Although this is a technical question about collecting and disclosing data, there is an obvious political point here. The information requested will very likely be used for a "Shock! Horror! Libraries Are Wasting Money By Not Collecting Fines" article with the subtext that libraries are lazy, should get their act in order, and deserve/can sustain the cuts that are happening to them.
In order to better answer this, I include below the main points on the subject of fines that may be of use in such a situation, if one is allowed to offer an opinion on the subject (check with bosses first) to the journalist.
"All library authorities have, theoretically, thousands of pounds owing to them from users due to late fees, lost items or even stolen books. The scale of these theoretical amounts vary - Cumbria £170k, Surrey £700k, York £50k, Bracknell £105k.
Pro - (a) Getting all this money back (see "chase up tax avoiders" above) would make a significant impact. This is taken very seriously in the USA. An American library service uses a collection service that generates $9k per month. Also, (b) it encourages others to return items on times and thus improve available stock. It even (c) encourages people to come back to use the library as the fees charges are rarely as high as people fear. (Often, those with non-returned books worry so much about late items they keep them for years, or bin them, rather than owning up to the feared scary librarian (who, in reality, would be happy to see the item back). Finally, (d) breaking the law by stealing books is an offence and offenders should be punished.
Con - (i) It could cost a fortune to fully recover fines/items because (ii) amounts owed to libraries tend to be quite small and very numerous. The cost of recovering items can be similar or exceeding that of the value of items returned. Taking legal action against a member of the public for return of items is (iii) rife with danger as it could be seen as a waste of resources being the cost of legal action would almost certainly be more than the value of the items concerned (see this article about Bromley sending a letter asking for some books back from an eight-year old - this article was then taken up by the Telegraph the next day). Being (iv) too stringent on chasing late items would also deter genuine users from the library service. Generally, (v) British library services see owed fines as a standard part of the service, impossible to eradicate, that they will likely largely recover over the fullness of time. Finally, (vi) one could fall foul of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act if one uses fines as a way to make money for the service rather simply as an incentive for returning material on time. See the point "Charging for books" above.
The original article (at http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/p/election-may-5th-2011.html) has links to articles for factual points.
The main point here is "fines" is not the same as "commercial debt owed" and it would be detrimental to the library service, and to the users, to use it blindly as such.
Ian Anstice
Public Libraries News
www.publiclibrariesnews.com
|