A P T RISK The Heritage Health Index Report on the … Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s Collections ©2005 Heritage Preservation, Inc. Heritage Preservation

HHIHeritage Health Indexa partnership between Heritage Preservation and the Institute of Museum and Library Services

A PUBLIC TRUST AT RISK:The Heritage Health Index Report

on the State of America’sCollections

©2005 Heritage Preservation, Inc.

Heritage Preservation1012 14th St. Suite 1200Washington, DC 20005202-233-0800fax 202-233-0807www.heritagepreservation.orginfo@heritagepreservation.org

Heritage Preservation receives funding from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.However, the content and opinions included in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views orpolicies of the Department of the Interior.

Introduction and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. Heritage Health Index Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3. Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4. Condition of Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5. Collections Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6. Collections Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

7. Emergency Plannning and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

8. Preservation Staffing and Activitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

9. Preservation Expenditures and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

10. Intellectual Control and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Appendices:

A. Institutional Advisory Committee Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A1

B. Working Group Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B1

C. Heritage Preservation Board Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C1

D. Sources Consulted in Identifying the Heritage Health Index Study Population. . . . . . . . . . . . D1

E. Heritage Health Index Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E1

F. Heritage Health Index Survey Instrument, Instructions, and Frequently Asked Questions . F1

G. Selected Bibliography of Sources Consulted in Planning the Heritage Health Index. . . . . . . G1

H. N Values for Data Shown in Report Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H1

Table of Contents

At this time a year ago, staff members of thou-sands of museums, libraries, and archives nation-wide were breathing a sigh of relief as they fin-ished the work of completing the Heritage HealthIndex survey. The scope of the survey, coveringnot only conservation and preservation but alsosecurity, budgets, emergency planning, and facili-ties, was such that several people at a singleinstitution were often involved in answering thequestions. Those of us who planned and man-aged the project extend our deepest thanks to allthese survey participants; without their coopera-tion this report would not exist. The institutionsthat participated in the survey are listed inAppendix E.

The Heritage Health Index benefited greatlyfrom the guidance of individuals who representedorganizations on the Institutional AdvisoryCommittee and from the professionals whoserved on Working Groups that developed thesurvey. We are grateful for the careful attentionthey gave to the many issues this project present-ed. They are listed in Appendices A and B.

The Heritage Health Index could not have hap-pened without the strong commitment of theBoard of Directors of Heritage Preservation.Every member of the board provided us withexcellent advice. Supporting us as we developedthe project and helping to raise funds from itsconception through completion were three boardchairs: Inge-Lise Eckmann, Dennis Fiori, andDebra Hess Norris. Each believed passionately inthe importance of this project, and each madecontributions that were vital to its success.

The Institute of Museum and Library Serviceswas Heritage Preservation’s partner in this proj-ect. In addition to funding, staff of this federalagency contributed their extensive expertise withmuseums and libraries. Robert Martin, who wasdirector of IMLS until July 2005, was a wise andstalwart supporter of the project. We are alsograteful to Beverly Black Sheppard, who wasActing Director of IMLS when the project waslaunched and recognized its potential value tothe field. Other members of the IMLS staff whosesupport of the project deserves recognition are

Mary Chute, Schroeder Cherry, Mary EstelleKenelly, Joyce Ray, Mamie Bittner, EileenMaxwell, Christine Henry, and Elizabeth Lyons.

A number of foundations joined the IMLS infunding the project, and the counsel of theirstaffs helped us immensely. We would like tothank especially Deborah Marrow, JoanWeinstein, Antoine Wilmering, and Jack Myers ofthe Getty Foundation, Ellen Holtzman of TheHenry Luce Foundation, Marilyn Perry and LisaAckerman of The Samuel H. Kress Foundation,Frederick Bay and Robert Ashton of The Bay andPaul Foundations, Frederick Schaen of the PeckStacpoole Foundation, and David Stam of theGladys Krieble Delmas Foundation.

The Heritage Health Index benefited from thework of numerous professionals who wereretained to work on the project. M. ChristineDwyer, Kim Streitburger, and Erika Soucy of RMCResearch Corporation provided the professionalskill to conduct the survey and tabulate and ana-lyze its results. Doug DeNatale of Cultural Logicdesigned the Web-based survey. Tamara Starkeand Mark Rudzinski of Aeffect, Inc., advised us indeveloping and testing the survey. Lee-Ann Hayekprovided valued advice on statistical analysis.Lynne Heiser of in2it Creative designed the sum-mary report and Web site. Anne Edgar advised uson how to disseminate the results to the mediaand the public.

The talented project staff included NadinaGardner, Rich Vidutis, Rory House, Rashan Clark,Yael Meirovich, Daria Gasparini, and MaryRogers, each of whom made substantial contribu-tions to the success of the Heritage Health Indexat different stages of its progress. LindaBudhinata and Lucy Kurtz provided sustainedsupport for the project. CommunicationsManager Diane Mossholder and Vice Presidentfor External Affairs Moira Egan spent untoldhours on the project from the time it was a gleamin our eye through the announcement of its find-ings at a New York news conference and dissemi-nation of the report.

Kristen Overbeck Laise has been everythingone could want in a project director. Organized,

The Heritage Health Index Report i

Introduction and Acknowledgements

tenacious, intelligent, precise, prescient, andhumorous, she led this project from start to fin-ish and never flagged in her commitment. Thesuccess of this project is due in large part to herleadership.

Lawrence L. RegerPresidentHeritage Preservation

December 6, 2005

ii The Heritage Health Index Report

The Heritage Health Index is the first compre-hensive survey ever conducted of the conditionand preservation needs of all U.S. collections heldin the public trust. The project was conceived andimplemented by Heritage Preservation, a nationalnonprofit organization, in partnership with theInstitute of Museum and Library Services, anindependent federal agency.

The survey was planned with the advice of 35associations and federal agencies that serve col-lecting institutions. The questionnaire was devel-oped in consultation with 66 leading collectionsprofessionals. In August 2004, the HeritageHealth Index survey was distributed to more than14,500 archives, libraries, historical societies,museums, archaeological repositories, and scien-tific research collections1, which included insti-tutions of all sizes from every U.S. state and terri-tory. There was a 24% response rate overall and a90% response rate from 500 of the nation’slargest and most significant collections. From asampling frame of more than 35,000 potentialinstitutions, the final study population wasestablished to be 30,827 institutions. TheHeritage Health Index data has a margin of errorof +⁄- 1.5%. Results analyzed by institutional type,size, or geographic region have a slightly highermargin of error.

The Heritage Health Index asked institutionsto report on all aspects of conservation andpreservation and to estimate the quantity andcondition of the collections for which they have apreservation responsibility. The survey resultsprovide the first data on all the holdings of U.S.collecting institutions. More than 4.8 billion arti-facts are being cared for nationwide, includingrare books and manuscripts, photographs, docu-ments, sound recordings, moving images, digitalmaterials, art, historic and ethnographic objects,archaeological artifacts, and natural sciencespecimens. The survey reports that U.S. collec-tions are visited 2.5 billion times a year.

