a public trust at risk: the heritage health index report on the condition of alabama’s collection
TRANSCRIPT
A Public Trust at Risk:The Heritage Health Index Report on the Condition of Alabama’s Collection
2
Responsibility and Funding for the Study
• The Alabama Heritage Health Index is the first comprehensive survey conducted whose purpose was to describe the condition and preservation needs of the state’s collections held in public trust.
• This project was funded from a 2008 grant application for an Institute of Museum and Library Services Connecting Collections grant.
• The Alabama Historical Commission, the Alabama Department of Archives and History, the Alabama Museums Association, the network of Alabama Academic Libraries, and the Society of Alabama Archivists submitted the application in an effort to establish a network of preservation support for preserving Alabama’s cultural heritage collections.
3
Heritage Health Index MethodologyA. Sampling Frame and Sampling Selection
• The Alabama Heritage Health Index group identified 1,403 collecting institutions based upon the Alabama Repository Data Base. This data file included 1,224 organizations that have the capability to communicate with electronic mail and 179 institutions that use the United States Postal Service as the preferred method to receive and send information.
• The list of institutions was categorized by the Alabama preservation group into one of five institution types: archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, or archaeological repositories/scientific research collections. It was the intent of the Alabama preservation team to give all of the state’s collecting organizations an opportunity to complete the heritage health Index survey.
4
B. Survey Instrument
• The Alabama heritage Health Index obtained permission to use the survey instrument used by Heritage Preservation and the Institute of Museum and Library services in conducting the US survey in 2004. A few small changes were made in the questionnaire layout based upon suggestions from the national group and the survey pretest results.
Heritage Health Index Methodology
5
C. Weighing the Survey Data
Heritage Health Index Methodology
Figure 2.1 2009-2010 Alabama Estimates
Archives Libraries Historical Societies
Museums Archaeological Repositories/Scientific research Collections
TOTAL
Sample proportion
33% 30% 5% 27% 5% 100%
Sample Number
39 36 6 33 6 120
Estimated PopulationProportion
61% 20% 7% 10% 2% 100%
After weighing
861 275 92 147 28 1,403
USPopulation proportion
3% 43% 11% 39% 4% 100%
6
Heritage Health Index MethodologyD. Confidence Intervals by Type of Institution
Archives Libraries Historical Societies
Museums Archaeological Repositories/ Scientific Research Collections
Total
15.3% 15.3% 38.9% 15.1% 36.1% 10.4%
Figure 2.2 - Maximum 95% Error Margins By Type of Institution
Margins for groups calculated according to . Reported margin for total sample calculated assuming largest possible margin for each group.
7
Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in Alabama
61%20%
10%7% 2%
Figure 3.2
Archives
Libraries
Museums
Historical Societies
Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Col-lections
Based upon classifications provided by the Alabama Heritage Health Index group of the state’s 1,403 collecting/preserving institutions.
8
Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in Alabama
Academic Entity
Non-Profit, Non-Governmental Organization or Foundation
State
Local County or Municipal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
22
17
7
54
Figure 3.4 Representation by Governance
9
Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in Alabama
Private College/University
State College/University
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
23
77
Figure 3.5 Representation of Academic Institutions
10
Condition of CollectionsA. Planning for Care of Alabama’s Collection
Have plan
Have plan but it is not up-to-date
Don't have plan, but one is being developed
Don't have plan.
No, but preservation addressed in long-range plan
Don't know
0 10 20 30 40 50
10
9
19
45
7
10
Figure 4.1 Institutions with a Written Long-Range Plan for the Care of Collec-
tion
11
Condition of CollectionsB. Condition of Alabama Collection Items
Figure 4.2 Collections Items in Unknown Condition*
Books and bound volumes 58%Unbound sheets-linear feet 66%Unbound sheets-individual items 80%Photographic collections 69%Moving images 67%Recorded sound 72%Digital materials 76%Art objects 78%Historic objects 79%Archaeological collections, individually cataloged
84%
Archaeological collections, bulk cataloged 89%Natural science specimens 98%* Unknown condition: Material has not been recently accessed by staff for visual inspection and/or condition is unknown.
