Controlling hospital library theft

Abstract

At Capital Health System/Fuld Campus (formerly Helene Fuld Medical Center), the Health Sciences Library lost many books and videocassettes. These materials were listed in the catalog but were missing when staff went to the shelves. The hospital had experienced a downsizing of staff, a reorganization, and a merger. When the library staff did an inventory, $10,000 worth of materials were found to be missing. We corrected the situation through a series of steps that we believe will help other libraries control their theft. Through regularly scheduling inventories, monitoring items, advertising, and using specific security measures, we have successfully controlled the library theft. The January 2002 inventory resulted in meeting our goal of zero missing books and videocassettes. We work to maintain that goal.

Whoever steals this book

Will hang on a gallows in Paris

And, if he isn't hung, he'll drown,

And, if he doesn't drown, he'll roast

And, if he doesn't roast, a worse end will befall him

From a manuscript in the collection of Jean d'Orleans, comte

d'-Angouleme [1]

Who lets this book be lost

Or doth embesell yt,

God's curse will to his cost,

Give him plagues in hell fytt.

In the church register of Sowe, Warwickshire, 1623 [2]

“The invocation of prayerful protection for books is probably as old as writing itself” [3]. The Almighty was often asked to help protect books from theft in the form of curses like those above. People have been stealing books since ancient times, and these curses were put on thieves and defilers to protect manuscripts [4].

Many other means of protection have also been given books throughout the years. Aristotle's writings were concealed and hidden in a vault [5]. In monastic libraries, books were kept in chests and cupboards. Monastery and cathedral libraries used chains to safeguard books. Chained books were used only at the desk to which they had been secured [6]. The long history of book theft has given it a “strange sort of respectability. People who would not dream of shop-lifting or house-breaking see nothing wrong at all in unofficially ‘borrowing’ a book or journal” [7].

Unfortunately, health sciences libraries do not escape theft. In 1978, medical schools and hospital libraries reported as many losses as libraries open to the general public [8]. A survey of all varieties of libraries by Mosley [9] confirmed that libraries all face what Mills of Liverpool Public Library, New York, calls the “self weeding” collection. In 1994, a manufacturer of library security systems estimated that libraries, regardless of type, were losing from 2% to 5% of their book collections and 5% to 25% of their audiovisual collections [10].

“Librarians are guardians of intellectual freedom; they are also the guardians of freedom's physical manifestation, books. When books are misappropriated, freedom is abridged” [11]. The librarian needs to be aware of taken items and protect the collection. Theft robs users of library materials. The library is not a viable resource to users if the books notated in the catalogue are not on the shelf. It is a loss of money and the librarian's time.

But how do we realize the extent of the theft, monitor what is being taken, secure library materials, and keep the collection stable? Following is what happened at the Capital Health System/Fuld Campus Library (formerly Helen Fuld Medical Center) and a method to control theft in libraries.

The CHS/Fuld Campus health sciences library* is a very active library. The library is open 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Currently, attending physicians and residents have twenty-four-hour access through the security department. The library has approximately 4,000 books, 200 active journal subscriptions, 1,000 videocassettes, and 5 computer workstations. Cochrane and UpToDate are available on one computer. The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, and ClinPsych are on CD-ROM on designated computers. The library is located on the third floor of the main building. Users consist of physicians, residents, nurses, nursing students, interns, administration, and any hospital employee who wishes to use the library. Capital Health System has two residency programs, internal medicine and family practice, and a School of Nursing. Patients rarely use the library, but occasionally family members come in for consumer health information.

The hospital is located in Trenton, New Jersey. In December of 1997, the hospital merged with Mercer Medical Center to form Capital Health System. The Fuld Campus has 269-staffed beds, and the Mercer Campus has 369. Although each hospital kept its own library, with separate collections and budgets, all hospital personnel can use either library. Each library has two full-time equivalents (FTE).

DISCOVERY

“A theft of books, manuscripts, or archival material from a library or archive may sneak upon you quietly and without notice—much like an earthquake or a fire” [12]. After the library at CHS/Fuld Campus had undergone a downsizing of staff, turnover of personnel, reorganization within the institution, and, finally, a hospital merger, staff discovered that many books and videos were missing. Although the catalog said the materials were available, when we searched the shelves, many books and materials were not there. Users were dissatisfied, because our resources were not available for them, and the library staff was frustrated.