The information the Heritage Health Index col-lected on the condition of collections supplies

baseline data that will be useful in measuringfuture preservation efforts. It is significant thatfor collections of almost every type, about 30% ofartifacts are in unknown condition. In the case ofbulk cataloged archaeological collections, record-ed sound collections, and moving image collec-tions, more than 40% are in unknown condition.Of collections known to be in need2, unboundsheets cataloged by item rather than linear feet,such as ephemera, broadsides, philatelic andnumismatic paper artifacts, have the highest per-centage at 54%. The percentages of collectionstypes in need are as follows:

Unbound Sheets, cataloged in items 54%Historic Objects 28%Unbound Sheets, cataloged in linear feet 24%Natural Science Specimens 23%Art Objects 22%Archaeological Collections, bulk cataloged

in cubic feet 21%Photographic Collections 21%Archaeological Collections,

individually cataloged 19%Books/Bound Volumes 16%Digital Materials 15%Recorded Sound Collections 14%Moving Image Collections 12%Microfilm/Microfiche 7%Online Files 5%

However, because such significant percentagesare in unknown condition, the amount of collec-tions in need is likely to be much higher.

The Heritage Health Index data points to envi-ronmental and storage conditions, emergencyplanning, staffing, and funding as the aspects ofcollections stewardship with the greatest needs.If these are not addressed, many collections areat higher risk for damage or loss.

The most urgent preservation need at U.S. col-lecting institutions is environmental control. TheHeritage Health Index documents that 26% ofinstitutions have no environmental controls to

The Heritage Health Index Report 1

1. Referred to in this report as “collecting institutions” or “institutions.”2. Defined as in need of treatment to make the collections items stable enough for use or in need of improved housing or

environment to reduce the risk of damage or deterioration.

Executive Summary

mitigate damage from temperature, humidity,and light. Highlighting the importance of pro-tecting collections from environmental factorsare the findings that 59% of institutions havehad their collections damaged by light, 53% bywater or moisture, and 47% by airborne pollu-tants.

At 59% of U.S. collecting institutions, storagespace to accommodate all collections safely andappropriately is lacking. At 65% of institutions,collections are in need of treatment due toimproper storage. Nearly one-third have anurgent need for additional storage facilities, ren-ovated storage facilities, or new and/or improvedstorage furniture.

One of the most alarming Heritage HealthIndex statistics is that 80% of collecting institu-tions do not have an emergency or disaster planthat includes collections, with staff trained tocarry it out. Because of this, more than 2.6 billionitems are at risk. Only 26% of institutions havecopies of vital collections records stored off-sitein case of emergency. It is essential that a collect-ing institution experiencing a disaster have arecord of its holdings.

Only 20% of institutions have paid staff—whether full-time or part-time—dedicated to con-servation or preservation responsibilities.Instead, many institutions depend on assigningcollections care duties to other staff as needed, tovolunteers, or to external providers. Staff train-ing for conservation and preservation is neededat 70% of institutions, the most common needcited in the Heritage Health Index survey. Due inpart to inadequate staffing levels, basic informa-tion about the content and condition of collec-tions is incomplete: 39% of institutions have asignificant backlog in cataloging their collec-tions and 70% have no current assessment of thecondition of their collections.

The instability of preservation funding isanother issue that the Heritage Health Indexdetails. Less than a quarter of institutions specif-ically allocate funds for preservation in their

annual budgets; 36% rely on other budget lines tofund preservation; 40% do not allocate for preser-vation. Only 13% of institutions have access topermanent funds, such as an endowment, forpreservation. Despite the survey’s broad defini-tion that included any expenses related to collec-tions care, 68% report that less than $3,000 wasbudgeted for preservation in their most recentlycompleted fiscal year. Only 2% of the total annualbudgets of U.S. collecting institutions was spenton preservation in the last fiscal year.

Based on the findings of the Heritage HealthIndex, Heritage Preservation recommends that:• Institutions must give priority to providing

safe conditions for the collections they hold intrust.

• Every collecting institution must develop anemergency plan to protect its collections andtrain staff to carry it out.

• Every institution must assign responsibilityfor caring for collections to members of itsstaff.

• Individuals at all levels of government and inthe private sector must assume responsibilityfor providing the support that will allow thesecollections to survive.A summary of the Heritage Health Index

results has been published in A Public Trust at

Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the

State of America’s Collections, an illustratedbooklet. A full report with graphs and tables isavailable at www.heritagehealthindex.org. APublic Trust at Risk and the Web site featurecase studies that describe the conservation chal-lenges and successes of institutions throughoutthe U.S.

A Public Trust at Risk has been provided to allsurvey participants, as well as members ofCongress, foundations, and national and stateassociations and government agencies that sup-port the work of archives, libraries, historicalsocieties, museums, archaeological repositories,and scientific research organizations.

2 The Heritage Health Index Report

HistoryAn important impetus for the Heritage Health

Index project was Creative America: A Report to

the President by the President’s Committee on theArts and the Humanities. Issued in 1997, thereport looked at conditions affecting the arts andhumanities and made recommendations for sus-taining their future health. One of its six majorrecommendations was:

The President’s Committee calls upon pub-

lic agencies and the private sector to support

a national assessment of the nation’s preser-

vation needs and a plan to protect our cul-

tural legacy.

This recommendation affirmed a need thatHeritage Preservation and professional organiza-tions representing collecting institutions havealso recognized. Every profession, whether in theeducational, medical, technical, or industrialfields, tracks indicators, measures growth, bench-marks challenges, and predicts future trends—butno such information exists about the preserva-tion of U.S. collections. Funding programs andinitiatives have been launched in the past twodecades, and progress has been made on numer-ous fronts, but no instrument exists for monitor-ing the status of the nation’s cultural, historical,and scientific collections. When dealing withinquiries from the media, government officials,private donors, or the public, collecting institu-tions and allied organizations have typicallyexplained preservation issues using anecdotalevidence, which, though powerful, has reachedthe limits of its effectiveness. Reliable statisticsand evidence on current conditions and preserva-tion needs are important to document the workthat U.S. collecting institutions are doing to carefor our nation’s collections and to illuminatewhere additional efforts are required. This data isneeded to guide future preservation planning andprograms, facilitate cooperative approaches toaddress challenges, and inform the wise alloca-tion of limited resources.

Heritage Preservation’s members—libraries,archives, museums, historical societies, and

preservation organizations—rely on it for conser-vation information and advocacy. Because thecare of collections is central to Heritage Preserva-tion’s mission, it was the ideal organization toconduct a survey on the condition and preserva-tion needs of U.S. collections. In its more than 30years of experience, Heritage Preservation hasbuilt all its preservation efforts on a foundationof assessment and data gathering. The Washing-ton, D.C., based nonprofit organization has issuedmore than 20 research reports, which haveresulted in refined professional practices, re-ordered institutional priorities, and increasedfunding for preservation. To address theimmense task of measuring the condition andneeds of all U.S. collections, Heritage Preserva-tion also drew on its extensive experience inbuilding partnerships and alliances.

Heritage Preservation initiated a discussionabout a national collections needs assessment atits 1999 annual meeting, Charting a New Agenda

for a New Century. The meeting’s presentationsdiscussed the major issues facing the preserva-tion field in the twenty-first century, and allasserted the need for better data. HeritagePreservation staff and board members began todevelop a plan to conduct such an assessment—the Heritage Health Index—that would include allcollections held in the public trust by archives,libraries, historical societies, museums, archaeo-logical repositories, and scientific researchorganizations. To maintain a tight focus on analready ambitious project, the survey does notinclude historic structures or living heritage,such as performing arts, or living collections ininstitutions such as zoos, aquariums, and botani-cal gardens. The Heritage Health Index was con-ceived to be a periodic national survey, conductedevery four years, so that sets of data can measuretrends and benchmark progress.

