1. Mary Miller Director of Collection Management & Preservation University of Minnesota Libraries Jennifer Teper Head, Preservation Services University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: MOVING TOWARDS BEST PRACTICES AND TOOLS FOR THOUGHTFUL MONOGRAPHIC WITHDRAWAL

2. INTRODUCTION TO OUR STUDY Images from https://library.nyu.edu/preservation/exhibit s/presexh/chem.htm https://library.nyu.edu/preservation/exhibit s/presexh/chem.htm

3. INTRODUCTION TO OUR STUDY NADAL, J. and A. PETERSON. 2011. Scarce and endangered works: Using network-level holdings data in preservation decision making and stewardship of the printed record http://www.jacobnadal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ScarceAndEndangeredWorksv7.pdf

4. University of Pennsylvania supported preservation forum on print retention at ALA midwinter 2014. INTRODUCTION TO OUR STUDY Analytical approaches to assessing paper quality Current withdrawal policies and best practices

5. Research Group members:  Mary Miller, Director of Collection Management & Preservation, University of Minnesota Libraries  Jennifer Hain Teper, Head, Preservation Services, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Ian Bogus, MacDonald Curator of Preservation, University of Pennsylvania Libraries  Roberta (Bobbie) Pilette, Director of Preservation, Yale University Library  Katherine (Katie) Risseeuw, Preservation Librarian, Northwestern University Library INTRODUCTION TO OUR STUDY

6.  Survey distributed to ARL and Oberlin Library directors, SCELEC (Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium) and ALA “New Director” listserv during summer of 2015.  Also reached out to known preservation librarians at libraries who had not responded by initial deadline.  99 valid responses. THE SURVEY

7. SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS People Responding Senior Library Administrator39.4% Preservation/Conservation18.2% Collections Management/Development32.3% Subject Specialist/Bibliographer1.0% Other9.1% Institutions Responding ARL member Library60% Oberlin Group member library21% Other18% Print Collection Size Less than 500,000 volumes31.6% 500,000 - 1 million volumes9.2% 1 - 3 million volumes16.3% 3 - 5 million volumes15.3% 5 - 8 million volumes14.3% 8 or more million volumes13.3% Institutional Policy on Monographic Withdrawal? Yes80.6% No19.4%

8. How did you develop the policy? (multiple selections possible) We adapted language from the documentation of one or more institutions16.9% It developed from discussions within the institution about local priorities and needs, comfort with risk, etc 85.7% It developed from discussions with other institutions about state/regional/consortial priorities and needs, comfort with risk, etc 23.4% It is somewhat arbitrary19.5% It was developed from a study. If selected, please cite study or other relevant information here: 6.5% RESULTS IN BRIEF: POLICY DEVELOPMENT Is it a written policy? Yes59.5% No40.5% How is the policy known/shared? (multiple selections possible) Written guidelines displayed on staff website or shared files51.9% Training sessions14.3% Verbal discussions59.7% Historical practice51.9% Other22.1%

9. RESULTS IN BRIEF: WHO’S INVOLVED

10. RESULTS IN BRIEF: POLICY SCOPE

12. RESULTS IN BRIEF: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

14. RESULTS IN BRIEF: PROCEDURE NEEDS

15. RESULTS IN BRIEF: PRINT RETENTION POTENTIAL

17. WHAT THE SURVEY TELLS US Many libraries still need a withdrawal policy (or a new one) Policies need to address communication There is a high reliance on the HathiTrust There is high demand for ways to share institutional commitments to preserve. Less perceived demand for sharing information related to condition

18. LOOKING AHEAD – WHAT CAN WE DO?

19. THANK YOU! Jennifer Hain Teper jhain@illinois.edu Mary Miller memiller@umn.edu Image from https://parkslibrarypreservation.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/gone-to- pieces/https://parkslibrarypreservation.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/gone-to- pieces/