The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 798–803

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Circulation Policies in Major Academic Libraries

Duane Wilson ⁎, Cynthia Frazier 1, Diana Harter 2
Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, 3441 HBLL, Provo, UT 84606, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As part of an assessment of its patron circulation policies, Brigham Young University's Harold B. Lee Library Cir-
Received 3 September 2014 culation Committee studied the circulation policies of ARL members and like-sized academic institution's librar-
Accepted 28 August 2015 ies. Access Services Department Heads or their equivalent at 165 academic libraries were surveyed. This paper
Available online 16 September 2015
reports on policies relating to circulation, renewals, fines, and recalls for these libraries. The majority of circula-
tion policies are traditional (typical circulation periods, low numbers of renewals and traditional fines), though
Keywords:
Circulation
non-traditional policies (longer circulation periods, more renewals, and elimination of fines) provide better ser-
Academic libraries vice and satisfaction for patrons. Libraries should examine their policies to determine if non-traditional policies
Fines would work at their institution.
Recalls © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Circulation periods
Circulation policies

INTRODUCTION changes to Arizona State University Library's circulation policy includ-

ing loan periods for graduates, fines, and unseen renewals. Changes in
Despite its continuous decline over many years, circulation is still a loan periods and fines, implemented at Babst Library at NYU, were eval-
major function of almost all libraries. There continue to be many impor- uated and reported in an article by Rupp, Sweetman, and Perry (2010).
tant issues to be resolved regarding circulation periods, fines, and re- They lengthened loan periods and eliminated fines for the general col-
calls, especially given the decrease in circulation. In spite of these lection, causing fewer billed books and increased patron satisfaction.
issues and the importance of circulation, little study has been done to Wilson (2014) described the process of assessing circulation policies,
examine circulation policies at major academic libraries. As a result of which indicated the need to increase undergraduate loan periods at
this assessment gap, the Circulation Committee at Brigham Young Uni- the Brigham Young University Harold B. Lee Library.
versity set out to discover what policies were typical at other major ac-
ademic libraries in order to inform its own circulation policies.
RENEWALS

LITERATURE REVIEW Sifton (2009), reported that various libraries have abolished overdue
fines in favor of renewals. When renewals run out and the item is not
Though there are no articles providing data about circulation periods returned, the person with the item is blocked from checking out addi-
in major libraries, there have been several articles discussing the poli- tional library materials. Returning the book removes the block and
cies for loan periods, renewals, fines, and recalls. These are discussed restores patron privilege. Zweibel and Lane (2012) described the quan-
below. titative results of policy changes made in circulation practices at Colum-
bia University libraries in 2003–4 and 2009–10. They reported an
LOAN PERIODS increase in undergraduate circulation periods and subsequent decrease
of renewals in that group.
Brophy and Moorhouse (1984) reported that variable loan circula-
tion periods, determined by heavy or light demand for certain books, FINES
were implemented by Teesside Polytechnic Library. Hartse and Lee
(1992) discussed how data from peer ALA institutions encouraged Discussions of how to improve fine policy or even eliminate fines
have been regularly mentioned in library literature. An evaluation of cir-
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 801 422 9144. culation policy at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center Libraries
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Wilson), [email protected]
(C. Frazier), [email protected] (D. Harter).
was made to decrease staff processing time for overdue materials as
1
Tel.: +1 801 422 9192. well as better meet user need. For them, instituting a first overdue no-
2
Tel.: +1 801 422 4005. tice containing replacement costs of the item and then a final notice

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.08.019
0099-1333/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 D. Wilson et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 798–803 799

Table 1
Number of days different groups can checkout materials in academic libraries.

