The Case of Insider Theft in Research Libraries and Special Collections

Unusual Suspects: The Case of Insider Theft in Research Libraries and Special Collections Todd Samuelson, Laura Sare, and Catherine Coker The widespread theft of collection materials, including rare and unique items, continues to be an issue of great concern to libraries of all types. The potential loss of such items threatens not only an institution’s opera- tions but, in many cases, global cultural heritage. Despite an increasingly open attitude among institutions regarding sharing information about lost items and suspected perpetrators, little scholarship has examined such thefts quantitatively in an effort to draw conclusions about how such incidents occur and how best to prevent them. This paper describes a project that examines data from over twenty years of reported library theft cases in libraries and special collections to determine how frequently such losses are perpetrated by library insiders. ver the past three decades, to the active pursuit of thieves, including and the last several years in the willingness among libraries to press particular, research libraries charges or to publicize the loss in an effort and their allied special collec- to recover the stolen artifact.1 Libraries tions have seen a notable shift in attitudes have begun to engage in collaboration and practices regarding thefts from their among themselves and with other groups, collections. Not only have institutions such as associations of book dealers, in begun to acknowledge the threat of theft producing databases and lists that are more actively, but greater resources have commonly disseminated online in an ef- been dedicated to establishing and main- fort to lead to the identification of stolen taining security procedures. The stigma material and to ensure its return.2 associated with publicly acknowledging Though library theft is being discussed theft has also decreased; rather than react- more frequently as a major issue in the ing in embarrassment or with fear about discipline, many elements related to theft the potential disapproval of donors or remain poorly understood. Echoing an administrators, many institutions now evaluation he first made in 1994,3 Sydney respond to the unfortunate reality of theft C. Van Nort argued in The Encyclopedia of with openness and transparency. This Library and Information Sciences (2010) that climate of disclosure frequently extends “there is no good statistical information Todd Samuelson is Rare Books and Manuscripts Curator in Cushing Memorial Library & Archives, Laura Sare is Government Information Librarian in Sterling C. Evans Library, and Catherine Coker is Coordina- tor of Research Services in Cushing Memorial Library & Archives, all at Texas A&M University; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. © 2012 Todd Samuelson, Laura Sare, and Catherine Coker 556 crl-307 The Case of Insider Theft in Research Libraries and Special Collections 557 on items reported missing from libraries familiarity are capable of finding weak- available at this time.”4 The lack of quan- nesses in security, often by targeting tifiable detail about library theft extends uncatalogued materials or destroying from information regarding the items physical or electronic records. Due to their that are reported missing (leaving aside intimacy with the institution’s procedures the volumes and artifacts that are never and precautions (having sometimes been discovered or publicized as stolen) to in- involved in their creation), insiders are formation about other aspects of the theft. familiar with points of vulnerability that Even such fundamental details as the may be impossible to protect. It is difficult most commonly targeted institutions or to imagine lengths to which a library types of material and the profile of a likely could go that could not be circumvented thief are not adequately understood. by a committed insider. Though library Much of the discussion about the prob- and security professionals have debated lem of library theft is limited to rehearsals the extent of insider theft relative to all of notorious cases of theft (or accounts of library losses, these authorities agree that theft written by those who have experi- the issue of the looting of collections by enced it in their own institutions). While library associates is both extremely dif- these narratives are valuable and provide ficult to prevent and poorly understood. an opening to the larger conversation One recent appraisal of the professional about theft prevention and response, they literature regarding insider theft acknowl- provide only a limited glimpse of the full edged that “the lack of research and study scope of book theft faced by American and on the topic represents a significant gap international institutions.5 Many of the at- in professional knowledge.”7 tempts to draw conclusions about library But how prevalent is insider theft in theft on the whole are based on speculation American libraries, both measured as a extrapolated from a scattering of individual percentage of total