Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 21 November 2014, At: 01:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Library & Archival SecurityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wlas20
Book MutilationSarah Barbara Watstein Ms. MLS aa Reference Librarian, Social Science/Documents Center, BobstLibrary, New York University, New York, NY, 10001Published online: 23 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Sarah Barbara Watstein Ms. MLS (1983) Book Mutilation, Library & ArchivalSecurity, 5:1, 11-33, DOI: 10.1300/J114v05n01_02
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J114v05n01_02
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and arenot the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should notbe relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Book Mutilation: An Unwelcome By-product
of Electronic Security Systems Sarah Barbara Watstein
ABSTRACT. The issue and impact of book mutilation as a by- product of electronic security systems is examined in this article. The article begins with a review of the operation of electronic securi- ty systems and includes a discussion of a survey on book mutilation as a by-product of electronic security systems. Reflections about our understanding and tolerance of this phenomenon, and an exploration of the defenses we have against those who mutilate our collections in their attempts to compromise electronic security systems conclude the article.
INTRODUCTION
A random survey of journals in the areas of professional security management, fire protection, conservation, preservation and resto- ration, institutional administration, and library and information sci- ence reveals an increasing number of articles on book and periodical theft and mutilation. The ideas and findings of librarians, university administrators and educators, security experts, and social scientists described therein can be divided into five parts: library factors, bu- reaucratic factors, educational factors, societal factors, and avoca- tional crime factors. Buzz words such as "stealage," "purloining,"
Ms. Watstein is a Reference Librarian in the Social Science/Docurnents Center, Bobst Library, New York University. She has an MLS from the University of California. Los Angeles, and is currently working on an MPA at New York University. Send inquiries to S. Watstein, 400 West 25th St., 'LC, New York, New York 10001.
The author expresses gratitude to Arthur Tannenbaum for his encouragement, support and gentle prodding during the researching and writing of this article.
Library & Archival Security, Val. 5(1), Spring 1983 @ 1983 by The Haworth Press. Inc. All rights reserved. 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
12 LJBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
"pilfering," "filching," and "bibliokleptomania" appear fre- quently in articles on theft. Discussed and investigated somewhat in- tensively, book theft is recognized as an act of stealing, an unlawful taking of property, similar to embezzlement, shoplifting, larceny or robbery.
Other buzz words such as "excision," "laceration, " "injury, " "demolition" and "disfigurement" appear with similar frequency in articles on mutilation. While mutilation is discussed and investi- gated less intensively than book theft, it is nonetheless recognized as a serious problem. Mutilation occurs when an item has parts removed from it or is altered so as to make it imperfect. A recent article by Evelyn Samuel, "Special Libraries-Special Problems: Preservation of Art Library Materials" considers the motivations of mutilators, as diverse as economic gain and grangerizing for academic projects. Samuels characterizes mutilated materials as being "permanently crippled," and comments, ". . . from the point of ;iew of [mutilators are] even more destructive than book thieves. "I
Not surprisingly, the literature which helps identify a library's theft problem and select a workable control system is increasing in proportion to that on book and periodical theft and mutilation. This literature appears in journals in the areas cited above. Many of these articles summarize the advantages and disadvantages of programs using exit guards, guarded turnstiles, special patrols, legal recourse, closed stacks, duplicates, and amnesty on fines. The majority of the articles focus on electronic security systems, comparing feature-for- feature and dollar-for-dollar the values of individual systems. Terms such as "loss-to-use ratio," "library security checklist," "property marking, " "overstamping or perforation of plates, " " 'secret' page stamps," "electromagnetic principle," and "detection strips" appear frequently in these articles.
That the literature of book and periodical theft and mutilation and that of theft prevention programs have developed and increased parallel to, and in response to, each other is understandable. The focus of this article is on a curious omission in a portion of this literature-the general failure to address the issue and impact of book mutilation as an unwelcome by-product of electronic security systems. This is not to say that the issue has not been addressed at all; however, when it has been addressed, it has been done briefly and matter-of-factly, without due consideration of the magnitude and dimensions of the problem, possible motivations for it, and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Watstein 13
solutions to it. Three examples follow which illustrate this fact; all are cited in full in the accompanying bibliography.
Two recent monographs by Alice Harrison Bahr, Book The$ and Library Security Systems, 1978-79 and Book i%ej and Library Security Systems 1981-82 address the issues of the "ubiquitous thief," measuring book loss, electronic security systems, library users' reactions to such systems, alternatives to electronic security systems, journal, non-print and special collection protection, and bookstores. Bahr, however, does not address the issue concerning this author.