Minimum Maximum Average Median Mode Standard deviation Number of libraries

Undergraduate 14 142 35 28 28 25 74
Graduate 14 365 117 120 120 90 71
Staff 14 365 118 120 120 90 71
Faculty 14 None 186 126 120 108 71
Community 0 180 27 28 28 20 68

greatly increased timely returns of library materials (Fried & Hurlebaus, this gap, the circulation committee pursued a study on circulation poli-
1981). cies at major academic libraries in the United States.
Burgin and Hansel (1984) discussed solutions to improve patron re-
lations with the library through fine policy changes. They reported that METHODS
libraries with no fines had more items circulated, more items returned,
and increased patron satisfaction with the library generally. Shontz To determine circulation policies in major academic libraries, the
(1999) questioned the effectiveness of trying to modify user behavior Harold B. Lee Library Circulation Committee chose to survey libraries
with fines. He reported that one of the main points determining when from academic institutions with enrollment similar to BYU. BYU is a
patrons return library items is ‘when the user is finished with the member of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), which creates
item’ and that if a user still needed an item they would keep it whether a natural peer group for comparison. Because BYU is an academic library
there was a fine levied or not. Mosley (2004) discussed the problems in- in the United States, the committee eliminated the 16 Canadian and 9
volved and costs incurred by staff in processing and collecting fines non-university libraries from the list of 125 ARL libraries, selecting the
compared to the income fines generated. Their decision was to elimi- 100 academic libraries in the United States. The committee also used
nate overdue fines for general stacks books at Texas A&M libraries. the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) “Compare Aca-
She also notes that billing patrons for long overdue or ‘LOST’ books in demic Libraries” tool to find other academic institutions with large en-
many cases encouraged their return. Sung and Tolppanen (2013) rollments. Using the tool, the committee selected libraries that offer at
found that fines make a difference in whether books are returned on least a bachelor's degree with enrollments of 16,809–57,271. These
time, but stressed that assessing fines harms the library image and im- numbers were chosen because of the technical limitations in selecting
pedes patron access. A year-long study about circulation issues reported enrollment numbers with the compare libraries tool. The intent was
by Reed, Blackburn, and Sifton (2014) resulted in their recommendation to find large institutions with student populations that were within
that libraries carefully examine long-held library practices of fines and about 15,000 students of BYU's enrollment. This method provided 65
loan periods and make changes that encourage good will and library additional institutions that were not on the ARL list, for a total of 165
use. unique institutions. The committee created a survey with questions
that asked about specific circulation policies at the libraries surveyed.
The full text of this survey can be found in Wilson, 2014. This survey
RECALLS was emailed to identifiable heads of circulation or access services in
the libraries of selected institutions. Seventy-six institutions completed
Recall policy has rarely been discussed in the literature. Goehlert the survey for a response rate of 46%. No demographic data was collect-
(1979) reported that the Indiana University Library began fining faculty ed as part of this survey.
for recalled items when a study of their patrons showed that this group
was far less responsive to recall notices than other borrowers. Dethloff RESULTS
(2012) explained how the University of Houston replaced recalls with
interlibrary loan and how this ‘Quick Loan’ process has done away CIRCULATION
with ‘recall wars’ and has increased customer satisfaction.
After examining the literature, the circulation committee found that Respondents were first asked what the standard circulation period
there was a lack of comparative information about circulation policies in was for a variety of patron types. In order to include all of the different
academic libraries. Though the various articles were helpful, they were ways that libraries measured circulation periods (day, week, month,
primarily reports on localized studies and policies. Seeking to address term, semester, etc.) respondents were presented with the patron
types of undergraduate, graduate, staff, faculty, and community and
were given a blank box to record the circulation period for each patron
30
type. Interestingly, the different terms that librarians used to describe
Numbe of Librariesr

25

20 Table 2
Most common checkout periods at responding libraries.
15
Number of libraries
10
# of Days Undergraduate Graduate Staff Faculty Community
5 14 4 1 2 1 6
21 27 3 11 1 27
0 28 19 3 4 1 21
7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 more 30 10 2 1 1 12
than 56
120 4 21 20 21 0
Checkout in Days 180 0 9 7 10 1
240 0 4 3 5 0
Undergraduate Community 365 0 2 5 16 0
Total 64 45 53 56 67
% of overall total 86% 63% 75% 79% 99%
Fig. 1. Undergraduate and community checkout periods in academic libraries.
800 D. Wilson et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 798–803

Table 3 Table 4
Renewals by patron group. Survey opinion on the effect of fines (n = 77).