In summer 2001, the Institute of Museum andLibrary Services (IMLS) proposed a partnershipwith Heritage Preservation to develop and con-duct the Heritage Health Index. Its participationin this project helps fulfill the agency’s mandate


Chapter 1: Heritage Health Index Development

“to undertake projects designed to strengthenmuseum services.”1 Additional funding by theGetty Foundation granted in June 2001 made itpossible to begin developing the survey. Overtime, project funding also came from the HenryLuce Foundation, the Bay and Paul Foundations,the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, the PeckStacpoole Foundation, and the Gladys KriebleDelmas Foundation.

Literature ReviewHeritage Preservation’s first task in developing

the Heritage Health Index was to gather previousand ongoing conservation, preservation,museum, and library surveys to examine the datathey collected and the approach, terminology, andmethodologies they used. A bibliography of con-sulted surveys and relevant published reportsmay be found in Appendix G. Heritage Preserva-tion discovered that there are more surveysrelated to preservation in libraries than in muse-ums or historical societies. Surveys in thearchival field were found to be instructive, asthey usually deal with a variety of media and for-mats and involve several different institutionaltypes. The literature review established that theHeritage Health Index would not duplicate anyexisting survey and revealed ways in which theHeritage Health Index could be designed to com-plement other preservation surveys. It also rein-forced that no studies had addressed the breadthof U.S. collecting institutions and all the materi-als they hold. Previous studies have been limitedto a small range of institutions, selected types ofcollections or media, or certain aspects of preser-vation. The review of questionnaire and surveyformats informed the eventual design of the Her-itage Health Index survey instrument.

Institutional Advisory CommitteeHeritage Preservation established an Institu-

tional Advisory Committee of 35 professionalassociations and federal agencies that representcollecting institutions (Appendix A) to advise on

the development and implementation of the Her-itage Health Index. Heritage Preservation con-vened the committee in October 2001 to discussthe goals for the survey, the universe of institu-tions the study intended to cover, the process fordeveloping the survey instrument, and the audi-ences for the survey results. Heritage Preserva-tion also solicited feedback on what preservationtopics were of interest to the Institutional Advi-sory Committee’s constituencies. Committeemembers gave their recommendations for collec-tions professionals to serve on the HeritageHealth Index Working Groups.

Since the initial meeting, Heritage Preserva-tion has kept the committee updated on theprogress of the Heritage Health Index. Institu-tional Advisory Committee members were instru-mental in publicizing the survey to their con-stituents and encouraging their participation.Heritage Preservation asked organizations andagencies on the committee to list their names onthe letterhead that accompanied the survey todemonstrate their involvement in and support ofthe project.

Survey Research and Statistical ConsultantsHeritage Preservation obtained professional

expertise to develop a survey methodology andimplementation plan that would gather statisti-cally valid results. In early 2002, Heritage Preser-vation hired the survey research firm Aeffect,Inc., of Deerfield, Illinois, to advise on surveymethodology and questionnaire protocol and lay-out and to conduct a test of the survey instru-ment. In addition, Heritage Preservation workedwith statistical consultant Lee-Ann Hayek, ChiefMathematical Statistician at the NationalMuseum for Natural History, Smithsonian Insti-tution. Dr. Hayek provided expertise on statisti-cal sampling and analysis. In November 2002,Heritage Preservation distributed a Request forProposals to 17 firms for the implementationphase of the survey. Heritage Preservationselected RMC Research Corporation of


1. P.L. 104-208, Museum and Library Services Act of 1996, Section 273 “Museum Service Activities.” In the reauthoriza-tion, H.R. 13 Museum and Library Services Act of 2003, Section 210 “Analysis of Impact of Museum and Library Ser-vices,” the agency’s mandate for research was made more specific: “the Director shall carry out and publish analyses ofthe impact of museum and library services. Such analyses…shall identify national needs for, and trends of, museum andlibrary services.”

Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to finalize the sur-vey sampling plan, print and distribute the sur-vey, encourage response, tabulate and analyze thedata, and produce a report on the survey method-ology and analysis.

Survey Instrument DevelopmentIn February 2002, Heritage Preservation began

convening Working Groups, each made up ofabout seven collections professionals. Each of thenine groups had representatives from each type,size, and geographical region of the institutionsto be surveyed and comprised a diversity of col-lections professionals, including conservators,preservation administrators, archivists, librari-ans, curators, and registrars. The WorkingGroups addressed each of the following collec-tions areas:

• Archaeological and ethnographic objects• Books, manuscripts, records, maps, newspa-

pers• Decorative arts, sculpture, mixed media• Electronic records and digital collections• Furniture, textiles, historical objects• Moving images and recorded sound• Natural science specimens• Paintings, prints, and drawings• Photographic materials.

The Working Groups involved a total of 66 pro-fessionals (Appendix B). At each one-day WorkingGroup meeting, Heritage Preservation staff pre-sented the survey’s goals, proposed methodology,and a draft questionnaire. Members carefullyreviewed the questionnaire to ensure that thequestions reflected the specific issues relevant tothe collections under discussion. Because Work-ing Groups involved a variety of professionals,the meetings served as focus groups about howdifferent staff within an institution might answerthe survey questions. They advised that the sur-vey be sent to the director of the institution, whocould authorize the appropriate staff time tocomplete the questionnaire. Working Groupmembers also provided feedback on how institu-tions might use the survey results, which gaveHeritage Preservation ideas about how to encour-age participation.

The Working Groups recommended that Her-

itage Preservation make a special effort toinclude small institutions in the survey universe.The Working Groups’ members had the opinionthat surveys tend to capture the largest and mostwell-known institutions and that the HeritageHealth Index presented an opportunity to movebeyond counting the counted to capture dataabout issues facing small institutions. Especiallyin the areas of moving images, recorded sound,and digital materials, there was a desire to learnabout collections and preservation conditions atsmall institutions. Working Group membersurged Heritage Preservation to distribute the sur-vey online to appeal to larger institutions andthose in the academic and scientific fields, but toalso distribute the questionnaire on paper so thatit would be accessible to institutions that mightnot be comfortable with a Web-based survey.

Because Working Group members representedarchives, libraries, historical societies, museums,and scientific research organizations, HeritagePreservation was able to build a consensus onneutral terminology that all types of institutionswould understand. The survey avoided technicallanguage and jargon to ensure that survey partic-ipants of any professional level would understandthe questions. To minimize the respondents’effort, the survey used close-ended questionswhenever possible. Each question had the option“don’t know” to prevent institutions from leavinga question blank. The result of this deliberate col-laboration with the Working Groups was a com-prehensive, yet focused, survey questionnaire.

After the Working Group meetings concludedin May 2002, Heritage Preservation staff madefinal revisions to the questionnaire and conveneda meeting with the chair of each Working Group,IMLS staff, Aeffect project consultants, and Dr.Hayek, the consulting statistician. This groupmade the final decisions on the length and scopeof the survey instrument and discussed the stepsfor survey distribution.

