![[CoOL]](/icons/sm_cool.gif){kind=icon}
Subject: Funding of preservation
QUERY HOW ARE OTHER INSTITUTIONS FUNDED? For what types of service? The ARL Preservation Statistics have not been sufficient to answer my questions. At the University of Florida Libraries (UFL), preservation is funded according to state funding formula based on serials acquisition. We receive funding sufficient for commercial binding of current serials. No other funds are available for preservation. As preservation has grown at the UFL, these funds have been committed to monograph binding, commercial conservation and reproduction (i.e., preservation photocopy and microfilming), as well as serials binding. Funding is at 7% of Library Materials Budget (i.e., "Book Budget"). This figure appears to be above the average, and has meant the "subversion" of the formula, that is, funds intended for book purchase have been diverted to preservation. Nearly 96% of the continuing budget went to commercial binding. QUERY HAVE ANY INSTITUTIONS DEFERRED MONOGRAPH BINDING? The following is the text of a proposal and supporting documentation that the UFL institute such a practice. It, no doubt, will seem sacrilegious. My problem is that I have not enough funds to support preservation, and little chance of improving resources to the level needed. I have to achieve some kind of workable and yet philosophically agreeable balance between initial preservation (i.e., binding), maintenance (i.e., conservation) and holy transfiguration (i.e., reproduction). Grant funds are supporting some reproduction, but not nearly enough. Grant funds within current NEH guidelines tend to support "great collections". The UFL has a limited supply of such collections and an overwhelming need, especially in collections which are not comprehensive enough to be great. QUERY: DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE SIMILAR DOCUMENTATION WHICH WOULD EITHER CONFIRM OR CONTRADICT UFL DOCUMENTATION? I hesitate to make any decision based upon one survey, even a survey as large as that from which following documentation was compiled. There's a bag of venomous snakes! SELECTION CRITERIA FOR MONOGRAPH BINDING DEFERMENT. RATIONALE: * The Physical Condition Survey of 1989-1990 has indicated that as much as 75% of soft-cover/paperback acquisitions suffer little or no damage, either to their case (i.e., covers and spine covering) or text-block, as a result of use and circulation. * Increases in purchase of paperbacks, either by preference or sole availability, combined with budgetary forces compel the Preservation Office to defer binding monographs until they suffer damage (cf, Preservation Office "Criteria for Selection of Materials for Repair.") * Deferment saves the Office funds necessary to provide for increasing serials binding costs, an expanding preservation microfilming program meeting the needs of an increasingly embrittled collection, and contract conservation services for complex treatments we are unable to perform in-house, as well as other preservation maintenance and regeneration projects (e.g., replacement and proper storage of deteriorating microform masters). ASSUMPTIONS: * Properly selected unbound monographs may be deferred binding and survive use and circulation (i.e., text-blocks will not suffer loss of any sort). * Deferment of binding until case treatment is necessitated is a form of natural selection for binding. * Many materials may never become damaged and, therefore, would never need either repair or first commercial binding. For a percentage of materials (rate unknown), commercial binding will at some point become necessary; an equivalent percentage of funds generated by deferment will be needed again for binding. * Disaster will not seriously damage soft-cover materials relative to that incurred by hard cover materials. This assumes continued "tight" shelving of materials. * Modern soft-cover cases are transitory and may be damaged either by circulation or disaster. They are typically removed during binding. NOTE: The two assumptions above "climb out" of local experience with disaster. In cases of fire, damage was either complete incineration or smoke/chemical residue. Smoke damage often required recasing, or commercial binding