The Preservation Resource Needs of Michigan's Public Libraries

This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]On: 07 October 2014, At: 05:08Publisher: 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

The Preservation Resource Needs ofMichigan's Public LibrariesKevin Driedger a & Joseph J. Mika ba Library of Michigan , Lansing, Michigan, USAb School of Library and Information Science , Wayne StateUniversity , Detroit, Michigan, USAPublished online: 06 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Kevin Driedger & Joseph J. Mika (2010) The Preservation ResourceNeeds of Michigan's Public Libraries, Library & Archival Security, 23:2, 79-103, DOI:10.1080/01960075.2010.492716

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01960075.2010.492716

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,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wlas20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01960075.2010.492716

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01960075.2010.492716

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Library & Archival Security, 23:79–103, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0196-0075 print / 1540-9511 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01960075.2010.492716

The Preservation Resource Needs of Michigan’sPublic Libraries

KEVIN DRIEDGERLibrary of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan, USA

JOSEPH J. MIKASchool of Library and Information Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA

Public libraries throughout Michigan are engaged in a constantstruggle to preserve their collections. Public library preservationlabors require a set of resources—skills, materials, vendors, and fi-nancial support. Michigan’s public libraries were invited to partici-pate in a survey designed to inquire into their current preservationresources and their preservation resource needs. Survey results re-vealed that Michigan’s public libraries are making several inroadsto preserve their collections but, nevertheless, have unmet preser-vation resource needs. These preservation resource requirementsrequire innovative and financial solutions to meet these needs.

KEYWORDS book repair, collection preservation, Michigan publiclibraries, preservation, preservation resources

INTRODUCTION

Public libraries collect and make available to their clients items such as books,periodicals, videos, and compact discs. All such objects have a limited lifespan, both in terms of the usefulness of the information held within and interms of the physical structure of the item itself. Libraries aim to maintain theintegrity of these physical structures for as long as the information is usefulor until the information is transferred to a more stable format.

The function of public libraries, and thus the nature and use of theircollections, are distinctly different than those of academic libraries. Therefore,

Received 14 April 2010; accepted 10 May 2010.Address correspondence to Joseph J. Mika, PhD, School of Library and Information

Science, Wayne State University, 106 Kresge Library, Detroit, MI 48202, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

80 K. Driedger and J. J. Mika

preservation and the resources needed to adequately preserve collections ina public library setting are somewhat different than in academic libraries.

Preservation is defined as “the activity of protecting something fromloss or danger; a process that saves organic substances from decay,” andas “a branch of library and information science concerned with maintainingor restoring access to artifacts, documents and records through the study,diagnosis, treatment and prevention of decay and damage” [1].

A library preserves items because it believes those items have valuefor their patrons. Public libraries often place value on different items anddifferent aspects of those items than research libraries, and preservation ina public library must consider this different value. For example, at a publiclibrary, an eye-catching book with its original colorful dust jacket is moreimportant than it might be at a research library, and the public library maygo to extra efforts to preserve the condition of that dust jacket.

Public libraries throughout Michigan are confronted with a constantchallenge to preserve their collections. Less-than-ideal environments, age,and the damage caused by use and misuse quickly take their toll on manyof the collections owned by libraries. Library staff members understand howimportant these collections are to their community but recognize often thatthey do not have adequate resources to preserve these items for future use.

Despite this need to preserve collections, preservation is not traditionallya high priority of public libraries. Public libraries commonly emphasize newmaterials and place a high value on programs and services. They do not viewthemselves in the role of long-term collection building. Additionally, someitems in public library collections are easily and inexpensively replaced,which reduces incentives to repair.

The question could be posed whether public libraries even need to beconcerned with preservation, as this activity may be viewed as one moreresponsibility that drains resources and staff time from their primary re-sponsibilities. Tolbert responds to this concern in Preservation in AmericanPublic Libraries: A Contradiction in Terms? wherein she lists three cogentarguments for why preservation should be the concern of public libraries.

Even high-circulation, shorter term collections—typical of publiclibraries—need preservation. In fact, a frequently circulating collectionmay need more attention and protection than one that is used mostlyfor reference and research purposes . . . Second, any library’s collectionconstitutes an investment, and good resource management demands itsprotection. . . . Third, preservation can be a good public relations tool [2].

Once a public library is made aware of its need to preserve its collection,it must develop or locate resources to facilitate its preservation goals. Thesepreservation resources can be divided into four categories:

1. Skills and training: To adequately preserve a collection requires knowl-edge and skills that are often acquired through proper training. Much

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Resource Needs of Michigan’s Public Libraries 81

about preservation is “common sense”: For example, a wet book shouldnot be reshelved within the collection. To effectively preserve a library col-lection, however, library staff need to have specific preservation-relatedknowledge and skills. Understanding the effects of humidity, being ableto repair a damaged spine, knowing the appropriate standards to applyto a microfilming project, and instructing patrons on good book handlingpractices all require skills, knowledge, and often training. Tolbert notes,“One of the least expensive and most effective measures that can betaken toward preventative preservation is the training of staff and users”[3].

2. Materials and facilities: It is not a matter just of possessing material re-sources but of having and using materials that will facilitate the preser-vation of materials and that do not further immediately (or over time)harm a library’s collection. Despite the increased presence of digital me-dia and increased accessibility of resources online, public libraries remainvery much about physical materials—hardware, software, paper, plastic,and other synthetic materials—held within a bricks-and-mortar physicalstructure.