Survey Instrument TestingIn the process of developing the questionnaire,

Heritage Preservation and consultants with Aef-fect, Inc., determined that, since such a wide vari-ety of institutions and professionals would beasked to complete the survey, it would be prudent


to conduct two tests with two different groups.The first test gauged institutions’ reactions tothe questionnaire and evaluated their experiencefilling it out. In August 2002, Heritage Preserva-tion asked 36 archives, libraries, historical soci-eties, museums, and scientific research organiza-tions, representing diverse institutional types,size, governance, and geographical locations, tocomplete the Heritage Health Index question-naire. Aeffect, Inc., then conducted follow-upphone interviews with 18 institutions. The testconfirmed that no one type of institution wasmore or less likely to respond to the survey.Respondents gauged that it took between oneand three hours to fill out the questionnaire, andmany felt that the benefits of the Heritage HealthIndex made it worth the time it took. Mostrespondents noted that it required the involve-ment of more than one staff person to completethe survey. Almost all institutions remarked thatthe questionnaire thoroughly covered all aspectsof collections care. Several respondents specifi-cally mentioned that the survey served as a self-study exercise that helped them think throughfunding requests, ways of presenting preserva-tion needs to institutional leadership, and long-range planning. They also noted which questionswere the most challenging to complete, and basedon this feedback, Heritage Preservation mademodifications to several questions.

On November 1, 2002, the revised question-naire was sent to 202 randomly selected institu-tions to test the effectiveness of the survey distri-bution and follow-up plan that was proposed byAeffect, Inc. The procedures included calling theinstitution to verify its contact person andaddress, mailing a letter from Heritage Preserva-tion and IMLS confirming and encouraging par-ticipation, mailing the survey package with areturn envelope, sending a reminder postcard,and sending a second copy of the survey package.Since this test achieved a response rate of 37%,which exceeded the projected response rate of30%, the survey distribution methods weredeemed successful. Since most responses to thetest came in the last weeks of data collection,

Aeffect, Inc., suggested that the data collectionperiod be set at a minimum of eight weeks andconducted during a time of year when institutionstaff would have fewer conflicts (the test was dis-tributed in November and December). The major-ity of test responses were valid, suggesting thatthe questions were understandable; however, sev-eral questions were further refined to encourageaccurate response. The final survey question-naire may be found in Appendix F.

Planning Survey ImplementationHeritage Preservation, in consultation with the

Institutional Advisory Committee, WorkingGroups, and IMLS, determined that the surveywould collect the most reliable results if it weredistributed using two different sampling meth-ods: selective sampling and random sampling.Previous studies have shown that the majority ofU.S. collections are held by large institutions.2

Therefore, Heritage Preservation identifiedapproximately 500 of the largest collecting insti-tutions and some smaller institutions withhighly significant collections to ensure that theHeritage Health Index data would include a largeportion of U.S. collections.3 The 500 targetedinstitutions were balanced by type and state ofinstitution and included all state libraries, muse-ums, archives, and historical societies as well asmajor federal collecting institutions such as theLibrary of Congress, all units of the NationalArchives and Records Administration, and theSmithsonian Institution. More than 80 individu-als, including Heritage Preservation board mem-bers, Institutional Advisory Committee represen-tatives, and Working Group members, vetted thislist; Heritage Preservation amended it per theirsuggestions.

It was necessary to limit the 1st Target Groupto 500 because Heritage Preservation staff andboard members planned to stay in close contactwith each institution to encourage 100%response. However, in developing the 1st TargetGroup, Heritage Preservation identified another900 institutions, such as mid-sized academiclibraries and museums, that were important to


2. American Association of Museums’ Data Report from the 1989 National Museum Survey (January 1992) reported that7.3% of U.S. museums were large and that large museums held 74.8% of the total number of objects or specimens.

3. Referred to in this report as “1st Target Group.”

include in the survey sample because of the sig-nificance of their collections. While it was notpossible to give this 2nd Target Group the samelevel of personal follow-up as the first targetedgroup, it was decided to include the 900 in theselected sample. By intentionally selectingapproximately 1,400 institutions to participate inthe survey, Heritage Preservation made certainthat the largest and most significant collectionswould have the opportunity to be included in theresults. To accurately represent the remaining34,000 institutions for each type of institutionand location across the country, a stratified ran-dom sample was drawn to yield approximately14,000 institutions (Methodology, p. 11).

During the development phase of the HeritageHealth Index, Heritage Preservation consideredhow the survey should physically be distributed.Some Working Group members advised that thesurvey be distributed on paper so as not to createa bias against institutions that would not haveaccess to a computer or would not be comfortableusing a computer, such as small institutions.However, other Working Group members recom-mended that Heritage Preservation offer a Web-based survey because it would encourage partici-pation in some segments of the survey popula-tion, such as academic libraries, university collec-tions, and scientific collections. In the follow-upinterview of the first test, respondents wereasked if they would have been more likely to com-plete the survey if it had been online. Mostexpressed a preference to complete the survey onpaper and said if it were only offered on the Web,they would likely print a paper copy. When giventhe option of saving Web survey responses so asurvey participant could work on it in more thanone sitting, the interest in using a Web surveyincreased. Several interviewees mentioned thatthey might use the paper version as a worksheetand then submit the final survey electronically.Therefore, Heritage Preservation decided to dis-tribute the survey in hard copy to all participantsand offer a Web survey as an alternative way torespond (Methodology, p. 12).

Another aspect of the survey implementationthat Heritage Preservation carefully consideredwas the confidentiality of individual responses.The Institutional Advisory Committee and Work-

ing Group members warned that some institu-tions could be reluctant to participate or replyhonestly that their collection conditions wereless than ideal. To combat the perception that thesurvey could expose negligence and to follow sur-vey ethics, the Heritage Health Index question-naire included this confidentiality statement:“RMC Research Corporation will keep your indi-vidual responses, whether submitted online or onpaper, completely confidential. Only the aggre-gate data will be reported; your individualresponses will never be published or identified byHeritage Preservation, the Institute of Museumand Library Services (IMLS), or any organizationcooperating in this project.” Respondents weregiven an opportunity to remain anonymous bynot releasing their name as a participant in thestudy. RMC tracked responses by numeric coderather than the name of the institution, and alldata was reported in aggregate. Participants inthe tests stated that they trusted the question-naire’s confidentiality statement.

Publicizing the Heritage Health IndexThe library, archival, and museum communi-

ties are each heavily surveyed by organizations intheir fields, and in the summer and fall of 2004when the Heritage Health Index was released, atleast four other major surveys had been distrib-uted to the field. To alert possible survey partici-pants to the importance of the Heritage HealthIndex, publicity began along with the develop-ment of the survey instrument in July 2001. Her-itage Preservation publicized the Heritage HealthIndex through press releases distributed throughthe IMLS press list of professional archive,library, and museum associations and publica-tions. Heritage Health Index survey announce-ments appeared in at least 50 professionalnewsletters and electronic announcements fromJuly 2001 to December 2004. During this time,Heritage Preservation staff made 15 presenta-tions at professional association meetings andsent flyers publicizing the survey to more than60 meetings. To gear up for the distribution dateof the survey and to encourage response, pressreleases were issued in April 2004 and July 2004.Heritage Preservation also sent packages con-taining the press release, a sample newsletter


article, and an illustrated public serviceannouncement to the associations and agencieson the Institutional Advisory Committee andencouraged them to publicize the survey to theirconstituents.

