This article was downloaded by: [Fondren Library, Rice University ]On: 20 November 2014, At: 23:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of LibraryAdministrationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjla20

Chapter 7. SafeguardingHeritage AssetsDoris A. HamburgPublished online: 24 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Doris A. Hamburg (2003) Chapter 7. Safeguarding Heritage Assets,Journal of Library Administration, 38:1-2, 67-72, DOI: 10.1300/J111v38n01_08

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J111v38n01_08

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 23:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Chapter 7

Safeguarding Heritage Assets:The Library of Congress

Planning Framework for Preservation

Doris A. Hamburg

SUMMARY. The Library of Congress collections security program inte-grates four components–physical security, preservation, and bibliographicand inventory controls. The preservation plan provides the framework foridentifying the Library’s minimum standards for preservation controls requiredto preserve its analog collections for future generations. The preservationgrid of standards is now fully integrated within the Library’s overall securityplanning framework, across the five tiers of risk and five collections cycles.Preservation controls depicted in this framework are grouped in seven pri-mary areas: environment, emergency preparedness, storage, handling, needsassessment, physical treatment, and reformatting.

KEYWORDS. Preservation, reformatting, emergency preparedness, envi-ronment

A corollary goal of acquiring most cultural collections is preservingthem for the future. The long-term safeguarding of the collections, or heri-tage assets, is most effectively accomplished through a comprehensive,systematic approach. Toward this end, the Library of Congress has identi-

[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Safeguarding Heritage Assets: The Library of Congress PlanningFramework for Preservation.” Hamburg, Doris A. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Library Adminis-tration (The Haworth Information Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 38, No. 1/2, 2003,pp. 67-72; and: The Strategic Stewardship of Cultural Resources: To Preserve and Protect (ed: Andrea T.Merrill) The Haworth Information Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2003, pp. 67-72.

http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J11110.1300/J111v38n01_08 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 23:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

fied four critical control areas–preservation, physical security, biblio-graphic control, and inventory control–that affect the long-term survival ofthe collections. Omitting or minimizing any one of these controls from theLibrary’s activities leaves it vulnerable in meeting the needs of future us-ers. Whereas these control areas have traditionally operated independently,overlapping concerns and approaches and the benefits of working in amore integrated manner have become clearer in the past several years as aresult of developing an assessment program in each of these four areas.

This paper addresses the preservation framework being used to analyzeand address the Library of Congress needs in meeting the minimum stan-dards for safeguarding its collections from the preservation perspective,outlining the goals, methodology, and conclusions related to a preservationassessment process developed for the broad range of Library of Congresscollections. Begun in 1999, the assessment process is ongoing, as new col-lection preservation needs are identified and others are addressed.

A difficult yet critical decision in developing the Library of Congressassessments for safeguarding its heritage assets was to acknowledge andintegrate the concept that all collections are not equal. Collections anditems vary with regard to intrinsic value, research value, and replacementpotential. For example, Thomas Jefferson’s Rough Draft of the Declara-tion of Independence is unique, priceless, and can never be replaced. Theneed to minimize any risks to this document is far greater than for a newlypublished book, which can easily be replaced in case of damage or loss.These risks apply to preservation, physical security, bibliographic con-trol, and inventory control. In light of these considerations, the Library ofCongress outlined five categories of value or risk in its 1997 Library ofCongress Security Plan. The five levels of risk, named for metals, to-gether form a continuum, allowing for a range of values within each cate-gory. Platinum is used to designate the irreplaceable items of the highestintrinsic value, such as the Rough Draft of the Declaration of Independ-ence or Abraham Lincoln’s holograph copy of the Gettysburg Address.Gold items are those found in special collections and have high marketvalue and significant cultural, historical, or artifactual importance. Silveris the designation for collections that are at increased risk for loss becauseof theft, such as compact discs, comic books, videos, or training manualsor that are items that require special handling because of their condition,such as a very brittle newspapers. Bronze collections are served withoutspecial restrictions in the Library’s reading rooms. They are identified ashaving relatively little or no artifactual value, and generally are replace-able. These materials may be loaned without stringent restrictions. And,finally, copper materials are those that the Library of Congress holds

68 The Strategic Stewardship of Cultural Resources: To Preserve and Protect

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 23:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

temporarily and that will not be retained over time. Using such value ter-minology–“gold,” “silver,” and so on–which is understood at all levels ofthe institution by staff who do or do not work with collection items, hashelped to clarify discussion and identify collection needs.