Patron type Average Median Mode Standard Unlimited # of Answer Response %

deviation renewals libraries
Help get materials back 57 74%
Undergraduate 7.7 3 3 18.3 14 76 Discourage use of the library 18 23%
Graduate 7.9 3 3 18.5 16 74 Don't do any good 12 16%
Staff 8.0 3 3 18.8 18 74 Other 12 16%
Faculty 8.7 3 3 20.0 19 71
Community 7.3 2.5 2 19.0 11 67

the checkout varied depending on what type of patron they were de- though a significant number of libraries gave faculty members a year-
scribing. For example, days and weeks were the most common terms long checkout.
used to describe the duration of undergraduate and community check- Note that the majority of checkout periods fell at eight specific
outs. The duration of graduate and staff checkouts were often described checkout durations as seen in Table 2. As was mentioned above, the
in days, weeks, and semesters. Faculty checkout duration was frequent- number 120 was used to represent one semester in the normalized
ly explained in terms of a year in addition to days, weeks, and semesters. data. The number representing 240 was used to represent an academic
In order to make comparisons between libraries, the committee nor- calendar year.
malized the data using days as the standard. In doing so, it was assumed
that a semester checkout was 120 days. The survey responses using the RENEWALS
word “term” were eliminated from the analysis since this word is used
in a variety of ways at different institutions (only 3 instances per patron Respondents were asked to report the number of times a patron
type were eliminated). After normalizing the data, the committee was could renew a book before they had to return it to the library. They
able to analyze the various circulation periods and make comparisons were presented with a slider that ranged between 0 and 50 renewals
between different patron types. and had a box that they could check if their library offered an unlimited
The average checkout period for undergraduates was 35 days, number of renewals. The majority of libraries offered 1–11 renewals de-
though the median and mode were 28 days (four weeks). The average pending on the patron group, with a few offering 50 or even 99 re-
graduate checkout period was 117 days with a median and mode of newals. In addition, there were a large number of libraries that
120 days or one semester. The faculty average was 186 days, though reported unlimited renewals.
this group has the largest standard deviation and difference between The results are summarized in Table 3. The unlimited renewals are
median (126 days) and mode (120 days) (see Table 1). not included in the calculation of the average, median, and mode. The
Fig. 1 provides a better picture of the distribution of checkouts for larger numbers (50 and 99) were included and did greatly skew the
undergraduate and community patrons. As can be seen, the majority average.
of undergraduate and community checkouts ranged between 14 and The distribution of renewals gives a better picture of renewal trends
35 days (inclusive) with 28 days (four weeks) being the most common. in libraries (see Fig. 2). The majority of libraries offered between one
Most graduate, staff, and faculty checkout periods were 120 days, and six renewals. A substantial number of libraries offered 50 or more
though there were several libraries that gave these groups 180 days. renewals.
There were also a significant number of institutions that offered a full
year checkout to faculty, and one even offered checkouts with no due FINES
date.
For graduate and faculty patrons, the checkout periods were most The survey asked libraries if they charge overdue fines. Of the 77 re-
often 120 days (one semester), 182 days (half of the year), or spondents, the majority, 58 (75%), do; however, 19 (25%) do not charge
365 days (a full year). The majority of libraries gave graduates and fac- fines, with 13 (17%) of these saying that they used to charge fines but no
ulty a semester-long checkout (as is evidenced by the mode of 120), longer do. However, in examining the comments, seven of the libraries

20
18
16
Number of Libraries

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Number of Renewals

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty Staff Community

Fig. 2. Number of renewals by library.

 D. Wilson et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 798–803 801

Table 5 Table 6
How does your library encourage patrons to return books? Traditional and non-traditional policies in major academic libraries.