3. Outside services: Many preservation activities are best done by outsideservice providers, but libraries need to know what services are available,costs, best practices, vendor experiences and reliability, and what thebest choices for contracting out services are. Traditionally, these servicesinclude library binding, microfilming, digitizing, conservation, and preser-vation consulting. Engaging outside services can be helpful for publiclibraries with small staffs and little expertise. Engaging these external ser-vices, however, involves a separate expenditure that may be difficult tomanage within the library’s budget. Also, most of the vendors who pro-vide these services traditionally cater to large academic clients and oftenare less familiar with the particular needs of public libraries, especiallysmall and rural libraries.

4. Finances: Of course, very little of this happens without financial sup-port, and public libraries face difficult choices as budgets shrink. Re-liance for preservation efforts is sometimes placed in acquiring dona-tions or grants. In tough economic times, expensive preservation effortswill be relinquished totally, or delayed, further compounding preservationproblems.

Frequently, libraries are aware of the problems within their collectionsbut do not have the resources to develop solutions to those problems. Pub-lic libraries often rely on library services agencies (LSAs) such as cooper-atives, consortia, and the state library to assist them with the four typesof preservation resources cited earlier. Because of their comparatively smallstaff and budgets, public libraries rely more heavily on LSAs than do researchlibraries.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature about preservation and the resources needed to preserve librarycollections has primarily focused on academic and research libraries. Publiclibraries have similar concerns but also pose unique preservation challengesrequiring different preservation resources. The subject of the preservationresource needs of public libraries has produced a limited corpus of literature.

Most relevant to the purposes of this study is a similar study completedin Florida in 1990. An Investigation of Preservation Service Needs and Op-tions for Florida Libraries: Final Report presents the results of a grant fundedstudy led by DePew [4]. Though the Florida study covers many of the sameissues as this study, it includes both public and academic libraries. It also wascompleted before digitization was widely adopted for library collection andpreservation activities. The two primary needs revealed in the Florida studyare the education of “the library profession about the principles of preserva-tion” and the provision of “expertise, equipment, and supplies to meet theconservation treatment and reformatting needs” of Florida’s libraries.

Reynolds, Schrock, and Walsh [5] provide the most significant publishedassessment of a public library’s collection. Their survey of the condition ofthe Wellesley Free Library materials highlights some of the preservation chal-lenges that are particular to libraries with high circulating collections. Thisarticle, along with Schrock’s, “A Collection Condition Survey Model for Pub-lic Libraries” [6], emphasize the importance within public library collectionsof both early intervention and an active book repair program.

Lavendar’s Book Repair: A How-to-do-it Manual [7] is the most prominentbook repair manual written primarily for public libraries. It is an extensiveand well-illustrated manual. One of the goals this study hoped to discoverwas what type of book repair skills are needed for public library collections.Based upon the authors’ experiences, Lavendar’s book teaches techniques,such as water-tearing Japanese paper, that are beyond the needs of mostpublic libraries.

The Perception and Potential of Preservation in Public Libraries by Sig-norile [8] is helpful in presenting how public libraries in North Carolina per-ceive their preservation needs. The author found that many public librariesare concerned about the condition of their collections but view preservationas a matter for larger academic libraries. This study also analyzes the levelof concern public libraries have for the condition of their collections and thelibraries’ willingness and ability to do something about it.

In the area of evaluating preservation services to libraries, Wisemanand Darby’s “Preservation Workshop Evaluation” provides a useful study[9]. It analyzes a program whereby Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET,now LYRASIS) conducted follow-up contacts with individuals who had par-ticipated in their network workshops. The objective was to determine theeffectiveness of their workshops over time. The study found that “94% of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


follow-up program participants performed some type of action to improvethe care of their institution’s collection” [10].

Baird’s Preservation Strategies for Small Academic and Public Libraries[11] is one of the few book-length works intended to assist the staff ofpublic libraries in dealing with their preservation needs. Apart from a lengthychapter on book repair, the brevity of this book limits its usefulness.

Numerous efforts to develop statewide preservation plans throughoutthe United States have been attempted. One helpful result of such a regionalproject in New York is the publication Who Ya Gonna Call? A Preserva-tion Services Sourcebook for Libraries and Archives [12]. This volume listspreservation-related services available to libraries in the New York metropoli-tan area.

Promoting Preservation Awareness in Libraries: a Sourcebook for Aca-demic, Public, School, and Special Collections, edited by Drewes and Page[13], has relevant chapters addressing preservation concerns within public li-braries and especially how to raise awareness among both staff and patrons.

The Library of Congress has mounted a very helpful Web page forlibraries that provides basic information on preservation, including Care,Handling, and Storage of Books; Care, Handling, and Storage of Asian Bind-ings; Care, Handling, and Storage of Motion Picture Film; Caring for yourPhotographic Collections; Emergency Drying Procedures for Water Dam-aged Collections; Leather Dressing; Guide to Preservation Matting and Fram-ing; Preserving Newspapers; Preservation Photocopying; Preserving Workson Paper: Manuscripts, Drawing, Prints, Posters, Maps, Documents; Cylin-der, Disc and Tape Care in a Nutshell; and Avoiding Collections Damagefrom Pollutants. This helpful information is available at http://www.loc.gov/preserv/careothr.html. Though some of the sections need updating, funda-mental information is provided. The Web sites for the individual sectionsalso provide a list of materials for further reading that offer more detailedadvice.

Also a useful manual, with pictures and examples that document therepair and enclosure treatments that are performed at the Indiana Uni-versity Libraries, is available at: http://www.indiana.edu/∼libpres/manual/manintro.html.

QUESTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

This study sought to answer two questions: (1) What preservationresources—skills, materials, access to service providers, financial support—do Michigan’s public libraries currently possess and use, and (2) what aretheir preservation resource needs?

For the purposes of this study, preservation resources are considered tobe any skills and training, materials and facilities, outside services, vendors,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


and funding that help a library preserve the condition and usefulness oftheir collections. The purpose of preservation is to enable continued accessto items in a library’s collections. A preservation resource need is a library’sneed for a resource (or resources) to better preserve items in the library’scollections. Without meeting this need, the collections will deteriorate at afaster-than-acceptable rate.

Providing preservation resources to public libraries is already occurringin Michigan but to a limited extent. Workshops on preservation and bookrepair are conducted through the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services(MCLS; formerly the Michigan Library Consortium), at library cooperatives,and through book repair sessions that are occasionally included at the RuralLibraries Conference and the annual State Library’s Beginning Workshop.

STUDY DESIGN

The main focus of this study was to gather information from public librariesthroughout Michigan regarding their preservation efforts and practices. Theinformation was gathered through a questionnaire. The respondents had theoption of answering the questionnaire using either a Web interface or a paperformat. The participants were invited through (1) a direct e-mail appeal,(2) announcements sent through a statewide library electronic discussionlist, and (3) an announcement published in the state library’s newsletter.

The construction of the questionnaire drew upon the survey created forthe DePew Florida study. The questions were divided into four categories:skills and training, materials and facilities, outside services, and funding. Thequestions inquired into what the library identifies as their current preser-vation activities and resources and their preservation resource needs. Therespondents also were asked to rank their preservation resource needs. Thesurvey asked questions to help the researchers identify other preservationresource needs not necessarily recognized by the respondents.

Most questions in the questionnaire were “closed” (i.e., allowing respon-dents to choose from among predetermined answers). This format helpedthe respondents and researchers deal with a uniform preservation lexiconand also helped with tabulating the results. Because the respondents couldidentify preservation resource needs that were not mentioned within thesurvey, a number of open-format questions and comments were employed.

Nearly 400 “main” public libraries and approximately 300 branch li-braries exist in Michigan. For the purposes of this study, only main librarieswere selected. Because of the relative homogeneity of the population, asample of 100 or more was needed to produce satisfactory results. Consider-ing the relatively small number, all of Michigan’s main public libraries wereinvited to participate.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


SURVEY RESULTS

A total of 115 Michigan public libraries completed a portion of the ques-tionnaire. Not all libraries answered all questions. The responding librariesinclude members of each of Michigan’s 13 cooperatives and each of the sixclass sizes in which libraries are categorized in Michigan (see page 4 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/lm 2010 CEManualFINAL 308216 7.pdf).

Skills and Training

Michigan’s public libraries are making efforts to preserve their collectionsprimarily with the resources they already have at their disposal. Table 1indicates the number of libraries that use specific repair and preservationtechniques. All responding libraries do some level of preservation-relatedprocessing and repair.

Tape is a common and easy-to-use book repair but often avoided bylibrary staff with increased skills and experience. To obtain a sense of howoften the public library staff turn to tape for repair, participants were askedwhether they repair the spines of hardcover books with tape and alsowhether they repair spines without tape. Eighty-three percent (95) of the115 responding libraries reported that they repaired with tape, whereas 75%(86) of the libraries repaired spines without tape. This survey did not discernwhat kind of repairs without tape these libraries are performing, but repair-ing without tape indicates that they are likely using a technique that requiresmore skill and time.

Paperback books comprise a significant part of most public libraries’collections and one that is very susceptible to damage. Sixty-four percent(74) of the responding libraries reinforce paperbacks—described as stiffening

TABLE 1 Repair and Preservation TechniquesPlease indicate which of the following procedures are carried out in your library.(Select all that apply)

Procedure Number

Basic mending of tears and loose pages 115Removal of pencil, crayon, ink, etc. 89Repair spine of hardcover book with tape 95Repair spine of hardcover book without tape 86Recase a hardcover (text block is completely separated from cover) 30Mylar covers on dust jackets 101Reinforce a paperback (stiffen board and/or reinforce hinge 74Mylar encapsulation of paper documents (not lamination) 29Placing deteriorated volumes in pre-made or custom made boxes 26Deacidification of paper or books 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 2 Repair Training

YES NODON’TKNOW

Does your library repair audiovisual materials? 63 50 2Does your library own any book repair manuals or videos? 62 46 7Does your library use volunteers to do book repair? 18 93 0Has any of your staff (or volunteers) received training for book

repair?96 15 4

Have any of your staff members had preservation training orattended preservation workshops other than book repair?

30 75 9

Have any of your staff members received preservation or bookrepair training that lasted longer than three days?

10 96 8

boards and/or reinforcing hinges. A number of commercial products are soldby library suppliers for this very purpose. Most of these products involveadherence of a clear plastic to the outside cover of the book.

Approximately 25% (29) of the responding libraries reported that theyencapsulate paper documents and place deteriorated volumes in pre-madeor custom boxes, two techniques that are often associated with older items.Neither technique is associated with high-circulating collections.

These various repair and preservation techniques usually involve someform of knowledge and skills that can be acquired through books, videos,and training. Table 2 indicates whether library staff or volunteers performbook repair and how these repair skills have been acquired. Fifty-four per-cent (62) of the respondents said their library owned at least one book re-pair manual or video. Eighty-three percent (96) of respondents answeredthat their staff (or volunteers) received some form of training for bookrepair. When asked how this training was received, respondents were ableto select one or more choices among multiple answers. Twenty-six percent(30) indicated the book repair training was acquired through some form ofworkshop. Many of the workshops at the cooperatives were conducted bythe Demco library supply company. Many of the workshops attended werebrief (2–3 hours), with minimal hands-on opportunities.