Represents a very serious preservation obstacle in Alabama. US – All were less than 60% and 9 out of 12 were less than 40%.
12
Condition of Collections
Figure 4.3 Collections Items in No Need*
Books and bound volumes 24%
Unbound sheets-linear feet 18%
Unbound sheets-individual items 12%
Photographic collections 16%
Moving images 22%
Recorded sound 22%
Digital materials 15%
Art objects 12%
Historic objects 12%
Archaeological collections, individually cataloged
11%
Archaeological collections, bulk cataloged 6%Natural science specimens 2%
B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items
* No need: Material is stable enough for use and is housed in a stableenvironment that protects it from long-term damage and deterioration.
Could be higher due to high percent in unknown condition.
13
Condition of CollectionsB. Condition of Alabama Collection Items
Figure 4.6 Collections Items in Need and Urgent NeedBooks and bound volumes 17%Unbound sheets-linear feet 16%Unbound sheets-individual items 8%Photographic collections 15%Moving images 11%Recorded sound 6%Digital materials 10%Art objects 10%Historic objects 10%Archaeological collections, individually cataloged
4%
Archaeological collections, bulk cataloged 5%Natural science specimen 0%
Very likely higher due to very high percent in unknown condition.
14
Condition of CollectionsB. Condition of Alabama Collection Items
6%11%
24%58%
Figure 4.7 Condition of Books and Bound Volumes
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
7%9%
18%
66%
Figure 4.8 Condition of Unbound Sheets Measured in Linear Feet
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
15
Condition of CollectionsB. Condition of Alabama Collection Items
4%4%12%
80%
Figure 4.9 Condition of Unbound Sheets in Items
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
Include ephemera, broadsides, philatelic, and numismatic items.
10%5%
16%
69%
Figure 4.10 Condition of Photographic Items
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
16
Condition of Collections
7% 4%
22%
67%
Figure 4.11 Condition of Moving Image Items
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
4%2%
22%
72%
Figure 4.12 Condition of Recorded Sound Items
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items
17
Condition of Collections
7% 3%15%
76%
Figure 4.13 Condition of Digital Material Items
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
4% 6%12%
78%
Figure 4.14 Condition of Art Objects
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items
18
Condition of CollectionsB. Condition of Alabama Collection Items
4% 6%12%
79%
Figure 4.15 Condition of Historic and Ethnographic Objects
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
2% 2%
11%
84%
Figure 4.16 Condition of Archaeological Collections (Individually Cataloged)
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
19
Condition of CollectionsB. Condition of Alabama Collection Items
3% 2%6%
89%
Figure 4.17 Condition of Archaeological Collections (Bulk Cataloged)
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
0.02
0.98
Figure 4.18 Condition of Natural Science Specimen
Urgent Need Some NeedNo Need Unknown Condition
20
Collections Environment
All Areas Some Areas In No Areas Don't Know/Not Applicable0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
33
40
18
9
25
35
26
1417
3432
17
Figure 5.1 Institutions' Use of Environmental Controls for the Preservation of Collections
Temperature Relative Humidity Light
21
Collections Environment
Archaeological Repositories/ Scientific Research
Museums
Historical Societies
Libraries
Archives
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
33
9
17
19
10
Figure 5.2 Institutions Using No Environmental Controls for the Preservation of Collections
(by type)
Average for ALL institutions = 13%
22
Collections Environment
Integrated pest management
Staff training
Security
Improvement to reduce collections' exposure to light
Preservation of digital collections
Conservation treatment
Environmental controls
Finding aids or cataloging collections
Conditions surveys/assessments
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2
3
3
8
8
8
9
11
11
Figure 5.6 Institutions with Urgent Conservation/Preservation Needs
23
Collections Environment
Not Applicable
Not Done
Not Done Currently, but Planned
Done by External Providers
Done by Institution Staff
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
23
11
6
2
57
Figure 5.7 Institutions' Conservation/Preservation Program Includes Preventive Conservation
Examples of preventive conservation included housekeeping, holdings maintenance, rehousing, and environmental monitoring.