Identifying the Study PopulationThe institutional population for the Heritage

Health Index included archives, libraries, histori-cal societies, museums, archaeological reposito-ries, and scientific research organizations thathold their collections in the public trust. Withinthat group, Heritage Preservation identified a“study population” that was most appropriate forthe survey. The survey instructed institutions to“complete the questionnaire for collections thatare a permanent part of your holdings or forwhich you have accepted preservation responsi-bility,” which would apply to collections at mostarchives, libraries, historical societies, museums,archaeological repositories, and scientificresearch organizations. Exceptions included ele-mentary and secondary school and two-year col-lege libraries, since they do not hold rare, special,or archival collections. Likewise, branch publiclibraries, hospital libraries, and prison librarieswere not included, unless the American Library

Directory specified special collections were intheir holdings. Record centers, such as countyclerk offices, were not included in the survey pop-ulation because their collections have not beenthrough a decision-making process about long-term archival record retention. For-profit organi-zations, such as law firm, newspaper, corporate,and engineering firm libraries, were excludedfrom the Heritage Health Index survey popula-tion. Although the questionnaire did not includequestions about living collections, arboretums,aquariums, botanical gardens, nature centers,and zoos were included in the study populationbecause they often have non-living collections.

Heritage Preservation quickly realized thatobtaining a list of all the institutions in the studypopulation would be a considerable challengebecause no one source exists. The mailing listsavailable through directories and professionalassociations were also inconsistent from one seg-ment of the study population to another. In somecases, directories had to be culled to remove

institutions not applicable to the Heritage HealthIndex (e.g., international institutions and for-profit organizations). Other lists needed to beaugmented to ensure that all types of collectionswere represented in the population, such asaudio-visual, digital material, and scientificresearch collections. A special effort was made toinclude tribal libraries and museums. Having anaccurate count of the institutions in the HeritageHealth Index survey population was crucial todetermining the number of institutions thatshould be included in the sample to yield statisti-cally valid results about all U.S. collections.

In identifying potential participants for thesurvey, Heritage Preservation also had to con-sider relationships of units to parent organiza-tions. Institutions were instructed to include allsubsidiary collecting units in their responses. Forexample, a museum with a library was to com-plete the survey for its museum and library col-lections. Systems of collecting institutions thathave central collections control and preservationpractices, such as a library system within a uni-versity, were sent one survey with instructions tocomplete the questionnaire for the main libraryand departmental libraries. However, profes-sional schools are often outside such library sys-tems, and so a university’s business school, med-ical school, or law school were identified individ-ually in the study population. University muse-ums and departmental collections, such as inarchaeology or the sciences, are often not cen-tralized in administration and were also identi-fied individually. Historical societies frequentlymaintain multiple historic sites. Generally, if theparent historical society manages more than fivesites around the state, the institution wasinstructed to complete the questionnaire only forits central facility, and the satellite sites wereincluded on the mailing list for possible selec-tion. Archives posed a considerable challenge, asthey are often subsidiaries to libraries, historicalsocieties, and museums. In these cases, archiveswere not identified individually and their parentinstitutions were instructed to include them.Through a question on the survey, institutionswith a primary purpose as archives were identi-fied, as well as institutions that have archives asa secondary function. By analyzing data from


both sets of institutions, Heritage Preservation isable to form a fuller picture of archival condi-tions and needs.

Appendix D lists the sources used to identifyinstitutions for the Heritage Health Index studypopulation. Two extensive lists formed the basisfor the mailing list; they were crosscheckedagainst many other sources, and additions orchanges were made as necessary. The centralsources included a database provided by IMLS ofmore than 18,000 museums and historical soci-eties compiled from state and regional museumassociation lists. IMLS has cleaned this list and,as a partner in the Heritage Health Index, allowedHeritage Preservation one-time use of the mail-ing list for the Heritage Health Index survey. Her-itage Preservation also purchased a mailing listfrom DM2 that included library contacts used increating the American Library Directory. Thiselectronic list came with a license for one-yearuse for the Heritage Health Index. After review-ing and culling the list, the Heritage Health Indexused approximately 14,000 entries.

Heritage Preservation invested significanttime in the creation of the Heritage Health Indexsampling frame, which grew to about 35,000entries. Because of the age and uncertain reliabil-

ity of various sources Heritage Preservation usedto compile the list, the first step after sample col-lection, telephone verification, proved to be animportant task. Aeffect, Inc., proposed that thesurvey implementation include a telephone callto alert participants that they had been selectedto participate, so when the Heritage Health Indexarrived it would not be treated as just anotherpiece of mail. Another way to ensure that the sur-vey was noticed was to address it to the institu-tion’s director, and the phone call included confir-mation of the director’s name. Phone verificationalso confirmed addresses and obtained e-mailaddresses for later follow-up. This processrevealed institutions that were no longer in oper-ation, were not eligible for the survey becausethey had no collections, or had been duplicatedon the list. Phone verification resulted in changesor corrections to 36% of the screened sample(Methodology, p. 11). In distributing the survey,additional out of operation or non-eligible insti-tutions were identified, resulting in adjustmentsto the final Heritage Health Index study popula-tion. The Heritage Health Index data is based ona total population of 30,827 institutions (Method-ology, p. 20).



Sampling Frame and Sample SelectionHeritage Preservation supplied RMC Research

Corporation (RMC) with a sampling frame of over35,000 collecting institutions (Heritage HealthIndex Development, p. 9). Heritage Preservationcategorized each institution into one of five insti-tution types: archives, libraries, historical soci-eties, museums, or archaeological repositories/scientific research collections. In addition, Her-itage Preservation designated each institutioninto one of three sample groups (Heritage HealthIndex Development, p. 6). The 1st Target Groupincluded the largest and most significant collect-ing institutions of all types and in all U.S. statesand territories; the 2nd Target Group includedadditional large or mid-sized institutions withimportant collections; and the Random Samplegroup included all remaining institutions to besampled. The institutions in the 1st and 2nd Tar-get Groups were sampled at 100%, whereas thetype of institution was used as the primary stra-tum for drawing the sample from the RandomSample group. Institutions in this group wereselected proportionately within type and withinthe state by zip code. The sampling strategy wasdesigned to yield approximately 15,300 institu-tions.

Figure 2.1 shows the number of institutions inthe sampling frame, the sampling rates applied,and the resulting number of sampled institutionswithin sample group and institution type.

Phone VerificationDuring the test of the Heritage Health Index,

researchers found that direct phone contact withinstitutions to verify specific addresses, confirmappropriate contact names, and alert institutionsabout receiving the Heritage Health Index surveyimproved the likelihood of the survey getting tothe right person in the institution and improvedresponse rates. Heritage Preservation handledphone calls to all 1st Target Group institutions toverify contact information and brief the institu-tions on the intent and importance of the study.

RMC subcontracted with RKM Research andCommunication in Portsmouth, New Hampshire,to verify contact information and eligibility foreach institution in the 2nd Target and RandomSample Groups. Phone calls were made from July11, 2004, to August 9, 2004. Phone verificationresulted in the exclusion of 211 (1.5%) RandomSample institutions because of duplicate entriesor the lack of collections. These institutions,along with those from the Random Sample that


Chapter 2: Heritage Health Index Methodologyprepared with RMC Research Corporation

Fig. 2.1 Sampling Rates and Number of Sampled Institutions (by sample group and type)

Archaeological Repositories/ TOTAL

Historical Scientific Research SAMPLEArchives Libraries Societies Museums Collections n=

1st Target GroupSampling Rate 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%n= 70 179 39 163 35 486

2nd Target GroupSampling Rate 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%n= 42 449 16 306 60 873

Random SamplePopulation N= 429 14,010 4,288 12,154 1,897Sampling Rate 100% 35% 51% 35% 100%n= 429 4,908 2,204 4,273 1,897 13,711

TOTAL SAMPLEn= 541 5,536 2,259 4,742 1,992 15,070

asked not to participate in the study,1 wereremoved from the survey mailing list. Seventeenof the 2nd Target Group institutions asked not toparticipate; however, Heritage Preservationwrote a letter asking them for their participationsince they had been specifically selected and rep-resented significant collections.

