teper.p65 Building Preservation 211 211 Building Preservation: The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Stacks Assessment Thomas H. Teper and Stephanie S. Atkins Thomas H. Teper is the Head of Preservation at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; e-mail: tteper@uiuc.edu. Stephanie S. Atkins is the Assistant Circulation and Bookstacks Librarian at the Uni- versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; e-mail: ssatkins@uiuc.edu. The authors wish to thank and ac- knowledge the Research and Publication Committee of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, which provided support for the completion of this research. This article discusses the results of two collection assessments conducted at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The library’s Preserva- tion Committee completed the first assessment and reported its results in College & Research Libraries in 1989. The second assessment was com- pleted in 2002 and accompanies the institution’s initiative to establish the library’s first centralized preservation and conservation program. Both as- sessments focused on the central stacks collection, a repository collection serving the institution’s forty-two branch and departmental libraries. Although a reanalysis of the first assessment’s data was impossible, the authors attempted to draw comparisons between the two assessments’ results. Af- ter thirteen years without a preservation program and without any signifi- cant facilities improvements, the results provide insight into the results of deferred collections care and facilities maintenance and offer guidance for conducting similar studies with other research library collections. ince the publication of the sur- vey results from Stanford University’s Green Library in 1982, the library preservation community has come to rely on collection assessments as a means of learning about the physical state of library and archival collections.1 In 1989, the University of Il- linois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) pub- lished the results of its own assessment— Library Collection Deterioration: A Study of the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. In the introduction, the au- thors cited William Barrow’s assertion that many of the twentieth century’s pub- lished books may have a shelf life of less than fifty years.2 Written thirty years af- ter Barrow published his research, the authors in Illinois indicated that the real- ity of this prediction was becoming “pain- fully obvious” to librarians and other cul- tural resource managers.3 Indeed, the 1989 survey’s results indicated that 37 percent of the collection suffered from serious deterioration, 33.6 percent from moderate deterioration, and 29.4 percent from no significant deterioration.4 Although an assessment does not pro- vide concrete data about each and every volume, a properly planned and con- ducted assessment provides a preserva- tion administrator with the means to de- 212 College & Research Libraries May 2003 velop a better understanding of an institution’s collections. Indeed, operat- ing under the assumption that preserva- tion funds must be targeted at the areas of greatest need, the value of an assess- ment in the initial planning of preserva- tion activities and those expenditures is still of paramount importance for maxi- mizing expenditures. Brian J. Baird and colleagues recently reiterated this point in a report on surveys conducted at the University of Kansas: One of the greatest challenges fac- ing academic and research libraries today is the preservation of collec- tions. The majority of materials housed in research libraries are unique and irreplaceable. Unfortu- nately, the number of these items needing treatment far exceeds the availability of resources. Therefore, libraries must carefully evaluate their collections and use that infor- mation to develop proactive preser- vation plans.5 Spurred by a growth in professional interest in preservation, the University of Illinois began to investigate various means of addressing preservation needs throughout the library in the late 1970s and completed a report in 1980. Another body of individuals completed a state- wide analysis project in 1986.6 Despite this preparatory work, preservation within both the state of Illinois and the Univer- sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s li- brary failed to make the headway that it did at other institutions, headway that can be seen in the publication of reports from many institutions completing the Asso- ciation of Research Libraries’ Preservation Planning Program and the continued de- velopment of preservation programs at many of these institutions.7 Although preservation programs be- came almost commonplace in many uni- versities and, to a more limited extent, colleges, UIUC’s library was unable to develop and maintain a comprehensive preservation program. As a result, the reality that became painfully obvious to many of the institution’s librarians in 1989 has been compounded by thirteen years of additional acquisition and deteriora- tion. At the time of the 1989 assessment, the central stacks collection held roughly 5.3 million volumes. Thirteen years and almost 500,000 additional volumes later, the current assessment evaluates possible comparisons between the two data pools and quantifies the collection’s physical condition as the library launches a new preservation and conservation program. UIUC Library and Its Collections The University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign library is nationally and in- ternationally renowned for the depth and breadth of its collections. Its specialized collections are dispersed among forty-two departmental libraries, more than twenty of which are located within the main li- brary building. Currently, the library’s total collections number nearly 10 million volumes and 22 million pieces. With approximately 5.8 million vol- umes, the central stacks collection is the single largest repository in the campus library system. As collections of currently acquired material grow, departmental li- braries transfer older and seldom-used titles into the stacks. As a result, the stacks contain the most diversified and oldest circulating materials in the library. Unlike many of its peer institutions, UIUC has maintained a closed stack sys- tem, granting access only to faculty, graduate students, and a limited number of undergraduates. The result is a circu- lation model in which many patrons re- quest items, while staff retrieve and re- shelve them. The Central Stacks Collection and Collection Maintenance For many years, the library’s administra- tion focused primarily on amassing its unique and valuable collection more than on the collection’s condition or mainte- nance. With the notable exception of li- brary binding, rare books and special col- lections received most available Building Preservation 213 preservation and conservation funds. Browsing through the stacks, it is evident that the collection is showing signs of sig- nificant deterioration. The stacks office staff stabilized materials, when possible, using boxes and pamphlet binders; and the library’s small book repair and pam- phlet-binding unit followed suit when- ever requested. However, the number of items needing attention exceeded the staff’s ability to keep pace with the level of need. The staff also faces the downside of such comprehensive collection building; the depth and breadth result in large col- lections of non-Western material and sig- nificant collections of semi-ephemeral material. Consequently, the stacks hold the bulk of the library’s aging collections and the most significant holdings of ma- terials that continue to be produced on acidic paper—Eastern European, African, and Latin American materials. The stacks’ poor storage conditions exacerbate the problem of