Paul Banks' A Selective Bibliography on the Conservation of Research Library Materials again illustrates the fact that this topic has barely been commented upon at all. Designed to "provide the information available in English that is most useful to librarians and archivists concerned with conservation, and to conservators of bib- liothecal and archival material^,"^ the bibliography employs a decimal classification scheme which includes "6.0 Related Sub- jects." Under this category fall Art Conservation, Descriptive Bibliography, Technical Examination of Books and Manuscripts, Fakes and Forgeries and, "Library Security." Only one item that can be considered germane is cited under this category, Edrnund Berkeley Jr.'s "Archivists and Thieves" (Manuscripts, 28:205-8, 1976).
As a third example, Louis J. Romeo's 1978 series of reports on a survey taken of library users of electronic theft detection systems in the summer and fall of 1976 covers the experience of librarians with such systems in various types of libraries. In each report, Romeo reviews how patrons have "compromised" or "beat" individual systems. However, he does not consider the impact of such actions on the physical book (or other material).
The following examination of the issue and impact of book mutilation as an unwelcome by-product of electronic security systems begins with a review of the operation of systems provided by specific manufacturers. Attention is directed especially to the detection devices placed on or in the physical book, how individual systems can be compromised, and the varieties of mutilation each system attracts. The article continues with a discussion of a survey on book mutilation as a by-product of electronic systems conducted by this author, and concludes with commentary on our awareness of this problem and suggestions for controlling it.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
THEFT DETECTION SYSTEMS: MANUFACTURERS, DETECTION DEVICES,
AND COMPROMISING THE SYSTEMS
In the series of reports referred to above, Louis J . Romeo iden- tifies eight manufacturers of electronic theft detection systems: Checkpoint Systems, Inc. (Checkpoint Mark 11); 3M Company (Tattle-Tape and Spartan); General Nucleonics, Inc. (Sentronic); Knogo Corporation (Knogo Mark II); Library Bureau (Book Mark); Gaylord Library Systems (GaylordIMagnavox); Stop-Loss, Inc. (Stop-Loss); and Sensormatic Electronics Corp. (Sensormatic). Since the time of Romeo's survey, 1976, not all of these manufac- turers are currently promoting their systems in the library market. Too, several of these manufacturers have introduced new systems. Romeo characterizes these systems as operating:
in one of two modes to intercept unauthorized removal of materials from the library. In a full circulating system, a sen- sitized piece concealed in a book taken by a patron through a force field existing between sensing panels or columns triggers a visual and audible alarm and locks the exit gate or turnstile, unless the piece in the back has been desensitized in the charge-out process. In the bypass mode, the sensitized piece in the book is not deactivated during charge out. Instead, the patron gives the book to an attendant to inspect and to pass around the detection point. No activator/deactivator unit is re- quired in the bypass mode. . . ."3
Data reported in Romeo's series of reports and data obtained from systems' manufactures and selective users is set forth below. Data is presented for those systems most often found in libraries: Checkpoint, Tattle Tape, Gaylord Magnavox, Knogo and Sen- tronic.
Checkpoint M K
The Checkpoint MK III QS-L Security System operates on a radio frequency transmission principle. The System places a low energy electric field between the sensing antennae, i.e., the steel pipe, chrome or brass finish exit aisles. When a paper-thin Checkpoint label is passed between the antennae, the signal produced by the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Watsrein 15
label disturbs the electric field. This disturbance is then processed by analog and digital electronic circuits to confirm its authenticity. If the signal meets the prerequisites, the system then activates a me- chanical, audio, or visual alarm, or any combination of same.
Checkpoint's detection devices, called Teeny Beepers, are used with the System to protect library materials from unauthorized re- moval. These materials are small (2 " x 2 "), paper-thin programmed tags laminated on one side with paper stock, and pressure-sensitive adhesive coating on reversed side with siliconized release paper. Their adhesive film coating requires no moisture, heat or other preparation prior to or after application to clean, dry surfaces. The Teeny Beeper can be printed, typed on, written on, rubber stamped or used as is. Labels may be placed in library materials as required: inside front or back cover, on any page, under book jacket, as printed bookplate, under bookplate, inside book pocket, under book pocket, etc.
Methods of compromising the Checkpoint MK 111 QS-L system involve passage through the system and mutilation of books. To foil the system, users have discovered means of carrying a book through, above or below the detection field (i.e., using escape angles) to keep the alarm from triggering. Tearing or cutting off covers and sensitized pages and book pockets are the methods most frequently employed in stealing materials from the library.
Tattle Tape System
The 3M Tattle Tape Detection System will sound an alarm if pro- tected materials are broken through the system exit before they are properly processed at the exit counters. At the heart of a Tattle Tape Detection System is the Tattle Tape Detection Strip. This device is a small, thin, flexible, metallic strip which generates an electrical signal when stimulated by a low frequency alternating electro- magnetic field. Strips are either: (1) programmable-adhesive one side, designed for insertion in the spine of a book and used for full circulating applications; (2) programmable-adhesive both sides, designed for placement between the pages in material where spine insertion is not practical, and used for full circulating applications; (3) permanently sensitized-adhesive one side, designed for insertion in the spine of the book, and, as it cannot be desensitized, used for by-pass applications; or (4) permanently sensitized-adhesive both sides designed for placement between the pages in material where
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
16 LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
spine insertion is not practical, and, as it cannot be desensitized, used for by-pass applications. The 3M 810 Book Holder is compati- ble with all Tattle Tape detection equipment, and serves to provide fast and economical stripping of popular sized books and periodi- cals.
