1 / 23

Georgia’s Healthy Collections Initiative

Georgia’s Healthy Collections Initiative. SAA Annual Conference Austin, TX Aug. 13, 2009. Georgia Archives Georgia Association of Museums and Galleries (GAMG) Georgia Department of Economic Development Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) Georgia Humanities Council

galena
Télécharger la présentation

Georgia’s Healthy Collections Initiative

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Georgia’s Healthy Collections Initiative SAA Annual Conference Austin, TX Aug. 13, 2009 Georgia Archives Georgia Association of Museums and Galleries (GAMG) Georgia Department of Economic Development Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) Georgia Humanities Council Georgia Public Library Service Historic Preservation Division, Department of Natural Resources Lyrasis Society of Georgia Archivists (SGA)

  2. Project Goals • Identify all collections-holding institutions in Georgia • Expand the Georgia Archives’ online Historical & Cultural Organizations Directory • Develop and test a survey instrument to assess collections care and emergency preparedness • Incorporate a stair-step chart so repositories can track their level of collections care

  3. Characteristics of Institutions Surveyed • Total population of 643 organizations in database; test sent to 117 • 84 institutions completed survey • 72% return • Six major institution types • Size: small/medium/large • Determined by overall budget size

  4. Types of Institutions Surveyed(primary function/service) • Archives (12) • Public Libraries (15) • Academic Libraries (16) • Historical Societies (7) • Museums (29) • Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections (0)

  5. Institutional Size • Determined by budget • Small <$500,000 • Medium $500,000 to $5 million • Large >$5 million

  6. Institutions by Size and Type

  7. Preservation Stair-Step • 19 out of the 60 survey questions were designed as “Stair-Step” questions Step 4: Comprehensive Step 3: Advanced Step 2: Basic Step 1: Minimal

  8. Preservation Stair-Step Levels • Step 1: Establishing Preservation Awareness There is minimal preservation activity, and the institution is just beginning to develop an awareness of preservation needs.

  9. Preservation Stair-Step Levels • Step 2: Building a Basic Preservation Program Some activities in place including environmental & light controls, emergency planning, staff awareness, but no formal planning has been done.

  10. Preservation Stair-Step Levels • Step 3: Advancing Preservation Within Your Organization More formal planning efforts have been undertaken and resources are allocated to preservation; as well as ongoing activities in various categories

  11. Preservation Stair-Step Levels • Step 4: Achieving Comprehensive Preservation of Collections Well-established program that addresses all major preservation needs and issues; trained staff, formal planning, allocated resources, grants obtained

  12. Stair-Step Categories • Intellectual Control • Preservation Management • Environmental Control • Emergency Planning • Collections Care • Expenditures and Funding • Advocacy and Training

  13. Importance Survey • Survey sent to advisory committee and colleagues • Participants asked to rate overall categories AND individual questions (Stair-Step questions only) • Results confirmed existing weighting, with the exception of Collections Care

  14. Stair-Step Results • Step 1 (.50 - 1.59) 1 institution • Step 2 (1.60 – 2.59) 48 institutions • Step 3 (2.60 - 3.59) 29 institutions • Step 4 (3.60 – 4.00) 1 institution

  15. Stair-Step Results by Type of Institution

  16. Stair-Step Results bySize of Institution

  17. Institutional Reports • Customized report with their overall stair-step level, and the level for each section • Boiler plate overview of each category with bulleted recommendations that that corresponds to stair-step • Links to resources embedded in report • Planning phase – reports generated manually

  18. Test Survey Overall Results • Majority have less than 2 FTE staff devoted to preservation • Only 18.5% have line item for preservation in their budget • 64% have done no formal preservation planning • 25% have a disaster plan that has been updated in the past year

  19. Test Survey Overall Results • 73% have standard HVAC, but only 16% monitor conditions regularly • Training needs: Most preferred face-to- face training over online • Preservation priorities • Funding and staffing • Long range planning • Disaster planning

  20. Ideas for Implementation • Open survey/assessment to all organizations • Automate survey and reports • Expand statewide Directory to include GIS data; import data into existing statewide GIS systems for EM purposes

  21. Ideas for Implementation • Identify “lead” organizations in each of the state’s 15 regions to help mentor others • Match needs according to stair-step • Site visits to Step One orgs • Training for Step Two orgs • Grant writing assistance for Step Three orgs

  22. Lessons Learned • Identifying organizations and maintaining contact data is an ongoing challenge • Incentives help to increase survey response rate • Disaster Wheels, Field Guides, Reports • Testing first helped focus and refine survey questions

  23. For More Information Christine Wiseman Preservation Services ManagerGeorgia Archivescwiseman@sos.ga.gov 678-364-3761 http://www.sos.ga.gov/archives/Healthy_Collections_Initiative/default.htm

More Related