aging collec- tions and acidic paper.8 Built in 1926, the original building and most of its subse- quent additions lack basic air-condition- ing and humidity controls. In air-condi- tioned portions of the stacks, tempera- tures generally remain relatively stable despite the lack of operational reheat sys- tems. However, those portions not air- conditioned often experience extreme fluctuations in temperature and humid- ity, with ranges from around 60° to well over 80°F and humidity fluctuations be- tween the 30 percent range to over 70 per- cent in various parts of the building. The combination of high ambient temperature and humidity has resulted in periodic mold outbreaks. Significant, documented mold blooms affected the central stacks collection in 1993 and the Rare Book Room’s collection from 1981 to 1987. The collection also faces the results of decades of campuswide deferred facili- ties maintenance. Periodic roof and foun- dation leaks led to limited flooding and subsequent mold outbreaks, including a significant mold bloom in the Rare Book Room during the spring of 2001 and mul- tiple stacks leaks in 2001–2002. In addi- tion, poor air circulation, accumulated dust, and insect infestations have all left their marks on various parts of the col- lections. The collection’s impressive growth in the second half of the twentieth century has created another significant problem— overcrowding. In many areas, the collection’s growth has exceeded its shelving capacity to such an extent that books are stacked on the floor in aisles. Presently, the library is in the process of building a high-density shelving facility to alleviate the overcrowding. In prepa- ration for this, the library’s administra- tion imposed a moratorium on all depart- mental library transfers into the central stacks collection, a move that alleviated some pressure on the stacks but added significant pressure to the various branch and departmental libraries. The Stacks Collection and the Assessment The central stacks collection consists of monographs, bound periodicals, and a collection of 82,000 microforms. The mi- croform collection resides in an environ- mentally controlled room and has re- cently received some collection maintenance by re-housing a significant portion of the collection. Special formats such as audiovisual materials and digital media are not material types represented in the collection. The assessment’s focus was guided by that of the 1989 assessment. In keeping with the 1989 assessment, specialized col- lections located within the stacks’ physi- cal space were excluded. For example, the stacks’ microform collection was not in- cluded nor were the government docu- ments collections or the Asian library. Similarly, the assessment excluded un- bound periodical titles. This is in keep- ing with the protocol established by other assessments.9 Finally, the assessment ex- cluded a brittle book backlog of roughly 6,000 British and American periodical volumes and monographs dating back to the early nineteenth century. 214 College & Research Libraries May 2003 Why an Assessment? Beginning with the publication of Stanford University’s assessment of Green Library in 1982 and proceeding until the present, preservation assess- ments proved themselves a valuable method of informing preservation admin- istrators and collection managers about their collections’ condition and enabled them to plan their preservation program’s development.10 An assessment permits an institution to identify needs and priori- ties and provides justification for re- sources. The authors chose an assessment us- ing random sampling for four primary reasons. First, this enabled some level of comparison between the results of the 1989 assessment and data gathered thir- teen years later. Second, because the cen- tral stacks collection represents the larg- est and oldest circulating collection in the library system, assessing this population offered the opportunity to learn about a significant portion of the library’s collec- tions. Third, the imminent construction of a high-density shelving facility on campus influenced the decision to assess the cen- tral stacks collection. The facility’s first phase will house two million volumes, 100,000 of which are initially being se- lected from the stacks. This process means that the stacks will no longer exist as cur- rently conceived; in essence, the stacks’ current repository function will diminish. Consequently, the authors perceived this to be the last opportunity to conduct such an assessment. Moreover, assessing the central stacks collection will give collec- tion managers and administrators an idea of overall condition before relocating the materials. Finally, the authors strongly believed that a second, more thorough stacks assess- ment would be invaluable for long-range preservation planning. Although the 1989 assessment produced useful data about the overall state of the central stacks collection, no data remained pertaining to the indi- vidual pieces surveyed. Instead, only the compiled data remained, leaving the in- stitution with no opportunity to reevalu- ate the original sample. For instance, the 1989 assessment defined only three levels of condition—good, moderate, and poor— for the paper, binding, and boards (table 1). The new assessment enabled the library to document the condition of the collec- tion and to begin the process of thoroughly analyzing needs. Project Hypothesis To ensure the maximum level of objectiv- ity, the assistant circulation and bookstacks librarian and the head of pres- ervation discussed any preconceptions they held about the collection based on their knowledge of the stacks and their understanding of the information gath- ered by the 1989 assessment. As with the Stanford University assessment pub- lished in 1982, the data from UIUC’s ini- tial assessment reported in College & Re- search Libraries employed a system of weighing certain elements of an item’s condition in an effort to score overall item condition.11 Although this model was ef- fective for gathering the general collec- tion-wide data needed at the time, the sample-level data from 1989 were lost. Because a direct comparison with the 1989 UIUC study was impossible, the authors designed the new assessment with the purpose of gathering data that were more specific. However, the 1989 assessment did lead the authors to hy- pothesize that roughly one third of the collection would exhibit signs of signifi- cant damage, one third would exhibit signs of mild to moderate damage, and TABLE 1 Paper, Binding, And Board and Cover Condition as Reported in the 1989 UIUC Assessment Paper Binding Board and Cover Good 32.0% 70.8% 49.7% Moderate 31.0% 24.5% 41.9% Poor 37.0% 4.7% 8.3% Building Preservation 215 the remainder would show no significant signs of damage. Although this is their hypothesis, the authors also understood that multiple factors could have changed this: (1) an increase in the percentage of material published on acid-free paper, (2) patrons’ increased usage of electronic re- sources, (3) the creation of a separate brittle book backlog, and (4) the impact of air-conditioning on a significant por- tion of the collection. Statistical Methodology Confidence and Tolerance Using proper sampling methodology, a sample of the collection will reasonably estimate the characteristics of any popu- lation within a certain margin of error. A confidence level of 95 percent and a tol- erance level of ±5 percent were acceptable for this study. This requires a sample size of 385 items. This means, for example, that if 32 percent of the books are brittle, the authors are 95 percent certain that the ac- tual percentage of brittle books is between 27 and 37 percent. The earlier survey of the stacks used the same confidence and tolerance levels in its assessment, provid- ing a basis for comparison between the results of the two