The issue:

library users avail themselves of the opportunity offered by libraries to request an item (book, etc.) not available at a particular moment and to be notified when the item becomes available for pick up at a library chosen by the user. Then in a change of heart do not pick-up the reserved book–now on “hold” for them.

The discussion that follows is taking place during the month of July 2008 and shows the diverse perspectives of individuals that work in libraries with different responsibilities.

Note: each individual opinion is reproduced entirely, name of individuals or institutions are masked, each opinion opens with this symbol: <, and closes with: >>. Also to increase the differentiation between opinions they are italicized alternatively: as so: 1 1 1 1 1 1 .

<Our library system has been finding that a sizeable portion of holds placed are not being picked up by patrons. For example, we have one branch that had 544 holds that were not picked up during the month of June. I’m interested in whether other libraries are having the same problem and how you are handling it. Are you charging patrons who don’t pick up their held material or are you grinning and bearing it? Or is there method in between for dealing or not dealing with this issue? Thanks in advance for your suggestions, ideas, solutions or work-arounds.>>

<I would also love to hear what others are doing.  631 has the same issue; over 500 holds and more than half are not picked up.  We are not initiating any hold fees now or in the future, so I hope there are other ideas out there.>>

<XYZ Public Library recent started charging patrons $1.00 for Hold items not picked up within the 10-day time period we allow.>>

<At ABC, we’ve switched the onus onto the pick-up patron. It’s free with a hold limit to place a hold, but you get a charge of $1.00 (restocking fee) for item not picked-up. The Web catalog shows this note:

A $1.00 Restock Fee is assessed for each hold not picked up. There is a 25 title hold limit.
Holds may not be placed on reference titles, magazines or electronic materials. You will be notified when your HOLD is available at your pick-up location.

I think it’s a good shift.. and preliminary notes I’ve seen suggest it encourages people to place holds when the “good stuff” is out.. instead of fearing the cost of asking for something to be provided “at a later date.” It’s a change in philosophy. And I think people are more mindful of picking-up (after we get the item all ready) because it’s attached to a penalty if they don’t.>>

<I have found that there are many reasons why patrons don’t pick up holds, including:

a.    They have more books on hold than they can read, (does your ILS allow patrons to suspend their holds without losing their place in line? If so, do patrons know about it and how to use it?)

b.    They went on holidays and did not know how to suspend their holds,

c.    The holds took too long and they borrowed or purchased the book elsewhere (how many holds before you purchase another copy of a high demand item?),

d.    They are not being notified…auto phone dialer needs a tune up, they are not receiving their messages, they are not set up on email notification or the notification is going to their junk mail folder. Is there a better way to notify patrons?

e.    The hold period is not long enough to allow them to retrieve them, or the library hours are not convenient enough for some patrons. Are you open Sundays? After work?

f.    Is your holds shelf self-serve? Are the sleeve labels easy to read?

g.    Is it easy for patrons in multi-branch systems to change the branches they want their books sent to?

Rather than charging for all holds, what about allowing patrons XX number of “free” holds per year. Once they hit that limit, then begin charging. This may make them think twice before placing holds they won’t make the effort to pick up.>>

<I agree that an in-between answer is still needed. As  noted, at ABC we charge $1. But we waive our own policy widely for the reasons Barbara listed below. Which almost seems to work: patrons feel some obligation to pick up holds, but we don’t charge folks for myriad reasonable exceptions. Not how policy should be done, however…>>

<We here at the 123 Library notice that often the volume of unretrieved holds goes through cycles.  The issue of what to do with holds that are not picked up is trickier than it looks on the surface.  Obviously there is much to consider…if you charge a person for a hold that is not picked up, how does that charge get on the patron’s record?  Some ILS systems will do it automatically, but more than likely it’s manually entered onto a patron’s record and then manually removed once the fee has been charged.  Does the benefit of receiving a fee for unpicked up holds outweigh the direct and indirect costs of manually inputting this?  Say you charge a punitive fee of $1.00 for a hold that isn’t collected but you’re expending $2 or $3 of time and effort in manually implementing the procedure…you’re in the hole!  Then there are the considerations of ill will and discontent to those who may have “never got notified” the hold was waiting, or “I shouldn’t be penalized for h!
aving to wait two months for the book!  It took so long I decided to go buy a copy myself”.  Maybe, and I’m not totally convinced of this myself –but there is enough food for thought–but, maybe it’s going beyond our limits to charge for an unretrieved hold?  I mean would we charge someone who came up to the desk to ask for a cookbook and we found them a book but they decided not to use it or check it out?  Perhaps our job is to provide the access and whether or not the customer decides to use it isn’t any of our business?  At least that’s the way I feel today….>>