Figure 2.2 shows the numbers and percent ofinstitutions found to be non-eligible for the studyand the resulting number of institutions by sam-ple group and type included in the survey mail-ing.

Web-based Survey DesignIt was Heritage Preservation’s intent to make

participation in the Heritage Health Index studyas easy and accessible as possible. A paper surveywas designed along with an identical online Web-based survey. A consultant from Cultural Logic inMedford, Massachusetts, was contracted todesign the Web survey and provide technicalassistance during the data collection phase. Insti-tutions were assigned unique passwords foraccess to their survey and to ensure data secu-rity. Cultural Logic and Heritage Preservationworked together to identify a comprehensive setof dynamic validation checks for online dataentry. Consistency checks were developed acrossquestions, and possible out-of-range values weredefined for the numeric responses (e.g., operatingbudgets, number of units in a collection). Error

and warning messages were programmed intothe online survey to ensure data integrity.

Information gathered from the Heritage HealthIndex test phase indicated that many institutionsneeded to gather information for the survey fromseveral people or departments within their insti-tution. With this in mind, the online survey wasdesigned to allow for data entry over more thanone online session, and indicators were built intothe online system so users were aware of the sec-tion-by-section status of completion. Additionalfeatures included allowing respondents to printout the completed survey before final submissionof the data and giving respondents access tosome preliminary survey results.

Survey Mailing and Administration All institutions were mailed a Heritage Health

Index survey package on August 16, 2004. Thispackage included an introduction letter signedby Heritage Preservation President Lawrence L.Reger and IMLS Director Robert S. Martin, Ph.D,the questionnaire booklet (Appendix F), instruc-tion and Frequently Asked Question sheets, aunique online password, a flyer about accessingthe Heritage Health Index online, and a returnpostage-paid envelope for those choosing to sub-mit the survey on paper. All institutions weregiven contact phone numbers and e-mailaddresses at Heritage Preservation and RMC asresources for content or technical questions.


Fig. 2.2 Results of Phone Verification and Number of Institutions in the Survey Mailing (by samplegroup and type)

Archaeological Repositories/

Historical Scientific ResearchArchives Libraries Societies Museums Collections TOTAL

Phone VerificationRandom Sample 429 4,908 2,204 4,273 1,897 13,711Non-Eligible - 9 (2%) -28 (.6%) -21 (1%) -114 (3%) -39 (2%) -211 (1.5%)

Survey Mailing1st Target Group 70 179 39 163 35 4862nd Target Group 42 449 16 306 60 873Random Sample1 400 4,772 2,134 4,103 1,826 13,235

TOTAL 512 5,400 2,189 4,572 1,921 14,594

1. Surveys were not sent to Random Sample Group institutions that asked not to participate during phone verification.

Institutions were asked to submit data by Octo-ber 12, 2004.

Contact information for mailed surveys thatreturned to RMC with “no such address” or “nolonger forwarding” were sent to Heritage Preser-vation for further investigation. When possible,surveys were sent out a second time with the cor-rected contact or address.

A month after the surveys were mailed,reminder/thank-you postcards were sent to allinstitutions. Heritage Preservation made per-sonal reminder calls to all 1st and some 2nd Tar-get Group institutions. The survey was adminis-tered using all the steps tested by Aeffect, Inc.,and Heritage Preservation (Heritage Health IndexDevelopment, p. 5). However, because of budgetlimitations and to encourage as many online sur-vey responses as possible, a second copy of thepaper survey was not distributed. Instead, a per-sonal reminder letter that included each institu-tion’s unique password was sent to all institu-tions that had not yet responded. Several weekslater, RMC sent out two final e-mail reminders tothose who had not responded at all or who hadonline surveys in progress and for whom Her-itage Preservation had e-mail addresses. HeritagePreservation allowed two extension dates, with afinal cut-off of December 15, 2004.

Data was collected from mid-August 2004 untilDecember 15, 2004, from online entries and fromRMC staff who entered paper survey returns viathe Web site. All data passed through the qualitycontrol data checks within the online data entrysystem. Almost three quarters (73%) of the insti-tutions chose to submit data using the Web-basedsurvey. Libraries were most likely (81%) torespond using the online survey and historicalsocieties were the least likely (54%).

Final Dispositions and Response RatesSince the original Heritage Health Index sam-

pling frame was derived from mailing lists, cul-tural institutions and departments within aninstitution could appear on the list. The originalsample unit was defined as a cultural institu-tion’s address or location. To encourage participa-tion and obtain the most accurate data possible,the study allowed institutions to define their col-lection entity, which resulted in redefining the

sample unit. In many cases, one institution wasresponsible for the preservation of collectionsboth at their location and elsewhere. Sometimesit was easier for one institution to respond to thesurvey for itself and other affiliations. Institu-tions covered under another institution usuallyidentified themselves to RMC by e-mail, writtennote, phone call, or online survey comments. Thesampled institutions already represented inanother sample unit were tracked and ultimatelygiven the disposition of “non-sample.” That is,they represent a percentage of institutions thatshould be removed from the study population.

Other “non-sample” institutions were alsotracked; this included duplicate entities, institu-tions with no holdings for which they take apreservation responsibility, and institutions thathad ceased operation. Heritage Preservation wasable to identify every sampled institution in the1st and 2nd Target Groups, whether theyresponded or not, by their sample eligibility. Onthe other hand, at the end of the data collection,it was unknown whether 75% of the RandomSample Group was eligible to be included in thesample. Using the eligibility findings for each ofthe five institutional types for the Random Sam-ple, the unknown sample group was reduced bythe non-eligible percent.

Figure 2.3 shows a) number of institutionsmailed to; b) number of institutions withunknown eligibility after data collection; c) per-cent of institutions found to be non-eligible(applied to b) for sample reduction); and d) esti-mated number of eligible institutions in the sam-ple. The revised eligible sample includes allrespondents, any non-respondents known to beeligible, and the reduced number of non-respon-dents of unknown eligibility.

Over 3,600 institutions responded to the Her-itage Health Index survey. However, after examin-ing the data, 7% of those survey responses werenot considered complete. The majority of thosecases were from respondents who entered theirdata online but never returned to the survey tocomplete Section F on the quantity and conditionof collections. Heritage Preservation and RMCdecided to drop those cases from the responserates and from the analyses.

