PACSCL Consortial Survey Initiative

1. PACSCLConsortial Survey Initiative Planning meeting held on May 22, 2007 at The Historical Society of Pennsylvania

2. Plan for the afternoon • Welcomes and introductions • Background • Progress report for Year One • Experiences of surveyed institutions • Discussion questions • Large group BREAK • Breakout groups • Reporting out from breakout groups • What happens next

3. Background • Assessing backlogged archival collections in PACSCL institutions using a series of quantitative and qualitative measures. • Thirty-month project funded by the Mellon Foundation, who previously funded surveys at HSP (direct predecessor to this project), Columbia University, and University of Virginia. • Proposal was submitted to Mellon in 2004, funding was received in 2005. Official start of work was in May 2006 and surveying began in September 2006. • Three project staff, plus staff at participating institutions and an advisory committee.

4. Background • Defining terms: • Backlog: Unprocessed, under-processed or under-described material. • Archival: Managed according to archival principles – usually by provenance rather than subject; described at the collection, series and folder level rather than as individually cataloged items. • Collections: Range of formats, from manuscripts to photographs to architectural drawings to audiovisual materials.

5. Background • Defining terms (continued): • Quantitative: Numerical ratings for physical condition, quality of housing, physical access, intellectual access, documentation quality and interest. Confirm measurements and date spans of collections. • Qualitative: Narrative assessments of quantifiable and unquantifiable properties. We also write abstracts, apply name and subject headings, and indicate related collections, when applicable. • Providing both quantitative and qualitative data makes the assessments more useful and allows people to use the information for multiple purposes.

6. Year One – Staffing, Orientation and Training • Thirty-month project clock started with hiring of project director in May 2006. • Kickoff meeting held in May 2006. • Preliminary visits to nearly all of the participating institutions.

7. Year One – Staffing, Orientation and Training • Surveyors hired in August 2006. • Training for surveyors during the first month of employment with ongoing and supplemental training as needed. • Hosted two group training sessions for staff in participating institutions; representatives of eight institutions have attended so far. • Next training session scheduled for June 6.

8. Year One - Surveying • Surveyed at nine institutions, with number ten in progress. • Added two institutions to the project (Independence Seaport Museum and Abraham Lincoln Foundation of the Union League), as well as collections of the Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania under the terms of its strategic alliance with The Historical Society of Pennsylvania. • As of May 22, have surveyed 573 collections totaling over 4,600 linear feet.

10. Surveying facts and figures • Smallest: .01 feet (1 folder of correspondence) • Largest: 540 feet (congressional papers) • 106 collections 10 feet and over • 467 collections under 10 feet • 383 of those are under 5 feet • 175 of those are under 1 foot

11. Surveying facts and figures • 360 personal papers (68 of those are family papers) • 148 organizational records • 65 “artificial” collections • Have surveyed organization’s own institutional records at 6 institutions (and will be returning to survey institutional records at another institution later in the project).

12. Surveying facts and figures • Formats encountered so far include manuscripts, many different types of photographic materials, architectural plans, artifacts, audio recordings, biological and botanical specimens, electronic records on computer storage media, scrapbooks, textiles, and video recordings. • 313 collections (55%) had “special format” material.

13. Surveying facts and figures • 313 collections (55%) had no intellectual access beyond an accession record or other internal documentation. • An additional 94 collections (16%) had paper-only documentation that did not adequately provide access. • In all, 71% of the collections surveyed were characterized as having poor or no intellectual access • “Hidden” collections, for all intents and purposes.

14. Surveying facts and figures • Research Value Ratings distributed throughout the scale. • High of 10, low of 2 (which are also the highest and lowest numbers on the scale). • Mean: 5.17; Median: 5; Mode: 4 • 24% of collections rated at a 7 and above. • 37% rated at a 4 and below. • Keep in mind that most predecessor projects surveyed all holdings, while this project is assessing only unprocessed or under-processed.

