Technical Services Program Review

Charge:
The Benchmarking Group was charged with gathering information from other institutions on collection size, staff and other statistics relevant to technical services operations. It was also charged with identifying best practices.

Membership:
Members are: Arlene Klair (Chair) and Irma Dillon, supported by Carol Spector, the Management Information Systems Graduate Assistant.

Objective:
The objective of this group is to provide useful information which can be used in conjunction with the data collected by the other working groups to inform the future direction of the Technical Services Division.

Methodology:
There was some minor clarification of the charge. Criteria for selecting surveyed institutions was established. The number of sites to survey was kept at 7 - 8 to meet allotted time frame. Data was gathered from various sources, including: institution's web site (particularly pages pertaining to technical services, ARL members, GPO depository library participants, Program for Cooperative Cataloging; as well as the American Library Directory.

Selecting Sites to Survey:
The group quickly restricted the survey to ARL institutions as members’ collections are most likely to have similar collection characteristics and institutional goals. This common "view" would enhance the applicability of data to the UM Libraries. The large number of ARL members were winnowed to a manageable number by several methods. First, the list of universities the campus considers peers was examined. That they have less staff than UM proportionate to their budgets may indicate process streamlining occurring which would be of use to us. Examining larger institutions also could provide data in the event our budgets growth significantly. After that group was identified, several comparable CIRLA institutions were selected in the hopes that they would be most likely to respond to the survey. These combined institutions were examined for presence of music, AV, depository collections, and centralized technical services operations. Finally, a staff member recommended looking at the University of Wisconsin. It fit in well and was added.

The final selected institutions were:
University of Arizona, UCLA, University of Delaware, University of Illinois at Urbana, Johns Hopkins, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Selection Criteria:
ARL databases provide a wealth of information about members. The information felt to be most relevant to a study of technical services operations were: volumes held, volumes added (gross), volumes added (net), current serial subscriptions, number of professional staff, number of support staff, number of student assistants, Materials budget expenditures and commercial binding expenditures. The last year for which data is available is FY99.

Rationale: The materials budget determines how much can be purchased, and therefore how many items are likely to flow through TS. The number of current serial subscriptions drives the workload of acquisitions, catalog management, preservation, and serials cataloging. Volumes added (both gross and net) is an indicator of work load in all departments. The difference between gross and net indicates rates of withdrawal. Number of volumes held, and numbers of staff, are the least relevant to technical services, however they do provide context. Volumes held gives an idea of the environment in which technical services operate, e.g., there is more potential work in maintaining a database containing 5 million volumes than a database containing 2 million. Number of staff by type shows how many staff are employed by the whole library, not specifically in technical services, but it can indicate some areas to look into. If, for instance, the material budget and the number of volumes added is one-third larger at institution A then at Institution B but A does not have one-third more staff than B, how does A obtain the higher productivity? The safe assumption here is that technical service operations do not comprise the majority of staff.

ARL data excluded from consideration were elements relating to public service statistics and campus characteristics, for example, enrollment, hours of public service and number of faculty and students. These were not perceived to be relevant to TS workloads except that larger campus populations might correlate with the already included element of a larger materials budget.

Attachment A: Comparative FY99 Survey Data for Benchmarked ARL Institutions shows both the initial ARL data and detailed information on staffing numbers and levels added from survey responses.

Information which will help interpret Attachment A is found at the end of this document and is titled "Notes to Accompany Attachment A."

Survey Questions and Cover Letter:
Questions on the survey were driven by two needs. The need to understand technical services in another site and the need to collect the same data about others that the Program Review teams were gathering about us. Internally Program Review Teams were collecting data about numbers of staff engaged in a given activity; level of staff doing the work; the tasks each level of staff performs; how many units are processed in a given time frame; and what is the turn around time for an activity? This is a lot of data to ask other sites to provide and can be organized in many ways. Benchmarking elected to group the questions in the areas correlating to the Program Review Teams themselves. The survey questions were refined at a brown bag lunch meeting attended by most of the Program Review Team Leaders. The survey was sent first to the Head of Cataloging at JHU for feedback. One line was added and the survey was finalized.

The cover letter was drafted and a decision was made to sent the survey via email. The preference was to conduct a phone survey but it became quickly apparent that schedules would not allow this so responses were requested via email as well. The majority of responses did come via email.

The cover letter is Attachment B
The Survey questions are in Attachment C

Data Collection for Benchmarked Institutions:
A data sheet was created for each institution containing: technical services web page addresses, organizational structure, names of key personnel, participation in PCC, depository library status bibliographic utility, vendor for the integrated library system and notes on staff titles, as well as other miscellaneous data. The data sheets also indicate areas which are part of technical services here but are in other places in the organization at the surveyed site.

Entering responses was very challenging because although a uniform survey was sent, responses were not at all uniform. In part this was due to how the respondent interpreted the question. But what made it most difficult to enter data was that the institution simply was arranged so differently or the workflow was so much different that it simply was not possible to fill in all the data hoped for. Given these limitations, there still is a considerable amount to be gained from what was collected. Several follow-up phone calls clarified information or provided omitted information if the omission was significant. The following were surveyed strictly via phone: Delaware’s new head of preservation; North Carolina’s head of Preservation and its Regional Depository Librarian; University of Michigan’s head of conservation. The Preservation program at the University of Michigan was surveyed in order to provide additional information for the preservation section since the Preservation Department felt the primary survey responses did not yield sufficient information. Northwestern’s preservation department was also contacted for the same reason but their data arrived too late to be included. It is available if needed.

Raw survey response data is in Attachment D: University of Maryland Libraries - Technical Services Division: Results From Benchmarking Survey

What follows is the distillation of key findings from the raw data and of a review of the literature.

Responses were received from the University of Arizona, University of Delaware, Johns Hopkins, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Wisconsin and Michigan did not respond.

With five institutions of seven responding, trends are still evident. Here are the major observations.

Staffing

1. There are fewer librarians and many more support staff in technical services operations at surveyed institutions than are found at UM. The closest institution to UM in terms of staffing is University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. This is also the only library to belong to BIBCO, CONSER and have a comparable preservation program. Overall the ratio of professional staff to support staff (which includes students and graduate assistants) is as follows:
   Sampled institutions:
   14% (Illinois) - 55% (North Carolina)
   UM: 64%

   The UM Acquisitions Department is a notable exception. Its ratio of professional staff to support staff is within the ratios of sampled institutions, although at the high end of the range. Illinois was still ordering and receiving in a manual system at the time of the survey.
   Sampled institutions:
   4% (Illinois) - 20% (Delaware)
   UM: 19%

   Because database corrections (catalog management) is not in its own department in any of the surveyed institutions, for purposes of comparability in reporting UM Cataloging and Catalog Management staff figures have been combined. Nonetheless, the ratio of UM professional staff to support staff in Cataloging/Catalog Management is notably different than that of the sample. UM is most comparable to North Carolina. This may reflect the additional load represented by participation in national programs such as BIBCO and CONSER. UNC’s BIBCO and CONSER statistics are comparable to UM’s. Several libraries, Arizona, Illinois and North Carolina, currently depend upon the size of their staff to reduce historic backlogs and/or conduct retrospective conversion projects.
   Sampled institutions:
   3% (Illinois) - 39% (JHU)
   UM: 57%

   While some cataloging is performed outside of TS in the sample, usually it was for material UM collects very little (Persian, Arabic) or is for one of a kind special collections and rare materials. Including these part-time non-TS catalogers does not significantly alter the results so they are omitted.

