Collaborative Backlog Assessment:The PACSCL Consortial Survey Initiative

Project overview The Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special Collections Libraries (PACSCL) Consortial Survey Initiative is a 30-month project, funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, to assess backlogged archival collections in 22 Philadelphia area institutions. Using a survey instrument adapted from The Historical Society of Pennsylvania’s model, the three-person project team and staff from participating institutions are assessing unprocessed, underprocessed and underdescribed collections in a range of physical formats. This project represents the first time the assessment model has been applied broadly across a range of types of archives, libraries, and museums.

The project is part of PACSCL's Greater Philadelphia Research Collections Network, a set of initiatives that will allow researchers, students, and lifelong learners to explore and engage with the rich documentary resources of the Philadelphia region, fostering scholarship and education, community awareness, heritage tourism development, and regional economic growth.

PurposeTo assist with planning and prioritization of collections-related work within individual institutions and across the consortium.To improve intellectual access to unprocessed and underprocessed collections by making collection-level records available to the public through a variety of means.

Survey methodDone in teams of two or more people. The project staff includes two full-time surveyors and staff from participating institutions are encouraged to be involved. Project staff hold regular group training sessions for participants to familiarize them with the method and allow them to do some hands-on surveying before the surveyors begin onsite.Look through boxes, volumes and other collection materials to determine physical arrangement and condition; look through enough to get a good sense of the content of the collection, including subject matter, themes, depth of coverage, and document genres.Review and assess existing intellectual access tools, such as donor/control folders, inventories, catalog records/cards, and finding aids, in terms of how well they provide access to the collection.Verify and revise titles, dates, extents and other components of archival description as needed.Discuss and achieve consensus to assign ratings (scale of 1-5) to different physical and intellectual characteristics: condition of material, quality of housing, physical access, intellectual access, interest and documentation quality. Interest and documentation quality are combined to form Research Value Rating (RVR) (scale of 2-10). Document rationale for ratings in note field.Write or flesh out bio/historical notes, scope and content notes, and apply subject headings.Record all information in survey database. (Surveyors usually work on laptops so they can survey in the same physical location as the collections.)Background research and discussions with staff at participating institutions inform the process.

For more information, please contact:Christine Di BellaArchivist and Project DirectorPACSCL Consortial Survey InitiativeThe Historical Society of Pennsylvania1300 Locust StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19107phone: 215-732-6200, ext. 201email: cdibella@hsp.org

ParticipantsAcademy of Natural Sciences Pennsylvania Horticultural SocietyAmerican Philosophical Society Philadelphia Museum of ArtAthenaeum of Philadelphia Presbyterian Historical SocietyBryn Mawr College Rosenbach Museum & LibraryChemical Heritage Foundation Swarthmore College College of Physicians of Philadelphia Free Library of Philadelphia Haverford College The Historical Society of PennsylvaniaIndependence Seaport Museum Library Company of PhiladelphiaTemple University Union League of PhiladelphiaUniversity of Delaware University of PennsylvaniaVillanova University Wagner Free Institute of Science

Future plansComplete surveying at the remaining 10 institutions.Analyze data in order to develop priorities for institutional and consortial grant projects.Migrate data to more robust application – possible multi-institution implementation of Archivists’ Toolkit.Disseminate information about the project and tools more widely, including project-end conference in Fall 2008

Selected predecessors and professional contextHistorical Society of Pennsylvania (2000-2002) – Surveyed entire archival holdings; basis for a complete revitalization of Archives department and multiple large processing grants. Direct parent to this project (Assistant Project Director Rachel Onuf serves on steering committee, as does president emeritus David Moltke-Hansen, who developed the original methodology.)Columbia University (2003-2004) – Three campus libraries participated. Adapted HSP methodology with a preservation focus and added the concept of institutional value.ARL’s “Hidden Collections” initiative (2001-2006) – Backlogs are pervasive in research libraries. Detrimental to our reputation with donors, funders, researchers, and other stakeholders. Consider new approaches to cataloging and processing.Greene and Meissner’s “More Product, Less Process” (published in American Archivist in 2005) – Heavy emphasis on doing the minimum physical and descriptive work necessary in order for collections to be available to researchers more quickly.NHPRC changes in guidelines for processing grants (2007) – The survey work gives institutions a framework for conducting the work for Basic Processing projects and, once performed, to meet the control and access criteria needed to apply for Detailed Processing projects.

Highlights from the backlogs of Philadelphia archives and special collectionsCorrespondence, reports, newsletters, and writings of a World War II conscientious objector.Records of a pioneering mail order nursery and rose hybridization company.Over forty-five years’ worth of detailed daily diaries from a Bryn Mawr faculty wife.Comprehensive records of one of Philadelphia’s most historic cemeteries.Papers of two Nobel prize-winning chemists and one Nobel prize-winning virologist.Family papers for one of Philadelphia’s most prominent Jewish families.Extensive photographic documentation of the country’s oldest and largest flower show.

Find out more

Project website: http://www.pacsclsurvey.org

Project blog: http://pacsclsurvey.blogspot.com

Public interface for survey database: http://www.pacsclsurvey.org/search.html

Survey database•Developed in FileMaker Pro and accessible to participants via FileMaker client or web browser. Project participants have access to assessment data about each other’s collections.

•Separate web interface allows researchers to view archival descriptions for selected collections.

•Collection-level description fields have been designed to map to MARC and we use DACS as the content standard.

•Crosswalks from MARC to other metadata standards facilitate use of information towards the creation of other metadata outputs.

•Capabilities for exporting collection-level MARC, EAD, HTML and PDF, to assist institutions in integrating into access strategies for processed collections.

•More information on descriptive components of the project available in SAA Description Expo.

Collections surveyorsJohn Armstrong and Jenny Barr at work at theAcademy of Natural Sciences, August 2007

Distribution of Physical Access Ratings

(as of August 24, 2007)

12%

29%

48%

9%2%

5

4

3

2

1

Distribution of Intellectual Access Ratings

(as of August 24, 2007)

16%

27%

52%

0% 5%

5

4

3

2

1

Distribution of Research Value Ratings

(as of August 24, 2007)2%1%

8%

10%

16%

17%

21%

11%

14%

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Physical access ratings indicate that 77% of the collections surveyed to this point have either established series or rough arrangement by type or subject, while the bulk of the collections (79%) were characterized as having poor or no intellectual access. This indicates that many of these collections are good candidates for preliminary public collection records which will improve intellectual access and simultaneously minimize the impact on staff who prepare collections for use by researchers.

Research value ratings have been distributed throughout the scale, with the highest proportion occurring at the mid-level of the scale (4, 5 and 6). Highly rated collections may be singled out for immediate attention or form the centerpieces of institutional or collaborative projects, while lower rated collections may be most appropriate for grouping into projects by theme or format.

In addition to the typical benefits associated with surveying, one institution has essentially “processed” over 100 small collections by using the survey data to retrospectively accession them and using the survey description as the archival description that will be made available to researchers in finding aids.

Two institutions have already used the data to plan intern and volunteer projects, including projects for archives graduate students from Temple University program.

Eight institutions have gained better intellectual control over their own institutional records.

Several institutions have achieved better physical control of their records, including updated location lists.

Many institutions have found collections related to their own in others’ backlogs, paving the way for future collaboration and researcher referrals.

Preliminary results and “unexpected” benefitsAs of August 24, 2007, we have surveyed 885 collections totaling over 6,200 linear feet in 12 institutions.

(12 months of surveying; 14 months remain)

The Sites of the PACSCL Consortial Survey Initiative