Nebraska’s IMLS Connecting to Collections Project

1. Nebraska’s IMLS Connecting to Collections Project Statewide Preservation Preliminary Survey Findings Tom Clareson and Liz Bishoff April 2011

2. Survey Demographics • In field September-October 2010 • Planning Task Force assistance helpful • 156 responses – 21% return rate for primary audience; additional responses from school and municipal, county records audiences • Top institution types responding: • Public libraries • History museums • Academic libraries • Historical societies • Historical sites

3. Preservation Activities –What’s Currently Being Done • Environmental monitoring, housekeeping • Rehousing (incl. refoldering, reboxing) • Reformatting (incl. preservation photocopying, microfilming) • Preservation management and planning • Conservation treatment • Preservation of digital materials • Preservation of audiovisual materials

4. Preservation Staffing Scenarios • 50% have no staff spending time on preservation/conservation responsibilities • 65% have no volunteers providing collections care

5. Preservation Training • Leading educational resources • Workshops • Conferences • Peer advice • Barriers to training • Travel costs • Registration costs • Unavailable in region • Can’t spare staff time • Potential solutions: Workshop series available in multiple regions; distance education

6. Preservation Training Topics • Collections storage, book and paper repair, disaster preparedness, and collections management policies seen as most popular areas of need and urgent need • Potential solution: develop and/or adopt curriculum to be offered at multiple sites across the state

7. PreservationPolicies—The good and the bad • The Good: 80 responding institutions (52%) have an institutional mission statement supporting preservation of their collections • Institutions are undertaking a wide variety of preservation actions • The Challenge: • 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 solution: Provide model plans and policies; policies as workshop outcomes; consulting

8. Environmental Controls and Fire Safety • Temperature levels most often controlled in all areas of the institution • Humidity and light controlled in some, but not all areas; air quality controlled less often • Good result: Concerns about adequate storage much less than on national level: • 40% say that 76-100% of their collection is well-stored • Fire detection good; suppression poor

9. Deterioration and Disaster Situations • Over 40% of respondents’ collections suffered damage or loss due to: • Light (fading or discoloration) • Physical or chemical deterioration • Water or moisture • Handling (by staff, by users, in shipment)

10. Disaster Planning • 52% have no disaster plan • 11% have plan • 8% are developing • These findings reflect national trends

11. Why No Disaster Plan? • Not an institutional priority • Do not have the time to write a disaster plan • Do not have the expertise to write a disaster plan • Unaware of the need for a disaster plan

12. Preservation Service Interest • Biggest areas of interest • State-sponsored preservation workshops • Ongoing state-supported preservation grants • On-site visits by preservation professionals

13. Potential StatewideContract Services • Preservation supplies • Collection storage • Disaster recovery assistance

14. Digital Findings • Photographs, video/audio, and sound recordings are the formats most often owned as born-digital materials • Historic photographs, documents, video/audio most often reformatted/scanned • 58% plan to retain their digital collections more than 10 years • But, 68% do not have a plan in place for preserving their digital collections • Good result: 55% of responding institutions are utilizing staff responsible for traditional preservation in digital preservation activities (adds experience in policy development, etc.)

15. Key Findings -- Funding • 78% do not have funds specifically allocated for preservation • Over 50% have not made grant applications for preservation funding in the past 3 years • When utilized, important external preservation funding sources include: donors, IMLS grants; and foundations • Those not applying lack information about funding sources; lack staff time to complete grants; need more project planning assistance • Solutions: This is an area where assistance and education is needed

16. “Untapped” Grant Sources • National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) • Save America’s Treasures (SAT) • National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) • National Science Foundation (NSF)

17. If Gained New Preservation Funding • Priorities for new preservation funding : • Digitization • Storage supplies and equipment • Cataloging/inventory • Staff training • Storage space

18. Comments from the Surveys • “I know that there is a need for preservation and that we need to get started on it now before important information is lost.” • “Our historical collection is not large. We are, however, committed to keeping as much of our local history as possible. When the library position is less than full time to start with, it is difficult to find time for the historical items.” • “We are just starting to have the space to expand our historical records and will need some help in the future with preservation.”

19. Comments from the Surveys • “We have many needs but lack money and staff. Our museum and other small Nebraska museums need help with preservation.” • “I believe it is VERY important to preserve buildings and structures to help (re)create community and a ‘sense of place’ for young and old alike.” • Participating in this survey has made us much more aware.”

20. Questionsand Discussion Contact: Tom Clareson tom.clareson@lyrasis.org And Liz Bishoff liz.bishoff@gmail.com