THE BIG PICTURE
Preservation Strategies in Context
|
7. Safeguarding Heritage Assets • The Library of Congress Planning Framework for Preservation
Doris A. Hamburg
A corollary goal of acquiring most cultural
collections is preserving them for the future, The long-term
safeguarding of the collections, or heritage assets, is most effectively
accomplished through a comprehensive, systematic approach. Toward this
end, the Library of Congress has identified four critical control
areaspreservation, physical security bibliographic control, and
inventory controlthat affect the long-term survival of the
collections. Omitting or minimizing any one of these controls from the
Library's activities leaves it vulnerable in meeting the needs of
future users. Whereas these control areas have traditionally operated
independently, overlapping concerns and approaches and the benefits of
working in a more integrated manner have become clearer in the past
several years as a result of developing an assessment program in each of
these four areas.
This paper addresses the preservation framework being
used to analyze and address the Library of Congress needs in meeting the
minimum standards for safeguarding its collections from the
preservation perspective, outlining the goals,
methodology, and conclusions related to a
preservation assessment process developed for the broad range of
Library of Congress collections. Begun in 1999, the assessment process
is ongoing, as new collection preservation needs are identified and
others are addressed.
A difficult yet critical decision in developing the
Library of Congress assessments for safeguarding its heritage assets was
to acknowledge and integrate the concept that all collections are not
equal. Collections and items vary with regard to intrinsic value,
research value, and replacement potential. For example, Thomas
Jefferson's Rough Draft of the Declaration of Independence is unique,
priceless, and can never be replaced. The need to minimize any risks to
this document is far greater than for a newly published book, which can
easily be replaced in case of damage or loss. These risks apply to
preservation, physical security, bibliographic control, and inventory
control. In light of these considerations, the Library of Congress
outlined five categories of value or risk in its 1997 Library of
Congress Security Plan. The five levels of risk, named for metals,
together form a continuum, allowing for a range of values within each
category. Platinum is used to designate the irreplaceable items
of the highest intrinsic value, such as the Rough Draft of the
Declaration of Independence or Abraham Lincoln's holograph copy of the
Gettysburg Address. Gold items are those found in special
collections and have high market value and significant cultural,
historical, or artifactual importance. Silver is the designation
for collections that are at increased risk for loss because of theft,
such as compact discs, comic books, videos, or training manuals or that
are items that require special handling because of their condition, such
as a very brittle newspapers. Bronze collections are served
without special restrictions in the Library's reading rooms. They are
identified as having relatively little or no artifactual value, and
generally are replaceable. These materials may be loaned without
stringent restrictions And, finally,
copper materials are those that the Library of Congress holds
temporarily and that will not be retained over time. Using such value
terminology"gold," "silver," and so onwhich is understood
at all levels of the institution by staff who do or do not work with
collection items, has helped to clarify discussion and identify
collection needs.
Each custodial or processing division assigns the
value category for each item or collection. Categorizing collections
according to value is not a simple or absolute process; the methodology
for doing so varies according to the type and use of the collection and
in some cases according to the context of items relative to a larger
group of materials held in a particular unit. Over time, one can expect
that designations could change. For example, a general collection book
(bronze) may become rare (gold).
In 1998, the Library established the Preservation
Heritage Assets Working Group (PHAWG) to develop a preservation
framework, following on the physical security framework in the 1997
Security Plan. [1] At first, the PHAWG was not certain that the
framework model developed in the Security Plan to assess physical
security needs would be appropriate also for preservation. Yet, upon
analysis it seemed logical to build on the physical security control
model, for the sake of simplicity, efficiency, feasibility, and ease of
use by others already familiar with the physical security controls
framework. The frameworks differ, however, in that the physical
security framework includes specific actions to be taken (installation
of a camera, a lock, and so on), whereas the preservation framework is
broader in articulating the control measures. The preservation framework
articulates an ongoing preservation effort that will never be completely
finished because of the tremendous preservation needs of the collections
and because of changes in the condition of objects over time.
The preservation framework formulates a comprehensive
plan of minimum standards for preservation of collection materials at
the Library of Congress. The framework offers an opportunity to evaluate
the state of preservation throughout the Library using a Library-wide
preservation assessment tool, equipped to address the range of ways that
different Library custodial and processing divisions use and store their
collections. Further, it fosters the integration of preservation into
the broad range of activities affecting Library of Congress collections,
such as acquisitions, cataloging, curatorial research, loans, use by
researchers, and exhibitions.
As items or collections come into the Library, they
are initially processed for bibliographic control; they may be placed
in good-quality storage enclosures or conserved to provide
appropriate protection for the future, This period in the life of a
collection item is called the processing cycle. The items then go into
the storage cycle, which becomes the long-term custodial location.
Items can move in and out of the storage cycle by being moved (transit
cycle) to a reading room, placed on loan, or made available for staff or
researcher use (use cycle). Occasionally, an item will go on exhibition
(exhibit cycle), which requires certain control measures that differ
from normal use. The length of time an item is in a particular cycle
varies according to the specific situation, ranging from minutes to
years.
In developing the preservation control measures for
each cycle and at each risk level, the most critical component was to
ascertain the minimum standard needed to ensure preservation. More than
the minimum can be done if desired. Minimum standards are key in
developing a realistic assessment and in maintaining credibility with
stakeholders and funders, who must prioritize limited resources and
trust that the funds are used efficiently and effectively.