The MCLS offers day-long introductory and advanced book repair work-shops. Based upon the authors’ experiences, however, public library staff arenot a significant percentage of those attending the MCLS workshops.

Nine percent (10) of the responding libraries reported that a staff mem-ber had preservation training that lasted longer than 3 days. Most of thesewere preservation classes taken during their library degree coursework, andone person had attended a rare book school class at the University of Vir-ginia. Michigan has two master’s degree library science programs accreditedby the American Library Association, both of which regularly provide at leastone class in preservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Of reporting libraries, 26% (30) said they had staff members who hadpreservation training other than book repair. Other training was often de-scribed as a workshop in “archival preservation” but also cited was trainingin preserving photographs.

Materials and Facilities

Libraries were asked to list their three most used book repair supplies. Tapeof one form or another was the most common answer. Most tape was referredto as clear book tape, with hinge tape and document repair tape also beinglisted. The next most frequently cited repair supplies were various brandsof adhesive. Many of the replies referred to the adhesive as “liquid plasticadhesive.” Many of the brands used were confirmed to be a formulation ofpolyvinyl acetate, which is considered an appropriate adhesive for circulatingcollections. Many libraries, however, reported using Elmers glue, which isnot considered appropriate for book repair. The third most common categoryof supplies was book covers or dust jacket covers.

When asked whether their libraries had a rare or special collection—“acollection that does not circulate because of its rarity or value”—64% (70)of the libraries responding to this question (of 110 total) reported that theypossess such collections. The majority of these collections are small, withmore than half of the responding libraries stating a collection of 200 itemsor less. Related to these special collections is the incidence of “older” booksin the libraries’ collections; libraries were asked the percentage of pre-1900books in their collections. It appears that many of the answers were estimates.The median response is 1% of the collection, with many libraries answeringthat nothing in their collection was that old. The highest report was onelibrary’s listing 40%.

A series of questions was asked relating to the library facility and disas-ters. Of the 110 responding libraries, 28% (31) of respondents currently mon-itor their environment—defined as temperature and humidity—and another7% (8) have in the last 10 years but do not currently. Table 3 also records the

TABLE 3 Materials and Facilities

YES NODON’TKNOW

Within the last 10 years have you conducted a survey of aportion of your collection to identify possible preservationproblems?

13 90 4

Do you have a written disaster plan to minimize damage tolibrary materials in the event of a disaster?

14 89 7

Do you have a rare or special collection? (a collection that doesnot circulate because of its rarity or value)

70 40 0

In the last 10 years has your collection sustained water damagein your building? (e.g., through a leak or flood)

22 86 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 4 Collection ConditionHow would you evaluate the physical condition of your collections? (1 = verypoor, 5 = excellent)

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Adult books 0 3 23 64 11 3Children’s books 0 8 40 45 5 3Special collections/rare 1 12 34 24 3 28Audiovisual materials 0 8 26 50 12 4

libraries’ replies regarding disaster planning and disaster response activities.Twenty percent (22) of responding libraries (of 111 total) indicated that theircollection had sustained water damage in their building in the last 10 years.This is noteworthy when one sees that only 13% (14) of libraries have writtendisaster plans. Of the 22 libraries that had water damage in their facility, only4 reported having a disaster plan.

The respondents were also asked to rate the condition of their collec-tions, using a Likert scale with “1” being very poor and “5” being excellent.The collections evaluated were adult books, children’s books, special collec-tions/rare, and audiovisual materials. The results are displayed in Table 4.

Outside Services

The use of outside preservation vendors is recorded in Table 5. Library bind-ing is one of the most common library preservation activities. Library bindingprovides a tested, long-lasting housing for a volume, whether it is rebind-ing an old damaged volume, pre-binding a new volume, binding a paper-back, or binding a volume of periodicals. Of the 111 responding libraries,39% (43) of the libraries reported using a library bindery. Of those usingbindery services, 56% (24) use Binding Unlimited, Michigan’s only certifiedlibrary binder. (Since this research was conducted, The HF Group, whichowned Binding Unlimited, has closed Binding Unlimited and transferred its

TABLE 5 Outside Services

YES NODON’TKNOW

Do you use a commercial library binder? 43 66 2Has any of your staff ever toured the bindery? 3 32 7In the last 10 years has your library had any of its holdings

microfilmed?41 65 5

Was the microfilming done according to preservation standards? 18 0 20Have you ever had library materials treated by a professional

conservator?4 96 10

Have you ever hired or engaged a preservation consultant? 3 99 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


customers to Heckman Bindery.) Nearly one-fourth of those responding tothe questionnaire and using binding services did not know which binderythey used. This may be because 53% (23) of the 43 binding libraries do theirbinding through their local library cooperative. This phenomenon of bindingthrough a third party suggests that the individual libraries have less aware-ness of the extent of the services their bindery provides. Of the servicesthe libraries use, 40 of the libraries using binding services rebind damagedbooks. It has been the authors’ experiences that these public libraries sendbooks to the bindery when the needed repair is beyond the local libraryor cooperative skill-level. Sixteen (37%) of the libraries used the bindery tobind serials and 6 (14%) to rebind new books.