24
Collections Environment
Significant Damage Some Damage None Don't Know
4
46
35
16
4
47
30
19
4
39 40
17
1
31
56
13
Figure 5.9 Institutions Reporting Causes of Damage to Collections from Environmental Factors
Water or Moisture LightAirborne Particles or Pollutants Pests
25
Collections Storage
Don't Know
100%
80-99%
60-79%
40-59%
20-39%
1-19%
None
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
13
9
32
11
9
10
9
6
Figure 6.1 Percentages of Institutions' Collections Stored in Areas Large Enough to Accommodate Them Safely and Appropriately
25
41
45
25% of institutions less than 40% of collections are stored in areas large enough to accommodate them safely and appropriately.45% less than 80% have sufficient storage for their collection.
26
Collections Storage
Don't Know
Urgent Need
Need
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
4
15
38
12
10
26
13
19
32
8
22
37
Figure 6.3 Institutions' Need for Storage Improvements
New/improved storage furniture/ accessories Renovated storage spaceNew/additional off-site storage Additional on-site storage
27
Collections Storage
Significant damage Some damage None Don't Know
2
45
33
20
7
46
35
12
Figure 6.4 Institutions Reporting Causes of Damage to Col-lections from Storage Conditions
Handling Improper Storage or Enclosure
Total reporting damage due to handling = 47%.Total reporting damage due to improper storage or enclosure = 53%
28
Emergency Planning and Security
Total*
Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research
Museums
Historical Societies
Libraries
Archives
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
84
67
67
100
80
87
Figure 7.1 Eighty-four Percent of the Alabama Preserving Institutions Have No Emergency Plan with Staff Trained to Carry It Out
29
Emergency Planning and Security
Don't know
Do not have copies
No copies of records stored off-site
Some, but not all, copies of records stored off-site
Copies of records stored off-site
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
12
4
36
27
19
Figure 7.2 Institutions with Copies of Vital Collection Records Stored Off-site
Respondents were informed that vital records about their collections included inventories, catalog records, insurance policies, catalogs.
30
Emergency Planning and Security
Don't know
Inadequate or no systems
Adequate systems in some, but not all, areas
Adequate systems
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
11
25
17
47
Figure 7.3 Adequacy of Security Systems
Examples given to respondents included security guard, staff observation, intrusion detection.
31
Emergency Planning and Security
Not applicable
Don't know
Urgent need
Need*
No need
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
5
3
34
38
Figure 7.4 Need for Security Improvements
*Includes some need and ongoing need.
32
Preservation Staffing and Activities
1 collection type6%
2-5 collections types20%
6-10 collections types74%
Figure 8.1 Most Institutions Care for More than Six Types of Col-lections
33
Preservation Staffing and Activities
No staff person
External provider
Volunteers
Various staff as needed
Dedicated paid staff
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
26
6
17
42
17
Figure 8.2 Institutions' Staffing for Conservation/Preservation
Multiple responses.
Only 17% of institutions have paid conservation/preservation staff whether full-time or part-time.
34
Preservation Staffing and Activities
Not applicable
Don't know
Urgent need
Need*
No need
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
17
3
3
54
22
Figure 8.6 Institutions' Need for Staff Training
Not applicable
Don't know
Urgent need
Need*
No need
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
13
8
8
43
28
Figure 8.7 Institutions' Need for Conservation Treatment
*Includes some need and ongoing need.
35
Preservation Expenditures and Funding
Have allocated funds18%
No allocated funds43%
No specific line item, but other budgeted funds
available29%
Don't know10%
Figure 9.1 Institutions with Funds Allocated for Conservation/Preservation in
Annual Budget
Only 18% of the collecting institutions have funding specifically allocated for conservation/preservation activities in their annual budgets.
36
Preservation Expenditures and Funding
Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research
Museums
Historical Societies
Libraries
Archives
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
1
6
1
1
Figure 9.6 Proportion of Total Annual Operating Budgets to Total Conser-vation/Preservation Budgets (most recently completed fiscal year)
(by type)
The average proportion for all responding institutions was 1.2% vs. 2% recorded in the national Heritage Health Index study.