Library patrons have used familiar methods to "beat the system." Tearing strips out of books is the most damaging to the physical book. Other methods include tossing books over the top of the system, wrapping books in foil, and using escape angles to thwart the detection field of the system.
Gay lonf/Magnavox System
The GaylordIMagnavox Book Security System is a "2 in 1" system, with one detection tag that can be sensitized and desensi- tized. The feature allows libraries the option to change from a full circulation to a By-Pass System by, respectively, either plugging in the activateldeactivate unit, or unplugging the unit. Pressure sen- sitive detection tags allow fast book processing. The flat strips measure 3 x 114" and may be placed in the spines or gutters of books, or in any other location, as covers or flyleaf pages. The tags are relatively rigid. It is therefore not possible to desensitize or damage them during insertion; components in the system include: Materials Detection Unit, Circulation Unit (ActivaterlDeac- tivaterlverifier), Electric Exit Gate, and a Manual Entrance Gate.
Again, methods patrons use to "beat the system" are standard, with removal of detection tags the most damaging to the physical book.
Knogo System
The Knogo Book Detection Systems operate on an electro- magnetic principle utilizing a thin strip of metallic tape which can be secreted in a book @referably the spine), or other material. These tapes are referred to as detection strips and are used in conjunction with a sensing unit established at the exit which will detect any unauthorized passage of items incorporating the strips and cause an audible andlor visual alarm to be activated. Either a full circulating or bypass system can be furnished. The former utilizes a detection strip which is desensitized prior to its leaving the library. With the bypass system, a permanently sensitized strip is used.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Watstein 17
The system is compatible with the three types of detection targets. Both recyclable and permanent detection targets are ribbon-thin sandwiches consisting of special alloy materials surrounded on both sides by plastic film, pressure sensitive adhesive and release liner paper. The pressure sensitive adhesive requires no moisture, heat, or other preparation to form a high tack bond. Rigid tabs at each end are provided to allow easy removal of the release liner(s) which then allows the target to adhere to the desired surface, normally the spine of a book. The targets are a maximum of 4" long x 118" wide by .010 thick. Recyclable strips can be desensitized; permanent cannot. A third type of target is designed for phonograph records.
To avoid detection, library patrons remove targets, use escape angles, step over the sensing device, and other common means of theft.
Sentronic System
Sentronic is a passive system with an active target emitting magnetism which is detected by sensors at the exit. Various forms of paper-thin, self-adhesive, magnetizable targets (sentrons) are con- cealed on materials to prevent their unauthorized removal by being detected through the vertical sensing columns at the exit. Conceal- ment is recommended in the gutter of books and journals, in the book cover during the rebinding process, or concealed behind book- plates and bookpockets. Attaching targets to the spines of books is not recommended, because it has proven to be the eas,iest to detect. The information on treatment of all library materials is detailed in an instruction manual accompanying each installation.
Removal of Sentron markers, and handing books over the counter to accomplices outside the exit gate are common means employed to "beat the system."
THE SURVEY
Background, Data and Information
As part of the research for this article, a questionnaire was designed and mailed to members of the Research Libraries Group's Preservation Committee. A total of twenty-six questionnaires were mailed, to Committee members, affiliates, associate members, and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
18 LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
the Library of Congress liaison. (See Appendix 1 for the Committee roster.) Four institutions did not return the questionnaire.
The questionnaire consisted of five sections: Your Collection, Users and Staff; Electronic Security System Experience; User Orientation to the System; Staff Orientation to the System; and a final section on Book Mutilation. (The questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix 2.)
The following discussion presents, analyzes and interprets the data and information collected in narrative form. It was decided that the sample size was too small to do a comparative analysis. The decision to reject hypothesis testing in favor of descriptive enumera- tion was also influenced by the fact that many respondents requested that, given the sensitive nature of the data and information solicited, it not be published in any way that may identify any or all of their units. Descriptive enumeration was also favored because: 1) many of the questions leant themselves to more than one answer, and 2) respondents with more than one unit which have electronic secu- rity systems reported this in various ways and formats. Responses were provided, for example, for each unit or for the library system as a whole; data and information were provided on the survey form as requested, in separate narrative form and on "home-brewed" charts.