REGULARLY SCHEDULED INVENTORIES

“Book losses in your library probably aren't as bad as you think. More than likely, they are much worse” [13]. At the CHS/Fuld Campus library, losses were worse. When we realized that many materials were missing, we began to do an inventory to assess the situation and found that the theft that was occurring in the library was enormous. We did not know when the last inventory had been done, but this was a starting point. The library assistant did the inventory, taking about a month to accomplish this task. The inventory was done a little each day, along with the regular work routine. A printout was made from our catalog and then matched up against our stacks. When we first did the inventory in December 1997, 147 books were missing, valued at about $10,000. At this time, we only inventoried the books. The second inventory was done the next year and showed a loss of an additional seventy-six books and thirty-one videocassettes, valued at $5,000. This loss was from a collection of about 4,000 books and a yearly book budget of $25,000. At that point, we knew that $5,000 worth of materials had been stolen in a period of one year. We did another inventory one month later only to find twenty-six more books and twelve more videos missing.

From then on, we did an inventory every six months, in January and June. With each inventory, the theft declined. We counted our missing items and calculated the price of each missing item. Prices of books were estimated from the actual cost of the book as noted in the Rittenhouse or Majors database. If the book was out-of-print, we used the price for the current edition. Videos were priced at $50 each. Not only did we need to know how many items were lost but also the monetary value of the losses [14]. Over a five-year period from December 1997 to December 2001, we inventoried a total of 289 missing books and fifty-nine missing videocassettes valued at approximately $20,000.

“The largest problem and probably the most difficult to overcome is the fact that many libraries have gone for years and in some cases decades without an inventory” [15]. It is crucial to continue with regular inventories. Our collection is small enough that we could start doing an inventory every six months. If the collection is not small enough to do this, Griffith recommends a scheme called Random Sections Inventory [16], an efficient sampling method that Griffith created to save time with few complications (Figure 1). Allen recommends doing a regular but random inventory once bibliographic control is established [17].

Figure 1.

Griffith's Random Sections Inventory We decided to produce our own scheme, which we call the “Random Sections Inventory.” An initial series of five samples was made, each 10% of the collection. The results improved with each sample until 30%. Sampling on to 40% and 50% did not produce significant improvement. Since a 30% inventory is quite an undertaking, we then tried smaller samples. A series of 5% samples was made until the 20% level was reached. At this point, the result was nearly identical with that of the prior 30% level. The result of each separate 5% sample produced wide variations, which cancelled each other out when averaged together. A series of many small samples may be as good as a few very large samples. We did not have time to do a series of 2% samples, but our projections indicate that six 2% samples should produce an acceptable result. In every sample, the final count was found to be considerably more accurate if compensation for books off the shelf was not made. All uncorrected counts tended to be slightly under actual counts, while samples that were corrected produced an inflated result. Just why this is so is not clear, but a small adjustment can improve the totals somewhat. If the shelf totals are used, add 0.008; if shelf totals are corrected, deduct 0.035 to reduce the error rate. The samples can then be used to compute the total number of volumes. In order to find the loss rate if totals from a past inventory are not available, it will be necessary to repeat the sampling at some future date. Griffith JW. Library thefts: a problem that won't go away. Am Libr 1978 Apr;9(4):224–7.

Mosley [18] recommends performing spot inventories of high-risk areas to monitor what Nielson, collection development librarian, Keene Public Library, New Hampshire, refers to as the “missing-in action.” At CHS/Fuld, we pay special attention to areas that have had the highest losses. If we find a book missing in a different area, we might spot-check this section to see if others are missing and if a pattern is starting. We do not tag all journals because of the cost of tags and time limitations on staff.

TAKE SECURITY MEASURES

“One of the major problems in small health service library situations is the lack of staffing to supervise the library at all times and the need, perhaps perpetuated by tradition, for libraries to be accessible on a twenty-four-hour basis to medical staff” [19]. As soon as we found out there were $10,000 worth of books missing, we began to take steps to improve security. Early in 1998, after discussions with the Library Committee and the director of the residency programs, the lock on the library door was changed. Patrons now have to sign in through security to gain access to the library after-hours. (For several years prior to this, every staff physician and every resident had a key to the library.)

