Carleton College Library
Coping with a Binding Budget Reduction of 29%
Nov 2005
This modest document outlines the thought process we undertook to decide how to handle a 29%
decrease in our binding budget in 2003. The decision to decrease the binding budget was made to
free funds for book purchases and to offset large cost increases in serials and electronic
resources. The decision was made in consultation between collection development and technical
services staff. At the time, we thought this budget reduction might just be necessary for a year or
two. In fact, we are continuing to bind at the reduced level and are fairly comfortable with the
changes we have made.
Context. Commercial library binding is managed by Technical Services/Periodicals staff. A
member of the technical services staff has a keen interest in library binding and has participated in
national programs to train library staff in binding. We have never used any temporary or in-house
binding methods for periodical volumes. Carleton also has a robust general collections repair
program, run by well-trained staff in Collection Development/Preservation. In addition, they
construct many custom-fitted protective enclosures for fragile materials or things that might
otherwise be sent to the binder. Our collection development staff still prefers hardbacks over
paperbacks; however, we buy more paperbacks every year, simply due to publishing trends. The
vast majority of the paperbacks we acquire are quality trade paperbacks. We circulate both current
and bound periodicals for about two thirds of our titles (science titles are non-circulating.) The use
of periodicals in hard copy is declining as our access to e-journals grows.
The following sections list our thoughts & ideas as of Fall 2003. A section at the end outlines what
we actually did and shows budget percentage changes and binding statistics.
Facts.






Binding budget for FY 2003-04 was 28% less than what we had spent in the preceding
three years.
This budget is for “commercial library binding.” It does not include conservation work,
binding of Special Collections materials, or preservation supplies used to house or
repair materials.
In 2003 we were binding approx 87% of current periodicals titles, some new paperbacks
& govdocs, selected student theses for the Library collection & some older books that
could not be treated in-house.
Prior to FY2003-04, 70% of binding budget was spent on periodicals and 30% on
books.
Prior to FY2003-04, periodicals comprised 56-67% of total volumes bound.
Prior to 1999, all new paperbacks were sent to a binder for an economy binding (DFA or
oversewn, trimmed, Type-II, covers mounted). This blanket approach resulted in some
very inappropriate binding – especially for large heavy volumes. In 1999, we began
examining each new paperback and sending for binding only those that truly needed to
be bound. This resulted in a significant reduction in the number of books bound each
year.
Assumptions.
 We expect/hope that this binding budget reduction will be a one-time, one-year only
situation.
 Do not want to “shop around” for another binder now (changing binders is a big project
with hidden costs.)
Carleton College Library: Coping with a Binding Budget Reduction of 29%
Page 1 of 3


Users prefer electronic access to journals, and thus use our paper copies of periodicals
less and less.
Most paperbacks we acquire are well made and have been shown to withstand 15-25
uses without damage to textblock.
Goals.




