If your library requires patrons to have a library card to use the computers, does it restrict their access if they have lost or overdue books? Why?

If your library requires patrons to have a library card to use the computers, does it restrict their access if they have lost or overdue books? Why or why not?

For example, restricting book borrowing when a patron has been irresponsible with books lent to them is reasonable, but computers are a separate service. Does that make it unreasonable? On the other hand, this might provide added incentive to return items on time and/or pay their fines. Does that make it reasonable? (Given the ethics and goals of our profession.)

1. Alan Thomas II

• circulation
• public-computing

Comments

• 1. Alan Thomas II: Could someone (preferably the down-voter) please post a suggestion of how this could be improved or why it is irredeemably bad?
• KatieR: I'm concerned that this is going to be way too subjective with no concrete answer. Everyone can jump in here and say "Well, in my library we do it this way." I am confident there probably is literature out there looking at computer use and restrictions relating to it but I think this could EASILY turn into a thesis rather than a truly answerable question that is appropriate on SE.
• Henry Mensch: That all depends on how consistently your library collects fines (my local PL often fails to collect if the fine is small). There's also the point of passing judgment on your patron (by declaring them irresponsible when you don't actually know the circumstances). The goal is to get the loaned material back, not to put up walls which make this retrieval difficult.
• Mary Jo Finch: Asked the way it is, the question sounds like it is asking for opinions. Perhaps it could be reworded to ask for experiences with restricting access due to fines or the sharing of related policies. I think that "this is how we do it in our library" stories can be very helpful, particularly when the author explains why or how the policy was developed. Also, it would be helpful to know if this is a public library, as access issues are different in different types of libraries.
• 1. Alan Thomas II: @MaryJoFinch: I think you're right; I shy away from asking about experience too much because I'm afraid of just polling my audience for their personal stories rather than getting an answer, but that leads me into inviting opinion instead. A slight edit to adjust the tone has been made, consistent with the answers below.

Answer by Mary Jo Finch

In the public library where I work, we issue one-hour guest passes to people who do not have a library card with us. If a member has a blocked library card due to accrued fines over \$15, he can get a guest pass instead of logging in on his library account (which would have allowed unlimited time). We do not have waiting lines for our computers, so this allows us to have a fairly generous policy.

The concern in restricting access due to excess fines is that rather than punishing a member for his irresponsibility in returning materials, you may instead be punishing him for his inability to afford to pay his fines. Other members who lose materials and pay for them still get to use computers, even though they were irresponsible. I think a lot of people who use computers in public libraries do so because their financial situation has made home access impossible. Their fines may be unpaid for good reason.

Comments

• foggyone: Do you charge for the guest passes?
• Mary Jo Finch: We don't charge for a guest pass. It is a one-hour pass (the computer logs them out after giving them a 5-minute warning). If no one else is waiting, we will issue another pass.

Answer by jdscott50

Sometimes the only way for a library to recover lost or stolen materials is to restrict access to all services. Often, libraries establish a threshold to which patrons can no longer check-out more materials. The same is true for lost or overdue materials. Patrons can simply avoid this by using other services such as the internet or library databases. However, by blocking all access, the library will encourage the patron to return materials or pay down his fine.

Is it worth it to block access, is the practice successful, or will you just never see the patron again? Everyone will have a different opinion as to whether libraries should do this and I don't believe there is a correct answer either way.

Comments

Answer by Helgagrace

I have seen a lot of patrons who need access to the public computers in order to get jobs that would enable them to pay back their fines. They often resort to using other people's cards and are not really affected by our policy of restricted access above \$10 in fines. Or they disappear from the library altogether and cease being invested in what we're offering. I believe that, if this method is used to induce patrons to return items, the threshold should be significantly higher than our \$10 or the \$15 mentioned elsewhere. If a patron has \$50 in lost or overdue items, then it's probably worth the library's while to block them from computer access and use a collection agency to go after the money. This would enable people who don't have a serious problem returning items to continue using some of the resources that the library provides. And if the worry is that they will continue to check out and lose/not return items, they could be restricted from borrowing additional items but still allowed to use the public computers.

Bottom line: Not allowing them to use the computers probably hurts them a lot more than it helps us.

Comments

• 1. Alan Thomas II: Hard to choose between this and Mary Jo Finch's answer, which argue much the same point in different ways. Anyone having trouble this one might find that more understandable.