College and Research Libraries Preservation Study at the Syracuse University Libraries ( Randall Bond, Mary DeCarlo, Elizabeth Henes, and Eileen Snyder In 1985, in conjunction with the development of a preservation program at Syracuse Univer- sity Libraries, a survey of the non-rare book collections was undertaken. Utilizing methodol- ogy similar to that employed at Yale and Stanford, a stratified random sample of 2,548 books and periodicals was examined. Aspects of physical condition, including pH, brittleness, muti- lation, and environmental damage were surveyed. A pilot study and full survey revealed that 25 percent of the collection is in need of repair, and 86 percent of the materials appear to be acidic, while only 12 percent showed a high degree of brittleness. Additional information on collection characteristics such as age and national makeup was also obtained from the study. n fall 1984, the survey of collec- tions subgroup of the Syracuse University Libraries Preserva- tion Committee was charged with determining the best method of sur- veying the non-rare book collections of the Syracuse University Libraries in order to determine the nature and size of their preservation/conservation concerns. Checking the relevant literature and con- tacting individuals involved in preserva- tion surveys at other institutions provided two types of information: criteria for judg- ing book condition and methods of deter- mining a valid statistical sample. This in- formation was gathered to answer the following questions: (1) How many kinds of preservation problems exist? and (2) What percentage of the collection show these problems? Utilizing this information, the survey subgroup developed a series of recom- mendations to the Preservation Commit- tee. These recommendations covered sample size; the use of random numbers and mapping the collection prior to select- ing volumes for examination; criteria to be checked; the value of a pilot study; and personnel, training, and materials needed to carry out such a study. A timetable and cost estimates for these recommendations were also suggested. The Preservation Committee accepted the recommendations and agreed that the survey should be carried out during sum- mer 1985. The work would be done by members of the subgroup and work-study students. Financial support for the survey was provided by New York State Legislation for the Conservation and Preservation of Research Materials. Syracuse University is one of eleven comprehensive libraries in New York State that receive annual statu- tory grants. METHODOLOGY The preservation surveys conducted by Yale University and Stanford University influenced the methodology adopted by the survey subgroup at Syracuse Univer- sity. 1 Modifications were made to suit lo- cal needs and constraints. Factors of time and money played an important role. The survey could be neither as large nor as long as the one carried out at Yale. Randall Bond is Art Librarian, Mary DeCarlo is Mathematics Librarian, Elizabeth Henes is Reference Librar- ian, and Eileen Snyder is Physics and Geology Librarian at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13210. 132 Sample The book and periodical collections of the following libraries were studied using a stratified random sample: E. S. Bird (general reference, fine arts, humanities, social sciences, and area studies, exclud- ing the rare book department), science and technology/Carnegie (general sci- ence, biology, chemistry, engineering, and mathematics), physics, and geology. Stratification ensured that a proportionate number of books from each subgroup was surveyed (see appendix A). Random Numbers A program generating random numbers to be used in selecting survey volumes was prepared by a computer science stu- dent at Syracuse University. Numbers were generated for each location of the li- brary to be surveyed. The random num- bers consisted of the following elements: floor or location (one or two digits), stack or range (one to three digits), section (one or two digits), shelf (one or two digits), and volume (one or two digits). Mapping Prior to the generation of random num- bers, the library collections were mapped and labeled to indicate shelving arrange- ments and numbers. Each stack or range was labeled with a number, and a tally was made of the number of sections and shelves in each range. These data were used in the course of generating random numbers for each location. Questionnaire Development of the questionnaire was the most lengthy process in the preserva- tion study. The subgroup was concerned that the questionnaire be easy to use and straightforward as well as recording all relevant data. This was essential, since the bulk of the survey was to be carried out by work-study students. Therefore, some of the more detailed and sophisticated analy- ses of book structure used in the Yale sur- vey were eliminated. The following crite- ria were in the final revision of the questionnaire: . Date volume surveyed Preservation Study 133 Call Number (first two letters for LC) Publication date Random number Country of publication (rather than where