Other security measures were taken:

• We began to write “library” in large bold print on the three sides of the books using black magic marker.

• We put up a sign stating that book bags, backpacks, and carryalls had to be left at the front desk.

• We put more books on reserve, especially those with high incidences of theft.

• Cabinets were locked, and certain videos or audios were then available only by asking library staff.

• We began to watch.

• The addition of a second full-time employee reduced the time the library was not staffed, permitting someone to be out front most of the time.

• Two mirrors were installed at the front of the library, near circulation.

According to Tomaiuolo, electronic security systems, which began to be used in the early 1970s, are the most effective means of controlling theft [20]. In May of 2000, a security system purchased with money donated by the medical staff was installed at the front entrance of the library. This was later supplemented with a video camera system installed in the librarian's office. This system consisted of a videocassette hooked to the security system; if a person left the library without checking out a book the security system would be activated and the person was videotaped on the screen. Tomaiuolo maintains that security systems are also a psychological deterrent “demonstrating that the library is intent on protecting the collection” [21].

All books were tagged with a security tag. Reporting on a similar project, Premo called this the most daunting challenge [22]. Junior volunteers helped us with the tagging during the summer months. We do not leave a new book unprocessed outside the locked office without a security tag.

MONITOR: KEEP TRACK OF WHAT IS STOLEN

We began to mark the stolen items in the online card catalog. These items were then displayed in the catalog as missing in the field designating overdue or on loan. This gave us an opportunity to explain to the patrons that at one time we did have the book, but that it was stolen and that, with budget cuts, it could not be replaced. This also saved us valuable time from going to the shelf on a useless search for a stolen book. We also entered the date into the computer when we found it to be missing. An awareness of the theft was created.

Our collection development policy states that books more than ten years old should be considered for weeding, but there is no set policy as to when the records indicating stolen books are to be deleted. At each inventory, the librarian examines these records and designates certain ones to be deleted. The decision is based partly upon whether the librarian believes someone will come in looking for a particular book. If so, we need to be able to show patrons that we did have the book at one time, that it was taken, and that, due to our budget limitations, we cannot replace the item.

ADVERTISE WHAT IS STOLEN

“Historically libraries and archives tried to ‘hush up’ thefts, or they would simply ignore them for fear of being shunned by donors if the thefts came to light” [23]. This is no longer the case. Librarians need to not only notify but also advertise what is being stolen. Patrons are not usually aware of the time, difficulty, and money needed to replace stolen library materials [24].

Each time an inventory was done, we compiled a “Missing Books List” with an eye-catching cover and deposited them into the more than 150 mailboxes in the mailroom. On one cover, we put a scale with a goal of “Zero Missing Books.”

GET TO KNOW YOUR USERS

We also made an extra effort to promote a positive feeling toward the library by going out on the floor more often to help. Many users stay to search the catalog, browse the Internet, use the CD-ROMS, or study. Some are looking for something very specific. Many times they need help. The employment of a second full-time employee enabled us to go out on the floor more to assist users, instead of waiting for them to ask. This gave us a better idea of what their needs and uses really were and gave us opportunities to talk with people more, which fostered a closer relationship with our users. Because most users tend to be repeat users, we got to know them on a more personal level.

CONCLUSION

At the CHS/Fuld Campus library, we were able to control the theft that was occurring. After becoming aware of the problem, control was accomplished through a series of steps that involved regularly scheduling inventories, using security measures, keeping track of missing items and their value, advertising the problem, and creating a personal closeness to users. These steps were not planned in advance but rather happened one by one as we moved slowly toward controlling the problem. After we accomplished one idea, we moved on with other tasks and ideas without knowing the consequences but implemented them in the library, and, eventually, we controlled the theft. Although we started with no formal plan, the steps described above evolved as we began to see some success and thought of other ways to improve our process.

In 1920, White Gaillard observed and theorized that losses in a library vary with the current library administrator [25]. A librarian with a low rate of loss who goes to a library with a high rate will, after a few years, report a decrease. A librarian with a high rate of losses who goes to a library with low losses will eventually experience high losses. As gatekeepers of libraries and guardians of books, library administrators may use our experience with controlling theft as a model to accomplish a goal of low losses.