Microfilming remains an important preservation strategy for certain li-brary materials, especially newspapers. Public libraries often are the reposi-tory of their town’s newspaper. When asked, “In the last 10 years has yourlibrary had any of its holdings microfilmed?” 37% (41) of the 111 respondinglibraries replied in the affirmative. What were filmed, except in two cases,were local newspapers.

Four libraries had their materials treated by a conservator and, in oneinstance, the respondent recorded themselves as the conservator. The lowuse of conservator services may be the result of a lack of knowledge ofwhere to seek out these services and the cost involved.

Funding

The results of three questions related to preservation funding are presentedin Table 6. The amount spent on these areas by most public libraries is nothigh enough, or distinct enough, to warrant its own budget line, at least asrepresented by the responding libraries.

Public libraries do not have the same history of applying for preservationgrants that academic libraries possess. Twenty-eight public libraries (26%)of 109 respondents sought funding for preservation projects. Of these, 21libraries received the requested funding.

The majority of these libraries sought funding through the Library ofMichigan’s distribution of federal Library Service and Technology Act fund-ing. A few libraries sought funding through a local community foundation.

TABLE 6 Funding

YES NODON’TKNOW

Do you have a budget line devoted to preservation (e.g., bookrepair binding environmental control or monitoring)?

15 92 3

Have you ever sought funding for a preservation project? 28 78 3If yes, did you receive the funding? 21 78 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 7 Preservation Problems

PROBLEM CATEGORY NUMBER OF RESPONSES

Collection condition 62Space/environment 46Handling 27Training & time 21Money 20Non-book formats 19Newspapers/microfilm 16Digitization 6

Almost all of the funded projects were for digitization, with a few projectsinvolving microfilming. No specific Michigan funding efforts in recent historyhave focused on preserving original documents.

Preservation Problems

Libraries were asked to rank their three most serious preservation problems.The survey utilized free-text replies allowing respondents to describe theirproblems in their own words. The results were analyzed for commonalitiesand patterns. From the responses, eight categories were created, and replieswere coded into one of the eight categories. The results are displayed inTable 7.

The most serious preservation problem reported is related to collectioncondition with 62 responses. Declared concerns for the condition of thecollections included “bad bindings on new books” and “deterioration ofvolumes in local history room.”

Problems relating to space and environment ranked next with 46 re-sponses. Some of the responses did not fully reveal the nature of the prob-lem (i.e., “space” seems to reveal that the physical space of the library maybe related to a preservation problem). Often, space concerns were listedas “lack of space.” Several libraries listed environmental problems includinghumidity and temperature control.

Preservation Resource Needs

The authors hoped to determine the current preservation situation of Michi-gan’s public libraries and determine what the libraries were doing to preservetheir collections and where their concerns and priorities lay. These intentionsprovided the foundation for the final queries and analyses of the preservationresource needs of the libraries.

A multifaceted endeavor is needed to discern a preservation resourceneed. To be aware of one’s preservation needs requires some initial knowl-edge of preservation issues. This is corroborated by Mason [14] (employed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 8 Preservation ServicesWhich of the following services would your library be interested in participating in? (IndicateFREE—where you would only be interested if the service were offered for free; AT COST—ifyou would be interested in the service if it were offered at an appropriate cost-recovery rate;or, NO—if you think you would never use this service)

SERVICE FREEAT

COST NO

Consulting on-site at the individual library to survey building andcollection and make recommendations

61 9 29

Disaster Assistance in the event of major fire or water damage 44 44 13Mass Deacidification 25 6 68On-site training to assist libraries in planning and implementing

programs in environmental control processing repairs or otherpreservation topics

54 19 26

Preservation microfilming 26 30 45Off-site consulting for preservation related information and

referrals to specialist47 10 40

Preservation information available online and as printed materialssuch as a database of vendors training materials tip sheets

82 8 11

Central workshops covering various aspects of preservation suchas library binding, book repair, disaster response, digitization,etc.

36 59 8

Treatment services for rare unique and valuable items at aconservation lab within the state

29 31 38

Digitization services 34 40 27Grant funding information and assistance 74 13 13Loaning of videos, books, environmental monitoring equipment 58 14 28

by SOLINET), who commented that her primary task with public libraries isto raise awareness of preservation. Through improved knowledge of preser-vation, libraries can better determine their true preservation needs.

Survey participants were asked to indicate interest in a variety of preser-vation services. The three categories of interest were FREE, whereby the li-brary would be interested only if the service were offered for free; AT COST,whether the library would be interested in the service if it were offered at anappropriate cost-recovery rate; or NO, whether the library believes it wouldnever use the identified service. A total of 104 libraries responded to theseservices. The results are displayed in Table 8.

The preservation services for which libraries expressed interest divideinto those services they are willing to pay for and those they wish to receiveat no cost. Central workshops are the only preservation service for whichthere is a majority of interest and for which the libraries are willing to pay.Forty-four (44%) of the 101 responding libraries expressed an interest indisaster assistance and indicated a willingness to pay for such a service.

Interest in reformatting through both microfilming and digitizationranked high. Fifty-six (55%) of the 101 responding libraries indicated interestin microfilming, with 30 (54%) of those implicating interest in microfilm-ing indicating they are willing to pay for the service. Several libraries are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


currently having some of their holdings filmed, and many more libraries areinterested in doing so.

Only four (4%) of 110 responding libraries indicated that they had usedthe service of a conservator in the last 10 years; however, 71% (70) of the 99responding libraries were interested in such a service, though only 9 (13%)of those indicating an interest expressed a willingness to pay for on-siteconservation consulting work.

