Ten respondents had moved their preservation operations away from the main library prior to completing this survey. Because these respondents had completed their moves and had firsthand knowledge of the consequences of establishing off campus facilities for preservation functions, the author conducted follow-up interviews. Topics addressed in these interviews expanded on the survey categories of background, collection maintenance, security, employee recruitment and retention, and advantages and challenges. These interviews supported the additional objective of the research: to collect effective practices in the survey categories that would be made available via this paper to provide guidance to other preservation units as they plan for a move off campus.

Each library had a specific circumstance surrounding its particular move. Of the 10 who reported a move off campus, two clarified that those moves had been temporary. Library E moved its standalone preservation unit off campus more than five years ago. However, due to budget cuts over time that diminished the number of staff assigned to preservation, the unit was disbanded, remaining were staff moved back to the main library, and all preservation functions were distributed across the libraries. The preservation unit at library D moved to several rooms in the administration building of the theatre department while the main library was renovated and moved back into the main library after the construction was complete. For the purposes of this research, these 2 participants reported how their preservation operations functioned while located off campus. Summary data for these 10 respondents’ preservation units and libraries are presented in appendix B.

Nine of the MPUs that moved away from the main campus library are (or were, in the case of an MPU that moved on a temporary basis) collocated with a book storage facility. Libraries may locate a MPU close to a large collection of library materials for several reasons. The location may be in a new facility in which space for a MPU can be purpose-built, being close to a large legacy collection may be advantageous, or the off-site library facility may simply be cheaper in terms of cost per square foot.

The MPU was defined as the unit within the library responsible for the majority of preservation-related functions. This definition was provided in the survey. The 10 possible preservation functions listed in question 7 were determined by the author after examining numerous preservation unit websites. Table 2 indicates that many activities traditionally associated with MPUs are being handled outside that main unit. These include monitoring humidity, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), commercial library binding, physical processing, shelving, and scanning and digitization. Library units outside the MPU that handle traditional preservation functions include acquisitions, facilities, library information technology, imaging center, technical services, special collections, and the digital library. Whether these activities are being handled outside the MPU because of the move off campus or for other reasons is not clear.

Table 3 contains information regarding the physical location of many preservation-related operations. Included is information on preservation support for both circulating and special collections materials. Follow-up interview questions about location for the 10 preservation librarians whose units had moved off campus covered topics such as security, timeliness, efficiencies, care and handling while collections were being transported, and the implications of these on collection management and security.

Another topic of concern for preservation staff faced with relocation is the effect the move would have on the types of preservation-related services (identified as “collection maintenance” in the survey) offered to the library system. Responses to survey question 20 on types of services provided to the library for various preservation functions after moving off campus are listed in table 4. The information provided by the 10 respondents suggests that the collection maintenance services provided when a preservation unit moves off campus remains unchanged for most functions.

Although an ever-increasing percentage of library materials is now purchased or available in electronic format, the number of print volumes that must be managed physically each day by human hands is still significant in many ARL member libraries. New and previously acquired materials move between all areas of the library, from the mail room to acquisitions, from acquisitions to cataloging, from cataloging to preservation, from preservation to the stacks, and from the stacks or special collections directly to preservation. One of the main concerns faced by preservation departments that are geographically distant from the main campus is transferring materials safely between multiple locations. The movement of circulating and special collections materials is discussed below.

Another major concern of the author upon learning of her unit’s planned move off-site was the effect it would have on her staff and student workforce. Many preservation departments depend heavily on student labor to support and back up their fulltime staff. Question 27, “Is hiring student labor harder, easier, or the same now that you are located off campus?” aimed to address this concern. Of the 9 respondents who answered the question, 5 indicated it was harder, 3 indicated that it was the same, and 1 reported that hiring students was easier because the pay rate for students was so much higher off campus. Many student employees work for short shifts, perhaps two hours or less, during their school day. If they now have to walk an extra fifteen minutes or take a twenty-minute round-trip shuttle ride to get to work, their availability could change dramatically. The assistant dean for Collections and Access at 1 library reported that her library has some trouble recruiting students because they needed to have a car to get to the depository where the preservation unit was located. Another preservation librarian noted that, while her unit is not located near the main library, it is near a residential neighborhood heavily populated by students. A significant percent of her student workers live very close to her facility. For the two years that library D was off campus, the preservation librarian employed a fairly nontraditional student worker structure. He wrote,

We started altering the schedules of our student worker contingent a couple of semesters before we departed campus. We went from fifteen students working short shifts in Shelf Preparation, Commercial Binding, and Conservation to just three or four working longer shifts. They specialized less in one of those three areas so that they could be shared. Minimum shifts were three hours, but some would work eight-hour shifts a day or two a week when schedules allowed.

We are now one mile from the main campus, about a five minute drive, plus parking. There is a metro train, which the students can ride for free with a pass (but requires a five minute walk up at the main campus end to get to and from the train) as well as some shuttles. To just walk between the two campuses takes about fifteen minutes. We don’t get the “in between class” students much anymore (like we used to when on the main campus). Students tend to work fewer hours/week, although there are exceptions. Also, it is our observation that students try to schedule longer shifts because we are at a distance. Often this is not convenient for us. A number of students will not consider taking a job here at our end [of the campus] because of the distance.

Pay rate was also a key factor in student worker availability and retention. Question 28 asked if pay rates for students were the same or higher after the move off campus. Of the 9 respondents, 5 indicated that pay levels remained the same while 4 reported that they increased their student pay rate in response to difficulties filling student positions once off campus. Typical increases were between $1 and $2 per hour. Staff at 1 library decided to abandon the practice of hiring student workers entirely. Three preservation departments located on campuses that also had library schools had no trouble getting student workers, particularly for their conservation lab, because many library school students wanted to gain experience in the preservation department.