37
Preservation Expenditures and Funding
Have not used endowed in-
come76%
Have used endowed in-
come11%
Don't know13%
Figure 9.7 Institutions that Used Income from Endowed Funds for Conservation/Preservation
(last three years)
38
Preservation Expenditures and Funding
Don't know
Have received no external funding
Individual/private philanthropist
Foundation
Corporate/company
Municipal
State
Federal
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
18
37
11
14
1
5
18
8
Figure 9.8 Source of Support for Institutions That Have Received Ex-ternal Conservation/Preservation Funding (Last three years)
Multiple responses.
39
Preservation Expenditures and Funding
Have applied26%
Have not applied64%
Don't know9%
Figure 9.9 Whether Institutions Have Applied for Conservation/Preservation Funding
(last three years)
40
Preservation Expenditures and Funding
Don't know
Have been unsuccessful previously
Have sufficient funding
Conservation not a priority
Needed additional planning
Lack of time/expertise
Not aware of funding sources
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
4
1
7
6
15
24
28
Figure 9.10 Reasons Why Institutions Have Not Applied for Con-servation/Preservation Funding (last three years)
41
Intellectual Control and Assessment
Don't know
100%
80-99%
60-79%
40-59%
20-39%
1-19%
None
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
11
8
14
8
7
10
9
34
Figure 10.1 Institutions' Percentage of Collections Accessible Through a Catalog
22%
42
Intellectual Control and Assessment
Not applicable
Don't know
Urgent need
Need*
No need
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
20
4
11
46
19
Figure 10.3 Need for Finding Aids or Cataloging of Collections
*Includes some need and ongoing need.
43
Intellectual Control and Assessment
Don't know
100%
80-99%
60-79%
40-59%
20-39%
1-19%
None
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
12
5
7
4
3
10
14
45
Figure 10.4 Institutions' Percentage of Collections Catalog Available Online
12%
44
Intellectual Control and Assessment
None 1-39% 40-79% 80-99% 100% Don't know
47
29
80 0
161711
6
3126
9
67
33
0 0 0 0
61
15 126 3 3
100
0 0 0 0 0
Figure 10.5 Institutions' Percentage of Collections Catalog Available Online (by type)
Archives Libraries Historical Societies Museums Archaeologial Repositories/Scientific Research
Libraries are most likely to have online catalog access.57% have at least 80% of their collections available online.
45
Intellectual Control and Assessment
Don't know
Don't provide online access to content
Don't provide online access to content, but will have access within the next year
Provide online access to content
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
14
45
8
34
Figure 10.6 Institutions That Provide Online Access to the Content of Any of Their Collections or Holdings
50% of libraries provide online access to the content of their holdings followed by archeological repositories/scientific research (33%), archives (31%) and museums (27%).
46
Intellectual Control and Assessment
Don't know
Have not done a suvey
Have done a survey only of a portion and it is not up-to-date
Have done a survey but it is not up-to-date
Have done a survey only of a portion of the collection
Have done a survey
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
15
37
12
7
12
16
Figure 10.8 Institutions That Have Done a Survey of the General Condition of Their Collections
This survey was defined as an assessment based on visual inspections of the collections and the areas where they are exhibited or held.
47
Intellectual Control and Assessment
Not applicable
Don't know
Urgent need
Need*
No need
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
17
6
11
44
23
Figure 10.10 Need for Condition Surveys or Assessments of Collec-
tions
* Need and ongoing need.
48
Recommendations• Institutions must give priority to determining the condition
of the state’s artifacts.
• Every collecting institution must develop an emergency plan to protect its collections and utilize trained staff to carry it out.
• All state institutions must set goals to provide both
adequate and safe storage conditions for the collections they hold in trust.
• Every institution must assign responsibility for caring of
collections to internal staff trained to perform activities needed for preservation.
49
• Representatives of Alabama’s institutions must assume the responsibility through individual and group efforts to convince governmental officials, corporate partners and the general public to provide the support that will allow the state’s collections to survive.
• The various groups representing the state’s preservation
institutions should proceed to create a mechanism for implementing the study’s recommendations by incorporating them into a statewide collections care plan.
Recommendations