Preservation Statistics Survey Report FY2015 · Preservation Statistics Survey: FY2015 Report 3 Introduction and Background The Preservation Statistics Survey is an effort coordinated

PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 1

PreservationStatisticsSurveyReportFY2015

AnniePeterson,HollyRobertson,andNickSzydlowski

GuestCurator:JoshuaRangerStatistic

ASurveyforPreservationandReformattingSection(PARS)

AssociationofLibraryCollectionsandTechnicalServices(ALCTS)AmericanLibraryAssociation(ALA)

December2016


TableofContents

INTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND 3

SURVEYDESIGNANDIMPLEMENTATION 3

RESPONDENTS 4

RESULTS 7

USINGTHESURVEYDATATOTRACKLONG-TERMTRENDS 7SECTION1:CONSERVATIONTREATMENT 9SECTION2:CONSERVATIONASSESSMENT,DIGITIZATIONPREPARATION,EXHIBITPREPARATION 13SECTION3:GENERALPRESERVATIONACTIVITIES 15SECTION4:REFORMATTINGANDDIGITIZATION 16SECTION5:DIGITALPRESERVATIONANDDIGITALASSETMANAGEMENT 24

CONCLUSIONSANDLONG-TERMTRENDS 27

POTENTIALRESEARCHTOPICS 27

FY2016ANDBEYOND 27

CREDITS 27THANKYOU! 28


IntroductionandBackground

ThePreservationStatisticsSurveyisaneffortcoordinatedbythePreservationandReformattingSection(PARS)oftheAmericanLibraryAssociation(ALA)andtheAssociationofLibraryCollectionsandTechnicalServices(ALCTS).

FormoreinformationonthePreservationStatisticsSurveyproject,visit:http://www.ala.org/alcts/resources/preservation/presstats

AnyculturalheritageinstitutionintheUnitedStatesconductingpreservationactivitieswasinvitedtocompletethissurvey,whichwasopenfromJanuary19throughMarch18,2016.Questionsfocusedonproduction-basedpreservationactivitiesforfiscalyear2015anddocumentconservationtreatment,generalpreservationactivities,preservationreformattinganddigitization,anddigitalpreservationanddigitalassetmanagementactivities.

ThissurveyisbasedonthePreservationStatisticsprogramconductedbytheAssociationofResearchLibraries(ARL)from1984to2008.WhentheARLPreservationStatisticsprogramwasdiscontinuedin2008,thePreservationandReformattingSection(PARS)ofALA/ALCTS,realizingthevalueofnationalpreservationmetrics,workedtowardsdevelopinganimprovedandsustainablepreservationstatisticssurvey.

Aninitialpilotsurveywasissuedin2012,withsubsequentsurveysin2013and2014.AllPreservationStatisticsSurveydatasetsandreportsareavailableat:http://www.ala.org/alcts/resources/preservation/presstats

In2014,thePreservationStatisticsprojectreceivedanALCTSPresidentialCitationinrecognitionforitscontributiontothetechnicalservicesprofession.

Thegoalofthissurveyistodocumentthestateofpreservationactivitiesinthisdigitaleraviaquantitativedatathatfacilitatespeercomparisonandabetterunderstandingoftrendsinthepreservationandconservationfieldsovertime.

SurveyDesignandImplementation

TheformerARLPreservationStatisticssurveyexaminedpreservationactivitiesinlargeacademicandresearchlibrariesfromafiscal,personnel,andquantitativerepair/conservationviewpoint.Ashighlightedinthe2009reportSafeguardingCollectionsattheDawnofthe21stCentury:DescribingRoles&MeasuringContemporaryPreservationActivitiesinARLLibraries,updatestotheARLPreservationStatisticssurveywereneededtobettercapturethewiderangeofpreventiveconservation,reformatting,digitization,anddigitalpreservationactivitiesofmodernpreservationdepartments.1

AninitialsurveyofthepreservationfieldconductedinFebruary2012indicatedthat1)ARLmemberlibrarieshadcontinuedtocollectpreservationstatisticsintheyearssincethefinal2007-2008ARLPreservationStatisticsdatacollection;2)librariesandotherculturalheritageinstitutionshadrobustpreservationprogramsthatbothcollecteddataaboutpreservationactivitiesandwerewillingtosubmitandsharetheirpreservationstatisticstoanorganizedeffort;and3)responsibilitiesfordigitization,reformatting,anddigitalpreservationwereeitherincreasinglymanagedwithinorcloselyalliedtopreservationdepartments,andthoseactivitiesshouldbeincludedinanyrevisedpreservationstatisticseffort.

Withthissupportfromthepreservationcommunity,ateamofsurveyorganizerscollaboratedtoexaminethe2007-2008ARLPreservationStatisticssurveyquestionnairewithneweyes.Questions,instructions,anddefinitionswererefinedoraddedtofillinthegapsidentifiedintheSafeguardingtheCollectionsreportandthe

1http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/safeguarding-collections.pdf

http://www.ala.org/alcts/resources/preservation/presstats


http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/safeguarding-collections.pdf




generalinterestsurvey.SurveyMonkeywasselectedastheonlinesurveyingplatformandanInstructionsandDefinitionsdocumentwasdevelopedtoclarifyproceduresandencouragesimilarreportingpracticesamongstinstitutions.

TheFY2015PreservationStatisticsSurveydidnotchangesignificantlyfromtheFY2014surveytool.Twominorchangestothewayrespondentsenteredtheirdatawereimplementedthisyear:first,allowingonlynumericalresponsestoquestionsaboutdatastandardizedtheentryoffootnotedexplanationsandfacilitatedthetaskofdataanalysis;secondly,respondentswereencouragedtototalthesumoftheirresponseswhenaquestionconsidereddatabymaterialformat(i.e.,book,unboundsheets,photographicmaterials,etc.)tobothassurethevalidityofthenumericalresponsesandfacilitateanalysis.