Answer Response % Traditional/Majority Non-traditional/Minority

Bill for unreturned books 17 94% Undergraduate 21–30 days More than 30 days, with 120
Block library privileges 18 100% circulation days being the most
Block university privileges 6 33% period common
Block registration for class 13 72% Graduate/Staff 120 days 180 days or more
Block graduation 9 50% circulation
Other 8 44% period
Faculty 120 days 365 days or more
circulation
that said they charged fines actually only fined on specialty items or period
after an item was severely overdue. Renewals 1–3 More than 11
Of the 50 libraries that charged daily fines for a book, 38 said that the Fines $.01–$.25/day with between No regular overdue fines
$10–$50 maximum
fine was between $0.01 and $0.25 per day (76%). A much smaller num- Recalls The library recalls items from the The library obtains a copy
ber (16%) said that the fine was $0.26 and $0.50 per day, with the other patron who has them checked through interlibrary loan
8% of respondents listing a daily fine higher than $0.50/day. There were out
55 libraries that reported a maximum fine with the majority of libraries
(84%) reporting a maximum fine between $5 and $50.
The survey asked those that do charge fines if, in their opinion, li- stated that they had the same number of problems while the rest
brary fines encouraged patrons to return their books on time. Of the (42%) mentioned that they had fewer problems with patrons returning
58 respondents, 42 (72%) answered yes, 10 (17%) answered no, and 6 books. None of the libraries reported having more problems with books
(10%) responded “I don't know.” being returned as a result of eliminating fines.
The survey asked all respondents their opinion on the effect of When asked to discuss any additional changes resulting from elimi-
charging fines. Respondents were given the opportunity to select all of nating fines, most libraries commented about the goodwill that it gener-
the options that they felt applied. Given specific options, 74% of respon- ated with patrons or the diminished amount of time that staff members
dents felt that fines help get materials back, 18% thought that fines dis- had to dedicate to resolving fine problems. Overall, the libraries that
courage use of the library, and 16% thought that fines do not have any eliminated fines were pleased with the change.
positive effect. Of the “other responses,” four mentioned that fines cre-
ated negative and difficult work for the library employees who collect
them. Three responded that fines upset their patrons (see Table 4). RECALLS
The survey asked respondents to make comments about library
fines. Of the 32 comments, 11 (34%) mentioned that fines had a negative The survey asked what responding libraries do when a patron wants
effect. Most of these respondents felt that fines were a deterrent for pa- an item that is already checked out. The majority of respondents (88%)
trons to use the library. It is interesting to note that only 5 (15%) of the indicated that their library would recall the item, while 75% also men-
comments mentioned that fines helped to get library items returned. tioned that they would also obtain a copy through interlibrary loan (re-
spondents were able to select multiple responses). Of those who
LIBRARIES THAT DON'T CHARGE FINES selected other, 11 (65%) indicated that they use a consortial service to
get access to the item and 3 (17%) indicated they place a hold on their
For those libraries that do not charge fines, the survey asked how library's copy of the item (see Fig. 3).
they encourage patrons to return their items. Respondents were again The survey asked respondents why their library would recall an
given the opportunity to select all responses that applied. Of the 18 li- item. Most of the responding libraries (95%) stated that they would re-
braries that responded, billing for unreturned books and blocking li- call for a professor placing items on reserve and 94% said they would re-
brary privileges were by far the most common responses, followed by call for another patron that needed the item. When asked if they were
blocking registration from classes. A distant fourth on the list was happy with the current recall system, the majority of libraries (66%)
blocking graduation (see Table 5). Of the eight libraries who responded responded in the affirmative.
“other,” four mentioned that transcripts were blocked, while others Despite the statement that they are generally happy with recalls,
responded that faculty delivery was suspended. there were multiple comments from respondents about the problems
For the libraries that had stopped charging fines, the survey asked if that recalls cause. These comments were typically related to problems
there had been more, the same amount, or fewer problems with books with the recall system, patrons not wanting to return items, and patron
being returned as a result of the change. A very small majority (58%) confusion about the system.