The libraries surveyed varied widely in terms of their collections, users and staff.4 Three of the twenty-three respondents did not have an electronic security system. Of those who did have such a system, several had installed such systems selectively and not system-wide. Tattle Tape was the favored system, with Checkpoint Mark I1 the preferred second choice. Most systems had been installed in the mid-to-late 1970s. At the time that the electronic security systems were acquired, most institutions utilized circulation staff and student workers to sensitize their collections. Over time, this responsibility has shifted, and at the present time, most institutions utilize technical services staff, and specifically persons from preparations, binding or marking sections, to sensitize their collections. Reserve staff are also used to sensitize their distinct collections. Most institu- tions have either one or two exit gates in their system. These gates are staffed by library staff, including student help, 50% (9/18),5 securitylbuilding staff 22% (4/18), library staff, not including stu- dent help, 11% (2/18), or a combination of staff, 11 % (2118). Thirty-three percent (6118) responded that their systems were "backed-up" by securitylbuilding staff, while twelve institutions or
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Watstein 19
66% (12118) indicated that their systems were not so supported. In addition to books, 83% (15118) sensitized current periodicals,
72% (1311 8) sensitized back-runs of periodicals, 88% (16118) reserve materials, 38% (7118) government publications and 11% (2118) sensitized other materials-reference items, all items as they are returned, high loss classes of the classification system, etc., in addition to books. Current policies for sensitization of library materials varied. Fifty-five percent (10118) sensitize materials recently purchased plus those that circulate. Sixteen percent (3118) sensitize materials recently purchased only. The same figure applies to those that sensitize their entire collection, and 5% (1118) of respondents sensitize materials only after they circulate. Other policies specified include sensitizing all current materials plus retrospective conversion of expensive and high loss classes; sen- sitizing all materials returned from outside binders; and sensitizing certain collections of materials, such as reserve or periodical and serial literature.
The practices of user and staff orientation to the electronic securi- ty system after its installation varied among respondents. Forty-two percent (8119) indicated that no orientation was provided for users after the system installation; 35% (7119) indicated that newspaper announcements were used to orient users; and 21 % (4119) utilized either fliers or other printed explanations or signage to achieve this end. Discussion of mutilation as a means of "beating the system" was not included in any of the user orientations. The following means are employed to orient new users to the system: no orienta- tion 57% (1 1/19), user education 15% (3/19), printed explanations 5% (1119), and exhibits 05% (1119). Sixty-nine percent (9113) in- dicated that they did not view the orientation of their users to the system as a problem; 30% (4113) indicated that they did view this as a problem.
As compared to the practice of user orientation, staff orientation was supported by most respondents' institutions. Methods of staff orientation favored were: printed explanations 40% (8120), staff development meetings 40% (8/20), and use of system personnel 5% (1120). Two percent (4120) did not provide staff orientation to the electronic security system. Discussion of mutilation as a means of "beating the system" was included in 37% (6116) of staff orienta- tions. The following means are employed to orient new staff to the system: staff development meetings 45% (9/20), no orientation 35% (7120), printed explanations 25% (5120). Five percent (1120) in-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
20 LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
dicated that they view the orientation of staff to their system as a problem.
Eighty percent (17121) indicated that book mutilation was a prob- lem in their library in general; 14% (3121) indicated that this was not the case. The kinds of mutilation that occur most frequently in- clude (from most to least frequent): periodical or serial literature tom, knifed, etc., out; book contents removed, pages, chapters or the entire text; illustrations, plates or photos removed; book covers ripped from text; spine removed; text illustrations or plates marked or disfigured; paperbound books removed from Gaylord covers; pet chewed books; water damage; graffiti; and tearing the call numbers from catalog cards. Seventy-three percent (17123) indicated that they have a policy for handling mutilated materials; 13% (3123) do not have such a policy.
Mutilated books are handled in the following ways: in-house bindery 65% (15123), commercial binder 60% (14123), replacement 73% (17123), microfilming 13% (3123), or interlibrary loan 8% (2123). Institutions that have in-house binderies staff these facilities with varying combinations of professionals, nonprofessionals and student workers. Simple repairs such as paper mending and tipping in of pages, endpapers, flyleaves, etc., were cited as the most fre- quent kinds of repair performed. Replacement of book pockets, book plates, etc., and rebinding are also performed. Additional kinds of repair cited included making of protective containers, deacidification, leather repair and complete restoration. Sixty-one percent (13121) keep statistics on repairs, while 14% (3121) keep statistics on mutilation. The following kinds of statistics are kept on repair: cost 2% (3115); kinds 66% (10115) and length of time to do repairs 2% (3115). Statistics kept on mutilation include data on kinds of mutilation 22% (219) of the time.
Methods used to "beat the system" range from tearing or cutting off sensitized pages, etc., 72% (13118); thwarting the detection field of the system 33% (6118); and tossing materials over the top of the system 22% (4118). Throwing materials out windows, removing spines, removing strips, using fire exits, and double teaming were also cited as examples of methods used to "beat the system." Respondents indicated that the following kinds of mutilation have occurred or increased since installation of the system: removal of spine or removal of book from cover; disfigurement or loss of pages, endpapers, flyleaves, "digging out" or removal of security labels, and the excision of periodical or serial articles. Most
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Watstein 21
respondents could not estimate the percentage of mutilated books before and after system installation.
