[PADG:1695] Re: binding policy

[Andrew Hart <ashart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Our deferred binding policy at UNC-Chapel Hill is very similar to what Shannon
described for Michigan.  We also bind only after evidence of demand, however
we wait until 2 circulations rather than one.  Our admittedly untested
assumption is that there are enough books that circulate only once to make it
worth waiting for a second use before binding.  While not quite as easy as
forwarding for binding all unbound paperbacks that are returned by patrons,
watching for two or more stamps on the due date slip is not terribly difficult
or time-consuming.

>     If you are not binding everything, what is your criteria for not
> binding?

Less than 10.5" high, 7.5" wide, 1.5" thick.
AND
No apparent problem with original leaf attachment; soft cover is not unusually
thin or fragile.

Like Michigan, we bind immediately after acquisition anything with spirals,
combs, or 3-ring binders. We also bind anything that has accompanying
materials (e.g., diskettes, maps, etc.) that need a pocket.  Very short and/or
thin (less than 6" tall, 1/4" thick) are bound immediately too. All
non-circulating materials are bound on acquisition.

>
>     How did you develop that criteria?

We asked a few peer libraries and made some observations of our own.  Our
conservator, supervisor for general collections repair, and I all looked at
sample batches of paperbacks together.  We sorted them according to what we
instinctively thought would be safe to defer -- and then described what we
came up with. Until recently, our criteria have indicated deferred binding on
only about half of our soft covers. We recently revisited those criteria
(motivated by budget pressure) and decided to shift the thresholds to the
numbers listed above.  It will save a meaningful amount of money and I don't
believe it will significantly increase risk of loss.


>
>     What are you doing instead of binding (stiffening, something else,
> nothing)?

Nothing.  Because we only defer binding on paperbacks that are relatively
solid, we trust that they will fare quite well if no one uses them.  If they
are used, we jump right to a commercial binding.

>
>     What has been the results of this policy?  (More damage, no noticeable
> change?)

So far this fiscal year, a little over 4% of the paperbacks we received after
circulation showed some sign of damage.  76% of the instances of damage were
simply torn or bent covers.  Only one book this year (out of 3,343 sent for
binding after circulation) was damaged to the extent that information was lost
-- and in that case we were able to replace the missing pages without
difficulty.

I think Shannon is right in pointing out that "so far" is an important
qualification.  We can observe what has happened in the last few years at UNC
(or 11 years at Michigan) but we don't know what it will be like when we have
many thousands of soft covers in the stacks.  Still, I think we have enough
information to conclude the risk in deferred binding is acceptable, provided
materials are screened according to some kind of preservation criteria.  For
those libraries with tight budgets, it is very hard to argue that the risk of
damage or loss due to deferred binding is great enough to justify
comprehensive just-in-case binding.

Andy.
--
==================================================
 Andrew Hart, Preservation Librarian
 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
 CB#3910, Davis Library
 Chapel Hill, NC 27514
 tel: (919) 962-8047
 fax: (919) 962-4450
 email: ashart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
==================================================