   Preservation is more difficult to assess due to much of these activities occurring in other divisions in the sampled institutions and because the activities included as part of "Preservation" vary. However, if the staff in TS and other divisions is combined and the difference in activities are temporarily ignored, here is the result.
   Sampled institutions:
   0% (Arizona) - 42% (JHU)
   UM: 57%

2. FTEs of students in technical services is low. The highest numbers of student assistants are usually found in Preservation and Acquisitions both in the sample and at UM.
   Number of student FTE in sampled institutions:
   2 (JHU) - 6 (North Carolina)
   UM: 8.8
3. Graduate assistants are used most frequently in cataloging and preservation and rarely in acquisitions.
4. Institutions sometimes have a position to formally address technology and/or the integrated library system and OCLC. The position is placed randomly in the organization. North Carolina has a librarian functioning as a Technical Support Manager / INNOPAC Support Manager in the Acquisitions Department. The position supports staff beyond technical services. At UM part of this function resides in a position in the TSD Office. At the University of Arizona there are two Cross-Functional Teams which address ILS and OCLC coordination. At Johns Hopkins, the Head of Cataloging is responsible. The other institutions did not cover this topic.
5. Several institutions give staff titles which differentiate supervisory from non-supervisory staff but do not differentiate librarians from support staff. Arizona uses "Library Specialist" for non-supervisory staff.