Lastly, 66% (14121) indicated that destruction of library materials is considered grounds for disciplinary action in their institution. Nineteen percent (4121) indicated the opposite was the case. Those that responded in the affirmative indicated that statements on student conduct are published formally in student handbooks or student newspapers, posted on signs, or informally communicated as part of honor principles, academic codes, etc.
Discussion
The preceding discussion illustrates that despite differences in respondents' experiences with electronic security systems, sirnilar- ities occur in practices followed in user and staff orientation to the system and in methods of handling book mutilation. These differ- ences and similarities are worth noting.
Electronic SecuTify System
Most libraries have an electronic security system. Commitment to these systems has been increasing since the mid 1970s. The sen- sitization of collections is no longer primarily a circulation staff con- cern; exit gate staffing is similarly a shared responsibility. These two latter trends suggest a shift toward library-wide recognition of the problems and challenges posed by book theft and mutilation. Despite increasing consciousness of this problem, however, most institutions do not back up their electronic security systems with ad- ditional staff. The trend toward sensitizing an increasing number of library materials (as compared to the number of materials initially sensitized) again indicates expanding consciousness of this problem.
User Orientation
Survey results indicate that, over time, the orientation of users to the system has decreased in importance. Fewer institutions are pro- viding orientation-57% (11119) presently orient new users to the system vs. 42% (8119) who oriented users to the system when it was first installed. There has, however, been a shift toward more means of orientation, and special library user education sessions have replaced the use of printed instructional materials as the principal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
22 LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
means of orienting new users to the system. It is likely that until more respondents view the orientation of their users to the system as a problem, the commitment to and practices of user orientation to the system will remain constant.
Staff Orientation
In this area, survey results indicate that staff orientation to the electronic security system both after its installation and at the pres- ent time is a commitment of the institutions surveyed. The means employed to orient staff are more varied than those employed to orient users. The content of staff vs. user orientations is distin- guished by discussion of mutilation as a means of "beating the system." Interestingly, despite both an increase in commitment to and changes in the means and content of staff vs. user orientation, most respondents did not view the orientation of their staff to the system as a problem.
Book Mutilotion
The responses to Section V of the survey reveal that similarities exist between both respondents' perceptions and treatment of this phenomenon and their institutions' perceptions and treatment of it. For the most part book mutilation is considered a serious problem; and there are patterns in the kinds of mutilation that occur and that have occurred or increased after installation of an electronic securi- ty system. Treatment of mutilated materials begins with the estab- lishment of relevant policy. Most respondents characterized their policies as informal, unwritten or commonly understood practice rather than codified policies and practices. The informal nature of these policies is further underscored by the fact that few respondents knew how long their policy had been in use. Patterns in treatment of mutilated materials also occur in terms of: who (professionals, non- professionals, students, others staff the in-house bindery; what kinds of mutilation are treated; where the bindery is (in-house vs. com- mercial bindery); and how repairs are made (kinds of repair per- formed and kinds of records kept).
For the most, book mutilation is considered a problem at the in- stitutional level. Most respondents, however, were unfamiliar with the nature and location of relevant policies.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Watstein
CONCLUSION
The preceding review of the operation of electronic security systems and the data and information on respondents' electronic security system experiences, practices for user and staff orientation to the system, and methods of handling book mutilation contributes to an awareness of book mutilation as a by-product of the use of electronic security systems. Awareness of this phenomenon, how- ever, is only the beginning. Our initial questioning of the need for book theft deterrent devices and the value of electronic security systems vs. alternative systems must be continued by questions as to how methods used by library patrons to compromise electronic security systems affect the quality of library service and how they affect book budgets already eroded by inflation and retrenchment. It is necessary to know also how these methods of compromising elec- tronic security systems impinge on user or staff morale and whether or not they result in an increase in personnel costs (staffing the exit gates, in-house binderies, etc.) and in materials' costs (in the protec- tion of each or selective items in collections, etc.).
As these inquiries are being made, we must acknowledge that book mutilation is an unwelcome by-product of electronic security systems. In acknowledging this problem, we must recognize that we have defenses against those who mutilate our collections in their at- tempts to compromise electronic security systems. These defenses include: educating ourselves and our patrons; conducting studies; is- suing staff procedure guidelines; and above all not suffering the problem of mutilation in silence.
Educating ourselves is a process that involves becoming familiar with relevant literature in such areas as professional security management, conservation, preservation and restoration as well as in library and information science. Through such continuing educa- tion, we can become literate in the areas of book and periodical theft and mutilation, security systems, and conservation.