surveys. Moreover, one downside of a higher level of confidence is the significant increase in the number of items sampled. For example, an in- crease from 95 to 99 percent requires a nearly 72 percent increase in the number of items sampled—a significant expense relative to the data’s potential use for gen- erating broad-based information. De- creasing the tolerance level by one per- cent increments also would require large increases in the sample size: 56 percent increase for ±4 percent; 177 percent in- crease for ±3 percent; and 524 percent in- crease for ±2 percent. This will greatly increase the precision of the results, but, once again, the expense would exceed what additional information the authors can gain by a lower tolerance level. Sampling Method As sample sizes do not increase for popu- lations over 50,000, a completely accurate estimate of the population was not nec- essary before beginning the assessment. Consequently, the next step in this project was to determine the sample size required to provide the desired level of accuracy. Rather than using statistical sampling tables, the AZPlanSite provided a calcu- lator that automatically calculated sample sizes based on collection size, maximum acceptable margin of error, and degree of confidence desired.12 At the recommendation of a statistician with the campus’s Survey Research Lab, the authors chose to ensure that each deck within the stacks had thirty items ran- domly chosen for the study. This sugges- tion ensured an adequate representation of the discrete populations within the col- lection, a situation that stems from the central stacks collection’s physical ar- rangement into seventeen distinct decks. As mentioned earlier, some decks hold collections that are administratively sepa- rate from the central stacks collections, resulting in the exclusion of three decks from the sample. Two half-decks were combined into one, as they contained ex- actly half the number of ranges as the full decks. Thus, the sample assessment con- sisted of thirteen decks. Initially, the authors wanted to base the number of samples per deck on the deck’s approximate collection size. Unfortu- nately, determining the exact number of items for each deck was impossible. The stacks have undergone neither a complete inventory nor a full retrospective conver- sion. Moreover, overcrowding is so severe in some spaces that books are stacked on the floor. Consequently, it is difficult to estimate accurately the number of items located on each deck. With all these limi- tations known, the statistician recom- mended that selecting a certain number of items per deck would suffice. Thirty items per deck would be analyzed, achieving a sample size of 390 items. This sample size provides a confidence and tolerance of 95 percent ±5 percent. To locate items within the collection, the authors used Microsoft Excel’s random number generator to provide a single num- 216 College & Research Libraries May 2003 ber that corresponded to each range within the stacks. Three numbers were generated to locate each column and each shelf. Six numbers were generated for each book. Variations in the number of columns, shelves, and books per shelf necessitated the generation of multiple numbers. These provided a backup for locating items when there was no corresponding column, shelf, or book. Student employees received fifty samples each and instructions to stop when they had analyzed thirty books on each deck. These additional samples en- sured that rejects due to insufficient col- umns, shelves, and books per shelf would not interfere with sampling the necessary number of items per deck. Biases Although the authors made every effort to include as much of the collection as possible within the sample, the necessary exclusion of certain collection materials means that some biases exist in the study. • A 6,000-volume brittle book back- log was not considered within the assess- ment. • No satisfactory manner was de- vised to include the books currently stacked on the floor. The authors gave sig- nificant consideration to these “nonrespondents.” Consultation with a statistician produced no better solution than including these materials within a broad category of biases.13 • The number of shelving units var- ied depending on the deck, ranging from 229 to 387. Because the same number of samples was set for each deck, the mate- rials on the decks with the lowest num- ber of ranges had a greater probability of selection than did materials on decks with the highest number of ranges. However, this method guaranteed sampling from all portions of the collection. • Most of the collections reside in portions of the stacks without air-condi- tioning. However, the newest, high-den- sity addition to the stacks does receive central air. Nearly 45 percent of the items sampled came from the decks in this ad- dition. Although shifting and additions have been made in this area, these condi- tions could make a difference in the col- lections housed here. • The number of columns and shelves varies depending on book size. The folio cabinets have fewer columns and shelves than standard regular ranges. Thus, they likely constitute a higher num- ber of rejections. The original assessment used a similar method to generate ran- dom numbers, and the authors chose to duplicate the process, recognizing that the results may not reflect exactly how many items in the collection are folios. Work Flow, Labor Management, and Instruction The assistant circulation and bookstacks librarian hired five student employees to conduct the study. At the time, it was not feasible to reallocate central circulation and preservation staff to work on the study. Instead, funding opportunities were available from sources within the library to use student employees for re- search projects, and the authors received a grant to hire students for the study. In preparation for the project, the stu- dents were required to attend a single training program consisting of an over- view of the project’s goals, an introduction to book construction, and a discussion of assessment techniques and methods. Through a Microsoft PowerPoint presen- tation, images illustrated a variety of dif- ferent types of cover and paper damage, as well as some basic binding information. Each student received a copy of the PowerPoint presentation for reference. This portion of the workshop concluded with the students analyzing books and presenting their findings to the other stu- dents. This hands-on exercise provided an opportunity to test what they learned and enabled the authors to emphasize and clarify certain details. The workshop included a tour of the stacks to familiarize the students with their arrangement and the method for locating materials using maps and the random numbers. At the end of the tour, the assis- tant circulation and bookstacks librarian Building Preservation 217 gave each student a set of random num- bers and a map and instructed the students to find the correct book on the deck. Only one student out of five had trouble find- ing the correct book on the shelf, and after a thorough explanation, the librarian was satisfied that the students had a good grasp of how to use the random number sets and the maps. On the random sample form, the students noted the reason why a random number set was rejected (e.g., insufficient number of books on the shelf). The librar- ian reviewed the reasons for each rejection to ensure that no sets were discarded in error. Instruction did not end with the work- shop and tour. The students regularly communicated with the authors and asked a variety of questions, ranging from finding the date of publication to identi- fying types of damage. The authors also reviewed completed forms and discov- ered that the students had a good eye for detail. However, some students were ini- tially too quick to note damage when none was present. The authors