In-house consulting, preservation information, and grant funding assis-tance all received significant interest by the responding libraries but only if nofees were involved. Several of Michigan’s public libraries have sought grantfunding for preservation projects, and all of the projects have been for refor-matting. There is no evidence from the survey responses that any library hasever requested funds from such programs as “Preservation Assistance Grantsfor Small Institutions” from the National Endowment for Humanities. (Seehttp://www.neh.gov/whoweare/divisions/PreservationAccess/index.html.)

Loaning of books, videos, and environmental monitoring equipmentgarnered 72% (72) interest among those responding (100), with a smallnumber (only 14) willing to pay for this service.

DISCUSSION

This study reveals Michigan’s public libraries’ preservation resource needsin four categories: (1) skills and training, (2) materials and facilities,(3) outsourced services, and (4) funding.

Skills and Training

Book repair occurs in libraries but without significant training. Most of therepair techniques being employed appear to be appropriate for low-valuecollections. Several libraries are using a few advanced repair and preservationtechniques; however, respondents listed few organized opportunities to learnthe skills needed for these techniques.

Libraries responding to the questionnaire place the condition of theircollections as their highest-ranking preservation problem, and workshopsrank the highest as a desired preservation resource. This is an obvious area ofneed for Michigan’s public libraries and one that cooperatives and consortiashould fill. Funding and time were listed as preservation challenges, whichaffects the kind of training that can be effectively provided. Book repairtraining for high-circulating collections is of utmost importance, but alsoimportant is training in preserving other formats, including media.

Materials and Facilities

Only 12% (13) of the 107 libraries responding to this question reported thatthey had conducted a survey of even a portion of their collection to identify

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


possible preservation problems. The Wellesley, Massachusetts Public Librarysurvey effectively demonstrates the value of such a survey in a public librarycollection [15]. It should be noted that this is a public library (with a budgetof more than $2 million for 2010) that was able to hire a preservation con-sultant. The time and knowledge required to conduct a survey is significant.Because the condition of collections is particularly important for public li-braries, the availability and use of preservation surveys particularly gearedfor public libraries requires examination. Collection condition surveys havebeen demonstrated by the literature as valuable tools for public libraries buthave seldom been carried out by Michigan’s public libraries. A simplifiedself-directed survey tool geared for public library collections may be a usefuland economic device to help meet this need.

Results of the collection condition assessments further demonstrate theneed to provide preservation resources not only for high-circulating adultbook collections but also for children’s books and special collection ma-terials. Survey results reveal that special collections are common amongresponding libraries but that they do not represent a large percentage ofthe entire collection. The use of encapsulation and boxing highlights thatsome public libraries are using a few appropriate preservation techniques topreserve those collections.

Libraries expressed significant interest in preservation information avail-able online and in print. The difficulty for many public library staff may bethat they do not know where to look for the information, and few of theseresources may speak directly to the needs of the particular public library.

Disaster planning and assistance were another area wherein there is sig-nificant interest. This is a topic that is receiving increasing attention through-out the country, and more disaster-related products and services regularlyare being made available. Disaster assistance is a service that requires consid-erable initial planning and preparation and likely (hopefully) very little use.Robertson, in “A Van and a Plan: How Consortium Office can Contributeto Disaster Recovery” [16], suggests the library consortium as an appropriateprovider of disaster assistance. The significant role of Michigan’s local li-brary cooperatives has been demonstrated in their providing workshops andfacilitating binding, and this role could extend to disaster assistance. This,however, does not eliminate the need for disaster planning at the individuallibrary level.

Outsource Services

The low rate of library binding could have several explanations. It may bedifficult to justify the expense and time off the shelf when a replacementmay be purchased for little more than the binding would cost. Additionally,a library bound book in “F” grade buckram does not have much visualappeal on the shelf—an esthetic important for a browsing collection.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


The interest in and need for preservation services such as reformatting,consulting, and conservation are present but not abundant. Many librarieshave some need, but no one library has a huge need for any particularpreservation resource. A library may need the services of a conservator butonly for a couple books or items. Outsourcing when the need arises, nomatter how small or how large, allows for the best use of the library’s scarceresources.

Michigan LSA’s involvement in helping public libraries work with preser-vation vendors is current practice with library binding. The model of a co-operative acting as an intermediary for library binding could be extendedto other preservation services such as microfilming and digitization. Refor-matting ranked high enough in the survey to warrant the attention of theLSAs. Reformatting, whether with microfilm or digitization, requires special-ized knowledge, both in technical specifications and from available serviceproviders. Two LSA roles can be in (1) assisting in the identification ofreputable and cost-effective vendors and (2) communicating the preserva-tion issues and standards that should be considered in any reformattingproject.

Funding

The survey results demonstrate the role Michigan’s LSAs could also playin assisting libraries to learn about preservation funding opportunities. Asall of the preservation funding cited by the respondents is for reformattingit would be good to encourage the Library of Michigan and other fundingorganizations to actively pursue a more diversified approach to preservation,and encouraging additional and different preservation projects.

CONCLUSION

Lack of funding is a major concern for virtually all libraries today. Fundinghas been and is a major challenge that libraries face, and this is especiallytrue for public libraries wherein budgets are tied to property tax revenue.In the fiscal year of 2009, states reported a 41% decrease in state fundingfor public libraries. With the current economic recession, further decreasesin funding can be expected, at least for the short term (1–3 years, in thebest of circumstances; some states will suffer longer). At the same time asbudgets are decreasing, library usage is increasing [17]. Nevertheless, librariesmust continue to meet the needs of their communities, despite decreases inrevenue. This is a major challenge as librarians strive to do more with less,and this includes preservation efforts.