In addition, educating ourselves is a process that involves becom- ing familiar with what happens to mutilated books in our libraries. When detection devices are removed by tearing or cutting off covers, spines, headcaps, etc., what happens to the integrity of the binding structure of the book? What does rebinding the whole book entail? How are books with torn or cut off sensitized pages, end- papers, flyleaves, book pockets, or book plates repaired? What does tipping in a copy of a mutilated page entail? How are torn pages or
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
24 LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
sections mended with the use of guards or strips of "bank" paper? Educating ourselves is a process that also involves becoming
familiar with both our policies for handling mutilated materials and our institutions' policies for treating those who mutilate library materials. Are these policies formal or informal? Are they enforced, and, if so, by whom? If formal, when were they formulated and adopted? Where are they recorded? Familiarity with our borrowing regulations is also important in this context. Are borrowers respon- sible for paying for or replacing damaged material? How are charges for damaged materials determined? What are the com- ponents of the charge for replacement? In our attempts to meet the research needs of members of our academic community in an equitable manner have we included, or overlooked, such factors in our borrowing regulations?
Educating our patrons may be achieved by a vigorous publicity campaign that instructs users on the impact of book theft and mutila- tion. Such a campaign might include displays of mutilated materials. Signage informing users of applicable sections of the legal code and penalties for theft and mutilation and/or fliers containing informa- tion on the costs of repair and replacement are publicity options. Such a campaign could serve to alter users' perceptions on mutila- tion and replacement. The planning of such a campaign might well begin with a consideration of what would deter students from remov- ing detection devices and damaging materials. In general, users are unconcerned about mutilation. They assume it is relatively trivial and easily repaired, and, for the most are unaware of the great costs and effort involved in dealing with the problem. The use of displays, signage and fliers could contribute to a job of education that clearly is needed.
Studies in the area of book mutilation and electronic security systems are, at the time of this writing, nonexistent. Possible useful studies include: calculating the costs of replacement vs. repair vs. rebinding of mutilated books, and conducting surveys by in-house binders of mutilated books to determine types of mutilation, link- ages to electronic security systems, and costs, in money and effort, of repair. Cooperating with commercial binders might enable us to design studies utilizing binders' notes and inventories of materials that require rebinding. Circulation and other service desk staff might also conduct studies on the condition of returned items.
Issuing staff procedure guidelines will serve to raise staff con- sciousness concerning this issue as well as informing them of proce-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Waotein 25
dures to follow upon discovery of mutilated items. It is important that staff are aware that both sensitive tags and the methods of com- promising electronic security systems are easily discoverable.
Lastly, I feel, as sensitive as we are to the sound, smell and feel of a mutilated book, we must not suffer the problem of mutilation in si- lence. We must address the problem with our staff, administrators, and colleagues in the fields of professional security management, conservation, preservation and restoration and institutional adminis- tration. To this end, it is heartening that The Library1 Binders Rela- tions Committee of the Preservation of Library Materials Section of RTSD raised the issue of mutilation as a by-product of electronic security systems at its January 25, 1982, midwinter meeting in Denver. Although the issue was briefly discussed in the context of detection devices' interference with rebinding and binder's equip- ment. it was nonetheless introduced.
The challenge is clear: book mutilation need not be a by-product of electronic security systems. It is a costly problem, and ways must be found to deal with it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Bahr, Alice Harrison. Book 7hefi and Library Security System: 1978-79. White Plains, New York: Knowledge Industry Publications, O 1978.
Bahr. Alice Harrison. Book 7hefi and Library Securify System: 1981-82. White Plains, New York: Knowledge Industry Publications, O 1981.
Banks, Paul N. A Selective Bibliography on the Conservation ofResearch Library Materials. Chicago: Newberry Library, 1981.
Periodicals
Beach, Allyne, & Gapen, Kaye. "Library Book Theft: A Case Study." College and Re- search Libraries, March 1977, 38, 118-28.
Bomrner, Michael, & Ford, Bernard. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis for Determining the Value of an Electronic Security System." College and Research Libraries. July 1974, 3 5 , 270-79.
Knight, Nancy H. "Theft Detection Systems for Libraries: A Survey. Library Technology Repons. November 1976, 12, 575-690.
Knight, Nancy H. "Theft Detection Systems Revisited: An Updated Survey." Library Tech- nology Repons, MayIJune 1979, 15, 221409.
"Losses demand electronics." Library Association Record, July 1978, 80, 323. Robens, C. F. "Staff Procedure Guidelines and Electronic Book Detection Systems."
Library Security Newsletter. MayNune 1975, 1 & 3, 1, 8. Romeo, Louis J. "Electronic Theft Detection Systems. Pan I: The Small College Librar-
ies." Library & Archival Security, 1978, 2 (3/4), 1, 7-14. Romeo, Louis 1. "Electronic Theft Detection Systems: A Survey Conducted in 1976. Part
ll: University Libraries.'' Library &Archival Securify, Spring 1980, 3 ( I ) , 1-23.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
Romeo, Louis J. "Electronic Thefi Detection Systems: A Survey Conducted in 1976. Pan 111: High School Libraries." Library & Archival Security. Summer 1980, 3 (2), 1-17.