Each custodial or processing division assigns the value category foreach item or collection. Categorizing collections according to value is nota simple or absolute process; the methodology for doing so varies accord-ing to the type and use of the collection and in some cases according tothe context of items relative to a larger group of materials held in a partic-ular unit. Over time, one can expect that designations could change. Forexample, a general collection book (bronze) may become rare (gold).

In 1998, the Library established the Preservation Heritage AssetsWorking Group (PHAWG) to develop a preservation framework, fol-lowing on the physical security framework in the 1997 Security Plan.1 Atfirst, the PHAWG was not certain that the framework model developed inthe Security Plan to assess physical security needs would be appropriatealso for preservation. Yet, upon analysis it seemed logical to build on thephysical security control model, for the sake of simplicity, efficiency,feasibility, and ease of use by others already familiar with the physical se-curity controls framework. The frameworks differ, however, in that thephysical security framework includes specific actions to be taken (instal-lation of a camera, a lock, and so on), whereas the preservation frame-work is broader in articulating the control measures. The preservationframework articulates an ongoing preservation effort that will never becompletely finished because of the tremendous preservation needs of thecollections and because of changes in the condition of objects over time.

The preservation framework formulates a comprehensive plan of min-imum standards for preservation of collection materials at the Library ofCongress. The framework offers an opportunity to evaluate the state ofpreservation throughout the Library using a Library-wide preservationassessment tool, equipped to address the range of ways that different Li-brary custodial and processing divisions use and store their collections.Further, it fosters the integration of preservation into the broad range ofactivities 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 pro-cessed for bibliographic control; they may be placed in good-qualitystorage enclosures or conserved to provide appropriate protection forthe future. This period in the life of a collection item is called the pro-cessing cycle. The items then go into the storage cycle, which becomesthe long-term custodial location. Items can move in and out of the stor-

The Big Picture: Preservation Strategies in Context 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 23:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

age cycle by being moved (transit cycle) to a reading room, placed onloan, or made available for staff or researcher use (use cycle). Occa-sionally, an item will go on exhibition (exhibit cycle), which requirescertain control measures that differ from normal use. The length of timean 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 ateach risk level, the most critical component was to ascertain the mini-mum standard needed to ensure preservation. More than the minimumcan be done if desired. Minimum standards are key in developing a real-istic assessment and in maintaining credibility with stakeholders andfunders, who must prioritize limited resources and trust that the fundsare used efficiently and effectively.

The Library’s preservation framework outlines seven broad control ar-eas, followed by specific control measure within those areas. The sevenprimary areas consist of environment, emergency preparedness, storage,handling, needs assessment, physical treatment, and reformatting. Thepreservation control measures outline the key elements in a comprehen-sive preservation plan for Library collections. The control measures areaccompanied by a set of definitions to ensure a universal understandingof each element. Clearly articulated specifications noted in each area fa-cilitate communication of what is needed. For example, for a platinumitem, the minimum standard for a control measure might be more strin-gent than for a bronze item. The plan articulates the more specific needsof each control measure as it applies to a specific value. In regulating en-vironment, for example, tight environmental controls (Level 3, defined as“environment is controllable within tight tolerances required by specialsensitive materials”) apply to platinum collections. Moderate controls(Level 2, defined as “environment is controllable and generally meetsspecifications”) are the minimum standard for gold, silver, and bronzecollections. Minimal controls (Level 1, defined as “environment is con-trollable to a limited extent and does not generally meet specifications”)apply to copper collections. Other control measures may require no dif-ferentiation according to value. For instance, the need for the develop-ment of environmental specifications exists for all collections, even if thespecification is different for each value level. These are expressed ongrids, easily read and understood.2

The control measures are preservation actions undertaken by facilitiesstaff, librarians, readers, preservation staff, curators, and others. They in-dicate an approach that confirms that preservation of the collections is acollaborative effort, not limited to the staff of the Preservation Director-

70 The Strategic Stewardship of Cultural Resources: To Preserve and Protect

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 23:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

ate. This framework emphasizes a preventive approach that involves thefull range of considerations in preserving cultural collections.

