ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 698 / C &R L N ew s F ro m leniency to lock out B y H e n r y J. D u B o is Media Resources Librarian California State University, L o n g Beach Circulation policies at forty-three academic libraries. I n a c a d e m ic lib ra rie s th e r e a re few activities h ich im p a c t m o re d irectly u p o n lib ra ry users h a n the form al or inform al policies and proce ures through w h ich m aterials are loaned. Few a r as also are likely to evoke as m uch controversy or o be quite so sensitive w h e n changes are consid red. G ra d u a te a n d u n d e rg ra d u a te students, fac lty, alum ni, a n d m em bers of the com m unity each ave an interest in use of a lib rary ’s collections and deas ab o u t how t h a t use should be regulated. All ill profess their support for a fair, reasonable set f circulation guidelines, b u t reaching consensus n w h a t is fair and reasonable can be difficult. In the fall of 1985 at California State University, ong Beach, lib rary director Jo rd an M. Scepanski ppointed an ad hoc com m ittee to review this insti u tio n ’s len d in g policies a n d procedures, w h ich ad seen few changes in over a decade. The C o m ittee sought advice from as m an y of the lib rary ’ onstituencies as possible (through student an d fac lty consultative organizations such as senates and olicy advisory com m ittees), from the library staff, nd from the lib ra ry ’s com m u n ity support group, ib ra ry Associates. In addition to asking for comm ents and sugges ions for change from library users, the C om m ittee ecided early in its deliberations th a t it needed to now w h a t o th e r sim ilar libraries w ere doing, h a t policies h ad w ide support and w h a t guide ines for holds, fines, recalls, e tc ., h a d proven most ffective. An online litera tu re search gave some a n wers, b u t the C o m m ittee felt th a t it needed to know more. It designed a three-page survey ques tionnaire w hich focused on a b ro ad range of circu lation issues, a n d this instrum ent was m ailed t w t ­ d ­ e t ­ e ­ u h i w o o L a ­ t h ­ m s c ­ u p a L ­ t d k w ­ l e ­ s ­ ­ o fo rty -six a c a d e m i c l ib r a r i e s . T h e C o m m it te e sought this inform ation from libraries of the other eighteen campuses in its o w n system, the C alifor­ nia State University, from branches of the Univer­ sity of C alifornia, a n d from tw enty-one “co m p ari­ son” institutions nationw ide, schools identified by the CSU as having characteristics similar to the campuses of its system. T he survey group thus was far from homogeneous. It included large and small campuses, resident and c o m m u ter schools, some institutions w ith doctoral program s and libraries having large research collections, others w ith col­ lections of relatively modest size and scope. It is surprising th a t, given these kinds of variations, the responses to the survey often revealed a good deal of consensus. T he C o m m ittee was gratified by the response to its poll. All b u t three of the libraries contacted, over 9 3 % , retu rn e d the questionnaire despite its r a t h e r f o r m i d a b l e le n g t h . N o t all schools r e ­ sponded to all questions, however, and some a n ­ swers w ere not directly responsive to the questions. This will explain the variations in the num bers re­ p orted from the survey. W h a t CSULB’s study re­ vealed ab o u t circulation practices at these institu­ tio n s p r o v e d to b e u s e fu l in f o r m u l a t i n g recom m endations to im prove its ow n policies and procedures. O th er institutions considering reviews of this kind also m ay find the survey findings of help in identifying a n d /o r building support for po­ tential changes in existing lending rules. L en d in g and renew al Borrower categories an d privileges have been es­ tab lish ed fairly p r e d ic ta b ly am o n g the schools D ecem ber 1986 / 699 polled. F acu lty ten d to get the most privileges— quarterly, sem estrally, annually, or even for indef­ inite loan periods; no fines; out-of-library use of p e ­ riodicals, etc. In general, no distinction is m ad e betw een p a rt-tim e and full-time faculty for most privileges at these institutions. Alum ni and co m ­ m u n ity m em bers tend to have the most restrictions placed on their use of the library, a n d for the most p a rt they are a w a rd e d the same b o rro w in g status as students. G r a d u a te students