TheFY2015Surveydidnotmeetthestatedgoalofseventy-fiverespondents;onlysixty-nineinstitutionsparticipated.Asanall-volunteeroperation,wemustreconcilethecommunity’sinterestincontinuingthiseffortagainstthemanyhoursrequiredtoannuallyprepareandreleasethesurvey,todrumupparticipationthroughoutreachandtosupportparticipationthroughtroubleshooting,andtoanalyzethedataanddocumenttheresultsthroughareportthatstrivestosupportthecommunitythroughnewanalysisandongoingdocumentationofourefforts.Coupledwithmajorlifechangesinthelastyear–moves,newjobs,newmarriages–asprojectcoordinators,wearenotpreparedtoissueanFY2016SurveyinJanuary2017.WeareactivelyseekinganewhomeforthePreservationStatisticsprojectorarereadytoletitgo.

ViewtheFY2015SurveyQuestionnaire(.pdf):http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/FY2015-Pres-Stats-public.xls

AndaccompanyingInstructionsandDefinitionsdocument(.pdf):http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/PresStatsTLE-2012-2015.xlsx

RespondentsSixty-nineculturalheritageinstitutionsparticipatedintheFY2015PreservationStatisticsSurvey(FigureA).Fifty-sevenacademiclibrariesformedthevastmajorityofrespondents;additionallytherewerethreeresponsesfromarchives,twoeachfrompubliclibraries,nationallibraries,andspeciallibraries,andoneeachfromastatelibrary,anindependentresearchlibrary,andahistoricalsociety.

Academiclibrary,57

Archives,3

Publiclibrary,2

Nationallibrary,2Speciallibrary,

2

Statelibrary,1

HistoricalSociety,1

IndependentResearchLibrary,1

RespondentsbyInstitutionType(FigureA)

http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/FY2015-Pres-Stats-public.xls

http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/PresStatsTLE-2012-2015.xlsx


StateswiththehighestconcentrationofrespondinginstitutionsincludeNewYork(eight),California(six),Ohio(five)andIllinoisandTexas(four)(FigureB).Thesefivestatesareamongthetenmostpopulatedstatesinthecountry,butseveralofthesestatesalsoboaststrongstatewidepreservationnetworks,includingtheCaliforniaPreservationProgram,theOhioPreservationCouncil,andtheIllinoisCollectionsPreservationNetwork.

http://calpreservation.org

http://opc.ohionet.org/opcjoomla/

http://icpn7.museum.state.il.us


ThedatacollectedbythePreservationStatisticsSurveyismostmeaningfulifarepresentativenumberoflibrariesandarchivesconsistentlysharetheirannualstatistics.ThelevelofdropoffinsurveyresponsesfortheFY2015surveywasdisappointing.Thiswasthesecondyearthesurveyprojectsetagoalof75respondentsinordertocontinuethesurveyeffort.Tobalancetheeffortrequiredtomanagethisprojectandperformanalysisthatinformsourfieldaboutcurrentissuesandongoingtrends,asignificantandsteadynumberofinstitutionsmustparticipateannually.

Sixty-nineinstitutionsparticipatedintheFY2015Surveycomparedtoeighty-seveninFY2014,fortyinFY2013,andsixty-oneinFY2012(FigureC).Academiclibrariescontinuetobecorerespondents,composingonaverage75%ofparticipatinginstitutions.Asthesurveyhasgrownandsteadied,outreachtospecialgroupshasoccasionallyresultedingreaterresponseratesinthatinstitutionalcategory;forexample,aneffortinFY2014toreachstatelibraries,archives,andhistoricalsocietiesresultedinamuchhigherturnoutinthatcategorythananyotheryear.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015

Numbe

rofR

espo

nden

ts

Respondents:FY2015vs.PreviousYears(FigureC)

Other

NationalLibrary

MuseumLibrary

IndependentResearchLibrary

StatelibraryandHistoricalSocietiesSpeciallibrary

Publiclibrary

Archives

Academiclibrary


Results

Asalways,theresultsofthePreservationStatisticsSurveyarenotrepresentativeofculturalheritageinstitutionswritlargebecausethesampleisself-selectinganddoesnotrepresentenoughinstitutionstobeabletomakedefinitiveextrapolations.Theabilitytoformulateextrapolationsaboutpreservationprogramsinculturalheritageinstitutionsisnotthepurposeofthesurvey;rather,thesurveydocumentsthequantitativepreservationactivitiesofinstitutionsforthebenefitanduseofthepreservationcommunity.Asyearsofdataaccumulate,wewillbeabletoidentifytrendsandlendquantitativeanalysistosupportordemystifyanecdotalobservations.

Continuingintheopen-accesspathestablishedbythepreviousPreservationStatisticsSurveysandtheARLPreservationStatisticsreports,datafromthesurveywillbesharedinordertofacilitatereviewandadditionalanalysis:

DownloadtheFY2015fullsurveydataset(.xlsx):http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/FY2015-Pres-Stats-public.xlsAlsoavailable:TotalLibraryExpenditure(TLE)scaleddatafor2012-2015,helpfulfortrackingtrendsovertime,whileaccountingforthevaryingrespondentpool.http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/PresStatsTLE-2012-2015.xlsxSee“UsingtheSurveyDatatoTrackLong-TermTrends”sectionbelowformoreexplanationofhowTLEisused.