for paperbacks. Because of the extremes of local experience, there is little knowledge of "un-noticed" heat damage, much less differentiation between soft and hard covered items. In the case of water, we have again often experienced the extreme: complete saturation, requiring rebinding. The fiscal implications seem to be the same whether we commercial bind or not. In case of mold/mildew infestation, it is local experience that, unless subject to extreme and prolonged moisture, soft cover materials show virtually no incidence of infection in comparison to hard covered items which appear to support mold spores (awaiting bloom). In case of insect infestation, primarily roach and carpet beetle infestation, a major concern in Florida, paperbacks bound with synthetic adhesives show virtually no sign of infestation in comparison to hardcover materials. This latter concern is "dwindling" since beginning use of acrylic coated/impregnated cloth. (Non-synthetic adhesives and starch coated cloths ^often pyroxylin cloth| have supported insect infestation.) No difference has been noted with regard to infestations of silverfish, termites, powder-post beetles, etc. v Criteria for identification, routing and treatment of damaged materials operate adequately. SELECTION CRITERIA: Selection of materials for binding deferment must meet all of the following criteria and are subject to the following exclusionary notes. * Monograph, issued either as a single volume or part of a multi-volume title, no part of which has been or will be bound; AND * Originally issued, within soft-covers, with sewn signatures, side-wire stitching (i.e., staples) or oversewing; AND * Has covers no less than: (a) uncoated papers: 15 point, (b) coated papers: 10 point, or (c) synthetic papers: 10 point. (Thickness may be half that required above when the cover is composed of folded flaps extending a minimum of two-thirds the width of the cover.) AND * Has no less than 51 pages and no more than 600 pages; AND * Does not exceed 2 in. or 5 cm. in spine width; AND * Does not contain bibliographic information unique on the cover as outlined in binding policies for retention of the cover during binding. NOTE: If cover contains unique bibliographic information it will be bound according to binding policy (cf, Preservation Office Binding Policy G.03.00, "Retention of Paperback Covers, Wrappers and Jackets"). EXCLUSIONARY NOTES: * Atlases and scores, either because of their size or use, are excluded. * Government documents, because of complete past neglect, are excluded. The intent of excluding documents is to bind materials which are likely to deteriorate with use and circulation now that automated access to them has been established. Exclusion allows a retrospective binding process to take place, protecting materials which the condition survey indicates will deteriorate. * Items meeting criteria for selection as rare, manuscript or archival material as defined by the Department of Special Collections are excluded. WORKFLOW: * Paperback materials placed on binding truck(s) in Catalog Dept. after cataloging. * Binding Unit staff pick up binding truck from Catalog Dept. and sort materials in Preservation Office, using criteria above, into those which will be bound and those for which binding will be deferred. * Materials selected for binding will be prepared for shipment to commercial bindery; while those selected for deferment will be returned to the Processing Unit in the Catalog Department for end processing. NOTE: It is expected that use of criteria will generate approximately 15% deferment rate, or 3875 volumes annually. * Materials returned from bindery shall be handled according to established procedures; while deferred binding materials shall be handled as processed hardcover monographs. TABLES: Information compiled from 1989 Physical Condition Survey of 1865 volumes: (following) Survey was designed within statistical tolerances to produce results at a 95% +/-5% confidence level. FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN: TYPE OF BOOK. TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS. TYPE OF BOOK CASE TEXT-BLOCK CASE & TEXT-BLOCK OF TREATMENT TREATMENT TREATMENT BOOK TOTAL REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED COUNTED # % # % # % PAPERBACK 490 121 25% 56 11% 42 9% SOFTCOVER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HARDBOUND 1366 224 16% 173 13% 97 7% HARDCOVER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OTHER 9 2 22% 2 22% 2 22% FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN: TYPE OF BOOK. CASE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS, CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS. TYPE OF TOTAL DECADE CASE TREATMENT REQUIRED BOOK COUNT # % Cum.