items that are damaged or are considered lost.”
I’m not sure how this will work out, though. If poor people are reluctant to return overdue books, won’t they be even less likely to return damaged books they have to pay for? As for “lost” books, how long does a book have to be overdue before it is deemed to be lost? What happens if the borrower doesn’t pay the lost-book fine? Does the library block him from taking out more books? What happens if cancellations disproportionately impact the poor and minorities? Do we spike that policy, too?
Maybe Richmond librarians know something about human nature that I don’t know. I tend to be cynical: Remove a sanction for doing something, and people will do more of it. But maybe I’m wrong. I’m always willing to stand corrected. I’m also a fan of experimentation. Try something different and see if it works. If it doesn’t, go back to what you were doing before.
I would have more faith in this initiative if I knew that the Richmond Library was keeping track of the data and was willing to change course if things don’t pan out as expected.
