1. A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the Condition of Alabama’s Collection

2. Responsibility and Funding for the Study The Alabama Heritage Health Index is the first comprehensive survey conducted whose purpose was to describe the condition and preservation needs of the state’s collections held in public trust. This project was funded from a 2008 grant application for an Institute of Museum and Library Services Connecting Collections grant. The Alabama Historical Commission, the Alabama Department of Archives and History, the Alabama Museums Association, the network of Alabama Academic Libraries, and the Society of Alabama Archivists submitted the application in an effort to establish a network of preservation support for preserving Alabama’s cultural heritage collections. 2

3. Heritage Health Index Methodology A.Sampling Frame and Sampling Selection The Alabama Heritage Health Index group identified 1,403 collecting institutions based upon the Alabama Repository Data Base. This data file included 1,224 organizations that have the capability to communicate with electronic mail and 179 institutions that use the United States Postal Service as the preferred method to receive and send information. The list of institutions was categorized by the Alabama preservation group into one of five institution types: archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, or archaeological repositories/scientific research collections. It was the intent of the Alabama preservation team to give all of the state’s collecting organizations an opportunity to complete the heritage health Index survey. 3

4. B. Survey Instrument The Alabama heritage Health Index obtained permission to use the survey instrument used by Heritage Preservation and the Institute of Museum and Library services in conducting the US survey in 2004. A few small changes were made in the questionnaire layout based upon suggestions from the national group and the survey pretest results. Heritage Health Index Methodology 4

5. C. Weighing the Survey Data Heritage Health Index Methodology Figure 2.1 2009-2010 Alabama Estimates ArchivesLibraries Historical Societies Museums Archaeological Repositories/Scientific research Collections TOTAL Sample proportion 33%30%5%27%5%100% Sample Number 39366336120 Estimated Population Proportion 61%20%7%10%2%100% After weighing 86127592147281,403 US Population proportion 3%43%11%39%4%100% 5

6. Heritage Health Index Methodology D. Confidence Intervals by Type of Institution ArchivesLibraries Historical Societies Museums Archaeological Repositories/ Scientific Research Collections Total 15.3% 38.9%15.1%36.1%10.4% Figure 2.2 - Maximum 95% Error Margins By Type of Institution 6

7. Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in Alabama 7 Based upon classifications provided by the Alabama Heritage Health Index group of the state’s 1,403 collecting/preserving institutions.

8. Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in Alabama 8

9. 9

10. Condition of Collections A. Planning for Care of Alabama’s Collection 10

11. Condition of Collections B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items Figure 4.2 Collections Items in Unknown Condition * Books and bound volumes58% Unbound sheets-linear feet66% Unbound sheets-individual items80% Photographic collections69% Moving images67% Recorded sound72% Digital materials76% Art objects78% Historic objects79% Archaeological collections, individually cataloged84% Archaeological collections, bulk cataloged89% Natural science specimens98% * Unknown condition: Material has not been recently accessed by staff for visual inspection and/or condition is unknown. 11 Represents a very serious preservation obstacle in Alabama. US – All were less than 60% and 9 out of 12 were less than 40%.

12. Condition of Collections Figure 4.3 Collections Items in No Need * Books and bound volumes24% Unbound sheets-linear feet18% Unbound sheets-individual items12% Photographic collections16% Moving images22% Recorded sound22% Digital materials15% Art objects12% Historic objects12% Archaeological collections, individually cataloged11% Archaeological collections, bulk cataloged6% Natural science specimens2% B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items * No need: Material is stable enough for use and is housed in a stable environment that protects it from long-term damage and deterioration. 12 Could be higher due to high percent in unknown condition.

13. Condition of Collections B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items Figure 4.6 Collections Items in Need and Urgent Need Books and bound volumes17% Unbound sheets-linear feet16% Unbound sheets-individual items8% Photographic collections15% Moving images11% Recorded sound6% Digital materials10% Art objects10% Historic objects10% Archaeological collections, individually cataloged4% Archaeological collections, bulk cataloged5% Natural science specimen0% 13 Very likely higher due to very high percent in unknown condition.

14. Condition of Collections B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items 14

15. Condition of Collections B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items 15

16. Condition of Collections B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items 16

17. Condition of Collections B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items 17

18. Condition of Collections B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items 18

19. Condition of Collections B. Condition of Alabama Collection Items 19

20. Collections Environment 20

21. Collections Environment 21 Average for ALL institutions = 13%

22. Collections Environment 22

23. Collections Environment 23 Examples of preventive conservation included housekeeping, holdings maintenance, rehousing, and environmental monitoring.

24. Collections Environment 24

25. Collections Storage 25 25% of institutions less than 40% of collections are stored in areas large enough to accommodate them safely and appropriately. 45% less than 80% have sufficient storage for their collection.

26. Collections Storage 26

27. Collections Storage 27 Total reporting damage due to handling = 47%. Total reporting damage due to improper storage or enclosure = 53%

28. Emergency Planning and Security 28

29. Emergency Planning and Security 29 Respondents were informed that vital records about their collections included inventories, catalog records, insurance policies, catalogs.

30. Emergency Planning and Security 30 Examples given to respondents included security guard, staff observation, intrusion detection.

31. Emergency Planning and Security *Includes some need and ongoing need. 31

32. Preservation Staffing and Activities 32

33. Preservation Staffing and Activities 33 Only 17% of institutions have paid conservation/preservation staff whether full-time or part-time.

34. Preservation Staffing and Activities *Includes some need and ongoing need. 34

35. Preservation Expenditures and Funding 35 Only 18% of the collecting institutions have funding specifically allocated for conservation/preservation activities in their annual budgets.

36. Preservation Expenditures and Funding 36 The average proportion for all responding institutions was 1.2% vs. 2% recorded in the national Heritage Health Index study.

37. Preservation Expenditures and Funding 37

38. Preservation Expenditures and Funding Multiple responses. 38

39. Preservation Expenditures and Funding 39

40. Preservation Expenditures and Funding 40

41. Intellectual Control and Assessment 41

42. Intellectual Control and Assessment *Includes some need and ongoing need. 42

43. Intellectual Control and Assessment 12% 43

44. Intellectual Control and Assessment 44 Libraries are most likely to have online catalog access. 57% have at least 80% of their collections available online.

45. Intellectual Control and Assessment 45 50% of libraries provide online access to the content of their holdings followed by archeological repositories/scientific research (33%), archives (31%) and museums (27%).

46. Intellectual Control and Assessment 46 This survey was defined as an assessment based on visual inspections of the collections and the areas where they are exhibited or held.

47. Intellectual Control and Assessment * Need and ongoing need. 47

48. Recommendations Institutions must give priority to determining the condition of the state’s artifacts. Every collecting institution must develop an emergency plan to protect its collections and utilize trained staff to carry it out. All state institutions must set goals to provide both adequate and safe storage conditions for the collections they hold in trust. Every institution must assign responsibility for caring of collections to internal staff trained to perform activities needed for preservation. 48

49. Representatives of Alabama’s institutions must assume the responsibility through individual and group efforts to convince governmental officials, corporate partners and the general public to provide the support that will allow the state’s collections to survive. The various groups representing the state’s preservation institutions should proceed to create a mechanism for implementing the study’s recommendations by incorporating them into a statewide collections care plan. Recommendations 49