For example, the way that a librarian or technician handles a book whileit is being cataloged or brought to a reader for use can significantly affectthe preservation of the book. Verification that maintenance is being doneon the building and that appropriate levels of temperature and relative hu-midity are provided is important. Preventive preservation is the mostcost-effective method for retaining collections over time. Once damage hasoccurred, it may not be fully reversible, even with the best conservationtreatment. Conservation treatment is an important program element, but itis not the only one. Existing conservation treatment needs far exceed avail-able resources to address conservation. The backlog of work needing to bedone is significant. Priorities must be established. Preventing damage is byfar 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. Othersapply as needed. As we developed our preservation framework, we de-cided that when an item goes for preservation treatment, it would beconsidered as being in the processing cycle. Therefore, most controlmeasures apply to the processing cycle. In the storage, use, transit, andexhibit cycles, we have fewer control measures. In our preservation se-curity framework, we created a separate grid with the relevant controlmeasures for each of the five cycles.

Once we had developed our grids and established the minimum stan-dards for each risk category and each cycle, we visited the custodial andprocessing divisions to assess the status of their preservation controls.We recognized that collaboration is crucial to our plan. With assistancefrom preservation staff, each division evaluated the status of preserva-tion for each control measure. Reevaluation of the plan on a periodic ba-sis for each division will be required. The process has been educationalfor all who participated and is seen as a positive tool, drawing attentionto problem preservation areas and previously unidentified concerns.

Preservation staff members learned from each division about collec-tion use, value, and preservation needs. The assessment process has cre-ated a broader understanding among librarians of the elements involvedin preserving the collections. To achieve this, a grid identifying eachcontrol measure was marked in terms of each control element’s comple-tion 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 as-sessment focused on collections rather than individual items. A future

The Big Picture: Preservation Strategies in Context 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 23:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

project will be to return to specific collections within a division to iden-tify their unmet control measures.

The development of the physical security, preservation, bibliographic,and inventory frameworks has led to increased integration of effort and un-derstanding of the interrelated goals of these four areas in safeguarding theLibrary’s assets. For example, as we surveyed the collections for physicalsecurity needs, we were able to clarify the requirement for enhanced ornew vault spaces. Preservation teamed up with security staff to have someof the vaults built with an environmental component, so that the vaultwould provide temperatures at a set point in the fifty-to-fifty-five-degreeFahrenheit range. Reducing the storage environment temperature from theaverage room temperature of about seventy-two degrees to fifty degreescan extend the life expectancy of the collections from as much as fivefoldto sixfold. For the transit cycle, the development of new book carts ad-dressed both preservation and physical security concerns. Integrating thephysical security and preservation elements yields cost benefits, whenmanagers collaborate to solve overlapping concerns.

In our assessment for each control measure in the five cycles, webuilt a database that has proved invaluable. The database, usingMicrosoft ACCESS™, helps us manage, use, maintain, and update thedata. The database allows us to perform statistical calculations and anal-ysis of the data for all the divisions involved, so that we can review anddiscuss the information obtained. The Library has made its statistical re-ports available by value category (platinum, gold, and so on); cycle(such as process, use, or transit); division; completion status (controlmeasures completed, unmet, and so on); and individual preservationcontrol measure element (environment, emergency preparedness, andthe rest). Reports can be generated across divisions or for one divisiononly. The database provides an assessment for a particular control mea-sure across all divisions, giving us a focus for shared problems and suc-cesses. We can group issues where there are shared problems, whichfacilitates collaborative solutions, reducing costs over the long term.

The preservation assessment framework has yielded a number ofbenefits. Standardization of terms enhances communication in the pur-suit of safeguarding heritage assets. Assessment and analysis articulatea long-term preservation picture for the institution. By quantifying thepreservation status and needs of the Library’s collections, we can de-velop a plan for action. Through periodic reassessment, we can trackand demonstrate progress in a quantifiable manner. The Library willwork toward grouping similar preservation projects across the institu-tion to enhance efficiency and reduce costs.

72 The Strategic Stewardship of Cultural Resources: To Preserve and Protect

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 23:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014