<456 has charged a $2 non pick up fee for several years now. We are now considering the elimination of the charge. It has had a negative impact on customer service. It is often difficult for patrons to know when the
items they have placed on hold will arrive. They may arrive while they are on vacation, all at once, or simply not when they want it.  In my opinion $2 is too high and a better service solution would be to promote easy ways that patrons can cancel or postpone the delivery of the items they have on hold. This might be done by managing their online account or by calling the library.  >>

<Another way to look at this question:  Holds are the library’s response to the fact that we have failed to satisfy the member’s request in the first place.  It’s our way of making up for the fact that we don’t have what they want when they take the time to use the library.  I’d say the onus is on us to meet them more than halfway after that initial disappointment.

Given that we can’t tell people with any precision when the item is likely to become available, I don’t think it’s entirely reasonable to expect them to accommodate our nonexistent schedule.  I recognize that re-shelving costs money, but do we really want to ding people for something that was our “fault” in the first place?

My suggestion is to mail out holds as they come in, and not expect people to make a second trip at all.  Less handling of the material, fewer inter-branch deliveries, no dead time on the shelf for popular materials, and no need to enforce a dumb policy.  If you factor in all the costs of doing what we’re doing, mailing one way comes out about even, with much less angst all around.>>

<I often shop for clothing at Nordstrom’s. Like many chains, they will get clothing from another store if the store you are at doesn’t have your size or color. They now deliver (they pay the shipping cost) the clothing directly to your home instead of holding it for you to pick up. If you decide you don’t want the clothing, you return it to the store where you requested it. I wonder if they had a problem with people not picking up the items that were being held?  >>

<I’ve been struggling with this because I’m not direct public services and I’m well aware of how much staff struggle with the extra work involved because of some people who place holds but don’t pick up.  I’m glad we’ve held the line and said “no” to requests that there be a “didn’t pick it up” fee – we’ve done so on the same basis someone mentioned earlier – it actually costs more to process and collect a dollar fine than the dollar is worth, and you’ve irritated your customer & have to deal with that, too.

But you and a couple others addressed the underlying philosophy we need to be thinking about.  It’s not about our extra work in taking things off the hold shelf that we put there a week ago.  It’s about making materials available to our taxpayers the best we know how with the funding we have.  Realizing we’re not perfect and not punishing the customer for it.

I was going to let this all slide & not join the fray, but I had to say thanks.>>

<Way back when I worked for another library system, we allowed free, unlimited, reserves and people would use the reserve system to “hide” all of the library’s books on a particular subject, therefore “breaking the curve” in a particular class because their classmates were not able to get the books that they needed to study.  They would be the only ones with lots of sources and so their papers would get high marks whether they could actually write well or not.

Sadly, I don’t believe people have changed.  The thought of sending hundreds – even just dozens of books to their houses – paid for with our tax dollars makes me cringe.

I realize that no policy can make a library a perfect place for all, and Joan’s idea has merit if used specifically with bestsellers or with some other reasonable limits in place – even Netflix limits you to what plan you pay for – but we’re in a position, with our technology, to get more information to people faster and cheaper than ever before.  It’s not a time to keep books on hold shelves indefinitely because lazy, neglectful, unthinking, or downright dishonest people want us to.  Charge them.  Limit them.  Notify them by instant message if you have to, just get the books picked up.