spoke to the students to clarify differences (i.e., yellowed paper versus the natural color of the paper) and the students corrected their forms. In total, the students took eighty-three hours to analyze 390 books, averaging thirteen minutes per book. For books that the students required consul- tation to complete, the assessment process took longer than thirteen minutes, but for books with minimal or no damage, stu- dents needed only a few minutes to fill out the form. One of the reasons why the students were efficient in assessing the books was that all of their samples were on two to four decks. The students be- came intimately familiar with the layout and peculiarities of their assigned decks and were able to navigate with ease. When all forms were completed, a stu- dent entered the data from the assessment into a relational database. The preserva- tion librarian examined the forms for dis- crepancies or typos before the data were inputted into the database. After being entered, the data again were reviewed for possible errors or omissions. The Assessment Results In the most basic terms, the results from the first assessment corroborated those provided by the second assessment. In terms of brittleness, 35.64 percent of the pieces sampled in 2002 exhibited some degree of embrittlement, as opposed to 37 percent in 1989. Similarly, 29.2 percent of those pieces sampled in 1989 suffered from moderate or poor binding condi- tions.14 In 2002, those with detached boards, loose hinges, tears, or missing covers accounted for 24.88 percent of the collection. Given the tolerance of ±5%, the data initially suggested no significant dif- ferences between the populations. As noted earlier, the current assess- ment was divided into four basic sections: a brief examination of publication infor- mation, an examination of the binding, an assessment of any enclosures, and an assessment of the text block that focused on damage to the pages. Publication Information To develop a better understanding of the collection, the assessment gathered data about the publications’ bibliographic his- tory. This included data on the relative size, date, and place of publication. Size Of the 390 pieces examined, 79.23 percent of the collection was of a standard size, measuring less than ten and a half inches and over six inches in height. This is equal to nearly 4.6 million volumes from the entire collection of nearly 5.8 million pieces. Undersized material equaled 2.82 percent of the collection, and oversized material equaled 15.9 percent. Another 2.05 percent of the pieces reflected folios requiring flat shelving.15 Date of Publication As one would expect with such a repre- sentative sampling method, a year-by- year analysis of publication dates yields little substantive data about the entire collection. However, analyzing the data by decade of publication does present an interesting illustration of both the 218 College & Research Libraries May 2003 collection’s development and composi- tion. Although a separate project began isolating those items in the central stacks collection published before 1800, the as- sessment indicates that nearly 74,202 vol- umes were published before the begin- ning of the nineteenth century. As part of the selection for high-density shelving, rare book and special collections librar- ian is reviewing early imprints for trans- fer to the Rare Book Room. The collection’s growth from 1870 on- ward appears to be almost unchecked (table 2). Until 1980, its rate of growth in- creased nearly every decade with the ex- ceptions of the decades 1881–1890 and 1941–1950. The first of these decades fol- lows a period of economic depression in the early 1870s and actually precedes the depression that accompanied discussions about abandoning the gold standard in 1890. The second decade encompasses the Second World War. Whether either of these periods of diminished growth can be di- rectly attributed to diminishing resources or decreasing book production is unlikely. However, it is likely that both played a role. From 1981 to the present, the rate of growth appears to have declined. How- ever, the system comprises forty-two sub- ject and departmental libraries. With the exception of Slavic and Eastern European, Latin American, and European blanket orders, many core titles and the most cur- rent acquisitions are not sent to the cen- tral stacks collection. Consequently, the vast bulk of volumes acquired since 1981 are still housed in departmental libraries, meaning that the significant drop in col- lection breadth during this period does not necessarily indicate a decline in the breadth of the overall collection. The collection of material published in the decades before the university’s incor- poration in 1867 is more difficult to gener- alize. Lower numbers of these items within the stacks resulted in lower populations for each of these decades. For example, imprint dates from the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century indicate that the collec- tion ranges from lows of 14,864 volumes to highs of 74,321 volumes per decade. Place of Publication Predictably, North American publica- tions constitute the largest single por- tion of the collection, as shown in table 3. At 42.82 percent, this represents nearly 2.5 million volumes. This is c l o s e l y f o l l o w e d b y t h e c o m b i n e d weight of roughly two million Western European volumes and nearly three- quarters of a million Eastern European volumes. The most surprising result is that 4.1 percent of the sampled volumes trace their origin to India or other parts of Asia. The Asian library is one of the few libraries that does not transfer col- lections into the stacks; however, many other libraries purchase materials pub- lished in these areas and include them within their collections. Moreover, m a n y o f t h e s e i t e m s a r e re c e i v e d through the PL480 program and the Farmington Plan. TABLE 2 Date of Publication as Reported in the 2002 Assessment Category % of Total Pre- 1800 1.28 1801�1810 0.26 1811�1820 0.51 1821�1830 0.26 1831�1840 0.51 1841�1850 0.26 1851�1860 1.03 1861�1870 0.77 1871�1880 1.28 1881�1890 1.03 1891�1900 2.05 1901�1910 3.85 1911�1920 4.87 1921�1930 5.13 1931�1940 8.46 1941�1950 8.21 1951�1960 10.51 1961�1970 13.85 1971�1980 16.15 1981�1990 9.23 1991�2000 8.21 2001�Present 0.51 Unknown 1.79 Building Preservation 219 Binding Information Binding Style Examination of the binding styles focused on determining which of eight choices best characterized the type of binding rep- resented by each piece. In general, the definitions were clear to most of the stu- dent employees. The one area that re- quired some additional definition was the relationship between library binding and leather binding. For the purposes of this assessment, a library binding consisted of any binding performed by a binder after the library had purchased the piece. These items ranged from early quarter- and half- bound pieces with marbled boards to con- temporary library bindings. A leather- bound volume was a volume bound entirely in leather presumed to have been sold in that binding and generally mono- graphic in nature. With 43.33 percent of its collection library bound, 1.28 percent of its material in full leather, and less than a third of the collection in an original publisher ’s cloth binding, these results suggest that the library has relied heavily on library binding as both a management and maintenance tool (table 4). External Cover Damage: Hinges and Mechanical Construction An examination of the mechanical con- struction of the volumes’ covers indicated that 24.88 percent ±5 percent of the col- lection exhibited some signs of damage, including one or more of the following conditions: detached boards (3.33%), loose hinges (13.33%), tears (9.23%), and no boards or covers whatsoever (2.56%). In terms of pure numbers, this means that