% Rate Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PAPER 129 1980-89 3 2.33 2.33 2.33 COVER 107 1970-79 22 20.56 10.59 8.26 (490) 82 1960-69 25 30.49 15.72 5.13 73 1950-59 28 38.36 19.95 4.23 41 1940-49 19 46.34 22.45 2.50 27 1930-39 12 44.44 23.75 1.30 7 1920-29 6 85.71 24.68 0.93 5 1910-19 1 20.00 24.63 0.00 1 1900-09 1 100.00 24.79 0.16 4 1851-99 2 50.00 25.00 0.21 11 no date 2 18.18 ----- ---- TYPE OF TOTAL DECADE CASE TREATMENT REQUIRED BOOK COUNT # % Cum.% Rate Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HARD 279 1980-89 7 2.51 2.51 2.51 COVER 309 1970-79 39 12.62 7.82 5.31 (1366) 294 1960-69 52 17.69 11.11 3.29 151 1950-59 35 23.18 12.88 1.77 78 1940-49 21 26.92 13.86 0.98 61 1930-39 15 24.59 14.42 0.56 56 1920-29 15 26.79 14.98 0.56 32 1910-19 10 31.25 15.40 0.58 29 1900-09 15 51.72 16.21 0.81 27 1851-99 9 33.33 16.57 0.36 4 pre1850 1 25.00 16.59 0.02 34 no date 7 20.59 ----- ---- TYPE OF TOTAL DECADE CASE TREATMENT REQUIRED BOOK COUNT # % Cum.% Rate Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OTHER 3 1970-79 1 33.33 33.33 33.33 (9) 1 1900-09 1 100 00 50.00 16.67 FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN: TYPE OF BOOK. TEXT-BLOCK TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS, CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS. TYPE OF TOTAL DECADE TEXTBLOCK TREATMENT REQUIRED BOOK COUNT # % Cum.% Rate Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PAPER 129 1980-89 1 0.78 0.78 0.78 COVER 107 1970-79 5 4.67 2.54 1.78 (490) 82 1960-69 7 8.54 4.09 1.55 73 1950-59 15 20.55 7.16 3.07 41 1940-49 10 24.39 8.80 1.64 27 1930-39 8 29.63 10.02 1.22 7 1920-29 2 28.57 10.03 0.01 5 1910-19 1 20.00 10.04 0.01 1 1900-09 1 100.00 10.59 0.55 4 1851-99 2 50.00 10.92 0.33 11 no date 2 18.18 ----- ---- TYPE OF TOTAL DECADE TEXTBLOCK TREATMENT REQUIRED BOOK COUNT # % Cum.% Rate Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HARD 279 1980-89 5 1.79 1.79 1.79 COVER 309 1970-79 18 5.83 3.91 2.12 (1366) 294 1960-69 31 10.54 6.12 2.21 151 1950-59 30 19.87 8.13 2.01 78 1940-49 15 19.23 7.11 0.00 (-1) 61 1930-39 15 24.59 8.02 0.91 56 1920-29 17 30.35 9.04 1.02 32 1910-19 10 31.25 9.60 0.56 29 1900-09 12 41.38 10.03 0.43 27 1851-99 9 33.33 10.79 0.76 4 pre1850 4 100.00 11.06 0.27 34 no date 6 17.65 ----- ---- TYPE OF TOTAL DECADE TEXTBLOCK TREATMENT REQUIRED BOOK COUNT # % Cum.% Rate Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OTHER 3 1970-79 1 33.33 33.33 33.33 (9) 1 1900-09 1 100.00 50.00 16.67 FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN: TYPE OF BOOK. CASE AND TEXT-BLOCK TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS, CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS. TYPE OF TOTAL DECADE CASE & TEXTBLOCK BOOK COUNT # % Cum.% Rate Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PAPER 129 1980-89 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 COVER 107 1970-79 4 3.74 1.70 1.70 (490) 82 1960-69 5 6.10 2.83 1.13 73 1950-59 13 18.31 5.63 2.80 41 1940-49 7 17.07 6.71 1.08 27 1930-39 5 18.52 7.41 0.70 7 1920-29 2 28.57 7.73 0.32 5 1910-19 0 0.00 7.64 0.00 1 1900-09 1 100.00 7.84 0.20 4 1851-99 2 50.00 8.19 0.35 11 no date 1 9.09 ----- ---- TYPE OF TOTAL DECADE CASE & TEXTBLOCK BOOK COUNT # % Cum.% Rate Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HARD 279 1980-89 1 0.36 0.36 0.36 COVER 309 1970-79 8 2.59 1.53 1.17 (1366) 294 1960-69 19 6.46 3.18 1.65 151 1950-59 17 11.26 4.36 1.18 78 1940-49 11 14.10 5.04 0.68 61 1930-39 7 11.48 5.38 0.34 56 1920-29 11 19.64 6.03 0.65 32 1910-19 6 18.75 6.35 0.32 29 1900-09 8 27.59 6.83 0.48 27 1851-99 1 3.70 6.76 0.00 4 pre1850 1 25.00 6.82 0.06 34 no date 2 5.88 ----- ---- TYPE OF TOTAL DECADE CASE & TEXTBLOCK BOOK COUNT # % Cum.