Of the 13,590 eligible institutions, 3,239 com-



Fig. 2.4 Response Rates (by sample group and type of institution)



1st Target 92% 90% 90% 90% 91% 90%2nd Target 41% 39% 31% 54% 45% 45%Random Sample 25% 18% 21% 20% 22% 20%TOTAL 35% 22% 22% 25% 24% 24%

Fig. 2.3 Final Dispositions from Survey Mailing (by sample group and type)



1st Target Groupa. Survey Mailing 70 179 39 163 35 486b. Unknown Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0

c. % Found Non-Eligible (8.6%) (6.1%) 0 0 (5.7%) (3.9%)d. Eligible Sample 64 168 39 163 33 467

2nd Targeta. Survey Mailing 42 449 16 306 60 873b. Unknown Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0c. % FoundNon-Eligible (2.4%) (0.7%) 0 (1.3%) 0 (0.9%)d. Eligible Sample 41 446 16 302 60 865

Random Samplea. Survey Mailing 400 4,772 2,134 4,103 1,826 13,235b. Unknown Disposition 275 3,756 1,555 2,999 1,316 9,901c. % Found Non-Eligible (3%) (4%) (6%) (11%) (12%) (2%)d. Estimated Eligible Sample 387 4,594 2,016 3,657 1,604 12,258

TOTAL SAMPLEa. Survey Mailing 512 5,400 2,189 4,572 1,921 14,594d. Estimated Eligible Sample 492 5,208 2,071 4,122 1,697 13,590

pleted the Heritage Health Index survey, provid-ing an overall response rate of 24%. The institu-tions within the 1st Target Group, which repre-sent the largest collections in the country, had a90% response rate. Figures 2.4 and 2.5 show thatgenerally, the 1st Target Group and the RandomSample Group responded similarly across institu-tional types and geographic regions. However, the2nd Target Group had over a 20% difference inresponse rates across types and regions.

Test Surveys and Volunteer RespondentsHeritage Preservation made all test surveys

available to RMC. These surveys were added tothe Heritage Health Index data file, along with 20surveys from institutions that were not in thesample but asked to participate.

Figure 2.6 below shows the total number of par-

ticipating institutions by sample group and tpe.The distributions across type are presented forthe participants and the revised eligible sample.Note the participants closely represent the sam-ple by within two percentage points.

Data CleaningThe survey data was originally stored in an

ACCESS database. It was imported into Statisti-cal Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS); bothdata sources served as platforms for the datacleaning process.

RMC and Heritage Preservation reviewed anyquestionable data. Numeric outliers were checkedand assigned as missing if left unresolved. Anyquestion that allowed for “other” as a responsewas blindly reviewed by Heritage Preservation.Examining “other” responses to Section F on the


Fig. 2.5 Response Rates (by sample group and region)

Mountain-Northeast Mid-Atlantic Southeast Midwest Plains West TOTAL

1st Target 92% 89% 88% 92% 94% 89% 90%2nd Target 59% 39% 42% 50% 49% 35% 45%Random Sample 20% 18% 19% 20% 20% 20% 20% TOTAL SAMPLE 25% 23% 23% 23% 24% 24% 24%

Fig. 2.6 Number of Participant and Sample Institutions (by sample group and type) and Percent ofParticipant and Sample Institutions (across type)



1st Target 59 150 35 145 30 4192nd Target 17 174 5 164 27 387Random Sample 96 832 418 731 356 2,433Test 7 37 13 43 11 111Volunteers 1 3 5 5 6 20TOTAL 180 1,196 476 1,088 430 3,370Percent acrossType 5% 36% 14% 32% 13% 100%Estimated Eligible Sample 492 5,208 2,071 4,122 1,697 13,590Percent acrossType 4% 38% 15% 30% 13% 100%

quantity and condition of collections was a con-siderable task. Heritage Preservation made deci-sions to reassign “other” responses to the appro-priate collections subcategories, created a newsubcategory to capture the response, or approvedthe “other” response. Data had to be added,deleted, or readjusted for more than 500responses. Heritage Preservation reviewed allcomments made in the option question (G10) thatasked institutions to explain their most pressingconservation/preservation needs and categorizedthe responses. RMC applied all data revisions tothe SPSS data files.

Data AnalysisHeritage Preservation staff and RMC Research

Corporation reviewed the Heritage Health Indexdata and made initial decisions regarding datatabulation. In March 2005, Heritage Preservationpresented the findings to senior IMLS staff anddiscussed data analysis. In May 2005, HeritagePreservation convened a group of 14 conservatorsand other collections professionals for their feed-back on analysis and input on identifying thesurvey’s key findings. This group included mem-bers of the Heritage Health Index WorkingGroups that helped develop the survey instru-ment, individuals that completed the survey fortheir institution, and several individuals who didnot have prior contact with the project and couldprovide a fresh perspective. From the close ofdata collection until the publication of this report(December 2004 to December 2005), HeritagePreservation staff consulted with its board mem-bers and Working Group members to discussquestions raised by the data analysis.

Assignment of Institution Type and Self-Reported Institution Type

For sampling purposes, Heritage Preservationcategorized all institutions into one of five types:archives, libraries, historical societies, museums,and archaeological repositories/scientificresearch collections. For the most part, theseassignments were made based on the institutions’names. The survey question B1 asked institutionsto choose from 21 possible categories to bestdescribe the primary function or service of theirinstitution. All analyses performed used the self-identified institution type from the questionnaire.

Figure 2.7 compares the original type assign-ment and the self-reported type. Museums werethe most likely to be misclassified while estab-lishing the sampling frame, possibly becausemuseum was in the organization’s name but wasnot its primary function.

Subgroup—Institution TypeHeritage Preservation initially viewed the Her-

itage Health Index data by institutional type asdefined by the list of 21 types of institutions inquestion B1, which asked participants to selecttheir primary function or service. However, view-ing the data by these many categories was cum-bersome and, in the case of some groups (e.g.,children’s museums, arboretums, aquariums),insignificant because the data was based on fewresponses (Characteristics of Collecting Institu-tions in the United States, figure 3.1, p. 23). Her-itage Preservation identified types of institu-tions that had similar findings and whose datacould be aggregated. In consultation with IMLSstaff, Heritage Preservation narrowed the list of


Fig. 2.7 Percent of Respondents for Assigned and Self-Identified (by type)


Historical Scientific ResearchArchive Libraries Societies Museums Collections TOTAL

Assigned Typen=3,370 5% 36% 14% 32% 13% 100%

Self-Identified Typen=3,370 6% 35% 11% 41% 7% 100%

21 institutional types to 10: 1. archives2. public libraries3. special libraries (e.g., law, hospital, and reli-

gious libraries and libraries for the blind andhandicapped)

4. academic libraries5. independent research libraries (includes

national and state libraries)6. historical societies7. art museums8. history museums/historic sites/other muse-

ums (includes historic houses/sites, historymuseums, living history museums, generalmuseums, specialized museums, children’smuseums)

9. science museums/zoos/botanical gardens(includes natural history museums,science/technology museums, nature centers,planetariums, observatories, arboretums,botanical gardens, aquariums, zoos)

10. archaeological repositories/scientific researchcollections (institutions that would not beclassified as museums by IMLS’s definition).

Several survey questions included the answerchoice of “other, please specify.” These “other”responses were incorporated into existing answercategories. Doing so was particularly importantin the case of question B1 on primary functionsince the survey data was to be reviewed by insti-tutional type.

For a broader view by institutional type, Her-itage Preservation grouped the institutions intothe five groups by which the survey sample wasstratified: archives, libraries, historical societies,museums, and archaeological repositories/scien-tific research collections. Viewing the data by fivetypes of institution rather than ten types resultsin a lower margin of error, and so it is used mostfrequently in the Heritage Health Index report-ing. In some instances, it is useful to view data byspecific institutional type.