incidents and by the cases, rather than on a systematic effort to total value stolen? Without attempting chart known instances of the issue. to quantify the problem, is it possible One element of library theft that has to gauge the extent of insider theft or been acknowledged as particularly dif- to determine the security resources that ficult to confront is the issue of insider should be devoted to its prevention? theft. These cases, perpetrated by those Due to the privileged position of these with privileged relationships with an thieves—many of whom have success- institution, are known to have been fully prevented any detection of their committed by library directors and other efforts to pillage the collections for which administrators, permanent faculty and they are responsible—it is likely that a staff, and part-time or temporary workers. wholly accurate depiction of the prob- Such thefts have also been accomplished lem may never be possible. Yet a partial by those with temporary access, from answer to the question, drawn from data janitors and subcontractors to volunteers, gathered from known cases of library docents, and interns. Theft from within theft, will provide a far better opening to an institution has long been recognized debate than one based upon speculation as a threat, but one for which solutions extrapolated from discrete occurrences. are particularly unforthcoming. Daniel Traister suggested that insider theft be- The Prevalence of Insider Theft devils the profession because it involves In a groundbreaking essay published the collections at the moment when they in Rare Books and Manuscripts Librarian- are “vulnerable to their most dangerous ship, David S. Zeidberg, then Head of potential predators: ourselves.”6 Special Collections at UCLA and now Because of their knowledge of collec- Avery Director of the Huntington Library, tions and security, those with institutional diagnosed the problem of library theft 558 College & Research Libraries November 2012 by pointing to figures associated, either Network … believes that ‘inside jobs’ professionally or academically, with the account for upwards of 70 per cent of all library.8 Zeidberg’s article, published in library theft in Europe and 80 per cent in 1987, provided both a description of the the US.”12 Similarly, in a recent survey of problem and a prompt leading to many insider theft literature, Ross Griffiths and of the changes to library security seen in Andrew Krol argue that “75 percent of recent decades. In addition to describing thefts from libraries” are perpetrated by the greater efforts of institutions to coordi- insiders.13 A closer examination, however, nate their responses to theft (both between suggests that this statistic may have no ba- libraries and libraries with booksellers) sis in research. The percentage was drawn and the growth of the Rare Books and from Sydney Van Nort’s 1994 article, Manuscripts Security Committee, he also though the citation appears garbled.14 details the effects of an Association of Re- Apparently, the statistic is the result of a search Libraries SPEC Kit survey he wrote transcription error: in Van Nort’s article, in 1983, which explored security policies the Library Journal review of the Oberlin among 118 libraries with particular atten- Conference is quoted as “all but 25 percent tion to procedures in special collections.9 of the thefts are inside jobs”15 (emphasis Despite its influence, however, the arti- added), inverting the percentage. That cle balks at detailing the scope of the prob- such a vast discrepancy could go repeated lem. At one point, Zeidberg estimates the and unchallenged merely shows how scope of the problem by reporting upon unstable our estimates of the scope of a special conference at Oberlin College insider theft are. in 1983 dedicated to library theft, which “confirmed much of what we suspected The Library Theft Database: A about a library environment conducive Methodology to theft: the failure to share information The Library Theft Database (LTD) project about losses, open access to valuable was established as a response to the lack collections, poor library designs, failure of data from which to draw conclusions to prosecute thieves, and so forth.” He about this pressing issue. Beginning with notes that a participant at the conference, online resources that publicize cases of unnamed in his narrative, “suggested that library theft (including listservs such as 25–35% of the thefts were ‘inside jobs.’”10 EXLIBRIS, as well as the RBMS Security This is apparently a reference to Terry Be- Committee’s “Listings of Missing and langer, who, according to a Library Journal Stolen Library Materials” and “Incidents report of the Oberlin conference, gave a of Theft”) and extending to wider explo- presentation that estimated “25 percent ration, including extensive LexisNexis of the thefts are inside jobs, committed searches, the LTD team compiled informa- by students, professors, librarians, staff tion about publicized incidents of library members, and janitors rather than profes- theft for the years 1987–2010.

Load more