Balance binding needs of periodicals, paperbacks, govdocs, and older books needing
rebinding.
Maintain standards for quality of binding (better to bind less & bind it well?)
Make decisions that will not negatively affect the long-term usability of the collection.
If possible, shift some of the binding budget money to preservation supplies.
Ideas to Reduce Periodicals Binding Costs.
1. Increase number of issues bound together up to 2” in thickness, whenever possible, to
reduce total volumes bound.
2. Stop having Time, Newsweek, US News STF by hand; instead send these titles to a
different binder for machine STF at a quarter of the cost.
3. Consider not binding semi-annuals or quarterlies that are squat & thick enough to stand on
the shelf -- e.g. Story Quarterly. (Would probably need item records & call number labels;
would they still need to be boxed?)
4. Stop binding titles with reliable electronic access to current issues; e.g. Project Muse,
JSTOR titles, American Journal of Philology.
5. Stop binding all titles with electronic access.
Ideas to Reduce Book Binding Costs.
1. Continue a modest level of rebinding for those older books that cannot be replaced or
treated in-house.
2. Do not bind new paperbacks on receipt unless volume must be bound to sustain shelving or
one use.
3. Apply a strictly used-based strategy for all paperback and gov doc binding – including
standing orders (many of which have traditionally been bound on receipt.) To be efficient,
this approach would require putting a “paperback” code in item records for new paperback
books.
4. At intervals, create lists of paperbacks & gov docs that have circulated more than x times,
and examine the volumes to determine if they need binding or other treatment.
5. Consider “economy binding” for selected small lightweight paperbacks (DFA, trimmed, Ccloth, limited color selection)
What We Did: Periodicals.
 Implemented ideas 1.-4. above for periodicals.
 Stopped binding (and do not box) all annuals & semi-annuals that are squat & thick enough
to stand on the shelf with just bookend support – e.g. Story Quarterly.
 Because the number of titles in Project Muse and JSTOR increased over the year, we
actually found ourselves with a surplus in the binding budget mid-year. Thus, we amended
our application of 4. If Project Muse or JSTOR issues circulate, then the volume is bound.
 Held off on 5. because our calculations indicated that this step probably wouldn’t be
necessary to achieve the cost reduction we needed. This turned out to be true.
 Now binding 79% of all current titles, as compared with 87% in 2003.
 From FY2003-04 to the present, the percentage of the binding budget spend on periodicals
increased from 70% to 90%.
 In the same time period, periodicals binding grew from 67% to 92% of all binding done.
Carleton College Library: Coping with a Binding Budget Reduction of 29%
Page 2 of 3
What We Did: Books.
 Implemented ideas 1.-4. above for books.
 Decided that we didn’t have enough books suitable for economy binding to warrant working
with our binder to define that kind of product.
 All paperbacks are examined prior to processing. Those that need to be bound are bound
appropriately for their original structure, size, weight and expected use. We specify all
binding options -- including leaf attachment method, covering material, trim or no trim, flush
binding, cover mounting or not, etc.
 Twice a year, paperbacks and government documents that have circulated more than five
times, based on data in our ILS, are examined to determine if they should be bound. We
find that very few need to be bound.
 Paperbacks used on Reserve are examined when they come off Reserve for possible
repair or binding.
 From FY2003-04 to the present, the percentage of the binding budget spend on books
declined from 30% to 10%.
 In the same time period, book binding decreased from 33% to 10% of all binding done.
Boxing.
 Like most libraries, we box some periodical titles for a variety of reasons. They usually fall
into one of the following categories:
o Margins too narrow to bind with a good outcome (e.g. Jeune Afrique)
o Content does not warrant binding; obviously a judgment based on the title’s
importance in our collection (e.g. Golf Digest)
o Quality of paper (e.g. Economic & Political Weekly)
o JSTOR & Project Muse titles that have NOT circulated outside the library
o Limited retention titles
 Box issues until microfilm received (e.g Times Literary Supplement)
 Box issues for specified time, prior to recycling; time frame depends on title
(e.g. Education Week – one year)
 We are not fans of boxing. We do it because sometimes there seems to be no other
sensible option. However, our informal cost studies indicate that it may actually cost more
to box issues than to bind them (materials & labor costs).
Changes in Binding Expenditure Percentages.
 FY2003-04 binding budget reduced by 28% from level of previous three years.
 Binding budget has stayed at same funding level since the reduction in FY2003-04.
 Prior to FY2003-04, 70% of binding budget was spent on periodicals and 30% on books.
 FY2003-04: 81% periodicals; 19% books
 FY2004-05: 90% periodicals; 10% books

FY2005-06: 93% periodicals; 7% books (Jul-Oct % skewed due to binding more books at term break intervals)
Binding Statistics
Periodicals
FY99-00
FY00-01
FY01-02
FY02-03
FY03-04
FY04-05
FY05-06
2203
2491
2457
2584
2059
2076
Jul-Oct 734
Books *, Gov Docs, Theses
1540
1224
^ 1951
1253
499
189
Jul-Oct 53
* Books bound were mostly paperbacks, with a few rebinds.
^ Gov Docs binding was high due to a recon project.
Carleton College Library: Coping with a Binding Budget Reduction of 29%
Page 3 of 3
TOTAL
3743
3715
4408
3837
2558
2265
Jul-Oct 789
Periodicals Boxed
na
na
192
150
240
187
na