UsingtheSurveyDatatoTrackLong-TermTrendsAsthissurveyisbasedontheARLPreservationStatisticsSurveyconductedfrom1984-2008,thedatafromthetwosurveyscanbecombinedtoevaluatelong-termtrendsinpreservationactivity.However,becausethegroupofinstitutionsrespondingtothetwosurveysdifferssignificantly,careshouldbetakenindrawingbroadconclusionsbasedontheavailabledata.FortheARLsurvey,allARLmemberlibrariesprovidedaresponse,andnonon-ARLinstitutionswerepermitted.ThecurrentALAsurveyrespondentsareaself-selectingpoolofinstitutionswhichincludebothARLandnon-ARLinstitutions.Withtheeliminationofbudgetandstaffingquestions,thissurveyshares18quantitativequestionswiththeARLsurvey.Forthesequestions,thisreportcomparesthetotalvaluereportedforeachquestiontothetotallibraryexpenditure(TLE)ofthereportinginstitutions.Totalexpenditureshavebeenadjustedtoaccountforinflation,andareexpressedin2015dollars.Allvaluesareexpressedpermilliondollarsoflibraryexpenditures(e.g.itemsdigitizedpermilliondollarsoftotallibraryexpenditure).Thisisintendedtomeasurethefractionoftheresourcesoftherespondinginstitutionsthatisdedicatedtoaparticulartaskoroutput.

http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/FY2015-Pres-Stats-public.xls

http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/PresStatsTLE-2012-2015.xlsx


Asanexample,thegraphbelowshowstheextentofcommercialbindingactivitiesfrom2000-2015,expressedas

thenumberofvolumesboundpermilliondollarsoftotallibraryexpenditureforallrespondinginstitutions.

Foreachyear,theformulawhichproducesthecalculatedvalueis:

([totalvolumesbound]*10^6)/([totallibraryexpenditures]*[inflationadjustment])2Mosttablesinthisreportshowdatafrom2000to2015.TheARLdatawasmadeavailableasExcelfilesfrom2000-2008.Nosurveywasconductedfrom2009-2011,sonoinformationisavailableforthoseyears.The2012-2015figurescomefromtheALAsurvey.Institutionsforwhichinformationontotalexpenditureswasnotavailablewereexcludedfromthisanalysis.Forthisreason,itiscriticalthatinstitutionsprovideavaluefortotalexpenditureswhencompletingthesurveyinfutureyears.ForARLlibrariesthatdidnotprovideafigurefortotalexpenditures,thevaluefromtheARLStatisticssurveywasused.Thismethodallows53institutionsfromFY2012,37fromFY2013,80fromFY2014,and66fromFY2015tobeincludedintheanalysis.Aweaknessofthismethodisthatdifferencesfromoneyeartoanothermightbebetterexplainedbychangesinthegroupofrespondinginstitutionsthanbyageneralshiftinlevelsofresourcesdevotedtoaspecifictask.Forthisreason,itisprudenttofocusontrendsthatcontinueoverseveralyears,ratherthanchangesfromoneyeartothenext.

2InflationadjustmentswerederivedfromtheBureauofLaborStatisticsCPIInflationCalculator:http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

0100200300400500600700800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

VolumesCommerciallyBoundPer$MillionTLE(FigureD)

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl


Section1:ConservationTreatment

Thissectionsurveysthenumberofitemsconservedbyformatand/ortreatmenttimeaswellasthenumberofprotectiveenclosuresconstructed.Bothconservationtreatmentandenclosuresconstructionaretrackedaseitherin-houseprogramsoroutsourcedcontractorservices.

Ofthe69respondents,42institutions(61%)outsourceconservationtreatmentand/orprotectiveenclosureconstructiontocontractvendors.Ofthefiverespondentswithoutanin-houseconservationprogram,onlythreerelysolelyoncontractconservationservices.

Consistentwithprevioussurveys,themajorityofrespondents(61%)havein-houseconservationprogramsthattrackconservationtreatmentbytheARL-definedconservationtreatmentlevels:LevelIfortreatmentstakinglessthan15minutes;LevelIIfortreatmenttimesrangingfrom15minutesto120minutes;andLevelIIIfortreatmentsthattakemorethantwohours(FigureE).

InFY2015,respondinginstitutionsprovideditem-levelattentionto762,387items,downsignificantlyfromFY2014(1.6million)andFY2013(1.7million).Theseactivitiesincludeconservationtreatmentandhousingviacustomenclosuresaswellassurveyingorassessinganitemforcondition,preparinganitemfordigitizationorexhibition(discussedfurtherinSection2).


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

BooksandBoundVolumes

UnboundSheets

PhotographicMaterials

MovingImageRecordings

SoundRecordings

ArtObjects HistoricandEthnographic

Objects

Other

ConservationActivities(FigureE)

ExhibitPrep

DigitizationPrep

ConservationAssessment

OutsourcedTreatment

Inhousetreatment

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

ArtObjects HistoricandEthnographic

Objects

Other


WhileconservationtreatmentofboundvolumescontinuestoincreaseateverytreatmentlevelovertheirlowpointinFY2013,treatmentactivityremainsdramaticallylowerthanthedatareportedduringARL’sadministrationofthissurvey(FigureF).Since2000,conservationtreatmenthasdeclinedby59%,thesamedeclineobservedforcommercialbinding.Thisreducedleveloftreatmentactivityhasbeenconsistentlysupportedbythedata,includinganalysisinthepilotFY2012PreservationStatisticsSurveyReportwhichshowedsimilarresultsusingadifferentmethodfocusingonlyoninstitutionsthathadrespondedtobothsurveys.Thereasonsforthisdramaticdecreaseinconservationtreatmentactivitymightbeafruitfultopicoffutureresearch.