   Organizational Trends

   1. Technical Services Management
      1. Three divisional management models emerged, going from little centralized control to more centralized control.
         • Johns Hopkins presently has no head of technical services. Each department head in technical services reports directly to the library director.
         • The University of Arizona and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have a technical services leader who also is the leader of the cataloging group/team.
         • The University of Delaware and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill have a senior manager to whom the individual functional groups in technical services report.
      2. Middle Management of divisional activities show a similar variation from less coordination to more coordination:
         • At Hopkins coordination is achieved by department heads meeting as needed. This generally works for now but has the potential for difficulty if the people in department head positions change and divergent philosophies emerge.
         • At Delaware, Illinois, and UNC coordination is achieved by the Division Coordinator meeting regularly with managers as a group and individually.
         • At Arizona collaboration between teams (functional groups) is accomplished by a Leadership Group comprised of the head of each team.
      3. Decision-making inside a group
         • Even in operations which do not call themselves teams, decisions about what to do in a given day are often decided by the group as a whole
         • Delaware, Hopkins, and UNC have sub-units in each department. Sub-units report to the department head. Illinois has no sub-units.
   2. How technical services functions are grouped
      1. Organizationally there were again three models.
         • Two major departments with numerous sub-units. The departments were Acquisitions and Cataloging- Delaware, Hopkins and UNC are the examples of this.
         • Several smaller departments with no sub-units. The departments are Acquisitions, Original Cataloging, Copy Cataloging, and Serials - Illinois is the example
         • Arizona had the most interesting organization. The four functional teams are: Order/Monograph Receiving; Serials Receiving; Cataloging; Physical Processing. This is still fairly traditional. Cross functional teams cover areas which are shared: Loader Coordination; OCLC/PC Support; Policy Setting, Training, Documentation; Business Relations; and Operations and Wages/Budget. The cross functional teams include some staff outside of technical services. There are also project teams which change from year to year. They also may include staff from beyond TS.
      2. Serials. No consensus on organization exists. Hopkins and North Carolina have a serial section inside both the acquisitions and cataloging departments. Delaware has a serial unit acquisitions but puts serial cataloging in all of the functional groups in cataloging. Arizona is akin to that, but serial acquisitions is completely its own team, whereas serial cataloging is assimilated. Illinois goes in the other direction. While there is a team called serials, it covers everything but acquisitions.
      3. Authority control shows no pattern. Arizona outsources. Delaware folded it in as part of the original cataloging section inside cataloging. At Hopkins it is part of cataloging but in a unit called "Metadata & Project MUSE Authorities". At North Carolina it is a stand alone unit inside the cataloging department. North Carolina is the only site which mirrors UM in this regard. It may be no coincidence that North Carolina is also the only BIBCO participant in the survey.
      4. Catalog management was part of the cataloging department in every case, although at Delaware, Hopkins, and North Carolina it is a unit inside that department as opposed to being a function dispersed to all.
      5. Spine labeling and commercial binding is part of acquisitions at Illinois. Stamping is in acquisitions at Hopkins and they security strip periodical issues and book plate.
   3. Functions which are part of technical services at UM but which are not always part of technical services elsewhere
      1. These areas consistently popped up as not always being part of technical services.
         • Cataloging of certain categories of materials. In libraries with special collections in Slavic and non-Roman alphabets (CJK, Arabic, Persian, Hebrew), the cataloging may be performed by staff from the special collection unit on a part time basis (Arizona, Illinois, North Carolina.) The same is true of rare materials, manuscripts and maps (Illinois, North Carolina.) In the sampled libraries, when these materials were cataloged outside of TS, the cataloging is performed under the supervision of the Cataloging Dept. Music Library staff may catalog their own material if there is a collection in a separate building, but in the case of North Carolina music scores and print were, nonetheless, moved from the Music Library to the main cataloging dept. several years. Two lines were transferred from the Music Library to support the workload. Recently the AV and other nonprint material cataloging moved to the main cataloging department without additional staff transferred.
         • Preservation is more often part of a collections management division then part of technical services (Delaware, Illinois, Hopkins, North Carolina). However, even when that is the case, marking, stamping and stripping frequently stay in TS (Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, North Carolina.) Preservation can be further subdivided in an institution in that "preservation" may handle the general collections and "special collections" departments/divisions conserve and or microfilm only their materials.
         • Electronic resources processing is contributed to by many kinds of staff in varied places in the organization. As with the UM Libraries, electronic resources processing may involve staff in consortial offices, in collection development, acquisitions and cataloging.
         • Government document receiving and processing is either all done in TS, all done in a government documents unit outside of TS or the receiving and cataloging activities are split between the two groups. How many documents the library receives is a factor in the organizational model. The higher the amount, more work is performed by government document units external to TS.
   4. Functions which are not part of TS here but are part of TS elsewhere
      1. the Acquisitions Dept. at Johns Hopkins University is responsible for the Periodical Room Service Desk
      2. the Cataloging Department at Johns Hopkins is the only one with a metadata unit and responsibility for providing authority control on an on-going basis for an electronic database. The unit is called "Metadata and Project MUSE Authorities".
      3. Illinois’ acquisitions department has been in charge of the library’s book sale for the last three years. Acquisitions staff sorted, organized and worked the book sale with students from the library school. They raised $5,000. North Carolina’s acquisitions department has substantial involvement with gift processing as well.
   5. Functions which represent a widely varying range of activities from institution to institution
      1. Preservation. The gamut of activity was very wide here, going from Arizona which only spine labels and commercially binds material to Hopkins and North Carolina with robust programs.
      2. Electronic resources processing. Not one respondent felt they had a handle on acquiring and processing these materials. Some are linking resources to web pages and not cataloging. Some partially catalog, some make sure all are cataloged and linked to the library web page.
      3. Acquisitions. While the core of ordering, receiving and claiming are always present there may be other elements tacked on. Hopkins security strips periodical issues and book plates 5,783 monographs annually. Illinois has marking and commercial binding prep in acquisitions as well as major responsibility for gifts, including the book sale. UNC also has most gifts activity in acquisitions, including donor letters but ships the unselected materials to the Friends of the Library for a book sale. Arizona has acquisitions staff cataloging books with CIP copy.
   Workflow Trends in Technical Services
   1. General Trends
      • Most respondents focus on handling each piece the fewest number of times possible (electronic resources are a notable exception. Reducing the amount of time it takes for material to get to shelves is mentioned frequently as a large motivator for changing processes. (1, 2)
      • Productivity is commonly measured by turn around time instead of by individual productivity. This trend is confirmed by a 1977 survey of cataloging production standards in ARL and non-ARL libraries. (1) Managers do, however, look at statistics for comparability within peer groups.
      • Cross-training staff is seen as the means to meet unusual flow/needs, provide staff with variety and flexibility and to open up job opportunities which might not have been otherwise available to them.
      • One factor pushing changes in technical services is the increased capabilities of integrated library systems. ILS’ offer opportunities to streamline and do by computer what had to be done manually. The areas most affected are usually acquisitions, authority control and database management. (3)
      • The increased volume of electronic resources acquired has stressed almost everyone’s ability to acquire, license and catalog them. Task forces or teams are frequently formed to address access issues. However this pattern is costly in staff time and resources needed. Ray believes new patterns will emerge in the future. (3) Diedrichs reports that at OSU licensed materials consume 50% of the serials librarian’s time. This has only been manageable because other activities have shifted to high-level paraprofessionals. (4)
      • The roles of both paraprofessionals and professionals are in transition. Moving some routines done by professionals to paraprofessionals makes their work more rewarding and varied. Professionals can then take on new roles inside and outside technical services. Conversely, the need for professionals to take on new roles (licensing, public service, research) has in some cases moved activities to support staff. (2) Attendees at an ALCTS "Role of the Professional in Academic Research Technical Services Departments Discussion Group" noted that as professionals move into new areas, paraprofessionals may be critical of librarians who appear not to be "working" (as work used to be defined .) It is important that both librarians and support staff understand the other’s role.(6)