enjoy a few more perquisites at the m ajority of the schools, such as longer loan periods an d b o rro w in g of b o u n d p e ri­ odicals. Loan periods. T he most frequently reported u n ­ d e r g r a d u a t e lo an p erio d s for books w e re fo u r weeks and three weeks; over tw o-thirds of the p a r ­ ticipating schools have one or the other. Libraries at eleven schools have a tw o-w eek loan, and tw o have a q u a rte rly or semestral loan period. For fac­ ulty, quarterly/sem estral or sem i-annual loans p r e ­ vail; twenty-seven schools have th em , w ith t h ir ­ teen schools establishing an an n u al or academ ic year checkout, a n d only tw o p e rm ittin g indefinite loans. Survey respondents at twelve libraries give their g rad u a te students q u arterly or semestral loans. In all cases b u t one, alum ni are a w a rd e d lending p riv ­ TABLE 1 Loan Periods Institutions Percent responding responding Undergraduate 4 week 16 38% 3 week 13 3 1 % 2 week 11 26% semester/q u a rte r 2 5% Graduate q u a rte r/semester 12 28% 4 week 13 30% 3 week 10 23% 2 week 5 12% other 3 7% Faculty a n n u al/ac a d em ic year 13 31% quarter/sem ester/6 m onth 27 64% over 1 year 2 5% ileges identical to those of students. P art-tim e fac­ ulty are given the same generous loan privileges as regular faculty, w ith twenty-seven g ran tin g q u a r ­ terly/semestral or six-month loans, a n d ten giving academ ic or calen d ar year loans. These d a ta are shown in T ab le 1. Unenrolled and unemployed patrons. O ne of the C o m m itte e ’s concerns was the practice of extend­ ing privileges beyond the period of enrollm ent or the em ploym ent contract. Students, for example, m ay seek bo rro w in g privileges over the sum m er m onths or betw een the fall a n d spring terms. P a r t tim e faculty m ay not hold a new em ploym ent con­ tra c t betw een June an d Septem ber. H ow do a c a ­ demic libraries deal w ith these situations? Most do not extend privileges. Am ong the re ­ spondents 5 5 % , tw e n ty -tw o schools, restrict le n d ­ ing to those currently enrolled or employed. A n­ other 37 % continue to honor lib rary cards from the previous term , even though they have no real w ay to prevent abuse of privileges, b u t th ree of them (8%) do so only for students; p a rt-tim e faculty are cut off from lending w h e n they are not u n d er con­ tract. Return, renewal, recall. The study sought infor­ m atio n ab o u t three chronic problem areas for li­ braries: returns, renewals, and recalls. Responding TABLE 2 Renewals Institutions Percent responding responding physical retu rn required of students 24 59% physical retu rn required of all borrow ers 19 46% physical retu rn not required 17 41% unlim ited n u m b e r of renewals 34 85% lim ited n u m b e r of renewals 6 15% 700 / C &R L News libraries at well over half of the schools require the physical return of library materials for renewal, al­ though five (out of twenty-four) make faculty ex­ empt from this requirement. At seventeen schools, 41 % of those responding to this question, items can be renewed w ithout being brought back to the li­ brary. A limit is imposed on the num ber of re­ newals at six of the polled schools, but two of these exempt faculty. A substantial majority, however, 85 % of the respondents, have no renewal limit, ex­ cept for off-campus borrowers at two institutions (see Table 2). All responding to the poll indicated th a t they do attem p t to recall material on which reserves or holds have been placed. Only three of the institu­ tions participating in the poll (7 %) impose a limit on the num ber of library materials which a bor­ rower may have at one time; forty respondents (93 %) have no limit, although a few of these limit high school or alumni patrons. Some schools said they would like to establish a limit, but have no practical w ay to do so under current circulation procedures. Enforcem ent mechanisms The questionnaire asked a num ber of questions focusing on the issue of enforcement. How is com­ pliance with loan periods and recalls encouraged? Are fines imposed? If there is an online circulation system, does it have lockout capability, the capac­ ity to deny privileges to borrowers with outstand­ ing library obligations or who have failed to re­ spond to a recall or overd u e notice? If such a capacity exists, does the library make use of it? W ho handles collection of bills—the library itself, or some other campus agency? Are