Level2repairsarealsodramaticallybelowthelevelsreportedontheARLsurvey,whilelevel3repairshaveexperiencedlessseveredeclines(FigureH):

050

100150200250300350

ConservationTreatmentsper$MillionTLE(FigureF)

Level1

Level2

Level3

Total

01020304050607080

ConservationTreatmentsper$MillionTLE(FigureG)

Level1

Level2

Level3

Total

http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2012/FY2012-Preservation-Statistics-report.pdf


Includingunboundsheetsandotherformatsintheanalysispaintsasimilarpicture:thelevelofconservationactivityin2015wasatapproximatelyhalfof2000levels,reboundingfromevenlowerlevelsinthe2013and2014surveys.(FiguresIandJ):

0100200300400500600700

ConservationTreatmentsper$MillionTLE(FigureH)

BoundVolumes

UnboundSheets

OtherFormats

TotalTreatments

020406080

100120140

ConservationTreatmentsper$MillionTLE(FigureI)

BoundVolumes

UnboundSheets

OtherFormats

TotalTreatments


Section2:ConservationAssessment,DigitizationPreparation,ExhibitPreparation

Mostrespondentsansweredthisoptionalsectionandaretrackingconservationassessment,digitizationprep,and/orexhibitprep.Inanalyzingthedatafortheseemergingareas,itisinterestingtonotethematerialformatsoftheitemsmostfrequentlyassessed(booksandboundmaterials,movingimageandsoundrecordings),versusthoseprepared(photographicmaterialsandunboundsheet)(FigureJ).

Specialprojects,suchascollectionsurveysoreffortstoplanfutureconservationtreatmentordigitizationinitiatives,cangreatlyalterwhichformatismostfrequentlyexaminedwhenassessingtheconditionofmaterials.InFY2013,respondentsmostfrequentlyassessedtheconditionbooksandboundvolumes(73%);inFY2014,booksandboundvolumesaccountedforonly30%ofthematerialsexamined.Thisyear,FY2015respondentsindicatedthatbooksandboundvolumesaccountedfor25%ofmaterialsassessedforcondition;movingimagerecordswere36%,andsoundrecordings23%.

Whenpreparingcollectionmaterialsfordigitization,FY2015respondentsweremostfrequentlytreatingphotographicmaterials(42%)thenunboundsheets(30%).Effortsthisyeararesignificantlydifferentfrompreviousyears:inFY2014,respondentsfocuseddigitizationpreponunboundsheets(76%),whichwasconsistentwiththefindingsoftheFY2013report(75%unboundsheets).

Whenpreparingmaterialsforexhibition,respondentswereonceagainprimarilyfocusedonprintmaterials:preparingbooksandboundvolumes(36%)aswellasunboundsheets(22%).


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

BooksandBoundVolumes

UnboundSheets PhotographicMaterials

MovingImageRecordings

SoundRecordings ArtObjects HistoricandEthnographicObjects

Other

ConservationAssessment,DigitizationPrep,andExhibitPrepbyFormat(FigureJ)

ConservationAssessment DigitizationPrep ExhibitPrep

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000


Section3:GeneralPreservationActivities

Thissectionofthesurveycollectedinformationonlibrarybindingandmassdeacidificationactivities.Disasterresponse,environmentalmonitoring,andoutreach/trainingactivitiesassessedintheFY2012andFY2013surveyswereremovedpriortotheFY2014surveyinanefforttoshortenthesurveytofocusonproductionactivities.

Respondinginstitutionscommercial/librarybound371,690monographsand227,003serials;195,450monographsand513linearfeetofunboundpapersweremassdeacidified.ItshouldbenotedthatthemassdeacidificationactivitiesoftheLibraryofCongressaccountsfor94%ofmonographsmassdeacidifiedand100%ofunboundpapermassdeacidificationinFY2015.

Inexaminingthelong-termtrend,thenumberofvolumescommerciallybound(ascomparedtototalinstitutionalbudgets)continuestoshowadramaticoveralldecline,butwithaslightuptickin2015.(FigureK):

Thenumberofboundvolumesreceivingmassdeacidificationcontinuedtofluctuaterelativetolibraryexpenditures(FigureL).BecausetheresultsinthisareaaredominatedbytheLibraryofCongress(whichconducts33%ofallreportedlibrarybindingofmonographs,and25%ofallreportlibrarybindingofserials),theresulttendstofluctuatefromyeartoyear,withthenumberofinstitutionsrespondingtothesurveyexertingasignificanteffectontheresults.

Thirteeninstitutionsreportedmassdeacidifyingcollectionsin2015,andthiscoregroupofrespondersareallARLresearchlibrarieswithgenerallysteadyyear-to-yearmassdeacidicationofboundvolumes,suggestingthatthiseffortistiedmoretobudgetthantospecialprojects.ResultsinthisareaarealsodominatedbytheLibraryofCongress,whichconducts93%ofallreporteddeacidificationofboundvolumesandpamphletsand100%ofallreporteddeacidicationofunboundpaper.

0

200

400

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

NumberofItemsReceivingMass-Deacidificationper$MillionTLE(FigureL)

Bound

Unbound

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

VolumesCommerciallyBoundPer$MillionTLE(FigureK)


Section4:ReformattingandDigitization

Thissectionsurveyedthenumberofitems(fromtraditionalmaterialssuchasbooksandunboundpapertosoundrecordingsandmovingimageformats)reformattedviamicrofilming,preservationphotocopying,anddigitization.Bothin-housevs.outsourcedcontractservicesforreformattinganddigitization.

Trackingthenumberofitemsreformattedanddigitizedyear-to-yearwithavariablepopulationofinstitutionalrespondentsischallenging.Unlikeconservationanditsrelatedactivitiesofcollectionassessment,digitizationprep,exhibitprep,commercialbinding,andmassdeacidification–allofwhicharemorethanlikelytotakeplacewithinthepreservationunit–theactivitiesofreformattinganddigitizationmaybeadministeredwholeorinpartbyanentirelyseparateunit.Theseoutsideunitsmaynotsharetheirstatisticswiththepreservationunit,sowhilethebestdatawouldreflectreformattinganddigitizationactivitiesinstitution-wide,someresponsesmaybelimitedtojustthosereformattinganddigitizationactivitiescarriedoutbythepreservationunit.