      • What is valued in staff development may be changing. Ray, writing in a special series of articles on the future of acquisitions, puts forth the idea that the staff person, particularly the professional, who broadens his or her knowledge is more valuable to the organization than someone who deepens it. For example, deepening one’s knowledge of MARC or AACR2 or reducing acquisitions order errors to a minimum is less valuable to the organization than knowing how patrons construct searches in the OPAC or sharing knowledge of systems for obtaining materials. (3). The truth of this may be borne out by this survey in that institutions are having staff specialize less and less and are cross-training more.
   2. Acquisitions
      • The numbers of professional staff involved in acquisitions activities can be misleading. Delaware does centralized acquisitions for three campuses, with three of the four professionals doing mostly firm orders, out of print and electronic resources. One of them is responsible for government documents, which is no longer a large part of acquisitions at Maryland. At UNC one professional is an INNOPAC Support Manager. This position may move out of TS into a technology group in the future.
      • This function usually has high level support staff in charge of units/teams than a professional.
      • Acquisitions departments in general put much more information on the staff web site than other departments. The web site is frequently used as a tool to share statistics, procedures, and forms. The Acquisitions Department at Illinois reported in its 1999-2000 annual report that it had totally revamped it web page to serve users better and had then surveyed them for needs. Those needs are going to be incorporated.
      • Acquisitions records placed in integrated library systems have brought the acquisitions record out of the "back room" and into public view, providing the public with much information it wants and needs. (5)
      • The rate and types of change in acquisitions may be higher in acquisitions than in other TS areas. Several review articles discussed in one manner or another the demands of dealing with an international, multi-cultural, multi-lingual community. Acquisitions also needs skills for dealing successfully with publishers, vendors, as well as legal issues and fiscal matters. New tools are created on a more frequent basis, provides challenges for training, making collaborative learning more viable than formal training. (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) Illinois reported in its annual report for 1999-2000 that much of the training received by the staff that year had to do with keeping up with technology.
      • The Acquisitions Team at Illinois acquired ergonomic furniture recently to combat the rising incidence of repetitive motion disorder, even though the department is not yet on an ILS.
      • Hopkins tattle tapes periodical issues at point of receipt, although marking and stamping are done in another division after cataloging.
   3. Acquisitions / Cataloging
      • In the acquisitions arena the literature review reinforced what the survey did not show as strongly. Once cataloging records could be delivered with the piece, the lines between acquisitions and cataloging blurred. From that point, institutions increasing accepted copy virtually "as is" and only attached holdings. This is contrasted with the cataloging approach which scrutinizes copy for suitability, adapting it fairly frequently. With the new model cataloging is essentially bypassed except for problems or material for which no bibliographic record was supplied. Michigan State and Ohio State reported a change in their operations, although surveyed institutions did not show this trend strongly. ( 7) (8) At Arizona almost all of the outsourced cataloging is processed in the receiving units. At Illinois last year an acquisitions staff member was trained to work with CIP copy and cutter material. Approval books with CIP are cataloged and sent out within one week of selection. Books received on the European and Latin American blanket order plans are searched and updated in OCLC by acquisitions and a full record added to the OPAC. As mentioned earlier electronic resources acquisition and cataloging is highly variable and reporting libraries are looking for "better ways of doing this." Networked resources require expertise in areas identified as acquisitions and cataloging, but does not entail moving a physical piece from one place to another. This existence only as a piece of paper going through TS makes it easy to put electronic resources aside or cause them to "drop out" of the cataloging process. They often require larger teams of staff to get from selection to the point patrons can access them and are therefore more expensive in terms of time, level of staff needed and coordination of staff effort. (3)
   4. Cataloging
      • The survey shows a trend to less specialization in either units or in individual positions. A majority of sites have all copy and original catalogers working on all materials. The exceptions to this are: Delaware’s Special Collections Section, Hopkin’s Nonbook, Serial, E-Resource and its Metadata and Project MUSE Authorities. North Carolina is the lone example of almost complete specialization, with, for example, a Slavic/East European Unit, Latin/Iberian Unit, Music Cataloging Unit, as well as a Children’s Literature Cataloger in the Copy Cataloging Section, etc. Most other institutions reported that they are moving away from specialization.
      • Professionals were more likely to be unit heads.
      • There is a higher percentage of support staff to professionals at other institutions than at Maryland. This is true even given that cataloging is the area in technical services which has the most professional staff. UNC is considering re-definitions of some positions.
      • Participation in national programs such as BIBCO and CONSER may account for part of the increased number of professionals in cataloging. This is repeated here although mentioned elsewhere as an aid to readers who may be skimming only certain sections. Only UNC is, like Maryland, a member of BIBCO or CONSER. The reason cited by Hopkins and Illinois for not being part of these admittedly prestigious programs was that they lacked sufficient staff to commit to participating. While professionals are more likely to perform original cataloging than copy cataloging, support staff also do both copy and original cataloging. Type of staff is not a predictor of type of cataloging performed. Position titles often did not differentiate either.
      • The trend to have support staff do what professionals used to do has been mentioned. No where is this trend more evident than in cataloging. A 1990 survey of ARL libraries showed that 51% regularly assigned original cataloging to support staff. Thirty-six percent assigned both classification and subject analysis to support staff. Original catalogers are then available to catalog special collections and electronic resources, conduct and manage research projects, monitor outsourcing contracts, take on part-time roles as bibliographers, and participate in user instruction, among others. (9) A 1997 survey of ARL and non-ARL libraries with holdings between 300,000 and 900,000 volumes showed support staff were engaged in these activities: creating original work forms on paper (19%); creating an original bibliographic record online (81%); editing complex copy bibliographic records (93%); assigning a call number (70%); contributing to OCLC Enhance (22%); contributing to NACO (22%); contributing to NACO and SACO (7%); editing/creating name and series authorities (63%); downloading bibliographic records to the local system (93%); downloading authority records to the local system (63%); and performing local database maintenance (93%). There were few differences between ARL and non-ARL libraries in this study except at the holdings level where is was more common for support staff to do the work in ARLs. In sum, cataloging support functions are most often performed by support staff; original and copy cataloging and complex editing are done equally by the two and professionals are more likely to be involved in national level program work but it is not exclusive to them. (10)
      • Delaware reported that working at peak efficiency has let TS take on projects that otherwise would not have been possible.
      • Few reported being totally retrospectively converted for titles and holdings.
      • Illinois reported that Cataloging was too cramped and furniture needed to function better.
   5. Cataloging / Outsourcing
      • Only Arizona obtains bibliographic records with its approval plan.
      • Government document records are purchased from MARCIVE by all sites. Hopkins and UNC also purchased MARCIVE’s retrospective GPO records.
      • NetLibrary records were purchased by all but Delaware.
      • EBSCOHost records were purchased by Hopkins and North Carolina.
      • Languages: Arizona and Hopkins have contracts with TechPro for languages they cannot handle. Hopkins has TechPro contracts, mostly for non-Roman material, particularly Arabic. UNC is starting a South Asian vernacular contract with 400 titles in Urdu, Hindi, and Tamil.
      • World Cat collections: Delaware and Hopkins purchase records when they are available.
      • Miscellaneous: Arizona does most original cataloging via TechPro. Hopkins outsources some map cataloging. UNC did a children’s cataloging project with TechPro years ago.
      • Hopkins and UNC would rather not outsource if they could find the language expertise.
      • Illinois does not outsource.
   6. Preservation
      • Preservation is not part of technical services at Delaware, Hopkins, Illinois, and North Carolina. However, one or more or these functions: labeling, security stripping or commercial binding, may still be part of TS.
      • The scope of preservation activities varied widely. Arizona has a minimal program, not necessarily of their choosing. Programs at Hopkins and North Carolina are robust.
      • Because only two surveyed sites had comparable programs to Maryland, the University of Michigan was also surveyed to provide trend information. This site was provided by the Head of Preservation.
      • University of Michigan’s selected data for FY99: volumes held - 7,195,097; volumes added (net) - 123,255; current serials: 69,170; expenditures for binding: $418,316. Michigan provided their FY99 ARL Preservation statistics report.
      • Preservation tends to have the least amount of information available on the institution’s web pages
      • North Carolina and Duke have an interesting arrangement in that they train staff at 10 universities and are investigating cooperative supply purchasing.
      • Even large programs such as North Carolina and Michigan have few librarians. Conservators are, nonetheless, in a class by themselves and above the norm for support staff due to the technical skills they possess.
      There appears to be a trend to simplify some statistics. For example at Michigan, North Carolina and Northwestern boxing and replacement pages are not differentiated by the work stream that generated them (brittle material, general material repair, or conservation,)