printed) Surveyor identification (individual report- ing data) Volume and condition Type: monograph or periodical Circulation: circulating or noncirculat- ing Has book (volume) circulated in last five years? Boards/cover type: leather, cloth, pa- per, boards, stiffened (reinforced pa- perbacks), pamphlet, box/portfolio, and mixed (e.g., leather and boards) Boards and covers need repair? Hinges need repair? Spine needs repair? Binding needs repair? Leaf detached? Fold test (to determine the brittleness of the paper) Page comer breaks after: 15+ folds 5+ folds 2-4 folds 1 fold no test pH (acidity of paper) Yellow = acidic Green = slightly acidic Blue = acid free No test Damage-Mutilation Razored Torn Underlined/writing Scotch tape Food and drink Damage-Environmental Fading Mold Insects Water Yellowing Foxing (yellowish-brown spots on pa- per caused by dampness) Bums To make the recording and subsequent analysis of data as efficient and easy as possible, a machine-readable form was used. 2 The form was modified for the pur- 134 College & Research Libraries pose of this study by the use of a card- board overlay that singled out certain spaces for data entry (see figure 1). Staff The subgroup proposed to have the staff work in pairs for both the selection and testing of volumes for the sample. In se- lecting materials, two staff members would go to the stacks, one with a list of random numbers and a book cart. The other member would retrieve the items from the shelves as the random numbers were called out. If there was no item for that number, the next number would be called out until a full cartload of books was obtained. These would then be taken to a study room, within the location being sampled, where they would be studied against the questionnaire. The two staff members would take turns making obser- vations and_ recording data. The pH and fold tests were to be carried out simultaneously. A page toward the middle of each volume would be marked near the margin gutter with a Light Im- pressions pH Testing Pen #2396. While the pH chemical was reacting, the upper corner of the page would be folded back and forth and creased up to 16 times, or less if the corner broke off earlier. These two tests would indicate the acidity and brittleness of the paper used in the vol- ume. Staff for the pilot -surveys would consist of members of the survey sub- group. For the full survey, work-study students supervised by members of the subgroup would be utilized. Data Analysis The primary analysis of data from the survey was accomplished by Syracuse University Testing Services using the machine-readable answer sheets that they had provided for the survey. Consultation between members of the survey subgroup and Testing Services staff led to the estab- lishment of format and correlations to be produced from the raw data (see Appen- dix B). PILOT SURVEY In order to test the questionnaire, the random number sample, and the proce- March 1987 dures to be followed, a pilot survey utiliz- ing the collections of the fifth floor (area studies) of Bird Library was carried out from June 10 through 14, 1985. Two teams composed of the four members of the sub- group carried this out in about forty hours of work (i.e., twenty hours per team). Ad- ditional help was provided by the preser- vation coordinator and her assistant. The random numbers tables presented the main problem during the pilot survey. Many of the random numbers did not yield items to be checked, resulting in a sample size that was too small. Analysis resulted in the discovery of two problems: (1) the programmer had input incorrect data relating the mapping of the collec- tions and the random numbers to be pro- duced, and (2) the range of numbers for selecting an individual volume from a shelf was found to be too high. It was changed from one to forty to one to twenty. These modifications in data input and the volume range produced a new set of random numbers that yielded an ade- quate sample of material. When the sur- vey was completed, the data sheets were given to Testing Services to be tabulated and analyzed for a variety of correlations. The success of the pilot study thus pro- vided the final impetus for the subsequent full survey of the collection. FULL SURVEY The full survey of the Syracuse Univer- sity Library Collections was carried out be- tween July 16 and August 7, 1985. Eight work-study students put in a total of 315 hours on the project. A training workshop for the student surveyors was held on July 16 to acquaint them with the goals and procedures of the study. Each student was given a packet that included the names, offices, and phone numbers of the super- visors, a list of surveyor codes for identifi- cation purposes, a list of country of publi- cation codes, a list of materials and supplies, instructions for finding books to evaluate and for filling out the test forms. The orientation workshop included a step-by-step presentation of how the sur- vey was to be done. There were samples of book types and problems that might be encountered. The students were divided j 1 SURVEYOR (!) IDENTIFICATION 0 (!) 0@@0