This study demonstrates that Michigan’s public libraries understandthe basic need for preservation, and many libraries are taking steps to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


preserve their collections. Public libraries have common preservation re-source requirements arising out of the nature and function of their collec-tions and frequently rely on Michigan’s LSAs to assist in providing neededpreservation resources.

Michigan’s public libraries, like public libraries elsewhere, have realand distinct preservation resource needs. Their current preservation prac-tices and preservation resource needs are broad but thin. Because manypublic libraries are comparatively small and distributed geographically, withprimarily low-value, high-use collections and small special collections, theirsituations pose significant challenges. Libraries will need to pool budgetsand efforts to economically and efficiently meet their preservation resourceneeds. Library consortia and cooperatives provide some but not all of thesolutions to meet these challenges. Helping libraries to meet these preserva-tion resource needs will require new, economical, efficient, and appropriatepreservation solutions geared specifically for public libraries.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn; and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservation (library and archival science) (accessed March 26, 2010).

2. Tolbert, S. L., “Preservation in American Public Libraries: A Contradiction inTerms?” Public Libraries 36 (1997): 236.

3. Ibid, p. 2384. DePew, J. N. An Investigation of Preservation Service Needs and Options for

Florida Libraries: Final Report (Tallahassee, FL: Department of State, Division ofLibrary and Information Services, 1990), iii.

5. Reynolds, A. L., Nancy C. Schrock, and Joanna Walsh, “Preservation: The PublicLibrary Response,” Library Journal 114, no. 3 (1989): 128–132.

6. Schrock, N. C., “A Collection Condition Survey Model for Public Libraries.” InAdvances in Preservation and Access, vol. 2, ed. B. Higgenbotham (Medford,NJ: Learned Information, 1995), 210–227.

7. Lavendar, K. Book Repair: A How-to-do-it Manual (New York: Neal Schuman,2001).

8. Signorile, C. The Perception and Potential of Preservation in Public Libraries(Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina, 2002).

9. Wiseman, C., and Sharla Darby, “Preservation Workshop Evaluation,” LibraryResources and Technical Services 45, no. 2 (2001): 95–103.

10. Ibid, p. 95.11. Baird, B. J. Preservation Strategies for Small Academic and Public Libraries

(Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2003).12. DeCandido, R. Who Ya Gonna Call? A Preservation Services Sourcebook for

Libraries and Archives (New York: METRO, 1992).13. Drewes, J. M., and Julie A. Page. Promoting Preservation Awareness in Libraries:

A Sourcebook for Academic, Public, School, and Special Collections (Westport,CT: Greenwood Press, 1997).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


14. Mason, T. Personal communication, October 12, 2005.15. Reynolds, “Preservation, the Public Library Response.”16. Robertson, G., “A Van and a Plan: How Consortium Office Can Contribute to

Disaster Recovery,” Feliciter 49 (2003): 302–303.17. American Library Association. State of America’s Libraries Report, released April

13, 2009. http://www.ala.org/ala/newspresscenter/mediapresscenter/presskits/2009stateofamericaslibraries/2009statehome.cfm (accessed May 10, 2010).

APPENDIX

Preservation Resources Survey

It is requested that the library director complete this questionnaire or delegatethis responsibility to a staff member. Other staff members may need to beconsulted to answer some questions. Please answer the questions only foryour library. If your library has branches, answer only for the activities whichoccur in the main library.

For the purposes of completing this survey, preservation is defined asany activity, product, or decision with the intent or effect of extending theusable life of items within a library’s collection and the information heldwithin those items.

All results will be confidential. The final results will be an accumulationof all responding libraries. Libraries will not be mentioned by name, or otherrevealing information.

Library name:Position of person completing survey:

Skills & Training

1. Please indicate which of the following procedures are carried out in yourlibrary. (Select all that apply)1. Basic mending of tears and loose pages2. Removal of pencil, crayon, ink, etc.3. Repair spine of hardcover book with tape4. Repair spine of hardcover book without tape5. Recase a hardcover (text block is completely separated from cover)6. Mylar covers on dust jackets7. Reinforce a paperback (stiffen board and/or reinforce hinge8. Mylar encapsulation of paper documents (not lamination)9. Placing deteriorated volumes in pre-made or custom made boxes

10. Deacidification of paper or books11. Other treatments (please specify)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


2. Does your library have a preservation committee?Yes No Don’t know

3. Does your library repair audiovisual materials?Yes No Don’t know

4. Does your library own any book repair manuals or videos?Yes No Don’t know

5. Does your library use volunteers to do book repair?Yes No Don’t know

6. Has any of your staff (or volunteers) received training for book repair?Yes No Don’t know

7. If yes, where has your staff received training for book repair? (select allthat apply)1. By other staff member2. At another library (which one(s)):3. Workshop (who organized workshop):4. Library supply company (which one):5. Self-taught6. Don’t know

8. Have any of your staff members had preservation training or attendedpreservation workshops other than book repair?

Yes No Don’t know

9. If yes, what was the training?

10. Have any of your staff members received preservation or book repairtraining that lasted longer than three days?

Yes No Don’t know

11. If yes, where was the training received and what was the course(s)?

Materials and facilities

12. Where do you purchase your preservation and repair supplies? (Selectall that apply)1. Gaylord2. Demco3. Kapco

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


4. University Products5. Highsmith6. Brodart7. Hollinger Corp.8. Light Impressions9. TALAS

10. Other (Specify):

13. What three book repair supplies are used most in your library? (use brandnames)1.2.3.

14. Does your library have a dedicated space for book repairs?Yes No Don’t know

15. Within the last 10 years, have you conducted a survey of a portion ofyour collection to identify possible preservation problems?