Transportation of staff and students also is a tremendously important issue. Staff and students at the 10 off-site preservation departments employed a variety of transportation methods, including personal cars, shuttles, walking, bikes, and public transportation. The main aspect of transportation discussed during the interviews was getting both staff and student employees back and forth between locations in a timely manner. Walking in pleasant weather was mentioned as a frequent choice for off-site facilities that were one mile or less from the main library. If the distance was not too great, bicycling was an option for both staff and students. When asked how preservation department staff members traveled to the main library during the work day, 7 reported that they used their personal cars. Many interviewees mentioned that while parking at the facility was relatively easy, parking a personal car on campus could be difficult. Several respondents indicated that when they parked their personal cars on campus, they used a special parking pass provided to them by library administration.

Having a shuttle bus, generally under the authority of the library, was frequently mentioned as a popular option for transporting both staff and student workers between the main library and the off-site facility. Having the shuttle operated by the library allows for the best possible use by library employees, particularly in the areas of frequency of the shuttle and the placement of the stops. Obviously, having the library operate the shuttle has significant implications, cost being the main issue. The preservation librarian at library H was on a committee that set up the shuttle system, and he noted that during off-peak times, carrying one library staff member one way could cost as much as $12. In many instances, the library shuttle transports people and collection materials at the same time. In 2 instances where the preservation unit and the book storage facility were in the same building, preservation staff could easily “catch a ride” back to the main library in the van used by depository staff to move materials back and forth.

In the area of employee recruitment and retention for off-site facilities, some effective practices are emerging. Those preservation departments moving off campus might consider raising their standard wage by at least $1 to attract a sufficient labor pool. They also might think about the implications of having fewer workers who each work more hours per shift. If a discussion regarding the implications of operating a library shuttle service between the facility and the main library has not already begun, the preservation librarian might want to suggest that such a conversation be added to the planning agenda.

All 10 units that had moved off-site indicated significant advantages with this change. These advantages included a cleaner, larger space than previously occupied; a space better suited to preservation functions, particularly for conservation; a quieter space with fewer disruptions; closer working relationships either within preservation or with other occupants of the off-site facility; and easier access to parking. The preservation librarian at library H indicated that his staff loved being off campus. Several respondents noted that close physical proximity to other technical services departments, particularly cataloging and acquisitions, was beneficial. The amount of interactions between these 3 units can be significant, and being able to discuss a matter face-to-face can be very helpful. The location of cataloging and acquisitions units, compared to preservation, was discussed by 9 of the 10 respondents that had moved. Four preservation departments were not located in the same facility as cataloging and acquisitions unit, while 5 were collocated with these units in the same off campus building.

Another advantage all 8 preservation departments that moved off campus permanently enjoyed was proximity to their book storage facility. Several respondents noted that being in or near the book storage facility allowed for quick and easy review of a significant portion of their collection. The preservation librarian at library J noted, “We are on the spot for issues that develop in the remote storage stacks.” The librarian at library F felt that because much of library administration and staff is at the main campus, the opportunities for individual initiative are greater.

One of the last topics covered in the follow-up interviews was the challenge of communication with staff at the main library. Eight of the 9 respondents in this section noted lack of visibility as an issue, more than half selected the “out of the loop” response, and one-third noted a drop in planned and impromptu tours of the department. Below are quotes that are pertinent to communication challenges:

• “It was easy to lose the connection to the main library.”
• “It was easy to be out of mind.”
• “Lost the politics of meeting people in the hallway.”
• “Takes much more effort and planning to attend meetings.”
• “Less opportunity for quick, in-the-hall consultations or instant solutions to small problems.”

While acknowledging the seriousness of these issues, respondents offered numerous possible solutions. Five of the respondents felt that increased use of face-to-face meetings could counteract some of the communication problems faced by off-site preservation departments. Other options included using more conference calls, making more of an effort to have main library staff visit the preservation unit, and using Web 2.0 technologies. One preservation librarian posted a quarterly report of activities within the unit and updated a department blog weekly. Several respondents indicated that they made a concerted effort to attend informal functions at the main library, such as forums and brown bag lunches, which they might not have attended if they worked in the main library. One librarian made a point to bring the entire preservation staff to two or three library events a year. He mentioned that while he traveled to the main library at least three times a week, some of his staff rarely did. He felt that walking in as a group of eight people left a memorable and positive impression on others at the events.

Several respondents indicated that schedules for standing meetings at the main library often were shifted to allow attendees from off-site locations to arrive or leave according to the shuttle schedule. One librarian observed that “travel time between lab and main campus creates much wasted time in the day.” She highly recommended that, if possible, the preservation unit keep a small foothold at the main library. She had a desk with a computer and a phone in the main library where she could sit and work while waiting for the shuttle. Others mentioned that time that otherwise might be wasted waiting for and riding on shuttles can be used wisely if one always carries some professional reading along or checks work e-mail on a Web-enabled phone.

Other challenges were noted by respondents during the follow-up calls. The senior associate dean for the libraries at one library mentioned that “the interactions between the preservation group and library selectors were difficult since selectors didn’t have the time to visit the facility.” This issue also was noted by another preservation librarian. This library solved the reluctance of selectors to travel off-site by establishing and obtaining selector approval of a brittle book retention policy and set of selection criteria applied by preservation staff on all brittle books. Selectors were no longer asked for their retention decision for each individual title.