% Rate Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OTHER 3 1970-79 1 33.33 33.33 33.33 (9) 1 1900-09 1 100.00 50.00 16.67 ASSUMPTIONS, COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC. * Case damage could be said to bear relation to durability of covering material, i.e., paper vs. board, as well as age, type and quantity of adhesive(s), method of leaf attachment, and method of case attachment. * Case damage to hardbound/hardcover materials usually occurs in publisher's bindings. (?) * Text-block damage could be said to bear some relation to durability of covering material, but must also be thought to bear relation to durability of text-block materials, particularly embrittlement, and the method of leaf attachment. * These tables make no direct connections between type of book and either covering material or embrittlement of text-block papers. * Paperback/softcover materials tend to suffer more damage than hardbound/hardcover materials in all categories. * In terms of quantity of necessary treatments, hardbound/ hardcover materials represent a larger need. However, in terms of their number in the collections, paperbacks/softcovers have a more pressing need. * Treatments of hardbound materials usually involve conservation, though they may also require commercial recasing or rebinding. * Treatments of paperback materials usually involve commercial binding. * Insufficient information was gathered with regard to "other" types of item. * If items were identified at the point of damage to the case, and repaired, then the majority of items apparently would not suffer text-block damage. (Note: a proper overlap study has not yet been conducted, but the numbers suggest that this statement is generally true.) * Data indicates that as much as 75% to 89% of monographs may be sent to the stacks unbound without apparent risk of text-block damage. * Rate of damage increase tends to "stabilize" after 30 to 40 years, most probably the period of greatest use and circulation. Other tables (not included here), however, indicate that embrittlement in the University of Florida Libraries (UFL) collections begins within and steadily increases after the first 30 years. Other tables (also not included here) indicate that while @ 19% of UFL are currently embrittled, @ 90% of all materials (including recent and new acquisitions) contain ground wood pulp, show presence of alum rosin sizing, and have pH less than 7.0 -- factors contributing to future embrittlement. Studies to rate increase of embrittlement have not yet been made; however, data compiled so far indicates a rate of increase at +4% (min.) per decade. At current costs for protective enclosure, conservation or reproduction, treatment of volumes currently embrittled will cost more than eight million dollars (U.S.), and treatment of volumes projected to become embrittled will cost an additional 320,000 dollars per decade. My current continuing budget is $329,000. Binding deferment appears to both generate a small pool of funds from which to pursue reproduction of embrittled materials and ensures that binding will not obstruct future a reproduction in at least a small percentage of the collection. Rate of enclosure for soft and hard cover items appears to be equal. Other factors: current cost of first time monograph binding is @ $5.67, serials binding is @ $8.61 per volume. For monograph binding, 15% deferment (3875 volumes) could save as much as $21,971.25 annually; this assumes that binding will be deferred permanently. Higher levels of deferment save more. Tables indicate 15% need for case treatment within first 30 to 40 years, the savings could be nothing at a 15% deferment. However, first time binding deferment appears to result in a savings of funds which might otherwise be spent on commercial recasing (a maximum of $6006.25 annually). RECOMMENDATIONS. * Quality and durability of hardbound/hardcover publishers' bindings should be further studied. * A percentage of monograph binding should be deferred. Percentage should be based, in large part, on physical characteristics of the unbound item and on rates of damage increase. *** Conservation DistList Instance 4:21 Distributed: Tuesday, October 23, 1990 Message Id: cdl-4-21-006 ***Received on Tuesday, 23 October, 1990