Yes No Don’t know

16. Do you have a written disaster plan to minimize damage to library ma-terials in the event of a disaster?

Yes No Don’t know

17. Approximately what percent of your collection was published before1900?

18. Do you have a rare or special collection? (a collection that does notcirculate because of its rarity or value)

Yes No Don’t know

19. If yes, approximately how many volumes are in this collection?

20. How would you evaluate the physical condition of your collections?(1—very poor, 5—excellent)

Adult books1 2 3 4 5 n/aChildren’s books1 2 3 4 5 n/aSpecial collections/rare1 2 3 4 5 n/aAudiovisual materials1 2 3 4 5 n/a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


21. In the last 10 years have you monitored the environment (temperatureand humidity) in your library?

Yes (currently do)Yes (did—when )NoDon’t know

22. When was the library building built?23. When was the library building last renovated?24. In the last 10 years, has your collection sustained water damage in your

building?Yes No Don’t know

Services

25. Do you use a commercial library binder?Yes No Don’t know(If No, proceed to question 30)

26. Which binder do you use? (select all that apply)1. Binding Unlimited2. Heckman Bindery3. Wallaceburg Bookdbinding4. Other5. Don’t know

27. Do you deal directly with the bindery, or work through your co-op?Directly Co-op Don’t know

28. Has any of your staff ever toured the bindery?Yes No Don’t know

29. What bindery services do you use? (select all that apply)1. Rebind new books2. Rebind damaged books3. Bind serials/magazines4. Make custom boxes5. Other

30. In the last 10 years has your library had any of its holdings microfilmed?Yes No Don’t know(If No, skip to question 36)

31. What was microfilmed?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


32. Who did the microfilming?

33. Was the microfilming done according to preservation standards?Yes No Don’t know

34. How was the filming funded?1. Self funded2. Grant funded3. Other

35. Where are the master copies of the microfilm?1. In the library, in use2. In the library, in storage3. Off-site storage4. Don’t know

36. In the last 10 years has your library had any of its holdings digitized?Yes No Don’t know(If No, skip to question 40)

37. What was digitized?

38. Who did the digitization?1. Done in the library2. Done through a Making of Modern Michigan Regional Center3. Done by a vendor (which one):

39. How was the digitization funded?1. Self funded2. Grant funded3. Other

40. Have you ever had library materials treated by a professional conservator?Yes No Don’t know

41. If yes, who was the conservator?

42. Have you ever hired or engaged a preservation consultant?Yes No Don’t know

43. If yes, who was the consultant?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Funding

44. Do you have a budget line devoted to preservation (e.g., book repair,binding, environmental control or monitoring)?

Yes No Don’t know

45. Have you ever sought funding for a preservation project?Yes No Don’t know

46. If yes, did you receive the funding?Yes No Don’t know

47. From whom did you seek funding?

48. What was the preservation project?

49. Has the amount of money your library has spent on preservation in thelast 10 years– Increased– Decreased– Stayed the same– Don’t know

50. Rank your library’s three most serious preservation problems1.2.3.

Library Statistics

(May be retrieved from Michigan Public Library Statistical Reports)

51. Library Class (1–6)

52. Member of which library cooperative: (select one)1. Capital Library Cooperative2. Detroit Associated Libraries3. Hiawathaland Library Cooperative4. Lakeland Library Cooperative5. Mid-Michigan Library League6. Mid-Peninsula Library Cooperative7. Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


8. Northland Library Cooperative9. Southwest Michigan Library Cooperative

10. Suburban Library Cooperative11. Superiorland Library Cooperative12. The Library Network13. White Pine Library Cooperative14. Woodlands Library Cooperative

52. Square feet of main building

53. Collection Size (select one)Books<20,000 20,000–49,999 50,000–79,999 80,000–199,999 >200,000Audio<1,000 1,000–2,499 2,500–4,499 >4,500Video (video cassette, DVD, laser disc)<1,000 1,000–2,499 2,500–4,499 >4,500

54. Total annual circulation

55. Full time equivalent librarian positions

56. Full time equivalent staff positions

57. Which of the following services would your library be interested in par-ticipating in?(Indicate FREE where you would only be interested if the service wereoffered for free, AT COST if you would be interested in the service ifit were offered at an appropriate cost-recovery rate, or NO if you thinkyou would never use this service)

FREEAT

COST NO SERVICE

Consulting on-site at the individual library to survey building andcollection and make recommendations

Disaster Assistance in the event of major fire or water damageMass DeacidificationOn-site training to assist libraries in planning and implementing

programs in environmental control, processing, repairs, or otherpreservation topics

Preservation microfilmingOff-site consulting for preservation related information and referrals

to specialistPreservation information available online and as printed materials

such as a database of vendors, training materials, tip sheetsCentral workshops covering various aspects of preservation, such as

library binding, book repair, disaster response, digitization, etc.Treatment services for rare, unique and valuable items at a

conservation lab within the state.Digitization servicesGrant funding information and assistanceLoaning of videos, books, environmental monitoring equipment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


58. Would you be willing to be available for a follow-up interview andvisit to your library? (I intend to visit one library of each class size. The visitwould take no more than 2 hours)

Yes NoContact information (if available for follow-up interview):Name: Position:Address:Phone #:Email:� If you would like to be notified when research results are available

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

08 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014