Answer Response %
Recall the item. 66 88%
Interlibrary loan
a copy of the 56 75%
item.
Purchase an
additional copy 17 23%
of the item.
The patron has to
wait until the 13 17%
item is returned.
Other 17 23%

Fig. 3. What libraries do when a patron wants an item that is checked out.
802 D. Wilson et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 798–803

DISCUSSION undergraduate circulation period was increased from three weeks to

six weeks. With the already existing three unseen renewals, this allows
Based on the results of the survey, traditional policies are defined as our patrons the ability to keep books for an entire semester without
more restrictive in nature and focused on short checkout periods and returning them. In addition, the library chose to eliminate regular over-
timely returns. The majority of policies at major academic libraries in due fines for book checkouts and use the billing process to incentivize
the United States (as evidenced by this survey) are more restrictive book returns.
and traditional. The more non-traditional set of policies, while in the mi- To improve our recall system, the library chose to develop a techno-
nority, are less restrictive, with more generous circulation periods and logical system that will improve our ability to determine how quickly
low or no fines. It seems that these policies better reflect patrons' the requesting patron needs an item that is already checked out and
needs and desires. The survey results show a specific distinction be- help determine how difficult it will be for patrons who have an item
tween traditional and non-traditional policies shown in Table 6. checked out to return the item. When a patron places a hold (now called
Past policies were based on circulation as the most prominent of li- a request), the system no longer creates a recall by default. It first deter-
brary services. They focused on protecting materials by limiting their mines if other editions of the same work could fill the request. If all edi-
use and punishing patrons for misuse. In our current era of continuously tions of an item are currently checked out, then the system places a
declining circulation and the prominence of electronic resources, re- blanket hold on all editions, allowing the first item returned to fill the
strictive circulation policies based on past circulation trends are difficult hold. The system also emails the patrons who currently have one of
to justify. the items checked out and asks them to return the item if they no longer
Indeed, the statement by Hartse and Lee (1992) seems very applica- need it. If the item is not returned within four days, then another email
ble in our current era: “Unfortunately, circulation policies are often is automatically sent to the requesting patron informing them that they
maintained purely by inertia. They are adopted at one stage in a library's can request the item through interlibrary loan. Staff members can still
development as a response to certain conditions, and then preserved recall items manually if needed.
through periods of change, both superficial and fundamental, in the The six week checkout and elimination of regular overdue fines was
way the library is used. They are maintained even though no one can implemented in January 2014. The students are very happy with the in-
quite remember why such rules were established.” crease in circulation period and assessments have shown that the
The allowance for longer checkout periods, more renewals, the elim- change was successful. More discussion on the decision processes for
ination of fines, and exploration of an alternative to recalls are viable this change can be found in Wilson (2014).
and very compelling alternatives. Though less-traditional policies are
still very much in the minority, the libraries that have adopted these CONCLUSION
policies have been satisfied with the changes.
As circulation continues to decrease in academic libraries (Wilson,
CORRELATION 2013), updating circulation policies to provide a stronger patron focus
can build good will and encourage patrons to use library materials.
After the initial analysis was completed, additional analysis was The justification for the old model of shorter undergraduate circulation
done in order to determine if there was a correlation between the vari- periods and few renewals is not based on the needs of those who are
ous forms of traditional and non-traditional policies. The committee currently using the items. The literature and experience with eliminat-
wanted to know how many libraries had non-traditional policies and ing fines show that alternative methods for incentivizing book returns
if it was likely for a library with a non-traditional policy to have other are effective, increase patron satisfaction, and reduce staff processing
non-traditional policies. time. The non-traditional methods tend to be more liberal and to pro-
Surprisingly, 74% (56/76) of the libraries had at least one non- vide materials to patrons with fewer constraints. The libraries who use
traditional policy for one of their patron groups. Of these, the most com- these methods report higher patron satisfaction and no additional prob-
mon was to have a non-traditional circulation policy for at least one pa- lems with the return and preservation of their materials. It is time for li-
tron group (53%). It should be noted that, even though the majority of braries to more seriously examine their circulation polices and
libraries had at least one non-traditional circulation policy, only 26% of determine if they can better meet the needs of their patrons through
libraries had non-traditional circulation policies for more than one pa- more generous policies.3
tron group. Only one of the 76 libraries (1%) offered a non-traditional
circulation period for four patron groups. REFERENCES
For renewals, 34% of libraries had at least one non-traditional renew-
al policy. It was more common for these libraries to offer non-traditional Brophy, P., & Moorhouse, P. (1984). The operation of a variable loan policy within an au-
tomated library system. Program: Electronic Library & Information Systems, 18(2),
renewals across patron groups, with a full 20% of all libraries offering 166–169.
non-traditional renewal polices for all five patron groups (students, Burgin, R., & Hansel, P. (1984). In R. Burgin, & P. Hansel (Eds.), Library overdues: Analysis,
grad students, faculty, staff, and community). It should be noted that strategies, and solutions to the problem. New York, NY: Haworth Press.
Dethloff, N. (2012). Replacing recalls with interlibrary loan: The University of Houston's
fine policy by patron group was not collected as part of the survey.
QuickLoan service. Journal of Access Services, 9(1), 18–27.
As far as correlation between non-traditional policies, there was Fried, A. K., & Hurlebaus, A. J. (1981). A reevaluation of circulation policies: Overdue pro-
none. For libraries that had traditional policies in one area, it was cess and loan period. Special Libraries, 72(3), 284–289.
Goehlert, R. (1979). The effect of loan policies on circulation recalls. Journal of Academic
much more likely for them to have traditional policies in other areas.
Librarianship, 5(2), 79.
However, if a library had a non-traditional policy it was not predictive Hartse, M. A., & Lee, D. R. (1992). Changing circulation policies at an ARL library. Collection
of a library having other non-traditional policies. In addition, even Management, 17(1), 133–148.
though 74% of libraries had at least one non-traditional policy for at Mosley, P. A. (2004). Moving away from overdue fines: One academic library's new direc-
tion. Journal of Access Services, 2(1), 11–21.
least one patron group, most libraries still had traditional policies for Reed, K., Blackburn, J., & Sifton, D. (2014). Putting a sacred cow out to pasture: Assessing
the majority of patron groups. the removal of fines and reduction of barriers at a small academic library. The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 40(3), 275–280.
Rupp, E., Sweetman, K., & Perry, D. (2010). Updating circulation policy for the 21st centu-
APPLICATION ry. Journal of Access Services, 7(3), 159–175.