I’ve found that a greater percentage of people who owe fines or have overdue items neglect to pick up their holds.  Our system’s message to inform them of a reserve starts out with the same words that our overdue message uses and I’ve suspected for years that whenever they get a call from us, they hang up before hearing the content.  Whenever I place a reserve for a patron, I tell them, “Be prepared for the library’s computer voice in xx days, because that’s how we tell you your book is in.”  I think it’s helped.  >>

<When I see this online message, I know I have a few days in which to get my to the library.
789 branch started a new service recently:  They get the requested book, but instead of putting it behind the counter they put all the books on common shelves with the pink slip, with the patron’s name on it, hanging out of the book.  I was surprised at this turn of events.  Curious, I asked the circulation desk workers whether others are taking, not only their book, but someone else’s too?  They said it had not happened yet.>>

<Thanks for placing the focus back on how we can better serve our customers!
Another way to cut the costs of returning un-picked up items to their homes is to float your collections. At 963, we float all of our collections except for print nonfiction. For floating collections, when a hold is not picked up after 10 days, it is shelved at the pickup location rather than being returned to its original location. Floating has decreased by 35% the number of items we have in transit at any given time…in addition to cutting delivery costs, it means there are 35% more items available to customers too.
Just to clarify—I did not mean to imply that additional items equaling 35% of our total collection are now available…just that 35% of the items that would have been in transit before we started floating our collections are now available to customers instead of sitting in boxes waiting to go “home.” Thanks,>>

<Although I am annoyed by [the] position that it is our fault when we don’t have an item a user wants–our entire Library System collection is built around the concept that we can’t have everything at every branch, so we move things around on patron request–I do think her idea about mailing stuff is a good one.  We used to charge a $2.50 request no pick-up fine, but the public disliked it and the staff HATED it.  It put them in position of constantly having to explain why we would charge etc. So we dropped the fine, and I think that request no pick-up have been climbing again.  But what the heck–it’s only staff time, money, and hassle, and we are librarians, so we know about that>>

<As for:  “Holds are the library’s response to the fact that we have failed to satisfy the member’s request in the first place.  It’s our way of making up for the fact that we don’t have what they want when they take the time to use the library.  I’d say the onus is on us to meet them more than halfway after that initial disappointment.”

I realize that this isn’t every case, but often Holds are placed on an item before “street date.”  One can think of it as, in effect, queuing up for an item *before* it becomes available.  Logically, that can’t be seen as a failure on the part of the library, and perhaps even as a victory.  The patron knows and expects the library will be getting the item that he or she wants, even before it is available.  We fall down a lot, but sometimes all those holds might mean we’re actually doing something right?>>

<While [the post] does make some valid points, I must comment as to:

“It’s our way of making up for the fact that we don’t have what they want when they take the time to use the library.”

If I am not mistaken, I believe patrons can request holds on-line from the comfort of their homes while sitting in their jammies which does not necessarily mean that the item was not available. So I am not sure if that qualifies as the patron taking the time to use the library or that we have failed, but rather have provided a convenience service.

“and no need to enforce a dumb policy.”

I believe this is considered “flaming” (“hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users”) and is not conducive to an open friendly discussion.

Just saying…….>>

<Perhaps library users aren’t aware of the work involved to make a held item available.  Someone  – a live person, not a computer – must hande the request at one point, e.g. when the item is ready and must be physically sent to the place where the borrower wants to pick up the book.   If the lending library has an automated circuation system, a person must “catch” the item as it is returned or made available by tech services.

Maybe someone can devise a flow chart that can be mounted on websites in response to queries: “How come I’m charged if I don’t pick up my hold?”  “Why am I being charged for a reserve for an item within my library system?”>>

<P.S. Not sure why you would spend the extra bucks mailing out items that no one wants enough to pick up anyway?

I echo the comments about convenience of placing holds online and ahead of street date.  I know we have lots of un-picked up holds, but it seems worth it for the good service we provide to those that do. I am interested in what 222 is doing with the floating collection and have been wanting to see if that is possible with our Horizon system.>>

<As a heavy user of the system, I agree it’s great. And many people feel the same — when Los Angeles Public Library wanted to add a $1 request fee because of city economic problems, the protests were loud — and heard. However, it’s expensive to physically shuffle a lot of materials around among libraries. The privilege includes a responsibility to complete the transaction the customer requested by picking up the item.

There are several reasons for not doing that — read it elsewhere, reviews were bad, out of town when it arrived. If there’s no structure in place to control “changed my mind” or “out of town”, the cost is still there but not the benefit. Mailing it to people who wanted it days, weeks or months ago and don’t anymore just adds more costs.

