Bookkeeper^® Users Group Synopsis (Page 2 of 3)

1 | 2 | 3 | Next           Back to Case Studies

Establishing a budget for deacidification
Several institutions cited the creation of a budget line for deacidification as a goal. Roughly two-thirds of Users Group attendees had at least a small budget item for deacidification, and each shared its own experience in securing funding and battling perceptions that deacidification is costly, staff-intensive and time-consuming.

The Library of Congress and Yale are two institutions that have created a line item designed to begin addressing their respective deacidification needs. The University of Maryland successfully created a line item budget for deacidification and also receives funds from friends of the library. The University of Pittsburgh is designating a portion of its Hillman endowment for deacidification of its collections.

A few institutions described project-driven deacidification through grants. Although not present at the Users Group, Cornell was mentioned as an example of an institution that has not created a line item budget for deacidification but has received funds. It has deacidified its Anti-Slavery pamphlets as part of a much larger conservation initiative.

Librarians are concerned with the potential complications associated with selection; many believe that selection for treatments will be labor-intensive - a perception based on earlier prototype forms of deacidification. Some attendees said there are ancillary costs for processing materials, but this amount is minimal. Dagmar Getz of the Kautz Family YMCA Archives recommended that institutions beginning their deacidification programs start small before building up their efforts.

Managing and staffing
Most attendees agreed that creating and managing information in their institution is given a higher priority than preserving information. Perhaps the most appropriate role of deacidification is for institutions to preserve originals that, due to collection importance, must be retained in paper format. Institutions can then choose whether to digitize for access in the future with preserved originals intact.

Another perception discussed is that deacidification requires large amounts of additional staffing. Some institutions have used project funding to augment staff, while others are using their existing resources to assist in deacidification, such as library binding staff. Attendees concurred that the primary staff activity is in identifying and sending materials for deacidification; actual processing time is minimal.

Many meeting participants commented on a "fear factor" born from past deacidification methods. The consensus was that more research, more time and more positive results will address this fear. They pointed out the need for patience as the conservation community continues to scrutinize and become familiar with deacidification.

Ken Harris (Library of Congress) remarked that deacidification has been studied globally, and results continue to be positive and encouraging. Of the many deacidification processes the Library of Congress has considered, Harris noted Bookkeeper to be the most innocuous and secure.

Continued...

1 | 2 | 3 | Next           Back to Case Studies