Romeo, Louis J. "Electronic Theft Detection Systems: A Survey Conducted in 1976. Part IV: Public Libraries." Library & Archival Security, Fall 1980, 3 (3), 1-22.
Romeo, Louis I. "Electronic Thefi Detection Systems: A Survey Conducted in 1976. Pan V: Medical and Law Libraries." Library & Archival Security, Winter 1980, 3 (4), 99-1 14.
Samuel, Evelyn. "Protection of Library and Archival Materials. Library & Archival Se- curity, 1978, 2 (314), 1-6.
Samuel, Evelyn. "Special Libraries-Special Problems: Preservation o f A n Library Mate- rials." ARLIS/NA Newslener, Summer 1981, 9 (4). 141- 144.
Sheridan, R. N. "Special Report: Keeping the Boaks." Wilson Library Bulletin, December, 1976, 51, 296-9.
Weiss, Dana. "Book Thefi and Book Mutilation in a Large Urban University Library. College and Research Libraries, July 1981, 42 (4), 341-347.
FOOTNOTES
I. Evelyn Samuel. Special Libraries-Special Problems: Preservation o i Art Library Materials. ARLISINA Newslelter, Summer 1981, 9 (4). p. 141.
2. Paul N. Banks. A selective bibliography on the conservation o f research library materials. Chicago: Newberry Library. 1981. the Prefacc.
3. Louis I. Romco. Electronic theft detection systems. Pan I: Small college libraries. Library & Archival Security. 1978, 2 (3/4), p. 7.
4. While collected, data pertaining to respondents' collections, budgets, users, and staff composition is not discussed in this article. This information is available from the author, or in any number o f library directories. Awareness af these characteristics o f respondents' libraries does not affect understanding o f the issues on which this anicle focuses.
5. Because the sample size was small and because variable responses wcre provided for each question, the percentages given in the discussion will be followed by a fraction in- dicating the number o f respondents who provided the answer and the total number of respondents, e.g., 50% (9118) indicates 50% or 9 out o f 18 responses.
APPENDIX I
Research Libraries Group Preservation Committee*
John P. Baker Chief of Conservation Division The New York Public L ibrary
Frederick E. Bauer Associate Librarian American Antiquarian Society
Kar l Buchberg Conservator o f Rare Books and Special Collections Princeton University Libraries
*RLG Directory, 1981
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Watstein
Philip Cronenwett Manuscripts Librarian . Dartmouth College Library
Kazuko Dailey (Affiliate) Assistant University Librarian Technical Scrvices and Automation University of California, Davis
John Dean Collections Maintenance Officer Milton S. Eisenhower Library Johns Hopkins University
Irene Godden Assistant Director of Libraries for Technical Services Colorado State University Libraries
Nancy E. Gwinn Associate Director of Program Coordination The Research Libraries Group
Ann Gwyn Head of Special Collections Howard-Tilton Memorial Library Tulane University
Frank Hanlin Bibliographer University of Iowa Libraries
Marion Hanscom (Associate) Special Collections Librarian Glenn Battle Library State University of New York at Binghamton
Coy Harmon Director of Library Technical Services University Libraries University of Oklahoma
Carolyn Harris Preservation Librarian Columbia University Libraries
Toby Heidimam Van Pelt Library University of Pennsylvania
Barbara Jones Head of Cataloging Elmer Holmes Bobst Library New York University
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
UBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
George Kanzler Alexander Librarian Rutgers University Library
A. Dean Larsen Assistant Director for Collection Development Brigham Young University
Louis Martin (Chairperson) Director of Libraries Cornell University
Russell Maylone Curator Special Collections Northwestern University Library Northwestern University
James Myers Assistant Director for Technical Services University Libraries Stanford University
Barclary Ogden (Affiliate) Head of Conservation Department University of California, Berkeley
Peter G. Sparks (Library of Congress Liaison) Chief, Preservation Office Library of Congress
Richard Strassberg Director and Archivist New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations
Samuel Allen Streit Assistant University Librarian for Special Collections John Hay Library Brown University
Gay Walker Head, Preservation and Preparations Department Yale University
Thomas Whitehead Head, Special Collections Department Paley Library Temple University
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Watstein
APPENDIX 2
Survey
I. YOUR COLLECTION, USERS, AND STAFF
1. The name of your library is:
2. Briefly describe your collection:
a. Your collection is approximately: ( ) Volumes not including bound periodicals ( ) Periodical titles ( ) Microfilm reels ( ) Microfiches ( ) Microprints ( ) Vertical file drawers ( ) Documents
b. Your annual book budget is approximately: $
c. Your annual periodicals budget is approximately: $
3. Briefly describe your users:
a. The population using your library is primarily: ( ) Undergraduate students ( ) Graduate students ( ) A mixture of undergraduate and graduate students
b. The population using your library on a weekly basis is approximately: ( ) Less than 500 persons ( ) Between 501-1000 persons ( ) Between 100-2500 persons ( ) Over 2501 persons
4. Briefly describe your staff:
a. Your staff consists of: ( ) Librarians ( ) Nonprofessionals ( ) Student workers
11. ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEM
1. Does your library have an electronic security system? ( ') Yes ( ) N o
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
30 LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
2. If yes, please respond to the following: a. What kind is it (Checkpoint Mark 11, Tattle Tape, etc.)?
b. When was it installed?
