Academic
A survey reported in 1963 of faculty loan policies in the 62 ARL libraries and 62 libraries in small/medium undergraduate institutions (53 and 55 responding, respectively) showed thatof responding libraries 52 ARL libraries and 55 college libraries reported that faculty members are not subject to an overdue fine. (Source)
A study reported in 1974 of 4,361 book returns at Purdue University General Library under 3 different fine/reminder systems showed thatthere were statistically significant differences at the .001 level (ANOVA) in the return of books. The group that received both an overdue notice and a threat of encumbrance as well as the group that received only an overdue notice had a statistically significantly higher return rate than the group that received neither. No statistically significant difference was found between the group that received both an overdue notice and threat of encumbrance and the group that received only the overdue notice. (Source)
A survey in 1976 conducted at Indiana University Library of 2,000 recalled books from the main (not undergraduate) collection showed thatthe average time it took to return recalled materials was 5.91 days for undergrads, 5.86 days for graduates, and 17.07 days for faculty. The large difference between faculty and student response was due to the excessively slow return rate of a small minority (46 individuals, 6%) of the faculty who took longer than 22 days to return recalled material. This was dramatically reduced in 1978 with the institution of recall fines for faculty. (Source)
Public
A study in 1968 showed that, when overdue fines were eliminated in Virgo County Libraries (Terre Haute, Indiana) (overdue notices and replacement charges continued), 3,237 first overdue notices (3%) were sent out on circulation of 254,044 items in the first 7 months. The first notice was effective in 61% of the cases, with 1,247 (39%) requiring a second and final notice. The final notice was effective in 79% of the cases, leaving only 262 individuals who had their borrowing privileges suspended. (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatborrowing increased by a monthly average of 19% while the number of individuals whose borrowing privileges were suspended for nonreturn of materials decreased by a monthly average of 38.8%. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, in an informal survey of 315 patrons during the first month, the following was the response to the new policy:
strongly agree 156 (49.5%)
mildly agree 54 (17.1%)
no opinion 7 (2.2%)
mildly disapprove 44 (14.0%)
strongly disapprove 54 (17.1%) (Source)
A 1981 study of public libraries in North Carolina (58 or 74.3% responding) concerning the problem of overdue material showed thatthere was no statistically significant relationship between whether a library charged fines or not and its overdue rates. Specifically, of 47 libraries that charged fines, 16.52% of their material was not returned by date due, .74% of the material was not returned at the end of 1980-81 (based on 38 libraries charging fines), .65% of the material circulated in 1979-80 was not returned by the end of 1979-80 (based on 27 libraries charging fines), and .55% of the material circulated in 1978-79 was not returned by the end of 1978-79 (based on 21 libraries charging fines). This compares to 3 libraries who did not charge fines who reported that 26.81% of their material was not returned by the due date, that .7% of 1980-81’s circulations were not returned at the end of 1980-81, that .44% of 1979-80’s circulations were not returned by the end of 1979-80, and .55% of 1978-79’s circulations were not returned by the end of 1978-79. (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatthere was no statistically significant relationship between whether a library restricted borrowing privileges of patrons with overdues or not and overdue rates (significant at the .05 level). Specifically, of 43 libraries with restriction policies, 17.52% of their material was not returned by date due, while .74% of material circulated in 1980-81 was not returned by year’s end (based on 36 responding libraries), .65% of material circulated in 1979-80 was not returned by year’s end (based on 28 responding libraries), and .55% of the material circulated in 1978-79 was not returned by year’s end (based on 23 responding libraries). This compared to 14.82% of the material not returned by due date in 7 nonrestricting libraries, .7% of material circulated in 1980-81 that was not returned by year’s end (based on 5 nonrestricting libraries), 27% of material circulated in 1979-80 that was not returned by year’s end (based on 2 nonrestricting libraries), and .57% of material circulated in 1978-79 that was not returned by year’s end. (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatthere was no statistically significant relationship between return of overdue materials and telephoning patrons with overdue materials, between overdue rates for libraries that renewed materials and libraries that did not, between the number of notices a library sends out and the overdue rate, only limited and ambiguous evidence of any difference in overdue rates between libraries who take patrons to court and those who do not, and no consistent evidence of a relationship between a library’s loan period and its overdue rate. (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatthere was a statistically significant relationship between population served and long-term overdue rate (significant at the .05 level). Specifically, long-term overdue rates (percentage of books circulated during the year but not returned by the end of the year for 1980-81, 1979-80, and 1978-79) for libraries serving populations over 100,000 were significantly greater than for libraries serving populations under 100,000. These rates were .62% (based on 27 libraries) vs. 1.28% (based on 6 libraries), .60% (based on 19 libraries) vs. 1.08% (based on 3 libraries) and .52% (based on 15 libraries) vs. 1.21% (based on 3 libraries), respectively. Although the difference between short-term overdue rate (percentage of books returned after due date) for the 2 kinds of libraries was not statistically significant, it was greater for those libraries serving populations over 100,000 (namely, 25.01% vs. 15.97%). (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatlibraries that sent the first overdue notice within 14 days of when the material was due had a statistically significant lower short-term overdue rate than libraries that did not (significant at the .05 level). Specifically, the short-term overdue rate for libraries sending the notice was 15.12% (based on 25 libraries), while the rate for the other libraries was 25.87% (based on 14 libraries). Findings for long-term overdue rates were mixed with only the differences for 1978-79 statistically significant (at the .05 level), although overdue rates for the other 2 years were lower for libraries sending such notices. The overdue rates themselves were (going from 1980-81 to 1978-79):
.61% (based on 19 libraries) vs. .94% (based on 14 libraries),
.50% (based on 14 libraries) vs. .97% (based on 8 libraries), and
.36% (based on 10 libraries) vs. .95% (based on 6 libraries). (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatoverall respondents reported that approximately 96% of the materials that were overdue as of the last due date would be returned within 1 year of that due date. (Source)