Inlastyear’sFY2014report,respondentsindicatedthatunboundsheetscomprised91%ofdigitizationefforts.FY2015data(FigureM)showsamuchmorebalanceddistributionofdigitizationacrossallformats:unboundsheetscontinuedtolead,withmicrofilmaclosesecond.Twoinstitutionswereresponsiblefor99%ofthisyear’smicrofilmdigitizationdata,highlightinghowspecialprojectstargetingspecificformatscanskewdatafromyear-to-year(inFY2014,microfilmdigitizationaccountedforlessthan5%ofalldigitizationactivities).

AVdigitization,whichcomposedlessthan1%ofdigitizationactivitiesinFY2014wassignificantlyhigherthisyear–8%ofallformatsdigitizedin-houseoroutsourcedwereaudio-visualmaterials.Evenwithinnon-printitemsthatweredigitized,audiovisualcollectionsstillrepresentasmallpercentageofthosematerials(16%),especiallywhencomparedwithmicrofilm(59%).

Therateofaudiovisualdigitizationmaybeshifting,butformoreanalysisoffluctuationsovertime,thePreservationStatisticsteamturnedtoJoshuaRanger,PublicRecordsOfficer/Archivist,NYPDVideoProductionUnit,forspecialcommentary.

Books/boundvolumes17%

Unboundsheets34%

Photographicmaterials

9%

Microfilm29%

AV8%

Otherformats3%

DigitizationbyFormat(FigureM)

Microfilm59%

Photographicmaterials

18%

Soundrecordings

3%

Movingimage13%

Other7%

Non-PrintItemsDigitized(FigureN)


SpecialCommentary:AudiovisualPreservationandDigitizationJoshuaRanger,PublicRecordsOfficer/Archivist,NYPDVideoProductionUnit

Ialwaysliketostartsimply:duetoobsolescenceandrelativelyrapiddecay,thepreservationofaudiovisualmaterialsrequiresreformatting.Reformattingisthetransferofcontentfromonecarrier/formattoanother,eitherthesameformatoranewformat.Atthispointintime,digitizationistherecommendedmeansofreformattinginmostcases(Iwillnotgetintothedebateoverfilmdigitizationhere).That'sreallyit.Reformattingabsolutelyneedstohappentopreserveaudiovisualcontent,andneedstohappenatafrequencythatismuchmorerapidthanmightberequiredforothermediatypes–onthefactoroftensofyearsorlessratherthanhundredsofyears.Ifanorganizationisnotplanningfororperformingthedigitizationofmagnetic,optical,film,andotherphysicalmedianow,theyarerunninganincreasinglygreaterriskoflossofthoseassets.ImpactsofdigitizationofaudioandvideoThatsaid,thingsarenotsocutanddriedsimple.Thedigitizationofaudiovisualmaterialswillhaveasignificantimpactonanorganizationduetothecomplexityandsizeofresultingfiles,aswellasthecostofplanninganddigitizinglargecollections.Thecomplexityofthenewdigitalfiles,theexistenceofpreservationmastersandderivatives,andtheintricaciesofthereformattingprocessresultsinalargeincreaseinthepotentialamountofmetadatatocapture,andleadstothequestionofhowtocapture,whatschemastouse,andwheretostorethedatasothatitisuseful.Firstandforemost,however,istheimpactoffilesize.Whendigitized,paperand(toadegree)photographsarerelativelysmallinsize,andmanythirdpartystorageservicesandITdepartmentsgeartheirofferingsforstoragebasedonthat.Preservationqualityaudiovisualfiles(notnecessarilyuncompressed)willrangeupto100GBperhourforvideo,andtheneven1-4TB(ormoreinsomecases)perhourofdigitizedfilm.Theseimpactspresentdifficultroadblockstothepreservationofaudiovisualmaterials,especiallyinorganizationswhereexpertiseand/ortargetedfundingislimitedornon-existent.DigitizingIn-housevs.OutsourcingGiventheprevalenceofmicrofilmingandscanningstationsinarchivesandlibraries,thedifferentiationbetweenin-houseandoutsourcedworkforaudiovisualcollectionsdoesn'treallyneedtobeexplained.Howeverthereisahighlikelihoodofahybridapproach–partin-houseandpartoutsourced–duetothelargenumberofaudioandvideoformats(wellover80),thelimitedexpertiseorliteratureavailablearoundthelesspopularformats,andthelimitedorveryexpensiveequipmentforcertainformats.Forexample,whileVHS,U-matic,andaudiocassettescanbetransferredeasilywithtraining,2”Quadorwirerecordingspresentfussiertransferquality,andthereareonlyahandfulofQuadmachinescurrentlyavailable.


ALookattheNumbersCombinedTotals,In-houseandOutsourced

Total Digitized, Audio Total Digitized, Video

2012 16,993 29,333

2013 67,471 1087

2014 83,618 33,808

2015 42,480 168,364 Whatweseeabovearethetotalnumberofaudioandfilm/videoitemsdigitizedbyrespondents.Whatwecan'tseehereareanyclearpatterns.Thenumbersareupanddownfromyeartoyear,ortakeextremedipsandleaps.Thoughitisnotstatedinthesurveyresponses,myguessisthatthesenumbersareanoutcomeoftheimpactofgrantandotherlargescalefundingfororganizationalinitiatives.Inmanycases,duetothehighcosts,digitizationdoesnottakeplacewithoutthesupportofsignificanttargetedfunding.Thisleadstoafeastorfaminesituationwithdigitization,whichIfeelwouldleadtothewildfluctuationsinaudiovisualitemspreserved.Andthisisimportanttounderscore:asoutlinedabove,digitizationofAVispreservationofthecontent.In-housevs.OutsourcedBeginningin2013,thesurveydifferentiatedbetweendigitizationperformedin-houseandworkoutsourcedtoadigitizationvendor.Insomecases,outsourcedworkmayactuallytakeplaceonsiteusinglaborandequipmentfromavendor.Thebulkofaudiodigitizationisperformedin-house:

Audio Total Digitized In-house Total Digitized Outsourced

2012 16,993*

2013 39,610 27,861

2014 54,478 29,140

2015 29,387 13,093 *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.Thereisasignificantamountofvideobeingdigitizedin-house,thoughthatflipssuddenlyin2015whenoutsourcedworkleapstooverfourtimesthatofin-house.ThisislikelytheresultoftheLibraryofCongress'massdigitizationinitiativeusingSAMMArobots.Asdiscussedabove,thistypeoffunding/initiativeskewsthenumbersandmakesitdifficulttoseepatterns.Thisissuewillbeaddressedbelow:


Video Total Digitized In-house Total Digitized Outsourced

2012 29,333*

2013 573 514

2014 29,389 4,419

2015 30,187 138,177 *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.Asanotherviewofthesenumbers,thecomparativepercentageofitemsshowsthataudioin-househoversaround60%-70%,somewhatstable.Video,ontheotherhand,showserraticpercentages(flippingbetweenyears)andextremenumbers.PercentageofIn-housevs.Outsourced:Items

Audio In-house

Audio Outsourced

Video In-house

Video Outsourced

2012 * *

2013 59% 41% 53% 47%

2014 65% 35% 87% 13%

2015 69% 31% 18% 82% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.Togetaclearer,lessskewedviewofthenumbersweshouldlookatthetotalsminusthelargestcountfromamongtherespondents.Thisshouldalsogiveusabetterviewofhowmuchpreservationworkisbeingdonewithoutthesupportofverylargegrantsortargetedbudgetallocations.Totalsminusthelargestprojects

Audio Total Digitized In-

house Minus Largest Project

Percent of Total In-house

Total Digitized Outsourced Minus Largest Project

Percent of Total Outsourced

2012 6,368* 37.50%*

2013 2,026 5.10% 2,461 8.80%

2014 29,080 53.40% 4,140 14.20%

2015 23,599 80.30% 9,505 72.60% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.Weseewiththeaudiothatin-houseworkremainstheprimarygeneratorofdigitization,andthatpriorto2015thelargestresponsemadeupasignificantportionofthegrandtotalofwork.


Video Total Digitized In-

house Minus Largest Project

Percent of Total In-house

Total Digitized Outsourced Minus Largest Project

Percent of Total Outsourced

2012 5,193* 17.70%*

2013 573** 53.00%** 514** 47.00%**

2014 3,673 12.50% 3,669 83.00%

2015 6,450 21.40% 4,219 3.00% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.**Statisticallyinsignificantnumbers.Interestinglyhere,subtractingthelargestitemcountsbringsthetotalsclosetoeven.Andexceptforoutsourcedvideoin2014,theamountleftaftersubtractionisasmallpercentageoftheoverallgrandtotal.Thismightsuggestthat,comparedtoaudio,thereismuchlesspreservationworkoccurringwithvideoormuchlessbeingdonewithoutlargescalefunding/budgeting.Videoismoredifficulttoworkwiththanaudio,itismoreexpensiveinregardstoequipmentaswellasoutsourcing,andthelargefilesizesmakeitdauntingtodigitizeandstore.Sowhoaretheselargeprojectinstitutions?Well,manyyearsitwastheLibraryofCongress,whichmakessense–theyhaveoneofthelargestcollectionsofaudiovisualmaterialsintheworldand,whencongressionalfundingisprovided,theyhavethemassiveNAVCCcenterwheredigitizationcantakeplace.InotheryearswehavetheTexasStateLibraries&ArchivesCommission,whichIwouldguesssupportedstatewideoutsourcingofaudioforarchivesandlibraries,andthenseveraluniversitylibrarieswhichwouldlikelyhavereceivedgrantsorhadinternalinitiativesforlarge-scaleprojects.Listoflargestdigitizationprojects

Audio In-house

Audio Outsourced

Video In-house

Video Outsourced

2012 Library of Congress* Library of Congress*

2013 Indiana University Texas State Libraries & Archives Commission

** **

2014 Wake Forest Libraries Texas State Libraries & Archives Commission

Library of Congress University of Minnesota Libraries

2015 Library of Congress Library of Congress Library of Congress Library of Congress *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.**Statisticallyinsignificantnumbers.RateofChangeLookingattherateofchangeindigitizationfromyeartoyear(percentageincreaseordecreaseinthenumberofitems)weseearepeatoftheirregularityinthetotalnumberofitems.Forexample,withvideoweseein-houseworkincreasebyover5000%,andthendroptoonlya3%.Thisagainsuggestsafeastorfaminerealitywhereinstitutionsarewhollyreliantongrantsandtargetedfunding.Afterthoseareawardedtherearegreatincreasesinpreservationwork,butthatworkdisappearswiththefundingdriesup.


Audio

In-house Outsourced

In-house Minus Largest

Outsourced Minus Largest

2012 * * * *

2013

2014 38% 5% 1335% 68%

2015 -46% -55% -19% 130% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.

Video In-house Outsourced

In-house

Minus Largest Outsourced

Minus Largest 2012 * * * *

2013

2014 5029% 760% 541% 614%

2015 3% 3027% 76% 15% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.RespondentsnotdigitizingThetotalnumberofitemstellsusonestory,butwealsoneedtolookatthenumberofinstitutionswhoareactivelypreservingaudiovisualmaterialstogetafullerviewofthings.Asweseeinthefirsttwotablesbelow,over50%oforganizationsarenotdigitizingin-houseoroutsourcing.Thenumbersaretrendingdownward(moreorganizationsdigitizing),butthereisstillagap.

Audio In-house

No Digitization In-house

Digitization Outsourced

No Digitization Outsourced Digitization

2012 52%* 48%* * *

2013 73% 27% 65% 35%

2014 64% 36% 72% 28%

2015 59% 41% 57% 43% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.