approximately 341,447 items suffer from either missing or detached boards. When compared to the 29.2 percent of items indicated as exhibiting poor or moderate binding condition in the 1989 assessment, it is interesting to note that the items currently suffering from de- tached and missing boards vary from the original data by only 4.32 percent, within the margin of error outlined by the ear- lier assessment. Similarly, the combined percentages of those covers with tears and loose hinges equal 22.56 percent of the collection. In the 1989 assessment, 24.5 percent of the bindings exhibited “mod- erate damage.”16 External Cover Damage: Other Damage Another component of the assessment was damage to the cover of a piece. Any item with visible cover damage, such as water damage, warped and misshapen boards, light bleaching, staining, and in- sect damage, was counted as one with external cover damage. The total percent- age of sampled items without any visible external damage of this type is 43.59 per- TABLE 3 Place of Publication as Reported in the 2002 Assessment Category % of Total Total Pieces N. Amer. 42.82 2,482,305 L. Amer. 6.67 386,665 W. Europe 33.59 1,947,236 E. Europe 12.56 728,112 India 1.79 103,768 Africa 0.26 15,072 Aus/NZ 0.00 0 Asia 2.31 133,912 Total 100.00 5,797,070 TABLE 4 Binding Style as Reported in 2002 Assessment Category Number % of Total Publishers� cloth 123 31.54 Library binding 169 43.33 Softcover 47 12.05 Velobind/comb 3 0.77 Spiral 0 0.00 Pamphlet binder 34 8.72 Other binding 8 2.05 Vellum binding 0 0.00 Leather 5 1.28 Unbound 1 0.26 Total 390 100.00 220 College & Research Libraries May 2003 cent. Examination of the other types of visible damage indicates that there are some significant problems with materi- als and their storage environment. Two areas of particular concern are materials suffering from combinations of visible water damage, staining, and misshapen covers and materials exhibiting signifi- cant abrasion. In general, the quantity of items with both water damage and staining is high. Approximately 3.59 percent of the mate- rials sampled are water damaged or stained. Although this percentage does not sound excessive, it does indicate that roughly 208,115 pieces have been exposed to leaks, spills, accidents, or other mis- haps in their history. This damage may have happened while the pieces were in departmental libraries or in circulation or before they became a part of the library’s collections; however, it does indicate that facilities problems and care and handling issues are taking their toll. Although multiple mold outbreaks have occurred within the stacks, some affecting several deck levels simulta- neously, none of the sampled materials exhibited visible evidence of external mold damage. There are a couple of pos- sible explanations for this potential dis- crepancy. Cleaning projects followed sev- eral of the mold outbreaks. Moreover, some pieces may have been damaged to such an extent that they were rebound, resulting in no visible signs of damage to the cover. Another explanation is that the students did not assess the damage cor- rectly and mistook dormant mold for dirt or other debris. Because no systematic cleaning of the stacks has taken place, items with mold may not be easily iden- tifiable from other dusty volumes. Finally, some items marked as stained may, in fact, be showing signs of mold damage. The other area of concern is the quan- tity of misshapen pieces. Although evi- dent when walking through the stacks, the results of improper shelving, the im- proper use of bookends, and overly tight shelving are more striking when the dam- age is quantifiable. The 2002 assessment indicates that roughly 16.15 percent of the collection is misshapen. This translates into 936,227 pieces permanently marred through mishandling, poor stewardship, and overcrowding. When simultaneously calculated with those items that are both scratched and misshapen, 4.1 percent of the collection, or approximately 237,680 pieces, exhibits this type of compound damage. Extraneous Material The amount of extraneous material asso- ciated with the covers of sampled items is relatively low. In general, it is reassur- ing to see that few pieces received im- proper repairs using adhesive or cloth tape. In this case, the lack of regular care has proved itself a benefit in terms of long-term care. The total number of items with tape or other extraneous material applied to the cover total only 4.36 per- cent. Enclosure Information In general, the assessment produced very little information about the enclosures present throughout the collection. Indeed, only one piece of the 390 sampled had any type of enclosure. It was a phase box, and it, incidentally, suffered from some minor damage itself. This figure represents 0.26 percent of the collection, or 15,072 vol- umes. At first glance, this low number may indicate that few pieces actually need this type of enclosure; however, the small number of enclosures also can reflect two very different conclusions. As mentioned earlier, the “storage collection” was not included in the sampled pieces. It repre- sents a backlog of severely embrittled pieces. This collection ceased growing in the mid-1990s. Consequently, it is likely that a significant portion of the collection that should have been boxed was put into this holding area. The second conclusion that one may draw from the low number of enclosures is the relatively low level of past preser- vation efforts. With about 3.33 percent of the collection suffering from detached Building Preservation 221 boards and over 17 percent of the collec- tion brittle to the point that the paper can- not withstand a single double-fold (table 5), there is likely a significant backlog of material that will, at minimum, likely benefit from an enclosure. Internal Pages Leaf Damage Actual paper damage is best represented by noting that 159 of the 390 sampled items exhibited no signs of damage. This represents 40.77 percent of the collection, or about 2,363,465 volumes with no in- ternal damage. Of those exhibiting one or more categories of leaf damage, the rea- sons are likely varied; however, staining and water damage often result from the same event. Perhaps the most striking concern raised is the number of volumes indicat- ing evidence of marking (as characterized by highlighting and underlining) and/or staining. Nearly 11 percent of the sampled items were obviously marked. The library has a long-standing history of encourag- ing access both on campus and off, a tra- dition that is valued and unlikely to change in the near future. However, the high incidence of marking is indicative of users’ poor care and handling practices. Ten percent of the sampled pieces suffered from some sort of staining. The staining was the result of a variety of sources, but only a small portion of the stained items also visibly suffered from other related forms of damage, including water, visible mold, and insect damage. One conclusion is that many of these other stains resulted from user-related damage. Of additional concern is the 3.08 per- cent of volumes (or 178,550) that exhibit some sign of pest-related damage to the text block. Although this may include damage that transpired before their acces- sion by UIUC, this evidence indicates that some contemporary damage is occurring. Extraneous Material As would be expected, a number of vol- umes suffered from the presence of vari- ous extraneous materials. Slightly less than 4 percent of the collection had adhe- sive tape affixed to leaves, likely in an attempt to repair damaged pages. In terms of patron-deposited materials, 6.41 percent had paper slips inserted into text blocks, 1.28 percent had paperclips on leaves, and another 1.03 percent had self- adhesive notes applied to pages. Approxi- mately 3.33 percent of the collection had other extraneous material inserted within the text