c. Who was responsible for sensitizing your collection at the time it was ac- quired, e.g. Circulation staff, student workers, extra personnel hired, etc.?
d. Who is responsible for sensitizing your collection at the present time?
e . How many exit gates do you have on your system?
f. Who staffs the exit gates? ( ) Library staff, includes student help ( ) Library staff, does not include student help ( ) Securityhuilding staff ( ) A combination of staff including (please specify):
g. Is the system "backed-up" by securityhuilding staff! ( ) yes ( )NO
h. What library materials have been sensitized (in addition to books)? ( ) Current periodicals ( ) Selected back runs of periodicals ( ) Reserve materials ( ) Government publications ( ) Other, please specify:
i. What is your policy for sensitization of library materials? ( ) Materials recently purchased only ( ) Materials recently purchased, plus those that circulate ( ) Materials sensitized only after they circulate ( ) Entire collection is sensitized ( ) Other, please specify:
HI. USER ORIENTATION
1. How did you orient users to the electronic security system after its installa- tion?
) No orientation, if none, proceed to #3 ) Flyers or other printed explanations ) Newspaper announcements ) Signage ) Exhibits ) Special library user education sessions ) Other, please specify:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Watsrein 31
2. Did this orientation include discussion of mutilation as a means of "beating thc system"? ( ) Yes ( ) N o
3. What means do you presently employ to orient new users to the system? ( ) No orientation ( ) Flyers or other printed explanations ( ) Newspaper announcements ( ) Signage ( ) Exhibits ( ) Special library user education sessions ( ) Other, please specify:
4. Do you view the orientation of your users to the system as a problem? If yes, please comment:
IV. STAFF ORIENTATION
1 . How did you orient the staff to the electronic security system after its in- stallation? ( ) No orientation, if none, proceed to #3 ( ) Printed explanations (memos, information bulletins, staff procedure
guidelines, etc.) ( ) Staff development meetings ( ) Other, please specify:
2. Did this orientation include discussion of mutilation as a means of "beating the system"? ( Yes ( ) N o
3. What means do you employ to orient new staff to the system? ( ) No orientation ( ) Printed explanations (memos, information bulletins, staff procedure
guidelines, etc.) ( ) Staff development meetings ( ) Other, please specify:
4. Do you view the orientation of the staff to your system as a problem? If yes, please comment:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
32 LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SECURITY
V. BOOK MUTILATION
I . Is book mutilation a problem in your library in general?
2. What kinds of mutilation occur most frequently in your library?
3. Do you have a policy for handling mutilated materials? ( ) Yes .( ) N o a. If yes, how long has this policy now been in use?
4. How are mutilated books handled in your library? ( ) In-House bindery, conservation workroom, etc. ( ) Commercial bindery ( ) Replacement ( ) Other, please specify:
5. If you have an in-house bindery please answer the following: a. Who staffs it?
( ) Number of professionals ( ) Number of nonprofessionals ( ) Student workers ( ) Other, please specify:
b. What kinds of repair are performed? ( ) Paper mending ( ) Tipping in of pages, endpapers, flyleaves, etc. ( ) Replacement of book pockets, book plates, etc. ( ) Rebinding ( ) Other, please specify:
c. Are statistics kept on: Repairs ( Yes
( ) N o Mutilation ( ) Yes
( ) N o
d. If statistics are kept on repairs, do they include data on: Cost of repairs ( ) yes
( ) N o Kinds of repairs ( ) Yes
( ) N o Length of time ( Yes to do repairs ( ) N o
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sarah Barbara Watstein 33
e. If statistics are kept on mutilation, do they include data on kinds of mutila- tion? ( ) Yes ( ) N o
6. What methods have patrons been using to "beat the system"? ( ) Tearing or cutting off sensitized pages, book pockets, book plates, etc. ( ) Wrapping books in foil ( ) Tossing materials over the top of the system ( ) Stepping over the sensing device or using escape angles to thwart the
detection field of the system ( ) Other, please specify:
7. What kinds of mutilation have occurred or increased after the installation of the system?
8. Can you estimate the percentage of mutilated books before the system was installed and now?
9. Is destruction of all or part of a library book considered grounds for disci- plinary action in your university (college, institution, etc.)? ( ) Yes ( ) N o a. If yes, where are such statements on student conduct published, e.g., stu-
dent handbook, etc.?
VI. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: -- - -
( ) Please check here if we may quote you in the final article.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:14
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