Video In-house

No Digitization In-house

Digitization Outsourced

No Digitization Outsourced Digitization

2012 63%* 37%* * *

2013 70% 30% 63% 37%

2014 70% 30% 67% 33%

2015 57% 43% 52% 48% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.Torefineourviewhereofhowmanyrespondentsaredoingpreservationwork,weshouldlookatorganizationsthataredoingnodigitization(neitherin-housenoroutsourcing)versusthosethataredoingoneorboth(in-houseand/oroutsourced).Whatweseehereisthatthegapgetsmuchsmaller,hoveringaroundthe50/50rangeuntilitdropstoagreaterdifferentiationin2015withthemajorityofrespondentsdoingsomesortofdigitization.

Audio No Digitization

Audio Digitization

Video No Digitization

Video Digitization

2012 52% 48% 63% 37%

2013 48% 52% 48% 52%

2014 52% 48% 48% 52%

2015 39% 61% 39% 61% ConclusionsSowhatcanweconcludeaboutthestateofaudiovisualpreservationfromthesenumbers?Well,firstoff,becausemanyofthenumbersincreaseanddecreaserapidlyfromyeartoyear,itisdifficulttoidentifyanypatternsintheworkbeingdone.Howeverfromthiswecanconjecturethataudiovisualdigitizationisnotaregular,consistentprojectwithinmostorganizations,butrathereithersmallscaleortiedtograntfundingorinternalinitiatives.Numbersgoupanddownbecausethereisnoreliablyconsistent(andreliablylarge)fundingsourcefromyeartoyearastherewaswithmicrofilmingorsomethingsimilar.Thatsaid,preservationishappening,atalargescaleinahandfulofcases,andthatisapositivesign.However,inmostyears,thetotalsofthenumberofitemsbeingdigitizedisdominatedbyoneortwoverylargeprojects.Whilethisispositivethataninstitutionisgettingalotofworkdone,overallitskewsthenumbersandwedon'tgetatruepictureofthebroadhealthofaudiovisualpreservation.Asurprisinglysignificantportionofthepreservationworkbeingdoneisoccurringin-house.Isaythisissurprisingbecause,thoughitcanbecheapertogowithin-housework,noteveryorganizationhastheappetiteorcapabilitytotakeitonwithaudiovisualcollections.FrommyexperiencethebulkofuniversityandresearchlibrarycollectionsareVHS,U-Matic,Betacam/BetacamSP,1/4”openreelaudio,andaudiocassettes,whichareformatseasilyhandledin-house,sothatmayexplaintheleaningtoin-housetoadegree.Finally,asdiscussedabove,thepreservationnumbersgoingupanddownsuggestastrongtietoinconsistentfundingavailability.Thisappearstohaveledtoastateoffeastorfaminewithgrantswhere


verylittlecangetdonewithoutexternalfunding.Inordertosaveaudiovisualcollectionsinthetimewehaveleftbeforedecayandobsolescenceovertakethem,thereneedstobeadedicationofinternalfundingorinternalsupportinfundraisingthatarenot100%tiedtogrants.Wecan'twaitorhopeforfuturegrantsthatareattheserviceofdistantgrantcycles,orthatarenotenoughtocoverthetotalamountofworkrequiredfordigitizationanddigitalpreservation,orthataresocompetitivethatitmaybeyearsbeforeoneisreceived.Theworktopreserveaudiovisualcollectionshastostartnow.


Section5:DigitalPreservationandDigitalAssetManagementThissectionsurveyedtheactivitiesofdigitalpreservationprograms,includingthenumberofitemsandquantityofdataaddedtothedigitalrepositoryduringFY2015.Consistentwithpastyears’surveydata,mostrespondentsreportedthatdigitalpreservationresponsibilitiesareheldbyadepartmentorstaffoutsideofthepreservationunit.Digitalpreservationresponsibilityisheldbyvaryingentities(FigureO);32%ofrespondentsstatedadigitalinitiatives(orsimilarlytitled)unitwithintheorganizationisresponsibleforpreservingdigitalcollections.

The preservationunit19%

Adigitalinitiatives(orsimilarlytitled)unit

withintheorganization32%

AnIT/Systemsunitwithintheorganization

17%

Acollectionsdevelopment/

collectionsmanagementunitwithintheorganization

3%

Agrouporcommitteewithrepresentativesofmultipleunitsinthe

organization17%

Other12%

DigitalPreservationResponsibility(FigureO)


InFY2014,respondentsreportedthattheyweremanagingatotalof10PBofdata.InFY15,respondentsindicatedtheyaremanaging66PBofmaterial.Institutionsreportedaddingover18millionitemstotheirdigitalrepositories.Thesematerialsmaybeborndigitalordigitizedfromanalogcollections.

Inadditiontothesetotals,thesurveytracksformatsofitemsaddedtothedigitalrepository,whichhasproventobeachallengingpieceofdatatocollectuniformlyacrossinstitutions.“Webarchives”comprise39%ofthetotalnumberofitemsaddedtoadigitalrepositoryinFY2015,butinstitutionshaveindicatedthattheyaremorelikelytocountthoseasindividualfiles.Aninstitutionmightcounta1,000pagebookasoneitembutalsocountasinglestillimagefileasanitem,makingcomparisonsacrossformatschallenging.However,lookingatFY14and15data,wecanascertainthatwebarchivingisdefinitelyanareaofgrowthforinstitutions.InFY14,onlyoneinstitutionreportedaddinganywebarchivestotheirdigitalrepositories;inFY15nineinstitutionsreportedactivityinwebarchiving.

books0%

manuscripts3%

theses/dissertations

0%

othertextualdocuments

2%stillimages

5%audio1%

video3%

webarchives59%

other27%

ItemsAddedtoDigitalRepositories(FigureP)


DigitalPreservationActivityper$MillionTLE,2012-2015(FigureAA)