   Detailed Trends by Function

   1. Acquisitions/ordering
      • Ordering speed shows significant variations in turn around time. Arizona (within 24 hours) and Delaware (within 48 hours) are fastest. North Carolina orders rushes in one week and regular orders in one month but it can be slower when volume is high. UNC is trying to revamp processes to speed things up by getting information from a vendor database. There may also be reclassifications of professional positions to support positions. They had the highest number of staff of all surveyed institutions. Illinois’ acquisitions is entirely manual. They weren’t really sure about their turn around time. However, they placed fewer firm orders in the fiscal year than UNC even though Illinois had a materials budget half a million below UNC. Consequently it might be extrapolated that Illinois’ turn around time may be on par with UNC. Delaware is notable in that it orders and catalogs for three University of Delaware campuses.
   2. Acquisitions / Receiving [approval plans, firm orders, etc.]
      • Approval plans abound, no one referred to a purchase plan. At least half the time material is reviewed by selectors. UNC had several major approval plans and 7 smaller plans.
      • The same staff handle approval plans, blanket orders and standing orders. These get the speediest processing. No one reported a backlog, all report one week as the turn around time.
      • The ratio of firm orders to approval/standing/blanket orders varies. Delaware averages 3,000 firm orders a month to 1,300 approval/standing order/blanket. At Hopkins it is almost one for one (1,136 firm vs. 1,316 of the others. At Illinois it is almost 2 for 1 ( 2,010 firm vs.1,221 other). UNC is virtually even (2,189 firm orders per month against 2,000 on the main approval/purchase plans.) Arizona’s referred the request for information to information on its web page, however it is too cryptic to analyze.
      • Arizona’s firm orders come from BNA shelf ready and with cataloging copy. Those which don’t have copy or need a call number take three weeks to get to Processing.
   3. Acquisitions / Serial check-in. The most common turn around time is delivery to the shelves in one working day: Arizona, Hopkins, UNC. At Hopkins all periodicals have to be received, checked-in, stripped and sorted for delivery by noon each day.
   4. Acquisitions/ Electronic resources processing. Processing is highly variable and all sites reported a struggle to find better methods, propelled by the amount of time and energy these take. At Arizona selectors decide what to order and order as if it were print. Acquisitions Monograph order/Receiving staff (any of them) place the order on the system, pass the title on to the two librarians in charge of licensing who modify the license and then pass it along to Purchasing (external to TS) and wait. At Delaware the Asst. Director for Library Collections selects and manages licenses, orders are submitted to Acquisitions. At North Carolina many selectors identify resources, a high level support staff enters them on Innopac, deals with access issues, reconciles holdings with package offers, the librarian handles licensing, pricing and problems. Illinois did not respond to this and the annual report does not show statistics or text on it. Most did not give a turn around time but North Carolina reported the goal was to place an order within a month of receiving the request, noting that it often isn’t achieved due to licensing, and pricing issues. Almost all noted the process was under review.
   5. Acquisitions / Payments. At Arizona payment is handled outside TS in a Financial Team, at Delaware invoices are paid 30 days net by 2 staff and there is no backlog. UNC processes payments with the same staff doing the receiving but there is a subscription payment specialist.
   6. Acquisitions / Gifts
      • This survey question was flawed in that it should have specified in the question on volume how many were received versus searched versus processed. Only UNC answered the question with all this data.
      • Arizona mainstreams gifts processing to staff in the ordering or serials teams. No statistics for volume were provided. Delaware processes about 200 pieces a month and reports no backlog. Hopkins provided no data. UNC reported receiving 12,000 gifts in the year, searching about 6,000 and adding about 3,000.
      • UNC has a gifts unit with a Gifts Coordinator
   7. Cataloging / Backlogs
      • Arizona temporarily does not complete the cataloging for material which lacks copy, call numbers or subject headings. They are sent to a "frontlog." Pieces are assigned an accession number, cataloged by acquisitions and made accessible to patrons for borrowing. In one year they are searched again for full copy by a cataloger. Ninety-five percent (95%) have full records found after a year. Those still without copy are cataloged. Sellberg supports the Arizona method. He suggests the creation of a pre-cataloging location in the stacks for materials shelved in accession order with brief bibliographic information. At predicted intervals the material could be searched again for more complete copy. In the meantime materials can be browsed or retrieved by limited keys in the PAC, providing better patron service. (11)
      • UNC only backlogs material without copy. The Slavic Unit (not a part of TS) backlogs new receipts for two years, after which LC copy usually exists.
   8. Cataloging / What is not cataloged
      • Delaware does not analyze major microforms and map sets. If WorldCat sets become available they are purchased.
      • Hopkins provides only brief bibliographic records for electronic resources if full records aren’t available. They intend to purchase pseudo-catalog records from PALINET for LEXIS-NEXIS and create brief bib records from a conversion of an Excel spreadsheet to MARC.
      • Illinois has no material that is not being cataloged, plus they are engaged in eliminating their backlog.
      • UNC has very few cataloged maps. They are planning to catalog them on a current basis and do a retrospective conversion project. All 10,500 netLibrary records are available via the web. Although they reported they had not determined how to get them in their PAC, a search shows that many have been loaded.
   9. Cataloging / Special handling
      • Arizona reported special processing for microforms, AV, maps, music, rush and all special collections. One library specialist handles them but they are cross-training to ensure back-up.
      • Delaware includes only rush and reserve material in this category.
      • Hopkins puts special collections materials, rare, medium rare, CD-ROM and rush material in this category. CD-ROM gets different barcoding (on case only). If rush material is needed in 24 to 48 hours it is hand carried.
      • Illinois includes rare books and special collections material
      • UNC considers electronic resources as technically "special" but does not send to copy cataloging
   10. Cataloging / Copy
       • Copy cataloging support staff handle a broad range of material, including special languages, audiovisual, music scores, CD-ROM, audio disks, serials, special collections and electronic resources depending on the institution. At Arizona copy catalogers do electronic resources, some special collections, maps, AV, CDs and scores "among other things". Delaware’s do electronic resources, some special collections and some non-roman alphabet materials. Hopkins does not collect music but copy catalogers do handle audio-visual materials, computer files, manuscripts, maps and non-Roman alphabets. In fact they might even use a student copy cataloger depending on the record source. If a student worker has needed language expertise (Asian languages, Arabic, Hebrew, Cyrillic) they will be paired with a staff person to search and do the cataloging. At Illinois AV, government documents, special collections and music are not part of TS but copy catalogers do work with electronic resources and serials. At North Carolina copy catalogers work on CD-ROM, Slavic languages, music print (including scores), and serials. Vernacular cataloging is performed in a unit outside TS by both support and professional staff.
       • Copy catalogers frequently assign subject headings and classification numbers. Hopkins turned over classification and subject heading assignment to support staff fairly recently and are still in transition.
       • Certain types of copy cataloging are performed by professional staff. At Arizona professionals are responsible for copy cataloging certain special collections as well as for copy cataloging in Turkish, Hebrew and Arabic. (Chinese and Japanese are performed by professionals outside of TS). At Delaware the professionals in the Special Collections Unit in Cataloging do only the maps, support staff work with other materials which have copy.
       • Productivity data was scanty due to the emphasis on turn around time over individual statistics. Arizona, which shows the least inclination to engage in original cataloging averaged 1,056 print monograph volumes copy cataloged a month, as opposed to 15 originals.
       • Arizona - See http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/library/teams/tst/TEAMSTAT00-01.htm for the detailed statistical breakdown of Arizona’s print, score, map, electronic, microform, AV and other types of cataloging.
       • Delaware - does not spend much time collecting statistics about bibliographic productivity but says that all material is cataloged within 4 - 8 weeks of receipt. The queue is first in, first out.
       • Illinois - 19 support staff and 2 graduate assistants copy catalog about 5,000 volumes a month (Approximately 250 per month per person). Those same staff also do some original cataloging, authority control and database management.
       • Hopkins - reported in the most detail. Copy Cataloger II and IIIs working with more difficult monograph material do an average of 101 titles a month. Copy cataloger Is catalog 466 member copy titles a month. Each FTE of graduate student cataloger produces 554 titles/month. Serial and non-book support staff copy catalog 66 titles/month.
       • North Carolina - did not provide data.
   11. Cataloging / Original
       • Most respondents said little about original cataloging, reflecting their workflow which while not avoiding it, have workflow which seems to minimize it. Arizona was most forthright in stating they do little original cataloging.
       • Illinois cited 3 professionals performing print monographic original cataloging, completing approximately 300-400 titles a month (about 116 per cataloger).
       • Hopkins reported an average original cataloging production rate of 40 titles per month. Serial and non-book professionals catalog about 50 titles a month.
       • In 1999 to 2000 North Carolina produced 2,890 original records for monographs, 43 for serials, 138 analytic records and 271 thesis records. North Carolina believes its average production per original cataloger to be about 75 titles per month. Most staff time is spent with pre-existing copy. North Carolina is working on reducing a historic backlog.