blocks. Unfortunately, the assess- ment did not include provision to gather data on the types of extraneous material found. Paper Acidity As the repository for much of the library’s older materials, it stands to rea- son that the stacks collection would suf- fer from a higher-than-expected level of paper acidity. Indeed, that is the case. Of the 390 items sampled using an Abbey pH pen, 352 tested acidic on the exterior margin of the last page of text. Even though this measures edge acidity and not core acidity, the result indicates that 90.26 percent of the central stacks collec- tion is acidic. In terms of actual numbers, this translates into approximately 5,232,435 pieces from a population total- ing 5,797,070. Paper Acidity as Related to Brittleness As was demonstrated in the earlier subsec- tion on date of publication, approximately TABLE 5 Acidity to Breakability as Reported in 2002 Assessment Category % of Total Acidic/One Fold 17.18 Acidic/Two Folds 8.72 Acidic/Three Folds 4.87 Acidic/Four Folds 4.87 Acidic/Not Brittle 54.62 Non-acidic/One Fold 0.26 Non-acidic/Two Folds 0.26 Non-acidic/Three Folds 0.00 Non-acidic/Four Folds 0.00 Non-acidic/Non-Brittle 9.23 222 College & Research Libraries May 2003 80.26 percent of the central stacks collection was published before 1980. Nearly all of these were published on acidic paper. As noted earlier, only a portion of the central stacks is air-conditioned. Indeed, nearly 55 percent of this collection resides in space completely governed by the ambient air temperature. Consequently, the collection would be expected to suffer from a high level of embrittlement. Of those portions of the collection printed on acidic paper, a significant per- centage suffers from some level of embrittlement. As shown in table 6, 60.51 percent of the acidic books are not yet brittle whereas 39.49 percent are suffer- ing from some level of embrittlement. In terms of the entire collection, these fig- ures translate into 54.62 and 35.64 percent, respectively, of the entire collection. That means that the stacks collection is com- posed of nearly 2,066,076 volumes that are acidic and brittle and another 3,166,360 volumes that are acidic, but not yet embrittled. Although some older volumes constructed of higher-quality papers will remain pliable despite high levels of acid, the vast majority of the volumes that are acidic, but not yet brittle, will likely con- tinue to degrade and become increasingly fragile. Paper Acidity as Related to Breakability Even though the assessment determined that 35.64 percent of the entire collection is both acidic and brittle, planning for long-term collection maintenance activi- ties requires a more detailed analysis of the pieces themselves and their ability to withstand other forms of treatment. In terms of treating this collection, the relation of acidity to embrittlement level is crucial in planning for long-term collec- tion maintenance activities. Of the 139 pieces that were both acidic and brittle, the paper’s functionality varies greatly. A to- tal of 17.18 percent of the sampled pieces were both acidic and embrittled to such a point that the paper could not withstand one double-fold without breaking (table 5). Acidic pieces that could withstand two folds accounted for 8.72 percent of the en- tire collection, and acidic pieces that could withstand three to four folds accounted for 9.74 percent of the collection. Of additional interest is the fact that the library completed an air-conditioned stacks addition in 1984.17 Those items in the new addition were located in climate- controlled environment for only five years before the 1989 survey was com- pleted. At the time of the original survey, the change in the collection’s environ- ment had only a marginal impact on the state of the collection. However, because eighteen years have passed since the new addition was completed, the authors con- ducted a preliminary investigation to de- termine the effects of superior environ- mental conditions on the state of the col- lection in the new addition. Of those items sampled in the addition, the number published on acidic paper nearly equaled the results for the entire sample population. However, the num- ber of items that were both acidic and brittle is significantly reduced. For ex- ample, only 11 percent of this subpopu- lation broke on one double fold, com- pared to 17 percent from the entire sample population. Similarly, only 4.3 percent of those items located in better environmen- tal conditions broke on two double folds, compared to 8.72 percent from the entire population. This trend continues throughout the entire brittle component TABLE 6 Paper Acidity to Brittleness as Reported in 2002 Assessment Category Number % of Acidic Books % of Total Collection Acidic & Not Brittle 213 60.51 54.62 Acidic & Brittle 139 39.49 35.64 Total 352 100.00 90.26 Building Preservation 223 of this population. Some of the difference is certainly due to the acquisition of nonacidic materials, but the possibility exists that this may be, in part, from eigh- teen years in better storage conditions. However, more comprehensive research is needed to determine this conclusively. Acidity to Decade of Production The assessment tool used to manage the sample also permitted the authors to gen- erate data relating the decade of produc- tion to a publication’s acidity. From ana- lyzing these data, it is possible to see the distribution of acidic to nonacidic books by decade of publication. As data from the current assessment demonstrate, the per- centage of acidic volumes begins to drop off in 1981–1990, the decade that includes the widespread introduction of acid-free paper (table 7). However, it is not until the next decade that the number of nonacidic publications begins to have a significant impact on the relative number of acidic publications in the collection. With the current assessment in hand, the library now has a unique opportunity to begin to address its history of benign neglect. Assessment Conclusions and Programmatic Development Recognizing that the collection has suf- fered from the lack of regular mainte- nance, the University of Illinois at Ur- bana-Champaign seriously began to address preservation concerns in the past few years. Two years ago, UIUC hired a consultant to complete a needs assess- ment. Primarily focusing on the facilities, the consultant’s report gave the institu- tion the ability to tangibly discuss need. For example, in addition to highlighting the deficiencies caused by deferred main- tenance, the assessment provided the li- brary with an estimate of the collection’s replacement value.18 Although this type of information does not immediately ad- dress concerns, it has been valuable in lobbying the administration and increas- ing awareness of the library’s value to the campus. In addition, the library hired a preser- vation librarian and a conservator to be- gin the planning and implementation of a preservation program. Coupled with a significant grant from the Andrew F. Mellon Foundation to outfit and staff a conservation lab in its high-density shelv- ing facility, the program is making great strides in meeting the needs of such a large and varied collection. However, this does not address how this assessment will shape the preserva- tion and conservation program’s overall development. Broadly viewed, the data generated can be grouped into three areas of general need and/or utility: education and outreach; collection repair and main- tenance; and administrative development. Education and Outreach As evidenced by Jeanne M. Drewes and Julie A. Page’s Promoting Preservation TABLE 7 Acidity to Date of Production as Reported in 2002 Assessment Decade % Acidic Pre- 1800 80.00 1801�1810 100.00 1811�1820 50.00 1821�1830 100.00 1831�1840 100.00 1841�1850 100.00 1851�1860 100.00 1861�1870 100.00 1871�1880 100.00 1881�1890 100.00 1891�1900 87.50 1901�1910 