faculty fined? Are they billed for lost or long overdue materials? The survey responses are summarized in Table 3. Almost all the respondents said they do collect fines or late fees to encourage timely return of m a ­ terial; only 7 % do not do so. Circulation lockout, a hold on student records, or a “processing fee” were suggested as alternatives to fines. Among the sur­ vey participants, 23% fine all categories of bor­ rowers, but 67% exempt faculty from fines. Bills for replacement. Bills for replacement often were reported to be the next level of sanction the responding schools initiate when materials remain u n r e t u r n e d . L ib ra r ie s at tw e n ty -fiv e schools (60 %) either collect replacement charges from fac­ ulty or deny them access to some library or campus services until the bill has been settled, though three or four of these attem pt to collect only “at retire­ m e n t.” Circulation officials at seventeen schools (40 %), lacking even this leverage, instead continue to entreat the offender to cooperate, and some try to enlist the aid of an academic dean or departm ent head in this effort. This relatively discreet, diplom atic approach and reluctance to invoke penalties does not, how ­ ever, extend to students of the studied schools. Nearly all of these libraries bill for replacement, and thirty-seven said th at fines or bills th at remain u n p a id will quickly trigger a hold on stu d en t grades, transcripts, registration, or other library/ campus services. Circulation departments at 63% of the responding schools collect their own fines and bills; 37 % have this done through a business office or other campus agency. Lockout. The survey showed th at a large m ajor­ ity of the polled libraries (95%) have and make use of the ability to lock out delinquent student bor­ rowers, using an online circulation system to sus­ pend their privileges. More th an half (57%) also use lockout for fac u lty . G ra d u a te students and alumni also face lockout for outstanding library obligations at most of these schools; over two-thirds suspend privileges for graduates, and more than three-quarters do so for alumni. Lockout thresh­ olds reported were quite low. Libraries at twelve schools (32%) suspend privileges for one overdue item; eleven (30%) use lockout when bills totaling $10 or less have accumulated. These findings are il­ lustrated in Table 4. Special materials In addition to book circulation the survey ques­ tionnaire asked about several other categories of materials. At California State University, Long Beach, non-print materials comprise a significant area of the collection, and the Committee w anted to know how CSU, UC, and comparison group li- TABLE 3 Sanctions Institutions Percent responding responding fines for students 39 91% faculty 10 23% no fines for faculty 29 67% no fines at all 4 9% bills, holds on records, services: yes, students 37 90% no, students 4 10% yes, faculty 25 60% no, faculty 17 40% D ecem ber 1986 / 701 braries w ere dealing w ith these items. T h e survey revealed th a t for categories of m edia other th an records or audiocassettes the m ajority of the re­ spondents either do not collect the fo rm at at all, or, if they do have a collection, it is not loaned outside th e b u ild in g . Records a n d au d io c a sse tte s w e re cited as the m aterials most likely to be collected and loaned; films and m icrocom puter softw are were cited w ith the least frequency. In the relatively few institutions w hich do circulate m edia outside the li­ b rary , faculty consistently enjoyed longer loan p e ­ riods th a n students. “Building Use O nly.” Pressed for space in their reference facility, librarians at CSULB L ib rary have begun looking at other alternatives for hous­ ing reference materials. One option, p u ttin g them into the circulating book stacks, b u t m aking them TABLE 4 Lockout Institutions Percent responding responding have capability and use for undergraduates 35 95% faculty 21 57% graduates 25 68% alum ni/courtesy 28 76% lockout threshold one recall 5 14% one overdue 12 32% 2-5 overdues 3 8% bills u n d er $5 3 8% bills $5– 10 8 22% bills $11–25 1 3% bills over $25 6 16% “building use on ly ,” has been discussed. T he ques­ tionnaire asked if the surveyed libraries h a d estab­ lished any building use collections a n d w h a t sorts of m aterials h ad been designated for this tr e a t ­ m ent. Responses showed th a t th irty -th ree schools (77%) have some kind of non-circulating m aterials other th a n reference or reserve. Bound periodicals w ere cited most often as items fitting this category, b u t several respondents said the designation was used for such things as reference m aterials relo­ cated from the reference room, legal series, music m o n u m en ta and collected editions. Periodicals. L ibrarians in the study group were fairly consistent in their lending policies for p erio d ­ icals. A solid m ajority, 65% of those responding, do not lend u n b o u n d periodicals to u n d e rg ra d u a te students at all. Only 2-hour loans are p e rm itted for out-of-library use at four other institutions, and nine provide 1-3 day loans. The policies for g ra d u ­ TA BLE 5 P eriodical Loans Institutions Percent responding responding U nbound Periodicals u n d e rg ra d u a te no loan 26 65% one day or less 9 23% tw o days or more 5 12% faculty no loan 15 38% one day or less 14 36% tw o days or more 10 26% B o u n d Periodicals u n d e rg ra d u a te no loan 26 67% one day or less 9 23% tw o days or more 4 10% faculty no loan 12 29% one day or less 13 31% tw o days or m ore 17 40% 702 / C & RL News ate students are identical at all but two schools, where they are slightly more generous. For alum ni borrowers periodical loans are slightly more re­ strictive at three schools, identical to student loans at others. F aculty checkout of unbo u n d periodicals is not perm itted by over a th ird of the p articipating libraries. Another third of the rem aining respon­ dents provide a one-day loan or less to faculty, and the others allow periods from 3 days to “no lim it.” Bound periodicals are not loaned at all to u n d e r­ graduates by over two-thirds of the polled institu­ tions. The next largest group (23%) have estab­ lish ed lo a n p e rio d s of u p to o n e d a y . Special privileges are granted to grad u ate students at five institutions, allowing them in most cases to borrow bound periodicals overnight or one day, and one permits loans of a full week to those w riting a th e ­ sis. Faculty at twelve of the responding schools are given no borrow ing privileges for bound periodi­ cals. A slightly larger n um ber, 31 % of the surveyed libraries, grant loans of one day or less, w ith most others giving one week or less. There were isolated examples also of semestral and unlim ited faculty loans for bound periodicals; b u t these are hardly typical and they tend to be peculiar to schools h av ­ BI abstracts wanted The 15th L ib rary O rientation and Exchange (LOEX) conference, “Defining and Applying Teaching Strategies for L ibrary Instruction,” will be held May 6, 7, and 8, 1987, at the Ohio State University, Colum bus, Ohio. Abstracts for h a lf-h o u r in stru c tiv e sessions are being sought. Accepted abstracts will be published in the conference proceedings. Instructive sessions should deal with specific teaching methods a n d /o r strategies (such as ef­ fective use of microcomputers, specific audiovi­ sual equipm ent, etc.) or specific strategies on li­ brary instruction for specific user groups (such as international students, adult students, etc.). Each session will be repeated at least twice d u r ­ ing the conference. Participants in previous LO EX conferences have expressed interest in the following topics, b u t a b s t r a c t s c o n c e r n i n g o t h e r to p ic s a re e q u a lly w e lc o m e : m e d ia p r o d u c t io n t e c h ­ niques; CAI programs for library instruction; brochure and h an d o u t design; BI for the dis­ abled user; BI for the foreign student; creative uses of A-V; optical disk in BI; alternatives to the lecture. Submit a one-page abstract with proposed ti­ tle, audiovisual requirem ents, your nam e, a d ­ dress, and phone nu m b er by F eb ru ary 1, 1987, to: Mary-Beth Bunge, C hair, LOEX 1987 Pro­ gram Com m ittee, Office of L ibrary User E d u ­ cation, Ohio State University Libraries, 1858 Neil Avenue Mall, Colum bus, O H 43210. ing relatively small libraries and enrollments. Peri­ odical lending is sum m arized in T able 5. The survey concluded w ith an open-ended ques­ tion: “W h a t are the m ain problems or concerns your library confronts in the area of lending poli­ cies?” By fa r th e larg est n u m b e r of responses (twenty-four) cited faculty non-com pliance w ith library lending policies as a significant challenge. Another ten responded th a t recalls are difficult or impossible to enforce; this