After evaluating the results from this study and other internal stud- 3
Note: portions of this research were presented as Breaking with Tradition: Fines, Recalls,
ies, the Harold B. Lee library decided to adopt some non-traditional cir- Circulation and Renewals at Academic Libraries at ACRL, March 2015, Portland, Oregon and
culation policies in order to better serve the needs of its patrons. The Utah Library Association, May 2015, Saint George, Utah.
 D. Wilson et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 798–803 803

Shontz, D. (1999). Effect of fines on length of checkout and overdues in a medical library. Wilson, D. (2013). Re-envisioning access services departments in ARL libraries. Journal of
Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 87(1), 82–84. Access Services, 10(3), 153–171.
Sifton, D. J. (2009). The last taboo: Abolishing library fines. Partnership: The Canadian Wilson, D. (2014). Why can't they keep the book longer and do they really need to charge
Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 4(1), 1–4. fines? Assessing circulation policies at the Harold B. Lee Library: A Case Study. Journal
Sung, J. S., & Tolppanen, B. P. (2013). Do library fines work?: Analysis of the effectiveness of Access Services, 11(3), 135–149.
of fines on patron's return behavior at two mid-sized academic libraries. The Journal Zweibel, S., & Lane, Z. (2012). Probing the effects of policy changes by evaluating circula-
of Academic Librarianship, 39(6), 506–511. tion activity data at Columbia university libraries. The Serials Librarian, 63(1), 17–27.