Book restoration combines skilled treatment, protective enclosures, emergency response, and long-term preservation decisions. The available library figures show a field changing between 2008 and FY2012: preservation-department staffing rose in some measures while library-wide staffing fell, digitization increased, and several physical treatment categories declined. Water-damage guidance also shows why the first 48 hours matter.
Contents
- What the library preservation figures measure
- Staffing and conservation capacity
- Treatment volumes and formats
- Preservation spending and outsourced work
- Digitization, binding, and changing priorities
- Water damage and the first 48 hours
What the library preservation figures measure
The American Library Association’s FY2012 Preservation Statistics report surveyed 62 respondents. Its comparisons use FY2012 and 2008 figures, so they describe a historical period rather than current industry conditions. The report also separates preservation-department activity from preservation staffing and spending across an entire library. Those distinctions are important: a department can add specialist capacity even while total library-wide preservation resources decline.
The survey tracked several kinds of work. Twenty-three institutions counted items assessed for conservation, 20 counted items prepared for digitization, and 20 counted items prepared for exhibit. Fifty-four percent of respondents said their conservation programs tracked treatment through Level I, Level II, and Level III thresholds. These measures indicate that restoration statistics are not limited to finished repairs; assessment, preparation, enclosure construction, digitization, and exhibit work are also part of preservation operations.
The survey’s outsourcing figures show how widely external help was used. Of the 62 respondents, 41 institutions, or 65%, outsourced conservation treatment or protective-enclosure construction to contract vendors. Among 20 respondents with no in-house conservation program, nine, or 45%, relied on contract conservation services. The two percentages describe different groups and should not be combined.
Staffing and conservation capacity
Preservation-department staffing increased from 401.01 full-time equivalents in 2008 to 530.7 in FY2012. Professional staff rose from 141.99 to 222.8 FTEs, a reported 57% increase. Non-professional staff rose from 193.51 to 241.98 FTEs, a reported 25% increase. Hourly staffing changed only slightly, from 65.51 to 65.92 FTEs, a reported 1% increase. In this department-level view, the largest reported expansion was among professional staff.
The library-wide view moved in the opposite direction. Total library-wide preservation staffing fell from 729.69 FTEs to 591.5, a reported 19% decline. Total professional staffing for preservation rose from 199.73 to 215.5 FTEs, or 8%, while total non-professional staffing fell from 387.45 to 266 FTEs, or 31%. Total hourly staffing fell from 142.52 to 110 FTEs, or 23%.
| Measure | 2008 | FY2012 | Reported change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation-department staffing | 401.01 FTEs | 530.7 FTEs | Up 32% overall, based on the reported totals |
| Professional preservation-department staff | 141.99 FTEs | 222.8 FTEs | Up 57% |
| Library-wide preservation staffing | 729.69 FTEs | 591.5 FTEs | Down 19% |
| Library-wide non-professional staffing | 387.45 FTEs | 266 FTEs | Down 31% |
| Library-wide hourly staffing | 142.52 FTEs | 110 FTEs | Down 23% |
The report’s trend analysis adds institutional context. Nineteen libraries reported increased preservation-department staffing, with an average increase of 50%, or 8.23 FTEs. Twelve reported a decrease, averaging 36%, or 2.82 FTEs. For professional preservation staff, 16 libraries reported an increase averaging 382%, or 5.53 FTEs, while seven reported a decrease averaging 47%, or 0.78 FTEs. These averages describe reporting libraries and should not be treated as a universal rate for every institution.
Other trend results were mixed. Fifteen libraries reported increased non-professional preservation staffing, averaging 90%, or 4.52 FTEs. Sixteen libraries reported decreased hourly preservation staffing, averaging 47%, or 1.68 FTEs. Across the whole library, 11 libraries reported increased preservation staffing, averaging 98%, or 7.92 FTEs, while 22 reported decreases averaging 39%, or 10.67 FTEs.
Treatment volumes and formats
The ALA report recorded a sharp decline in the number of volumes and pamphlets receiving conservation treatment: from 542,724 in 2008 to 128,694 in FY2012, a reported 76% drop. Level I treatment fell from 493,498 to 84,033 volumes and pamphlets, or 83%. Level II treatment fell from 41,207 to 27,631, or 33%. Level III treatment rose from 8,019 to 10,668, or 33%.
Those levels moved differently, so the total does not describe every kind of work equally. A lower overall treatment count coincided with more Level III treatment, the highest level listed in the report. The figures do not explain the reason for each change, and they should not be used to infer treatment quality without the report’s definitions and institutional context.
Other physical-preservation measures also declined. Unbound sheets receiving conservation treatment fell from 100,947 to 84,067, or 17%. Bound volumes and pamphlets receiving mass deacidification fell from 394,398 to 276,524, or 30%. Linear feet of unbound papers mass deacidified fell from 1,414 to 423, or 70%. Volumes commercially bound fell from 966,893 to 581,729, or 40%.