100.00 1911�1920 100.00 1921�1930 100.00 1931�1940 100.00 1941�1950 93.75 1951�1960 95.12 1961�1970 98.15 1971�1980 92.06 1981�1990 77.78 1991�2000 53.13 2001�Present 50.00 Unknown 85.71 224 College & Research Libraries May 2003 Awareness in Libraries: A Sourcebook for Academic, Public, School, and Special Col- lections, education and outreach have a long tradition within the preservation program arsenal.19 This education gener- ally takes multiple forms, targeting both employees and users. Based on the sig- nificant number of volumes suffering from highlighting, underlining, and other markings (637,678) or from the use of in- appropriate bookmarks such as paperclips and self-adhesive notes (74,202 and 59,710, respectively), neither the library’s users nor its employees have been educated about the damaging effects of such items or the importance of remov- ing them when the volumes are returned. Moreover, the fact that significant por- tions of the collection’s external cases are scratched (1,233,616) and misshapen (936,227) indicates that significant care and handling issues have not been addressed. This may include poor handling by users, but it also likely includes the deleterious effects of overly tight shelving. Even though it is expected that the library’s planned high-density shelving facility will resolve much of this issue, the fact remains that there are serious deficiencies in basic care and handling education. Finally, a significant portion of the col- lection suffers from water damage and staining. Although it is likely that leaks and other faults in the building structure have caused much of this damage, some of it is the result of careless handling or untreated damage. To address some of these issues, the preservation and conservation program has taken a three-pronged approach. In- ternally, the head of preservation, the con- servation librarian, the associate univer- sity librarian for collections, and a mem- ber of the repair unit have begun to de- velop and hold a series of educational workshops for employees. Thus far, the program consists of a preservation orien- tation, training in library binding, and training in basic book repair. Additional workshops on disaster response and pres- ervation decision making for collection managers are planned for the future. In addition, the head of preservation initiated a silent campaign of raising pres- ervation awareness among both employ- ees and users. Several months ago, the program began producing a periodic newsletter that provides basic informa- tion on the preservation program and its offerings, how to take better care of col- lections, and preservation in general. Dis- tributed electronically, the newsletter also includes a What’s This? section with a picture highlighting either examples of preservation do’s and don’ts or items of interest such as images of high-density storage facilities in operation. Efforts to reach the library’s user popu- lation are still developing. However, through a collaborative project with a member of the university’s faculty and a senior graphics design class, the preser- vation and conservation program now has designs for posters, bookmarks, and screensavers to communicate the preser- vation message. Collection Maintenance and Repair Although the library’s bookstacks office and book repair unit have traditionally completed repairs, establishing the pres- ervation and conservation program has focused heavily on developing these ca- pacities to better serve the institution’s needs. The program’s first year and a half focused primarily on the improvement and rationalization of existing services. For example, before September 2001, there was no formal relationship between li- brary binding and book repair. Units with damaged materials sent them to either book repair or binding, generally with- out instruction and frequently without knowledge of actual need. Consequently, the library outsourced to a library binder many repairs that could have been done by existing internal staff and completed repairs on many items that should have been rebound. Similarly, many items did not receive the more in-depth treatment their dam- age warranted. As evidenced by the library’s long-neglected backlog of brittle materials, the treatment of brittle materi- Building Preservation 225 als was scattered and infrequent. Some items received phase boxes and others various inappropriate or outdated re- pairs, many of which caused permanent damage to the original items. To address this issue in a more comprehensive man- ner, the library’s administration autho- rized the new position of a brittle books coordinator. Working with the head of preservation, the brittle books coordina- tor is establishing the institution’s first comprehensive replacement and refor- matting program, both digging through the backlog and dealing with those ma- terials that are now being routed to the preservation and conservation unit. In addition to tackling damaged ma- terials, the preservation and conservation program began to systematically address the issue of binding paperback acquisi- tions. The assessment indicates that, of the entire sample population, forty-eight items, or 12 percent of the sampled items, appeared in soft covers. Excluding those that the library had bound at some point, nearly 39 percent of the sampled items produced since 1989 are paperbacks. In the long run, this indicates that the library’s collection patterns are changing significantly and that its binding patterns need to follow suit. Assessment results indicate that 4.2 percent of all paperbacks sampled suffer from damaged or mended leaves and that an additional 4.2 percent have covers mended with either cloth or adhesive tape. Even though this equals only one percent of the entire sample, it implies that roughly 58,000 paperbacks have received or need repairs. In addition, eleven of the paperbacks sampled were misshapen. This only equals 2.8 percent of the entire collection but amounts to a startling 23.4 percent of all paperbacks sampled. Using these data, the preserva- tion and conservation program has begun to implement a systematic means of ad- dressing the binding needs of its paper- back collections. Administrative Development The assessment’s most far-reaching out- come is the ability to provide the institu- tion with concrete data for administrative development. As mentioned earlier in this article, the campus has followed a long- term policy of deferred facilities mainte- nance. The site survey performed by a consultant in 2001 provided the campus and the library’s administration with a common language when discussing the collection—its monetary value to the cam- pus. This assessment follows suit by pro- viding the library’s administration with the ability to justify improvements based on specific needs. For example, the 1989 assessment con- cluded that 37 percent of the collection’s paper quality was poor.20 At the conclu- sion of the assessment described in this article, the authors can assert that slightly over 35 percent of the collection is com- posed of paper suffering some level of embrittlement. Although this is generally in keeping with the 1989 assessment, there is both good news and bad. The good news is that although 35 percent of the collection is embrittled, only 25.9 per- cent is on acidic paper that fractures after one or two double-folds. Another 0.52 percent of the sampled items are printed on nonacidic paper that is likely coated and breaks after two or fewer folds. The bad news is that the combination of these numbers indicates that the institution is in possession of roughly 1,531,586 ex- tremely brittle volumes within this single collection. Despite this significant corpus of embrittled materials, the more shocking figure is that a further 54.62 percent of the collection is printed on acidic paper that has not yet become embrittled. Conse- quently, the