University of California Preservation Program
1997/98 Annual Report
Robert Alan (Davis)
Charlotte Brown (LAUC)
Christopher Coleman (UCLA)
Sheryl Davis (Riverside)
Judith Paquette (UCCDC)
Maralyn Jones (Berkeley)
Eric MacDonald (Irvine)
Catherine Nelson (Santa Barbara)
Karen Mokrzycki (Santa Cruz)
Barclay Ogden (Director, UCPP)
Cameron Olen (Admin. Asst., UCPP)
Julie Page (San Diego)
Paul Wakeford (San Francisco)
The UCPP focused its resources in the past year primarily on continued production and collaboration with the UC Binderies to improve communication and services. The UCPP Director attended CDC meetings to report on activities of and to serve as liaison from the UCPP.
Library Binding
Bindery Process Improvements. Following adoption of the UC Binding Policy, a Library Binding Process Improvement Task Force was constituted to begin work to identify the products and services of the UC Binderies with the greatest potential for improved workflow and economy. Many of the recommendations in the final report of the Task Force (March 97), have been or are in the process of being implemented:
- – implementation of the LARS binding preparation module has proceeded on three campuses with an estimated small savings in binding costs ($.25/vol) and, more importantly, reductions in stamping errors from bindery keying;
- – conversion from boxes to booktrucks for shipment of books to the binderies is proceeding;
- – the southern bindery is standardizing tracking of shipments and billing procedures;
- – price lists for binding services have been produced; and
- – a UC wide binding manual is in preparation for mounting at the UCPP web site.
Development of an interface between LARS and Innovacq software to avoid rekeying binding title information has continued to be a frustration as Innovative Interfaces, Inc., has not been interested in responding to the need, nor willing to let a third party create an interface. The UCPP agreed to inquire whether III would be willing to entertain a contract to develop the needed interface for UC use only. Bruce Miller, UCSD, has volunteered to be our liaison to negotiate a contract with III.
NISO Committee on Library Binding. The UCPP Director served as Chair of a NISO ctte. to develop a performance-based standard for library binding. Full testing of library bindings manufactured according to the current industry standards (based on specification of materials and methods rather than performance) was completed and benchmarks for performance standards were determined. A joint NISO/Library Binding Institute draft standard has been completed and approved by the Library Binding Institute. Next it goes out for ballot to the NISO membership; if there are no major revisions required, the work of the NISO ctte. will be finished.
Performance of UC bindings. In response to a concern about the serviceability of the Limited Circulation (LC) binding style made by UC binderies, samples of the LC binding were manufactured and sent for independent performance testing underwritten by the UCPP. Performance results were compared to the NISO test results mentioned above. LC bindings performed very well on the classic durability test (better than full-buckram bindings bound with the Ultrabind machine), but less well than the NISO volumes on strength of leaf attachment. Further work to test and to optimize the performance of the UC Ultrabind machines (located in both binderies) is underway to ensure that the LC binding consistently will meet the service needs for which it was designed.
Library Binding Field Study. Following establishment of performance standards for library binding products, the issue of comparability of actual performance in use relative to performance in lab tests was raised in the Preservation and Reformatting Section of ALA. At present, there exists no systematically gathered quantitative data on field performance of library bindings to corroborate laboratory data for management decision-making about binding services. In response to this need, the UCPP Director is serving as chair of a new task force to conduct a field testing study. The proposal has been completed, and commitments have been received from Harvard University and the National Library of Medicine to join with the UC Preservation Program to underwrite its costs, with additional support likely to come from the Library Binding Institute. The ALA task force, Harvard, and NLM agreed that the UCPP should implement and manage the project; funding will be sought from the FY98-99 UCPP budget to undertake the study.
Preservation Technologies
Digital Archiving Task Force. CDC recommended development of a preservation management strategy for UC digital collections, preferably to be carried out under the auspices of the UC Library Planning and Action Initiative. A charge for a UC Digital Archiving Task Force was drafted and a meeting with Richard Lucier was held to explore opportunities for action. At Lucier’s recommendation, the Task Force proposal was reintroduced in late Fall 97 to the California Digital Library administration. Action is anticipated in FY 98-99.
Adhesives Longevity Study. The UCPP Director serves as advisor to a Library of Congress-sponsored project to develop a methodology to predict the long-term performance of adhesives used in library binding and preservation. The importance of the work to research libraries is very significant; adhesives selected to match the service needs for books economize on the initial cost of binding as well as avoid rebinding of volumes whose adhesives fail before the books are no longer needed. The project is expected to require another 6 months to complete.
Mass Deacidification. After tracking the development of mass deacidification technologies for years in partial fulfillment of the terms under which the UCPP originally was funded, a stable system, offered by Preservation Technologies, LP, has been identified for treatment of UC collections. In response to interest from CDC, a test batch of books was sent for treatment and returned with no visually deleterious evidence. The Library of Congress, which has been testing the process for several years, has confirmed that minimal adverse effects are experienced and that treatment is very successful for achieving increased stability of paper. Preservation Technologies will be invited to speak to the campus representatives to the UCPP to explore UC’s interest in a business arrangement whereby UC would become a treatment center, would receive reduced prices for treatment, and would be able to realize savings by avoiding shipping materials to be treated to the home plant in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Current plans call for a presentation to the UCPP and follow up with UC collection development officers in FY 98-99.
Preservation Production
Since the start of the UC Preservation Program in FY 87, most of its funding has been allocated to campuses for preservation of collections. In FY 97-98, more than 400,000 page equivalents of library materials were preserved for a total of $127,407. A total of $67,963 of production funds allocated to campuses will be carried forward to FY 98-99.
Production:
| Type | #titles | #vols. | #pages | $cost |
| commercial reprint | 9 | 9 | 8,442 | 645 |
| commercial microform | 19 | 222 | 124,690 | 10,650 |
| photocopy | 279 | 285 | 106,787 | 31,974 |
| microfilming | 19 | 387 | 185,515 | 47,382 |
| other (audiotape repl, cons, booktrucks, photo pres.,boxes) | 4,910pcs | 36,756 | ||
| Total | 326 | 903 | 430,344 | 127,407 |
UC Preservation Program Financial Statement, FY 1997-98
UC Preservation Program Financial Statement, FY 1996-97
| Component | Budget Request | Alloc. | Exp./Liens | Balance | ||
| 1. | Lib. Binding | |||||
| Staffing | 7,212 | 7,212 | 7,212 | 0 | ||
| Travel | 1,800 | 1,800 | 2,015 | (215) | ||
| US Testing | 1,500 | 1,500 | 1,918 | (418) | ||
| 2. | Pres. Tech. | |||||
| Staffing | 10,818 | 10,818 | 10,818 | 0 | ||
| Travel | 2,400 | 2,400 | 1,767 | 633 | ||
| 3. | Prog. Mgmt. | |||||
| Staffing | 5,250 | 5,250 | 5,250 | 0 | ||
| Phone/copy/post. | 250 | 250 | 250 | 0 | ||
| GA for web page | 300 | 300 | 300 | 0 | ||
| 5. | Pres. Replacement and Conservation Treatment | |||||
| Production | ||||||
| Berkeley | 40,294 | 40,294 | 40,294 | 0 | ||
| Davis | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | ||
| Irvine | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | ||
| Los Angeles | 37,194 | 37,194 | 37,194 | 0 | ||
| Riverside | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | ||
| San Diego | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | ||
| San Francisco | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | ||
| Santa Barbara | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | ||
| Santa Cruz | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | ||
| Total | 177,018 | 177,018 | 177,018 | 0 | ||
30oct98a
30oct98a
Last reviewed: March 4, 2004