Some formats recorded increases. Photographs and non-paper items receiving conservation treatment rose from 11,413 to 18,275, or 60%. The report therefore shows a changing mix of preservation work, not a simple increase or decrease across every material type.
Preservation spending and outsourced work
Total preservation expenditures fell from $53,054,905.55 in 2008 to $49,850,034.51 in FY2012, a reported 6% decline. External-source preservation expenditures rose from $2,956,208 to $3,832,064, or 30%. Total contract expenditures were $19,239,214.42 in FY2012, compared with $19,576,758.14 in 2008.
Contract categories changed unevenly. Contract conservation spending fell from $1,284,596.35 to $742,770, or 42%. Contract commercial binding spending fell from $7,698,377.26 to $5,335,824.21, or 31%. Contract preservation photocopying fell from $231,094.34 to $101,946.05, or 56%. Contract preservation microfilming changed from $2,130,777.44 to $2,105,655, a reported 1% decline. Other contract expenditures rose from $8,390,493.75 to $9,992,371.50, or 19%.
Supplies spending rose from $2,113,505.81 to $2,470,386.81, or 17%. Equipment spending rose from $814,881.62 to $5,514,679.69, or 577%. Seventeen libraries reported increased preservation-equipment spending in the trend analysis, with an average increase of 1,210%, or $295,269.85. A percentage this large can reflect a low earlier base; the report’s dollar figure provides essential context.
Salary totals also varied by staff category. Total preservation salaries fell from $30,549,759.98 to $27,619,859.93, or 10%. Professional preservation salaries rose from $14,034,954.94 to $18,442,272, or 31%. Non-professional salaries fell from $14,700,403.66 to $8,201,669, or 44%, and hourly salaries fell from $1,814,401.38 to $975,918.93, or 46%. Twenty-two libraries reported a decrease in total salaries, averaging 67%, or $491,392.78.
Digitization, binding, and changing priorities
Digitization increased in one direct measure. Bound volumes and pamphlets digitized in their entirety rose from 25,597 in 2008 to 32,776 in FY2012, or 28%. By contrast, bound volumes and pamphlets microfilmed in their entirety fell from 8,297 to 606, or 91%. Bound volumes and pamphlets photocopied in their entirety fell from 2,762 to 2,279, or 17%.
The figures suggest that preservation programs were handling access and format decisions alongside repair. Preparation for digitization was tracked by 20 institutions, and preparation for exhibits was also tracked by 20. These counts do not establish that digitization replaced restoration, but they show that libraries measured multiple routes for protecting or providing access to content.
For readers and collection stewards, the practical lesson is that a book’s future may involve several interventions: assessment, treatment at different levels, binding, enclosure, digitization, or emergency stabilization. The ALA numbers quantify those activities separately rather than reducing preservation to one restoration total.
Water damage and the first 48 hours
Water damage changes the scale and urgency of book restoration. The National Archives’ Salvage of Water Damaged Library Materials, part 2 states that books and manuscripts earlier than 1840 absorb an average of 80% of their original dry weight in water, with some absorbing as much as 200%. Modern books typically absorb up to 60% of their original weight.
For a 20,000-book collection in which each dry book weighs 4 pounds, the National Archives gives an estimated water-removal burden of about 64,000 pounds for earlier materials or 48,000 pounds for modern materials. These are planning quantities, not measurements for every collection. The same guidance says that most swelling damage in bound volumes occurs within the first four hours after immersion.
Mold risk follows quickly. According to the National Archives’ Salvage of Water Damaged Library Materials, part 3, mold may appear within 48 hours in warm, humid weather. Materials held for more than 48 hours above 70°F and 60% relative humidity without good air circulation will almost certainly suffer heavy mold growth.
The National Archives’ Wet Records guidance says quantities too large to handle within the first 48 hours should be frozen for later drying or commercial treatment. In one National Archives drying test, all records set out to air-dry did so within 48 hours, according to Comparison of Drying Methods. That result describes the cited test conditions; it is not a guarantee for every book, climate, or drying setup.
The National Park Service’s Comparing Mass Drying and Sterilization Protocols for Water-Damaged Books describes vacuum freeze drying as the most efficient method for drying large quantities, especially batches larger than 500 volumes. It describes air drying, vacuum packing, and drying in a Vacme press with Zorbix as labor-intensive methods best monitored in small batches of fewer than 100 volumes.
The GAO report GAO-26-107262 records that library officials described water damage and mold issues at one flooded Puerto Rico library after a hurricane. The report documents eight officials who said water intrusions affected their libraries. This is a reported account from the cited report, not a general estimate of how often library water intrusions occur.
Together, these measurements explain why emergency planning is part of book restoration statistics. A collection’s response capacity depends on the number and type of books, the water absorbed, the elapsed time, temperature, humidity, air circulation, batch size, and access to freezing or commercial treatment. The historical staffing and treatment figures from the ALA report show the resources libraries devoted to preservation; the National Archives and National Park Service guidance shows how quickly those resources may be tested by a flood.