ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries June 1984 / 289 Library theft prevention By Peter E. Hanff Chair, Security Committee A C R L Rare Rooks and Manuscripts Section The results of an informal survey of collection security precautions among North American libraries. I n late 1982 and early 1983, the Security Commit- tee of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of ACRL conducted an informal survey of libraries in North America to learn w hat policies and proce­ dures were in place for protection against library theft. The survey was conducted by questionnaires addressed to library administrators. In order to as­ sure that the administrators were aware of recent recommendations on library security, copies of the ACRL-approved “Guidelines for the Security of Rare Book, Manuscript, and Other Special Collec­ tions” (published in C&RL News, March 1982, p p .90-93) were sent along with the questionnaire. While the survey was being conducted, a major international conference on library theft was being planned for Oberlin College under a special grant from the H. W. Wilson Foundation. The informa­ tion generated by the survey complements the de­ liberations of the conference which was held in September 1983. The results of the survey will be of interest to library administrators, the Oberlin Con­ ference participants, and others concerned with se­ curity of library collections. In the 1970s many libraries began to develop w ritte n plans for em ergency response to life- threatening and collection-threatening situations. Conservation programs, improved fire-detection and fire-fighting systems, evacuation procedures, and w ater-dam age procedures have now been dealt with by many libraries. Security planning to protect against theft and, particularly, to deal with theft once it has occurred, has generally lagged be­ hind disaster planning. There are undoubtedly numerous reasons for the slow development of security plans. Among the more im portant are a general lack of awareness of the significance of library theft and its impact on the integrity of library collections and services. There are still no adequate means of monitoring loss rates, and most libraries are unwilling or un­ able within present budgets to support systematic inventories. The open-plan library buildings most common in North American libraries work against sound access control, and the monitoring of the use of collections in such buildings is extremely diffi­ cult. Perhaps another factor working against de­ velopment of security plans is that most librarians would prefer not to deal with the distasteful topic of theft. There is some evidence of improvement in li­ brary security. Recent large-scale book thefts have generated significant international notoriety, and that works to the advantage of librarians in devel­ oping good security plans. Katharine Leab and Daniel J. Leab, publishers of American Rook Prices Current, recognizing the significance of central­ ized information about book theft, have developed an online, computer-based information service for reporting stolen or missing books and manuscripts (the service is Bookline Alert: Missing Books and M anuscripts, or BAMBAM). The A ntiquarian Booksellers Association of America, constantly 290 / C&R L News mindful of the financial impact of book theft, has published a pam phlet on how to deal with book theft. The proceedings of the Oberlin Conference on Theft will also be published soon. The RBMS Security Committee’s questionnaire was distributed regionally. The informal nature of the survey should not be construed as statistically balanced, but merely as an indicator of the status of security planning in North American libraries. The Committee received about fifty responses from li­ braries polled. The questionnaire covered four main categories. The first, Policies and Procedures, sought to deter­ mine the level of security consciousness in libraries and whether the libraries have yet adopted a w rit­ ten policy. Most libraries reported that they make a distinction between building security and collec­ tion security, but few have yet adopted w ritten col­ lection security policies. The few policies that have been adopted appear to have been developed inde­ pendently of the RBMS Guidelines, although most respondents viewed their policies as compatible with those recommended by RBMS. Few libraries reported any systematic tracking of loss rates, a re­ sponse not surprising in North America where few libraries maintain inventory control. Virtually all the libraries believed th at a telephone call from a bookseller who had recovered a stolen book would be referred to the proper library official. The second category dealt with responsibility for library security. Most responses indicated th a t there is no distinction made between a security guard (an individual responsible for building secu­ rity) and a security officer (an individual responsi­ ble for the security of the collections). Only about a third of the libraries responded th at they now have a security officer, and even fewer have assigned re­ sponsibility to the security officer for developing and implementing a security program. About a fourth of the libraries indicated that they plan to appoint a security officer, but a sizable number of respondents indicated th at they did not know if their library was planning such an appointment (an indication that the questionnaire was being an­ swered by someone outside the upper levels of ad­ ministration). The third category in the questionnaire dealt with policies for marking library materials. This Ban bombs, not books L ib ra ria n s for N u c le a r Arms C ontrol (LNAC) is a non-profit, non-partisan organiza­ tion open to librarians, library educators, li­ brary aides, and paraprofessionals who share a common concern about the risk of nuclear war. The group seeks to pool the professional skills oi its members to reduce the likelihood of a nu­ clear holocaust. For further information, con­ tact LNAC, 311 E. Glenarm Street, #8, Pasa­ dena, CA 91106. section was aimed prim arily at special collections operations, because such operations have fre­ quently declined to add any markings to materials in their charge, presumably relying on their closer control of access to m aterials for security. The RBMS Guidelines for Marking advocate systematic marking to discourage theft and to facilitate recov­ ery of stolen items. The responses w ere about evenly divided as to whether the library’s special collections operation calls for marking. For those that have a marking policy, only one-fourth follow the RBMS Guidelines. The final section of the questionnaire dealt with security measures in general collections. It is clear from the responses that there is fairly widespread use of electronic perimeter control systems that sig­ nal if an item is removed from the library before being properly charged to a user. Many of the re­ spondents assumed that the questionnaire was pri­ marily concerned w ith books of high m onetary value. Thus a number of libraries reported that more valuable books were kept hidden on special shelves behind the reference desk, in cages, or in closed stacks. More typically though, there seemed to be general reliance on general building security to discourage theft. With respect to distinctions be­ tween marking of general and special collections, as might be expected, the general collections of most libraries are systematically, visibly, and in­ delibly marked. One can conclude, then, that the libraries in N orth America need more inform ation on the problems of library theft. A heightening of aw are­ ness about the problem is still needed, but so are ef­ fective procedures and policies for dealing with collection security. The Security Com m ittee of RBMS at its meeting at the 1984 Midwinter Con­ ference of ALA accepted charges to develop two new manuals for dealing with library security. One will deal with theft prevention and the other will deal with procedures to follow once a theft has oc­ curred. The Committee will welcome input from librarians, booksellers, collectors, and others con­ cerned with theft of library materials. ■ ■ Whiteley completes administration program Sandy W hiteley, ACRL program officer, completed the National College of Education’s P rogram in A d m in istratio n for W om en in Higher Education on May 13. The program, held at the college’s Evanston campus, is designed for the professional ad ­ vancement of women in non-profit organiza­ tions. Twenty-one women attended the series of five weekend sem inars, held during the 1983-84 academic year. The National College of Education, founded in 1886, has campuses in Evanston, Chicago, and Lom bard, Illinois.