   12. Cataloging / AV
       • Arizona - five staff catalog audiovisual materials along with other types of material
       • Delaware - One professional and one support staff member handle AV copy cataloging. Two professionals and two support staff perform original cataloging. The staff in the second group are the same as the ones in the first.
       • Hopkins - film and video is cataloged by any cataloger
       • Illinois - AV is held and processed in its own library
       • North Carolina - 1 support person in copy cataloging processes some while the Nonprint and thesis cataloger does the rest.
   13. Cataloging / Music
       • Arizona - three support staff process compact discs and scores along with other work.
       • Delaware - the Coordinator of Catalog Management catalogs music due to familiarity with it.
       • Hopkins and Illinois - music is collected by autonomous libraries in the system and cataloged there.
       • North Carolina moved music print and score cataloging out of the Music Library into TS a few years ago. Two copy catalogers moved into TS, while one copy cataloger stayed to support the Music Library desk. In November 2000 the sound recordings and AV are coming into TS with no extra positions. UNC has mainstreamed music print materials into the workflow of the support staff. One professional works with scores, audio and video recordings. One high-level support person catalogs scores and audio.
   14. Cataloging / Serials
       • Arizona - although the team’s name is Serials Receiving, it includes cataloging, making it the only institution surveyed to place most of its serial activities in one administrative unit. One professional handles all cataloging.
       • Delaware - Even though Acquisitions has a serials section, Bibliographic Control has serial cataloging performed in the Original Cataloging and Authority Control Unit by one professional and one support staff person.
       • Hopkins, Illinois and North Carolina- have a serials unit in each of their Acquisitions and Cataloging departments.
       • Hopkins did not report any support staff performing copy cataloging, but did report 1 professional and 1.75 paraprofessionals performing nonbook (AV and microforms), electronic resources and serial original cataloging. It may be inferred that some serial cataloging is copy cataloging.
       • Illinois reported 1.5 support staff doing serial copy cataloging and 2 support staff doing originals.
       • North Carolina, a CONSER library and the only one with a Serial Section in the Cataloging Department, has a notably different footprint. The section, which includes music print serial cataloging, is headed by a librarian plus there is an additional "Web Access Librarian". Two support staff catalog serials (copy and originals), 2 support staff copy catalog analytics. One additional high-level support catalogs (copy and originals) part of the time and supervises the Serials Information and Binding Unit in the Acquisitions Dept. the rest of the time.
   15. Cataloging / Electronic Resources
       • While varying degrees of effort are devoted to cataloging electronic resources, not one institution shows access via the library’s web page as the only access point. A quick look at the web pages showed that all five owned netLibrary, EBSCOHost and Lexis-Nexis. Comparing the web pages to the PAC, the libraries created a bibliographic record for most (but not all) of the databases and some additional subsets of those databases besides. Some of the records were quite brief, others were full cataloging. One library appears to catalog all the monographs indexed in Lexis-Nexis. One had included some selected bibliographic records for articles. Due to the nature of the results one can rule out that the PAC search was pulling records from the web interface.
       • None of the libraries which had loaded netLibrary or EBSCOHost aggregator records mentioned that when listing outsourced cataloging. Nonetheless, netLibrary records were loaded by everyone but Delaware. Hopkins and North Carolina loaded at least some EBSCOHost aggregator files.
       • Arizona - uses .5 FTE professional staff to copy catalog
       • Delaware - 2 professionals and 1 support staff person copy catalog electronic resources among other things. The 2 professionals also do original cataloging.
       • Hopkins - 1 professional metadata coordinator concentrates on Project MUSE titles.
       • Illinois - the support staff who copy catalog also do electronic resource originals.
       • North Carolina - Although all professional catalogers work on them, the German/art/music cataloger and the Latin American/Iberian cataloger do more than most. The Science and metadata catalogers specialize in cataloging large digitizing projects.
   16. Cataloging / Authority Control
       • Arizona - An LTI contract provides for the majority of heading corrections and supplies new authority records. Three support staff and three students do some heading corrections in additional to other things.
       • Delaware - Six professionals and one high level support staff member establish new headings, make corrections to authority records, resolve conflicts, and work on exception reports as well as catalog. One additional support staff establishes new headings but does not make corrections, resolve conflicts or work on exception reports.
       • Hopkins - Authority control was outsourced to BNA until 1997. They have not used a vendor since then. Copy cataloging is accepted as is. Original cataloging is checked and headings created. Hope to outsource to a vendor again in the future.
       • Illinois - Original catalogers perform authority control at the time of cataloging. Copy cataloging follows policy and makes corrections to headings and local system as needed. Authority control is done at the point of cataloging. Illinois is a part of ILCSO, a consortia of libraries sharing a database. A small group of specially trained members have clearance to run global authority control programs.
       • North Carolina (including law and medical libraries) - contracted with LTI for new headings, corrections and ongoing weekly processing of current cataloging. Extracts, reloads and reports are done by Davis’ (the academic library) Systems Dept. Quarterly reports are processed by Davis’ Cataloging Dept. Authority Section which has one professional and one support staff.. Exception reports and problematic material are routed as needed to the appropriate autonomous cataloging center. There is a campus wide Catalog Sub-committee and authority issues are a frequent topic.
   17. Catalog Management
       • Catalog management is predominantly performed as problems are reported or discovered by a staff member in the course of their work. Any level staff person can make corrections although support staff may refer difficult questions to professional staff. The emphasis is on corrections to holdings information and not so much on correcting bibliographic records. (Arizona, Delaware, Hopkins, Illinois) Bibliographic information tends to be corrected more as a result of requests from public services. Requests lean towards corrections to holdings over bibliographics.
       • There are few systematic attempts to identify and correct erroneous information, perhaps due to limited staff time. Only North Carolina has a Catalog Maintenance section which runs reports. It the event that reports do exist, support staff appear to be in charge of running them and cleaning them up.
       • Arizona - One support staff is dedicated to making corrections. 8.5 participate as part of their other duties. Of those, 6 make corrections to URLs. Retrospective conversion projects are in progress for special collections, maps and a clean-up project for barcoded materials not found on the shelf (there were 30,000 to start with). There is also a music scores backlog project. These are done as specially funded projects and staffed by people who also have a team assignment, usually in Cataloging.
       • Delaware - a Database Management Unit in Bibliographic Control has one professional and four support staff although all department staff are responsible for making corrections they identify. URLs are corrected by two professionals.
       • Hopkins - Cataloging staff engaged in maintenance, are one senior staff manager, 3.75 support staff and 20 hours a week of students. They process 3,300 volumes a month for remote storage and do routine maintenance. Students use LinkBot to identify broken URLs and correct them. Headings are only fixed at the request of public services.
       • Illinois - as part of a consortia with a shared database, each member can make changes to bibliographic records based on consortial policies. ILCSO Maintenance Committee oversees all cooperative cataloging policies. Corrections are made by anyone finding a problem when cataloging or upon request. URLs are maintained by the Serials Team.
       • North Carolina - handled largely by the Catalog Management Section, corrections may also be made by the Authority Control Section, mostly as a result of reports. Catalog Management contains one professional, 1 high level support staff, 6 additional support staff. Catalogers fix what they find. URLs are corrected by the catalogers for electronic resources.
   18. Government Documents
       • All libraries in the survey purchase GPO bibliographic records from MARCIVE
       • Arizona - collecting at 54%, does not process government documents in TS.
       • Delaware - a 71% selective does process US documents in technical services. In Acquisitions 1 professional and 2 support staff assisted by 2.5 FTE of students receive and label 1,200 pieces a month. This figure includes maps. Copy cataloging is via MARCIVE bibliographic records (since 1994) and, as needed, by any one of seven support staff who also work on other materials. One professional provides original cataloging as needed. Government documents are selectively cataloged before 1994.
       • Hopkins - is a 50% selective. Receiving occurs outside TS in the Government Documents Unit which is part of reference. Cataloging occurs in TS. MARCIVE full bibliographic records have been loaded for titles from 1976 on but documents are not barcoded or truly linked to the bib record. US documents are uncataloged prior to 19976. The Government Documents Unit keeps a paper file of titles not received but the bibliographic records are not deleted.
       • Illinois - 92% selective. A professional supervises the Government Document Library, which is in the Main Library but not part of technical services. One upper level support staff is in charge of acquisitions, receiving and labeling. In addition to loading MARCIVE records, one support staff does original and copy cataloging. The library is also supported by 4 graduate assistants. The collection is not fully converted. Circulating government documents are housed in the main stacks.
