Ohio’s Connecting to Collections Project

1. Ohio’s Connecting to Collections Project Statewide Preservation Survey Findings Tom Clareson May 7, 2010

2. Survey Demographics • In field January-March 2010 • Project Partners’ and Regional Representatives’ assistance helpful • 285 responses – 40% return rate • Top institution types responding: • Public libraries • Historical Societies • Academic libraries • Museums

3. Preservation Activities –What’s Being Done Currently • Rehousing (incl. refoldering, reboxing) • Reformatting (preservation photocopying, microfilming) • Storage furniture • Environmental monitoring • Digitization/imaging • Exhibit policies • Pest and mold management

4. PreservationPolicies • The list of “what needs to be done” • Survey found: • Lack of written long-range preservation plans • Lack of onsite preservation surveys performed • Written policies and procedures, disaster plans both lacking • This is a national problem! Potential solutions: provide model plans and policies; policies as workshop outcomes; consulting

5. A Major Concern • Survey asked how much of your institution’s collection you would estimate is adequately stored • 38 institutions (14.6%) said none • 90 respondents (36.6%) said only 1-25% • 51 organizations (19.6%) said 26-50% • 70% of respondents (179 institutions) feel that half or less of their collections are stored well

6. Most SeriousPreservationProblems • Top Answers from the “Top Three” question: • Lack of funds for preservation supplies, staff, and activities • Lack of space (storage/exhibit space) • Environmental issues (temp & rh fluctuations, lack of temp & rh control, lack of monitoring, lighting issues) • Lack of staff or staff time for preservation activities • Lack of proper storage (facilities or containers/materials) • Need for digitization of collection items • Lack of long-term preservation plan or policies

7. Environmental Controls and Fire Safety • Temperature and light levels most often controlled • Humidity and air quality controlled less often • Fire detection good; suppression poor

8. Disaster Situations • 90 respondents have had disasters (one-third of respondents) • Disasters were caused by: • Water leakage • Flooding • Mold outbreaks • Pests • Internal staff took care of recovery

9. Disaster Planning • 48% have no disaster plan • 13% have plan • 20% have a plan, but it hasn’t been updated in a year or more • 14% are developing • Two meanings of this finding! • Security practices well-developed • 82%+ have a working relationship with local first responders and emergency managers

10. Preservation Service Interest • Biggest areas of interest • State-supported preservation grants • State-sponsored preservation workshops • Source to contact for preservation information • On-site visits by preservation professionals • Assistance with disaster planning and recovery

11. Potential StatewideContract Services • Disaster recovery assistance • Preservation supplies • Electronic data storage • Collections storage

12. Preservation Training • Leading educational resources • On-site visits • Print materials • Videos, DVDs • Barriers to training • Travel costs • Registration costs • Unavailable in region • Potential solutions: Workshop series available in multiple regions; distance education

13. Preservation Training II • Formats on which training needed (ranked) • Books/bound volumes • Photographic collections* • Digital materials and electronic records • Unbound sheets * Highest URGENT need cited

14. Preservation Training III • Disaster preparedness and conservation seen as popular areas of need • Preservation management and digitization also seen as high-level training needs • Potential solution: develop or adopt curriculum to be offered at many sites

15. Key Findings -- Funding • Majority received preservation funding from institution’s own budget (positive or negative?) • Only 1/3 have made grant applications in the past 5 years • Important external preservation funding sources: Donors, County grants; foundations • Those not applying lack time to complete grants; need more project planning assistance; lack information about funding sources; • This is an area where assistance and education is needed

16. Some “Untapped” Grant Sources • National Endowment for the Humanities Preservation Assistance Grants for Smaller Institutions (NEH/PAG) • NEH – Larger Program Grants • National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) • Save America’s Treasures (SAT)* • National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC)

