Text 1
Public libraries that drop late fees often promise broader access, but the policy can carry costs. Analyst Marcia Levin modeled a large city system's first-year shift to fine-free lending. Calibrating with transaction logs and staff time studies, she projected lower revenue, longer queues for popular titles, and a small rise in very overdue items. Added customer service calls and reminder notices absorbed hours once spent on programs. Levin concluded that, at least in the near term, eliminating fines would leave patrons waiting longer while the system faces tighter budgets and higher operating burdens. Her report urged caution before scaling the policy beyond a pilot.
Text 2
Library researchers Damon Ruiz and Alisha Porter argue that evaluations of fine-free policies stop too soon. Using multiyear evidence from dozens of systems, they find that card renewals rise, materials are returned at higher rates after improved outreach, and circulation expands in neighborhoods with past debt blocks. Processing costs fall when staff stop handling coin boxes and appeals, and grants and small donations offset lost fees. After two to three budget cycles, per-loan costs and holds stabilize. Ruiz and Porter contend that early disruptions are real but temporary, and that long-run patron engagement and efficiency gains should guide decisions.
Based on the texts, how would Ruiz and Porter (Text 2) most likely respond to Levin's findings (Text 1)?