I think adding a $1 fine if it’s not picked up or canceled within its waiting time, as QQQ does now, is a great idea. It’s an incentive to cancel the hold or call the library after it’s on its way or has arrived so it can move on to the next requestor. Libraries have fines for overdue books — why not fines for overdue holds? Same principle — an incentive to get the materials back so others can enjoy them.>>

<Our system allows patrons to place holds on items that are available in the library (i.e. we are doing them an additional service most times rather than the hold being because we didn’t have the item in the stacks).  We limit the number of holds that a patron can place to 10, but we still had the issue of someone going onto the website and placing impulse holds for items that sounded interesting at the time and then not coming to pick it up.  To discourage this behavior we have decided to charge a $1 for not picking up a hold.  We waive the fine if someone states that notification of the hold wasn’t received, and we also allow the patron to cancel the hold up to the date that it expires without being assessed a fine.

As to mailing holds, many people forget a hold was placed on a title and I can foresee sending items out to a patron who no longer needs the item(they were number 50 on the list for the new James Patterson—they decided to buy the book).  Then they have the burden of returning a book that they may no longer want at all.  Our method allows them the opportunity once they receive the notification to go onto our website (or call us) and cancel the hold with no fine if they no longer want the item.

As to it being our “fault” for not having enough of a hot title or owning a copy of every book ever published, as someone who worked in the retail book business for over 10 years, I am sometimes amazed at what some libraries feel is required to give good customer service.  If I want to read the new David Sedaris and I don’t want to pay to do that, then I go to the library and I understand that they aren’t going to have an unlimited supply because they are a NOT FOR PROFIT organization and I may have to wait.  The majority of library users understand that concept as well.  If the patron is financially able to go purchase a copy themselves because they don’t want to wait or pay a $1/week for one of our rental copies, GREAT!  That leaves more books available for the people who don’t have the income or the desire to go purchase the book and still wish to read it.  Have we given poor service to that person who can go purchase their own copy?  No.  It’s not considered poor service in a bookstore if an item has to be special ordered for a customer and they have to wait to receive it.  If once the book has arrived if they choose not to purchase it, then the bookstore does not charge anything for that service but they are a FOR PROFIT business and can absorb the cost of shipment, etc.  At one point Barnes & Noble changed their policy so that a patron wanting to special order an obscure title that wasn’t discounted from the vendor HAD to pay for shipping directly to them when the order was fulfilled.  The reason for this change was because the company was losing over $1Mil/year by ordering books that were non-returnable or very poorly discounted for a customer who didn’t purchase (or never intended to purchase; many people see bookstores as a library) the item.  By requiring them to pay to have it shipped, the company could determine who REALLY wanted to purchase an item.  I think they have since just eliminated those titles from their database so they cannot be ordered at store level.  There is great customer service and then there are pragmatic considerations.  Most customers understand that balance for retailers and I think our patrons also accept the limitations of a NOT FOR PROFIT service.  Too bad not all of us do…>>

<I too am a heavy user of the system, PLs, I place lots of holds and go thru lots of materials, I don’t mind
paying $1 for not following thru, sometimes I forget and otherwise don’t make library rounds for a while. Others have their reasons, valid or not. Overall I feel $1 penalty is not too much of a sting, yet perhaps
enough to register a well-needed reminder to be a respectful participant, for those genuine times when we patrons need incentive. It seems a reasonable policy, provided yes there is sufficient convenient means forus to stay on top of our holds and communicate when needed. The less effective the mode of communication in this regard, the more people will get stung for actions of which they had insufficient control and accountability.

I agree that mailing books would be a counterproductive move, as …[said above] Regarding an idea I saw a while back (as I understand it), I disagree  with putting a limit on free holds then charging across the board, so to discourage too many frivolous holds placed in the first place; that would be an unjust blow for patrons like myself who go through a lot of materials in a consciencious way. After a short while I’ll be paying for every hold I place, even if I’m 100% responsible on my pickups.

… a small fine for unpicked-up materials cuts closer to the core of the problem, is likely to function as a more accurate incentive and overall effective solution.>>

<I guess it depends on the size of the library system and the ease or difficulty of processing intralibrary loans.