17. NEH Preservation Assistance Grants • Awards: up to $6,000 • Activities: • general preservation or conservation assessments • consultants to develop a plan to address a specific preservation problem (now including digital preservation) • attendance at preservation workshops/training programs • purchase of preservation supplies, equipment, and storage furniture • purchase of environmental monitoring equipment • 2010 Deadline: May 18

18. Other NEH Grants to Consider • Sustaining Cultural Heritage Collections* • Grants to Preserve and Create Access to Humanities Collections • Preservation and Access Research and Development Project Grants • Challenge Grants • Statewide or Collaborative Projects

19. Preservation Staffing Scenarios • Duties assigned as needed • No staff person with preservation/conservation responsibilities • Part-time or full-time staff dedicated to preservation • Volunteers providing services • About 80% with no formal pres/cons training

20. Digital Findings • Photographs, video/audio, databases, and sound recordings are the formats most often acquired/owned in digital format • Scanning/conversion done most on photographs, documents, manuscripts, maps • Digital preservation plans needed, starting with more backup plans/policies • Those with backup files are storing them offsite (Good, in light of Hurricane Katrina findings), but only three miles away.

21. Estimates of Formats Held • Books and bound volumes – 26 million • Photographs – 11 million • Digital material online collections – 5 million • Archaeological collections – 3 million • Moving image collections – 2 million • Recorded sound collections – 1.2 million • These numbers from only 40% of identified repositories in the State

22. Comments from the Surveys • “In most of the smaller museums, the awareness of the preservation/conservation of the collection is not a high priority.” • “Please do not overlook or forget about the many, many small museums/sites with little or no funds to properly house their items. There are a great deal of volunteer organizations wanting to take proper care of their collections but have neither the knowledge or funding to make that possible.”

23. Comments from the Surveys • “We have so many original historical records that need preservation/conservation that it is hard to decide where to even begin. We have no budget to speak of and would greatly benefit from a professional needs assessment survey.” • “We have more to do than we have funding or expertise to do….” • “We often have questions as to what to keep and probably tend to keep more than we need.” • “We are having trouble getting all our collections and memorabilia inventory completed in a timely manner so our museum can use them.”

24. Comments from the Surveys • “MONEY is the big problem, not just now (economy) but all the time for us.” • “We need assistance with preservation as well as ways to learn how to find and write grants.” • “I…lack experience in filling out grants and find it a little overwhelming.”

25. Comments from the Surveys • “Our parent institution ... does not support our interest in archival preservation of library materials.” • “It has been impossible to convince our local government officials to address our needs as there is just not any local money to be spared at this time.” • “It would be great to have literature … that could be shared with management letting them know the importance of best practices and guidelines for museum collections.”

26. Comments from the Surveys • “When we (were) forced to confront our preservation issues after a mold outbreak, we floundered about for guidance and help to deal with our problem. Having one statewide, centralized source to provide help would have been an incredible relief.” • “Having a mutual aid agreement with nearby cultural heritage institutions would be a huge positive step forward. Having this paired with a repository of disaster supplies that all in this mutual aid agreement could draw from would also be greatly beneficial.”

27. Comments from the Surveys • “I would avidly welcome the opportunity for more (preservation) training workshops.” • “We need to be able to train volunteers in the basics of preservation … things we can do on a shoestring budget.” • “Cooperative preservation planning and pooling resources would be desirable.”

28. Comments from the Surveys • “Without outside help, we will not be able to adequately preserve our collection for future generations.” • “Where do you get interested people with time?” • We need help ... where does one start?”

29. Conclusions • Develop a cohesive curriculum of preservation training • Make workshops available in many regions of the State • Preservation policy development needed • Lack of storage space is a top problem • Raise awareness of and education on preservation funding resources • High interest levels in training, collaborative preservation initiatives, state-supported preservation activities, and state contracts • Programmatic need – coordinated outreach

30. Questionsand Discussion Contact: Tom Clareson tom.clareson@lyrasis.org 800/233-3401, x1270; 614/439-1796