15. Year One - Technology • With consultant Linda Bills, developed survey database in FileMaker Pro. • Access to the database is available to participating institutions through FileMaker and web browser. • Survey database has export capability for MARC, EAD and other formats. • Volume license for FileMaker subsidizes cost of software for participants.

16. Year One – Information Sharing • Project website at http://www.pacsclsurvey.org • Regular reports to PACSCL Board. • A poster session at Society of American Archivists in Chicago in late summer 2007 and an information session for Delaware Valley Archivists Group in October 2007 are in the works.

17. The Survey Experience • Participating institutions have already used survey process and data in a number of ways and to further various goals.

18. Discussion • Providing access to unprocessed collections • Why do it? • Are we doing it already? • How are we doing it? • What do we need to do in conjunction with any public data products of this project to meet the needs of participants?

19. Access to unprocessed collections - survey results • 22 participants responded to these questions (answers from 17 out of 22 participating institutions). • Over 95% indicated that they provide access to unprocessed collections under certain conditions. • 8 said “yes” • 13 said “it depends” • 1 said “no”

20. Access to unprocessed collections - survey results • Factors considered include • Physical condition of the materials. • Value of the collection. • Level of organization of the collection. • Research purpose and/or knowledge of the researcher. • Presence (or likelihood of presence) of sensitive or confidential materials. • Donor restrictions. • Staff time needed to service the collection.

21. Access to unprocessed collections - survey results • Most commonly cited concern • Theft of or damage to materials. • Other concerns included • Breach of confidentiality or privacy of donor or third parties. • Difficulty in maintaining original order. • Staff time. • Potential for increased demand for access to unprocessed collections. • Looking “unprofessional” to researchers. • Difficulty in citing unprocessed materials so that subsequent researchers can find.

22. Discussion • Providing access to information about surveyed collections • Who do we want to reach? • How do we want to reach them? • What is the best strategy for our individual institutions? • What is the best strategy for PACSCL as a whole? • How coordinated should our efforts be? • What is the “shelf life” of this data?

23. Options for providing access to information about surveyed collections • Public version of the survey database. • MARC records in individual OPACs. • MARC records in bibliographic utilities (contributed on own or centrally). • Collection-level EAD finding aids (on individual websites or centrally). • Collection-level HTML or PDF finding aids or lists (on individual websites or centrally). • Other?

24. Information about surveyed collections - survey results • 22 participants responded to these questions (answers from 17 out of 22 participating institutions).

25. Information about surveyed collections - survey results • “Very desirable” • Public version of the survey database. • MARC records in your own OPAC. • Collection-level EAD finding aids on your own website. [tie] • HTML or PDF finding aids/lists on your own website. • MARC records contributed to national bibliographic utilities through PACSCL (though a significant number said this option was “not desirable”).

26. Information about surveyed collections - survey results • “Very desirable” or “somewhat desirable” • Public version of the survey database. • MARC records in your own OPAC. • HTML or PDF finding aids/lists on your own website. • MARC records contributed to national bibliographic utilities on your own. • Collection-level EAD finding aids on your own website.

27. Information about surveyed collections - survey results • If could choose only one option • 9 out of 22 said public version of the survey database. • 7 out of 22 said MARC records in own OPAC. • 5 out of 22 said collection-level EAD finding aids on own website. • 1 out of 22 said MARC records contributed to national bibliographic utilities through PACSCL.

28. Breakout groups • Funding for projects associated with surveyed collections (moderated by David Moltke-Hansen) • Publicity and promotion for the project and its results (moderated by V. Chapman-Smith and Laura Blanchard) • Using the survey method and data in our institutions post-surveying (moderated by Matthew Lyons) • Building on this project to further other PACSCL priorities (moderated by Bob Kieft) • Trends in the archives and special collections fields and how this project fits in (moderated by Christine Di Bella)

29. Reporting out from breakout groups

30. What Happens Next • Surveying scheduled for the remaining 12 institutions. • Returning to previously surveyed sites as needed. • Dissemination of the collection information and the survey tools to target audiences. • Planning for project-end conference. • Planning beyond the conclusion of the project.