The Library's preservation framework outlines seven
broad control areas, followed by specific control measure
within those areas. The seven primary areas consist of environment,
emergency preparedness, storage, handling, needs assessment, physical
treatment, and reformatting. The preservation control measures outline
the key elements in a comprehensive preservation plan for Library
collections. The control measures are accompanied by a set of
definitions to ensure a universal understanding of each element.
Clearly articulated specifications noted in each area facilitate
communication of what is needed. For example, for a platinum item, the
minimum standard for a control measure might be more stringent than for
a bronze item. The plan articulates the more specific needs of each
control measure as it applies to a specific value. In regulating
environment, for example, tight environmental controls (Level 3, defined
as "environment is controllable within tight tolerances required by
special sensitive materials") apply to platinum collections. Moderate
controls (Level 2, defined as "environment is controllable and generally
meets specifications") are the minimum standard for gold, silver, and
bronze collections. Minimal controls (Level 1, defined as "environment
is controllable to a limited extent and does not generally meet
specifications") apply to copper collections. Other control measures
may require no differentiation according to value. For instance, the
need for the development of environmental specifications exists for all
collections, even if the specification is different for each value
level. These are expressed on grids, easily read and
understood. [2]
The control measures are preservation actions
undertaken by facilities staff, librarians, readers, preservation staff,
curators, and others. They indicate an approach that confirms that
preservation of the collections is a collaborative effort, not limited
to the staff of the Preservation Directorate. This framework emphasizes
a preventive approach that involves the full range of considerations in
preserving cultural collections.
For example, the way that a librarian or technician
handles a book while it is being cataloged or brought to a reader for
use can significantly affect the preservation of the book. Verification
that maintenance is being done on the building and that
appropriate levels of temperature and relative humidity are provided is
important. Preventive preservation is the most cost-effective method for
retaining collections over time. Once damage has occurred, it may not be
fully reversible, even with the best conservation treatment.
Conservation treatment is an important program element, but it is not
the only one. Existing conservation treatment needs far exceed available
resources to address conservation. The backlog of work needing to be
done is significant. Priorities must be established. Preventing damage
is by far the most logical approach for retaining collections over
time.
The preservation control measures are not applicable
to each cycle. Some controls, for instance, environment, apply to all
cycles. Others apply as needed. As we developed our preservation
framework, we decided that when an item goes for preservation treatment,
it would be considered as being in the processing cycle. Therefore, most
control measures apply to the processing cycle. In the storage, use,
transit, and exhibit cycles, we have fewer control measures. In our
preservation security framework, we created a separate grid with the
relevant control measures for each of the five cycles.
Once we had developed our grids and established the
minimum standards for each risk category and each cycle, we visited the
custodial and processing divisions to assess the status of their
preservation controls. We recognized that collaboration is crucial to
our plan. With assistance from preservation staff, each division
evaluated the status of preservation for each control measure.
Reevaluation of the plan on a periodic basis for each division will be
required. The process has been educational for all who participated and
is seen as a positive tool, drawing attention to problem preservation areas
and previously unidentified concerns.
Preservation staff members learned from each division
about collection use, value, and preservation needs. The assessment
process has created a broader understanding among librarians of the
elements involved in preserving the collections. To achieve this, a
grid identifying each control measure was marked in terms of each
control element's completion status: C: Completed; P: Partially
completed; U: Unmet; H: In-House (with existing funds from within the
unit); F: Funded; and NA: Not Applicable. The evaluation was generally
broad, because the assessment focused on collections rather than
individual items. A future project will be to return to specific
collections within a division to identify their unmet control
measures.
The development of the physical security,
preservation, bibliographic, and inventory frameworks has led to
increased integration of effort and understanding of the interrelated
goals of these four areas in safeguarding the Library's assets. For
example, as we surveyed the collections for physical security needs, we
were able to clarify the requirement for enhanced or new vault spaces.
Preservation teamed up with security staff to have some of the vaults
built with an environmental component, so that the vault would provide
temperatures at a set point in the fifty-to-fifty-five-degree Fahrenheit
range. Reducing the storage environment temperature from the average
room temperature of about seventy-two degrees to fifty degrees can
extend the life expectancy of the collections from as much as fivefold
to sixfold. For the transit cycle, the development of new book carts
addressed both preservation and physical security concerns. Integrating
the physical security and preservation elements yields cost benefits,
when managers collaborate to solve overlapping concerns.
In our assessment for each control measure in the
five cycles, we built a database that has proved invaluable.
The data base, using Microsoft ACCESS TM, helps us manage,
use, maintain, and update the data. The database allows us to perform
statistical calculations and analysis of the data for all the divisions
involved, so that we can review and discuss the information obtained.
The Library has made its statistical reports available by value category
(platinum, gold, and so on); cycle (such as process, use, or transit);
division; completion status (control measures completed, unmet, and so
on); and individual preservation control measure element (environment,
emergency preparedness, and the rest). Reports can be generated across
divisions or for one division only. The database provides an assessment
for a particular control measure across all divisions, giving us a focus
for shared problems and successes. We can group issues where there are
shared problems, which facilitates collaborative solutions, reducing
costs over the long term.
The preservation assessment framework has yielded a
number of benefits. Standardization of terms enhances communication in
the pursuit of safeguarding heritage assets. Assessment and analysis
articulate a long-term preservation picture for the institution.
By quantifying the preservation status and needs of the Library's
collections, we can develop a plan for action. Through periodic
reassessment, we can track and demonstrate progress in a quantifiable
manner. The Library will work toward grouping similar preservation
projects across the institution to enhance efficiency and reduce
costs.
chap7.html
|