My library consists of a main library and two branches.  Supposedly, all libraries are within a fifteen-minute drive of one another.  When I’m at the Main Library I always ask people if they want to go to the branch or
have it sent.  One problem is that the branches are open only five days a week (including Saturday) and with shorter hours.  PPP, a transfer to the main library will take at the most 48 hours, depending on whether the request is made while the branch is open and the delivery schedule.>>

<Hi Folks:
Maybe this is a “lame” idea–

But what about using the Overdue [or Extended Use] Fee or Fine for holds that aren’t picked up?

Then the fee would be a bit smaller, but there would also be more of a “tradition” behind it.>>

<To add to the soup here on this topic, we expanded the number of holds allowed at one time for patrons with disabilities, some of whom are homebound, since we don’t yet have home delivery.  The majority of the 1,000 or so patrons I have in our “Extended Services” program have mobility issues, so sometimes they cannot get paratransit to come for the books, or are in the hospital, etc. Just a reminder to consider people with disabilities when crafting policies.>>

<A thought about charging for holds…. Would it be useful to have the patron establish an account in advance instead of trying to collect a fine?>>

<I am one of those obnoxious library users who puts holds on books before they come out so I get the bestsellers fairly early. Although I have library cards from 4 different systems in the… area, I regularly use only two and I visit at least one library at least once a week, often to pick up holds. I also use the ILL system, take out dvds, audiobooks, and books for my classes. Both of my main libraries allow 10 holds for free and if I am not going to read a book I cancel the hold. I don’t know what the solution is. I resent the attitude of “some library users use the library as their boutique.” I’m a taxpayer too. If the libraries don’t want to offer the service, then don’t. But if they do, don’t tell me that I cannot utilize it. Isn’t that the whole point of the library? I’m an avid reader and I certainly can’t afford to buy all the books I read. I am constantly extolling the greatness of the library and cheerleading on its behalf.>>

<Greetings,
I may not be one to chime in…the way I’ve been bounced around, I feel lucky even to be working as a librarian…but I’m against fines of any kind in libraries.  If they’re small, what’s the  point?  You’re just nickel-and-diming kids.  If they’re large, you  are disproportionately punishing the poorest members of your
community.  They don’t provide much of a revenue stream and the only people they DON’T irritate are the ones who don’t mind dropping $30 for a “lost book” that you find out later was worth $150.

Libraries in poor countries (and countries which understand money is a weapon) use some kind of demerit points to encourage appropriate use of a library collection.  Keep something late, and you get
points.  Leave a hold uncollected, and you get points.  Steal or lose a book, and you get more points.  When you get enough points, you lose your library privileges.  It is not rocket science.  Then the people with money who kept your most popular DVD for a month do not walk away from your circ desk with a smirk, while the poor people don’t sit on their fines until they go to a collection agency.  The system we use now makes sense to most Americans, who are used to money being used as a weapon, but once I saw this points system used abroad (specifically:  Australia) I found it quite refreshing.>>

<Very interesting! …, I think you’ve clearly illustrated some highly relevant points, I never thought of it that way, to level the economic playing field by using demerit points rather than charging money (which
has a variable practical value, relative to one’s socio-economic position). Seems this method you describe introduces an incentive that would affect all patrons more equally – whether rich or poor, a person who uses a library wants to keep his priviledge. I’m not yet clear on this, but I foresee room for debate in regards equal-treatment of highly-active users as compared to occasional users. For example, would my personal demerit point-count accumulate for life? Or reset to zero once a year? Or constantly be updated to reflect only the most recent 12-months of my activity? How does that part work exactly? Depending on how this plan is designed and administered, in some cases it seems possible that a highly-active user may inherently be more inclined to lose his/her priviledge than someone who uses the library once every few months, even if it so happens that the former is generally a more responsible patron than the latter, (and the former values his/her library priviledge moreso than the latter, ironically). Maybe there’s a way to calculate what percentage of a patron’s behavior is irresponsible?? Uh-oh, the complexities are creeping in… true it ain’t
rocket science, but the devil is in the details nonetheless… Overall I feel the method you describe, …, may indeed be potentially superior to the money-fine route, I look forward to your further contribution and
to what others have to say about this!>>

<I think …. is right that ultimately it is still the people with less money that are disproportionately hurt by a demerit system that could result in their losing library privileges.  People with more money won’t suffer too much from having to get their books from used book stores or Amazon and their videos from Netflix or Blockbuster.

Once we have this kind of reminder feature added to our systems, I think it becomes reasonable to consider fines or demerits.>>