Re: Deferred Binding

[WILLIAMS SARA R <Sara.Williams@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Sherry Byrne wrote:
 
> At the University of Chicago we are considering sending monographs to the
> stacks unbound to keep our growing binding budget under control.  I would be
> interested in knowing what your experiences have been with such a program.
> I would particularly appreciate hearing about any studies (formal or
> informal) that you performed to help you make your decision, that have
> provided cost data, or that show the impact of not binding.  I have checked
> the Cons DistList Archives but don't see any postings after about 1993.
 
This is a sensitive issue for me, since I had to spend about three years
of intense politicking to get deferred binding accepted here at the
University of Colorado.

When I came here in 1992 the policy was to bind all softcover monographs,
regardless of original condition or anticipated level of use. We also had
a five-year arrearage of hardcover monographs which had come apart from
overuse, but which were given a lower priority for binding than the newly
cataloged material. These were either shelved in Technical Services or
sent back to the stacks tied with string. UCB Libraries undertook a
NEH/ARL Preservation Planning Project in 1989/90, during which it was
estimated that 5% of the print collections needed rebinding and
6% needing repair. Based on later experience, I think these estimates may
have been low.  

In order to get support for revising the existing policy, I got
administrative agreement to send soft cover books that met certain
physical criteria (through fold sewing, sturdy cover stock, etc.) to the
stacks unbound.  We kept a records of the volumes concerned and inspected
them twice, once after six months and again after a year. All volumes were
found to be intact and most had not circulated. 

Binding decisions for soft-cover materials are now made by Preservation
Department staff on the basis of the individual item's physical structure.
Books which meet the following criteria are bound before shelving: 

* All books going to the Central Reference Department (at their request);

* Books received in damaged condition;

* Very large books (12" or more in height, 2" or more in thickness, and/or
wide enough to extend beyond the width of the shelf); 

* Very small books (less than 1/4" thick) and all pamphlets; 

* Spiral-bound books; 

* Books which cannot support heavy or bulky pocket material;

* Books in which the original bindings are warped, soiled, or in which the
pages are untrimmed; 

* Books with cover designs likely to encourage vandalism. 

Everything else goes to the stacks with just routine shelf preparation. 
Circulation staff routinely set aside any book that appears damaged for
inspection by one of my staff. My assumption is that if a book doesn't
circulate, it doesn't require binding. If it circulates enough to
deteriorate, we'll catch as it returns through Circulation. We actually
get very few paperbacks returned to us in this way; most of the rebinding
involves publishers' hardcover bindings that have failed from overuse.

Our total binding activity is down from a high of 35,862 (1992/93) to
30,763 (1996/97). (These figures include both monographs and serials.) I
think we may save as much as $25,000-$30,000 annually by not binding
paperbacks before shelving. What is more important to me,though, is that
deferred binding allowed us to concentrate on the backlog of heavily used
material in need of rebinding; we were able to eliminate that arreage in
about two years. I was also able to free up some staff time for book
repair. 

The most serious problems in implementing deferred binding here were
political and psychological. One administrator had spent years trying to
get more money in the binding budget and the whole idea just felt wrong to
her. A few of the bibliographers seemed to feel that not binding books in
their subject areas was an affront of some kind. On the other hand, the
branch librarians were enthusiastic -- they resented the extra time
required to bind their material before they could have it.

The issue may not be quite as political at the University of Chicago as it
was here, but if so, selecting a sample set of paperbacks and tracking
their condition may give you the evidence you need to support the policy
change. I hope you'll let this group know how it all works out.

*******************************************************************************
Sara R. Williams			Phone:  (303) 492-3849
Head, Preservation Department		FAX: (303) 492-0494
University Libraries			Sara.Williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Campus Box 184
University of Colorado - Boulder
Boulder CO  80309-0184
*******************************************************************************