       • North Carolina - is a Regional Depository Library, collecting 99%. Technical services acquisitions staff handle firm orders for US documents but material received via the depository program is processed in the Reference Department’s Library Documents Section. Shipping List and new cataloging records are obtained from MARCIVE. One high-level and one regular support staff in the Documents Section check in monographs, barcode pieces, and link holdings to the Shipping List record. Shipping List records began arriving one and a half years ago. Serials are not checked in on the on-line system due to lack of space in the database. When a new system is procured that will change. The same support person does all bibliographic and holdings corrections. The Regional Depository Librarian did not report much bibliographic or holdings clean-up occurring. MARCIVE labels were judged to be too expensive. TS Cataloging’s efforts are focused on loading four hundred thousand MARCIVE retrospective records. Eighty percent have been loaded. Progress is slow and cumbersome. Authority control is affected by loading older records now that the existing database has been cleaned up and the Authority Control Section cannot act on exception reports.
   19. Holdings
       • Arizona - When acquisitions staff receive material with copy and shelf ready they create holdings., otherwise catalogers attach holdings at the point of cataloging. Holdings are non-MARC.
       • Delaware - MARC holdings are created by the person cataloging the piece. Serials have been barcoded since 1994. Older serials get barcoded and linked when they circulate.
       • Hopkins - all catalogers create holdings. Materials going to Moravia storage are also barcoded as are older materials if they circulate.
       • Barcode location
         Arizona - one barcode on the front cover, one inch down and one inch in from the spine.
         Delaware - two barcodes: top back cover, inside on the pocket or top right inside back cover. Item holdings and summaries are created/adjusted by the person working on the piece.
         Hopkins - one barcode: top front center cover. Special collection call numbers are placed on linen wrappers tied around the volume.
         Illinois - did not respond to the question about number of barcodes used. Three support staff in the Rapid Cataloging Team and one support staff in the Serials Team links holdings full time. They are not in MARC format.
         North Carolina - one barcode on the upper right corner of the first right end sheet (or upper right-hand corner of the cover of a paperback). There are MARC holdings for approximately 90% of the collection. Summary holdings are also in MARC holdings format.
   20. Physical Handling
       • Arizona - Four students in the Physical Processing Team in TS stamp, strip and label materials as needed. Acceptable turn around time is within 24 hours but most material comes shelf ready from a vendor. 4,310 units are processed per month. Date due slips are not used.
       • Delaware - not in TS. 1 support staff plus 1 FTE student processes 5,114 pieces in all formats/month 2,556/person). There is no turn around time guideline, but no backlogs exist.
       • Hopkins - not in TS. 1 support person plus student workers process 3,763 pieces a week. The acceptable turn around time is within 1 to 2 days of receipt of the material. Date due slips are not used. Security stripping of periodicals occurs in Acquisitions.
       • Illinois - Part of Acquisitions. 2 support staff label and stamp. Main Library labeling, security stripping, stamping and spine labeling is done in Acquisitions. They handle 16,666 labels and relabels per month in all formats and from cataloging areas outside TS such as docs, law, music, AV and Asian collections.
       • Michigan - Adjunct to the Cataloging
       • most material comes shelf ready from a vendor.
       • North Carolina - Non- TS. Spine labels are printed from the ILS. 1.5 FTE support staff and .25FTE student worker process 6,666 pieces a month (3,809/month per FTE). Material goes out within one week of receipt. Unique among the libraries surveyed, everything gets a book plate. On the other hand, security stripping and date due slips are attached at the circulation desk.
   21. Preservation / Commercial Binding
       • Arizona - Part of TS: uses LARS. Three support staff process commercial binding. 2,221 vols./month are processed (740 per FTE) Material goes into first shipment after receipt in the dept., the binder has it for 3 weeks, staff process all material within 24 hours of return from the binder.
       • Delaware - Part of TS. Uses ABLE. Binding falls under the jurisdiction of two units: Periodical Binding, as well as Monograph Binding and Brittle Books. 1.5 support staff plus 31 hours of students process 5,113 pieces in all formats per month (1,859 per FTE) There is no backlog.
       • Hopkins - non-TS: 2 support staff and 1 student process 840 volumes per week.
       • Illinois - part of the Acquisitions Dept. 2 support staff adjust holdings in the ILS, and do shipping and receiving. The ILS is the title file. Binder is Binding Unlimited.
       • Michigan - Non-TS: uses LARS and General Bookbinder. 3.5 FTE mid level support staff with student assistance processed 51,397 volumes in FY99.
       • North Carolina - Non-TS: uses a deferred binding model. Virtually all material is sent to the stacks and bound only after the second circulation. The binding process is a composite effort of staff in Preservation, Serial Cataloging, and the 18 independent periodical rooms. When material does get bound there is a one week turn around time to get it into the shipment. 30,000 volumes are bound each year.
   22. Preservation / Brittle Materials
       • Arizona - 2 support staff do replacement pages, boxing and material repair. Minor work is finished in 24 hours, major work is completed within 3 days. 1,034 special processing/month for brittle books, music and special collections. This includes boxing. 431 material repairs are made a month. They do no special housing but wish they could.
       • Delaware - part of the Monograph Binding and Brittle Books Unit which is headed by one upper level support staff and 15 hours of students. Here is a summary of their activity: 30 leather consolidation and treatment; 9,444 other treatments; 8,707 replacement pages copied, 432 color pages copied. In brittle material handling turn around time is dependent on many things so the following figure may be a guide to "turn around time": 1,843 books out of the stacks.
       • Hopkins - 1 support staff order replacement pages from ILL and tips them in if under 6 leaves. If more than 6 leave the piece is sent to the commercial binder. The number handled is highly variable and depends on ILL turn around time. 2 support staff make boxes for a handful of special collections materials among other tasks, including repair of the general collections. Several hundred microclimate boxes are used every year. Students shrink-wrap about 60 damaged brittle books a week. If no student is available, one of the support staff takes over. Turn around time for shrink wrapping is a few days. About 737 level 1 material repairs are done each year along with 1,321 level 2 repairs. The average turn around time is over 4 weeks. These figures include an unknown quantity of work on non-brittle material as well.
       • Michigan - Reformatting and Replacement Unit is headed by an upper level support staff to whom report 3 FTE permanent support staff and 3 contract staff who work on grants. 1,706 volumes microfilmed (grants), 9,070 digitized (grants), 10,061 sheets microfilmed, 2,252,742 sheets digitized (grant.)
       • North Carolina - receives about 5 - 10 volumes month, they do a small number of replacement pages themselves. Last year 62 volumes were replaced. They don’t collect much data. They are exploring downloading pages from full text to replace pages. They also get some requests from Duke for replacement pages. 264 volumes sent for evaluation to selectors for boxing. 447 vols. were placed in commercial phase boxes. Two repair techs do Japanese tissue repair, full recases, hand adhesive bindings and partial sewn bindings. Other work done: 312 tied flap enclosures, 453 pocket portfolios.
   23. Preservation / Conservation
       • Arizona - did not disaggregate conservation from brittle book processing. See figures reported under brittle books.
       • Delaware - the Conservation Unit is headed by a high level support staff assisted by 28 hours of students. Extensive statistics were provided and are available upon request, the highlights are included here. 12 wrappers, 17 in-house phase boxes, 60 CMI phase boxes, 71 enclosures, 1,551 Japanese tissue repairs, 563 archival tape mending, 280 pamphlet bindings, 5,213 tip-ins and hinges, 239 pockets and envelopes, 208 signatures tighten, 379 spines cleaned, 34 in-house recasing.
       • Hopkins - There are two units involved with conservation: General Collections Conservation and Special Collections Conservation. Each has a unit head who is a professional. Each also has 1 support staff assistant. The conservation staff does for the brittle materials so the statistics there include non-brittle work.
       • Illinois - as with Hopkins the brittle materials figures may also include treatment of non-brittle materials as well.
       • Michigan - 1 FTE conservator who is a high level non-degreed professional position. 1.7 FTE support staff report to that position. FY99 ARL statistics: 11,495 level 1 treatments, 2,040 level 2 treatments, 108 level 3 treatments. Unbound conserved sheets: 589; conserved photographs and non-paper items:1,980; custom fitted protective enclosures: 379.
       • North Carolina - Special Collections Division has a full conservation lab with conservation interns and students who report to the conservators there. They work almost exclusively on the special collections.
   24. Preservation / Deacidification
       • Arizona - none
       • Delaware - none, but the new Head is free to develop a plan using existing binding funds.
       • Hopkins - 1 support staff spray deacidifies maps. About 250 maps a month or 3,600 a year. 1 support staff manages outsourced deacidification. 64 volumes a month are sent, the turn around time is 1 - 2 weeks.
       • Illinois - none
       • Michigan - .75 FTE staff manages the program. 7, 165 volumes are deacidified per year.
       • North Carolina - none in Preservation. The Special Collections Divisions deacidifies some material one by one.
   25. Preservation / Disaster Planning
       • Arizona - no plan and not happy about it
       • Delaware - no plan exists, new head wants to develop one
       • Hopkins - created by a committee and updated as information changes
       • Illinois - did not answer
       • Michigan - yes, written by the head of preservation.
       • North Carolina - Head of Preservation writes it and maintains it. He conducts internal training and co-chairs with peer at Duke the disaster response training for 10 independent universities in the area. They are investigating cooperative supply purchasing.