Digitalto

DigitalMigration

UniquedigitalcontentinGB

AddedtoRepository-books

AddedtoRepository-manuscripts

AddedtoRepository-theses/dissertations

AddedtoRepository-othertextualdocuments

AddedtoRepository-stillimages

AddedtoRepository-audio

AddedtoRepository-video

AddedtoRepository-webarchives

AddedtoRepository-emails

AddedtoRepository-datasets

AddedtoRepository-other

TotalNumberofItemsAdded

unitofmeasurement

numberoffiles

GB numberofitems

FY2012 NotAsked 5,281.88 15.51 944.59 2.61 18.67 108.81 1.04 1.43 270.07 0.24 0.13 793.48 2,156.59

FY2013 NotAsked 9,735.56 1.48 1.65 5.60 33.50 92.76 35.85 202.45 668,851.94

0.00 101.80 22.70 669,955.15

FY2014 25.01 123,440.98

6.93 28.90 7.46 347.68 184.24 1.20 2.69 890.02 1.66 0.14 3.19 8,841.49

FY2015 50.66 34,715.19 23.03 198.35 23.06 60.34 166.81 24.07 154.12 3491.30 0.58 0.19 1597.84 7022.33

SomeofthenumbersinfigureAAarelikelytheresultofmajor,grant-fundedprojectsatinstitutions,andvarybyformatbecauseofthe

differentwaysthatpeoplechoosetocollectthedata(i.e.filesvs.title).Astheseactivitiescontinueinlibraries,astandardwayoftracking

acrossinstitutionsandstandardscouldhelpgathermoremeaningfuldataovertime.


ConclusionsandLong-TermTrendsFormanyquestionsonthesesurveys,theresultsvarysignificantlyyear-to-year,withoutaconsistenttrendinonedirectionortheother.Thesechangescanoftenbeexplainedbylargeprojectsatasmallnumberofinstitutionsor,fortheALAsurvey,changesinthecompositionofthegroupofrespondinginstitutions.However,thereareafewtrendsthatcanbeidentifiedfromthedatawithsomemeasureofconfidence,atleastastheyapplytotheinstitutionsthatrespondedtothesurvey:

• WebarchivingisatrackedactivityatmanymoreinstitutionsinFY15(nineinstitutionsreportingdata)thaninFY14(onlyoneinstitutionreporteddata)

• From2000tothepresent,totalconservationtreatmentsofboundvolumesappeartohavedroppedby59%.

• From2000tothepresent,totalconservationtreatmentsofallformatshavedroppedby51%.• From2000tothepresent,commercialbindingofboundvolumesappearstohavedroppedby59%.

PotentialResearchTopicsThePreservationStatisticssurveydataisavailablefordownloadasanExcelspreadsheetathttp://www.ala.org/alcts/resources/preservation/presstatsWeencourageotherstousethisdataforfurtherresearch,byfurtheranalyzingit,orusingittoinformothersurveyorresearchprojects.Somequestionsthataroseduringdataanalysisandreporting,whichmaybeansweredthroughfurtheranalysisand/orresearchinclude:

• Dodigitizationprojectshelppreserveanalogcollections?Doesanincreaseindigitizationeffortscorrespondtoadecreaseinthehandlingoffragilephysicalobjects?

• Arelibrariesreplacingsystematiccreationofprintsurrogateswithprint-on-demandservices,offeredmoreandmorebylibrarybinders?

• Howdoestheadministrationofpreservationchangeaspreservationdepartmentprioritiesandpersonnelshifttowardsdigitizationand/ordigitalpreservation?

• Whatdrivesconservationtreatmenttoday:condition,curatorialpriorities,exhibition,and/ordigitization?• Howcanwecollectstatisticsaboutpreservingborn-digitalcollectionsthatcanhelpustracktrendsin

digitalpreservation?• Canthisdatabeusedtohelpshiftaudiovisualpreservationeffortsfroma“feastorfamine”approachtoa

moresystemic,embeddedpartofpreservationprograms?

FY2016andBeyond

ThedatacollectedbythePreservationStatisticsSurveyismostmeaningfulifarepresentativenumberofinstitutionsandarchivesconsistentlysharetheirannualstatistics.Giventheeffortrequiredtomanagethisprojectandperformanalysisthatinformsourfieldaboutcurrentissuesandongoingtrends,thegoalofseventy-fiverespondentswillbefundamentaltoachieveeachyear.Withonlysixty-ninerespondentstotheFY2015Survey,wedidnotmeetthatgoal.Atthistime,thecurrentcoordinatorsarenotpreparedtoissueanFY2016SurveyinJanuary2017.WeareactivelyseekingnewvolunteersforthecontinuedmanagementforthePreservationStatisticsproject.

CreditsThePreservationandReformattingSection(PARS)ExecutiveCommittee:AnniePeterson,KristenKern,DavidLowe,IanBogus,GinaMinks,andJeanneDrewesreachedouttoacademiclibrariestoencouragerespondents.



PreviousPARSChairsKaraMcClurken,BeckyRyder,KarenBrown,TaraKennedy,AnnMarieWiller,JacobNadal,andKaraMcClurkenhaveprovidedvaluablesupportandguidanceonthePreservationStatisticsproject.

ThepilotFY2012surveyquestionnairedevelopmentteamincludedHelenBailey(DigitalCurationAnalyst,MITLibraries),AnniePeterson(PreservationServicesLibrarian,Lyrasis),HollyRobertson(ExhibitsCoordinator,UniversityofVirginiaLibrary)andEmilyVinson(Archivist,RiceUniversity).

ThePreservationStatisticsSurveycoordinatorsfrom2012–2016wereAnniePeterson,HollyRobertson,andNickSzydlowski.

ThankYou!ThankstoeveryonewhotooktimefromtheirbusyscheduletoparticipateintheFY2015survey.Yourfeedbackisespeciallyappreciated:[email protected]

[email protected]

Documents

Preservation Statistics Survey Report FY2015 · Preservation Statistics Survey: FY2015 Report 3 Introduction and Background The Preservation Statistics Survey is an effort coordinated