library is in possession of a collection composed of 90.26 percent acidic paper in a facility with extremely fluid environmental conditions with an- other 0.52 percent that, although acid free on the surface, is very fragile. These data illustrate that, untreated, the rate of dete- rioration is having an impact that pres- ently outpaces the rate of acid-free trans- fers into the collection. Despite the sig- nificant increase in the acquisition of acid- free pieces in the past two decades, the 226 College & Research Libraries May 2003 percentage of embrittled pieces is remain- ing relatively stable. This could stem from a number of reasons, including the con- tinued rate of deterioration in an unstable environment, an increased rate of acqui- sition of older materials through the institution’s robust gifts program, or the delay in the transfer of more current acid- free acquisitions into the central stacks. Regardless of the cause for such contin- ued deterioration, the data in table 7 in- dicate that the production of acid-free paper will have a significant impact on the long-term health of our collection. However, the continued deterioration of our older collection items indicates that the long-term effects of acid-free paper are not likely to be seen for some time when considering larger collection-wide pres- ervation issues at UIUC. The ability to contrast the replacement and reformatting or deacidification needs of this collection against the significant costs of introducing environmental con- trols is valuable for the library’s admin- istration. Despite the addition of nearly 250,000 acid-free publications to this col- lection since 1989, the institution is just keeping pace with the overall rate of embrittlement. Although the cost of proper HVAC controls is staggering, it is dwarfed by the costs of replacement, re- formatting, and deacidification. If the possibility exists that improved condi- tions did slow the rate of embrittlement, this assessment’s results provide the library’s administration with a significant tool in its quest to improve the facility’s conditions. Within the library, the data provided by this assessment are guiding programmatic development in some significant ways. As noted earlier, the preservation and conser- vation program has been making strides in improving and expanding services. This development also has included the devel- opment of policies and procedures that seek to address internal deficiencies. Ex- amples include the development and phased implementation of uniform bind- ing criteria and efforts to increase aware- ness among individual employees about their stewardship role. Although these ef- forts are meeting varying levels of success in such a large system, they are steps in the library’s long process of developing a modern and responsive preservation and conservation program. Notes 1. Sara Buchanan and Sandra Coleman, “Deterioration Survey of the Stanford University Libraries Green Library Stack Collection,” in Preservation Planning Program Resource Notebook, comp. Pamela W. Darling (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1987), 159–230. 2. Tina Chrzastowski, et al., “Library Collection Deterioration: A Study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,” College & Research Libraries 50 (Sept. 1989): 577–84. Barrow’s as- sertion is available at W. J. Barrow, Deterioration of Book Stock, Causes and Remedies, ed. Randolph W. Church (Richmond, Va.: The Virginia State Library, 1959), 15. 3. Ibid., 577. 4. Ibid., 579. 5. Brian J. Baird, et al., “Findings from the Condition Surveys Conducted by the University of Kansas Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 58 (Mar. 1997): 115. 6. Task Force on Preservation, “University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Collection Analy- sis Project: Report of the Task Force on Preservation” (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 1980, photocopy) and Illinois Library Materials Preservation Task Force, “The Pres- ervation of Library and Archival Resources in Illinois: A Five-year Plan of Action” (Carbondale, Ill.: Illinois Library Materials Preservation Task Force, 1986). 7. First published in 1982, the Association of Research Libraries’ (ARL) Preservation Planning Program: An Assisted Self-study Manual for Libraries encouraged libraries to systematically study their collections and facilities through a process of assessment. In 1987, Pamela W. Darling ex- panded the publication and Wesley Boomgaarden revised the resource notebook to include sig- nificant selections from the burgeoning preservation literature. In 1986–1987, Northwestern Uni- versity, the Colorado State University Libraries, Ohio State University, and many other institu- tions published these reports. Building Preservation 227 8. Bradley L. Schaffner and Brian J. Baird, “Into the Dustbin of History? The Evaluation and Preservation of Slavic Materials,” College & Research Libraries 60 (Mar. 1999): 144. 9. The 1989 UIUC assessment and the 1982 Stanford assessment upon which it was based both excluded unbound serials. 10. Buchanan and Coleman, “Deterioration Survey of the Stanford University Libraries Green Library Stack Collection.” 11. The UIUC 1989 assessment evaluated books according to these criteria: condition of the paper, condition of the binding, and condition of the external covers. The books received a score for each category, and the overall score for each book was determined based on the combination of the three scores. Before the final score was assessed, the surveyors were instructed to give paper condition twice the weight of binding or external covers. The rationale for this decision was that paper represents the intellectual content of the book and thus the authors surmised that the library would be most interested in its condition. 12. AZPlanSite is located at http://www.azplansite.com/samplesize.htm and was last up- dated on June 6, 2002. It includes the online sample calculator and a brief explanation of its equations. For further elaboration on determining sample size, please refer to Ronald Czaja and Johnny Blair, Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Pr., 1996), 126–33. 13. John Dean, “Managing Collection Information for Preservation Planning,” in Advances in Preservation and Access, vol. 2, ed. Barbara Higgenbotham (Medford, N.J.: Learned Information, Inc., 1995), 206. Although John Dean’s article emphasized the significant issues with excluding such nonrespondents from surveys and assessments, our statistician’s assessment was that an adequate sample size was generally based on respondents in relation to the population, not the population itself. 14. Chrzastowski, et al., “Library Collection Deterioration,” 580. 15. Oversized pieces are between ten and a half and seventeen inches. Folios are pieces that are seventeen inches or higher. Undersized pieces measure less than six inches. 16. Chrzastowski, et al., “Library Collection Deterioration,” 580. 17. The call numbers in the West stacks in 2002 are the same call numbers moved in 1984. Thus, books in the collection during the original move have benefited from the climate-con- trolled environment for eighteen years. The move is described in the library’s newsletter: Ruth McBride, “Central Bookstacks: Progress Report,” Library Office Notes, no. 30 (July 1984). 18. John DePew, A Library, Media, and Archival Preservation Handbook (Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 1991): 298–99. The figures provided by the library’s consultant were taken from those cited in DePew’s volume and adjusted for 2000 dollars. 19. Jeanne M. Drewes and Julie A. Page, Promoting Preservation Awareness in Libraries: A Sourcebook for Academic, Public, School, and Special Collections (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1997). 20. Chrzastowski, et al., “Library Collection Deterioration,” 580.