       FOOTNOTES

       1. Benaud, C. Technical Services Quarterly, v. 16, no. 3 (1999):p. 60-61.
       2. Rider, M. "Developing new roles for paraprofessionals in cataloging". Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22 (Jan. 1996): 30
       3. Ray, R. L. "Where is the future of acquisitions expertise written in the future of libraries?" Journal of Academic Librarianship,24 (Jan. 1998):81
       4. Diedrichs, Carol Pitts. "Acquisitions: So what and where?: Perspective 1." Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24 (Jan. 1998): 74
       5. Schmidt, Karen. "Perspectives on acquisitions …Facing transformation." Journal of Librarianship, 24 (Jan. 1998): 73
       6. Meyers, M. "Who does what in acquisitions and cataloging?" Technical Services Quarterly, 14 (1996):65
       7. Diedrichs, C. "Rethinking and transforming acquisitions: the acquisitions librarian’s perspective." LRTS, 42:116
       8. Rider, M. Ibid, p. 27-28
       9. Rider, M. Ibid, p. 26
       10. Benaud, C., Ibid, p. 52
       11. Sellberg, R. "Cataloguing management: managing the bibliographic control process." In Technical services today and tomorrow. 2d ed. Englewood, CO, Libraries Unlimited, 1998, p. 113

       

       UM Libraries Home | Technical Services Division | TSD Program Review | Work groups

       Libraries, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-7011 (301)405-0800
       Please direct content questions to the Benchmarking Group.
       Last modified: August 20, 2004

       © 2001 University of Maryland Libraries
       Last Revised: March 23, 2001