also is an area often re­ lated to faculty borrowing. Problems w ith external borrowers were cited by nine of those polled, the inability to enforce lending rules am ong those not affiliated w ith the campus. Another seven schools said th a t fine or billing disputes are a problem area, th at students claimed to have retu rn ed m aterial which cannot be located, feel th a t penalties are too harsh, or th a t the library has failed to advise them adquately about infractions or penalties. C onclusion T he survey revealed greater consistency th an the C om m ittee expected to see am ong the institutions polled, representing as they did wide variations in size, geographic location, a n d cam pus/clientele characteristics. For CSULB L ibrary, and perhaps for the survey participants, it was useful to know th a t lending rules in force already or being recom ­ m ended for adoption did not represent an a b e rra ­ tion from the norm for other academic libraries in California and nationwide. T he most helpful and useful d a ta for the study comm ittee w ere those related to lockout. Califor­ nia State University, Long Beach L ib rary has had an au to m ated circulation system and lockout c a p a ­ bility for years. Thresholds, however, have always been set at very high levels, w ith the effect of v irtu ­ ally never letting the system fulfill its potential to prom ote borrow er compliance w ith lending regu­ lations. Armed w ith the survey findings the C o m ­ mittee felt more confident about proposing a new set of thresholds, knowing there were ample prece­ dents for success in their use by other libraries. Once the survey findings h ad been tab u lated the C om m ittee recom m ended to director Jordan Sce panski a series of sixteen changes in existing circula­ tion policies and procedures. This list was grouped into items which really were internal m atters, h av ­ ing little or no im pact on student and faculty b o r­ rowers, and those requiring faculty and/or student c o n s u lta tio n . T h e co n su ltativ e process, d u r in g which the recom mendations were presented and justified to the campus com m unity, took an ad d i­ tional six months to complete. Developm ent of the C o m m ittee’s recommendations involved three sets of input: from survey findings, invited faculty/stu­ dent recom mendations, and the C o m m ittee’s own perspectives. Because the final report and recom ­ m e n d a tio n s synthesized these c o m p o n e n ts th e C om m ittee could look w ith considerable optimism for its ultim ate acceptance by all of the L ib ra ry ’s constituencies. ■ ■ We Asked Over 500 Experts To Define Physical Science. They Did. Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology Robert A. Meyers, Editor-in-Chief The Encyclopedia of Physical Science and & Non Propulsive • Propulsion & Fuels Technology is the contemporary reference for • Space Technology. today’s high technology. It is a unique source, and … .. ORGANIZED the first to encompass all aspects of the physical A rticles are arranged alphabetically and include: sciences. A complete technical library, the Encyc­ table of con ten ts, glossary of unusual term s, c o n ­ lopedia is: cise definition of subject, in depth p resentations, … .. DETAILED extensive cross references, illustrations, tables • 15 volumes … including a separate index volume and a bibliography. • Over 500 original articles each approximately The Encyclopedia of Physical Science and 20 pages long • 6,000 illustrations - 2,000 tables Technology is the req u ired referen ce for to d ay ’s • 11,000 double column pages • Extensive cross scientist, en g in eer and student. referencing. For m ore inform ation and details of a special $400 … .. COMPREHENSIVE prepublication saving c o n ta c t Linda Frank at The Encyclopedia covers these major subjects: 305-345-2734, o r w rite for a co m p lete p ro sp ectu s • Aeronautics • Astronomy & Astrophysics • Atmos­ to: pheric Sciences & Aeronomy • Chemistry • Com­ munications • Computers & Controls • Earth Sci­ ences & Oceanography • Electronics & Electrical Engineering • Materials Science & Engineering • Mathematics • Mechanical, Industrial, and Civil Academic Press Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, PublishersEngineering • Military Sciences • Navigation, Mili­ tary Communications • Nuclear Technology Attn: Sales D epartm ent • Ordnance • Physics • Power Systems, Non Nuclear O r la n d o , FL 3 2 8 8 7 80126—DT/IY