Subsidiary Functions: Archives and LibrariesHeritage Preservation grappled with how to

capture data on archives, as they are often sub-sidiaries of other institutions. Survey partici-pants were instructed to complete the survey forall collections at the institutions, and the exam-

ple of a subsidiary archives or library was used.The questionnaire asked institutions to identifyone primary function or service and to select asmany secondary functions or services as applica-ble. Therefore, the Heritage Health Index datamay be viewed by institutions that selectedarchives as a primary function (referred to in thisreport as “stand-alone archives”) and by institu-tions that indicated archives as a primary oradditional function.

Since the number of stand-alone archives inthe Heritage Health Index survey population wassmall, this group was sampled at 100% in thestratified sample. In total, 180 stand-alonearchives participated in the survey and their datahas a margin of error of ±5.5%, a slightly higherrate than data viewed by other types of institu-tions. Institutions that indicated archives as asecondary function totaled 44%, the most fre-quent secondary function. The second most com-mon secondary function was “library,” with 22%indicating they had this additional purpose.These subgroups are referenced in the reportwhen they further illuminate Heritage HealthIndex findings.

Subgroup—Institution SizeBudget and collection size data were reviewed to

categorize institutions by actual size. When avail-able, Heritage Preservation adapted definitions ofsize from other professional associations’ publica-tions or surveys to make the Heritage Health Indexas comparable to other studies as possible. The def-initions were reviewed and approved by IMLS staffand other project advisors. As explained in thechart below, size definitions use different criteriabased on type of institution.

Archives

The size of archives was based on the quantityof unbound sheets and other archival materialsreported in the Heritage Health Index. For somearchives, significant photographic, movingimage, or recorded sound collections were takeninto account as well as unbound sheets.Large -more than 5,000 linear feet of

unbound sheets-institutional budgets that are appro-priate for a larger institution


-all National Archives and RecordsAdministration facilities and moststate archives

Medium -1,000-4,999 linear feet of unboundsheets-reasonable institutional budget size(unusually small budgets may haveresulted in reclassification as small)-remaining state archives

Small -fewer than 1,000 linear feet ofunbound sheets

Academic and Independent Research Libraries

The size of academic and independentresearch libraries was based on the total volumeholdings of respondents as reported in the 2004-2005 American Library Directory. Librariesreporting significant holdings in unbound sheetsmay have been moved to a larger category.Large -more than 1,500,000 total volume

holdings-all members of the Association ofResearch Libraries-most state libraries

Medium -250,000-1,499,999 total volume hold-ings-all members of the Oberlin Group ofLiberal Arts College Libraries-remaining state libraries

Small - fewer than 250,000 total volumeholdings

Public Libraries

The size of public libraries was based on theservice populations of respondents as reported inthe 2004-2005 American Library Directory. Defi-nitions are based on those used by the PublicLibrary Association.Large - service population 100,000 or

greaterMedium - service population 25,000-99,999Small - service population less than 25,000

Archaeological Repositories

The size of archaeological repositories was basedon the quantity of individually and/or bulk cata-loged archaeological collections as reported in theHeritage Health Index. If the collection size was notprovided, decisions were made on institutional

budget size, with large=more than $1,000,000,medium=$350,000-$999,999, small=less than$350,000, except in the case of labs that offeredarchaeological services, which often have largerbudgets. In this case, additional research was doneto determine number of holdings.Large - more than 500,000 individually cata-

loged archaeological collectionsand/or more than 5,000 cubic feet ofbulk archaeological collections

Medium - 5,000-499,999 individually catalogedarchaeological collections and/or1,000-4,999 cubic feet of bulk archaeo-logical collections

Small - fewer than 5,000 individually cata-loged archaeological collectionsand/or fewer than 1,000 cubic feet ofbulk archaeological collections

Agency or university collection with scientific

specimen artifact collections with herbarium

and/or zoological focus

The size of these collections was based on thequantity of botanical specimens and/or zoologi-cal specimens as reported in the Heritage HealthIndex.Large - more than 500,000 botanical speci-

mens and/or zoological specimensMedium - 50,001-500,000 botanical specimens

and/or zoological specimensSmall - 50,000 or fewer botanical specimens

and/or zoological specimens

Agency or university collection with scientific

specimen artifact collections with geological or

paleontological focus

The size of these collections was based on thequantity of geological or paleontological speci-mens as reported in the Heritage Health Index.Large - more than 200,000 geological and/or

paleontological specimensMedium - 10,001-199,999 geological and/or

paleontological specimensSmall - 10,000 or fewer geological and/or

paleontological specimens

Museums

The size of museums was based on the institu-tional budget as reported in the Heritage Health


Index. Definitions are based on what the Ameri-can Association of Museums had used in severalreports, such as the 1989 National Museum Sur-

vey and the biennial AAM Museum FinancialInformation surveys (last used in the 1999 study).Dollar figures, not updated since 1989, have beenadjusted for inflation. If institutional budgetinformation was not provided for museums, the2005 Official Museum Directory was consultedfor staff size and used to place museums in sizecategories with large=more than 10 full time paidstaff, medium=4-10 full time paid staff, andsmall=3 or fewer full time paid staff.

Aquariums, ZoosLarge - institutional budget more than

$4,500,000Medium - institutional budget $1,500,000-

$4,500,000Small - institutional budget less than

$1,500,000

Arboretums, Botanical Gardens, Art Museums,Children’s Museums

Large - institutional budget more than$1,500,000

Medium - institutional budget $300,000-$1,500,000

Small - institutional budget less than$300,000

General Museums, Historic House/Sites, HistoryMuseums, Historical Societies, Specialized

MuseumsLarge - institutional budget more than

$1,500,000

Medium - institutional budget $500,000-$1,500,000

Small - institutional budget less than$500,000

Natural History MuseumsLarge - institutional budget more than

$1,500,000Medium - institutional budget $350,000-


$350,000

Nature Centers, PlanetariaLarge - institutional budget more than

$1,200,000Medium - institutional budget $350,000-


$350,000

Science/Technology MuseumsLarge - institutional budget more than

$7,500,000Medium - institutional budget $1,500,000-


$1,500,000

Subgroup—RegionThe survey sample was stratified by state to

ensure accurate geographical representation.However, even with a large survey sample (almosthalf the entire sampling frame), the relatively fewnumber of institutions in some states would have


Fig. 2.8 Definitions of Region

Region States and Territories IncludedNortheast Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, VermontMid-Atlantic District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylva-

nia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands Southeast Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West VirginiaMidwest Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, WisconsinMountain-Plains Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,

South Dakota, Texas, WyomingWest Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada,

Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Utah, Washington

required sampling at 100% and response rate ofclose to 100% to produce reliable data by state.Therefore, Heritage Preservation decided thatobtaining results by state would not be feasible.Several states with large populations of collect-ing institutions did achieve response rates thatallowed their data to be reported with relativelylow margins of error, and this data could be fur-ther analyzed in the future. Additional data col-lection by state could also be done to produceHeritage Health Index results by state. In thisreport, geographic results are reported by regionusing definitions from the American Associationof Museums’ Data Report from the 1989 National

Museum Survey (see figure 2.8).

Subgroup—GovernanceThe Heritage Health Index survey question B5

asked institutions to indicate the governanceunder which they operate. Responses included“college, university, or other academic entity,”“nonprofit, non-governmental organization orfoundation,” “corporate/for-profit,” “federal,”“state,” “local (county or municipal),” and “tribal.”Institutions operated by an academic institutionwere asked to complete a follow-up question (B6)on the governance of the institution; answerchoices were “private college or university,” “statecollege or university,” “county or municipal col-lege or university,” or “other, please specify.”When analyzing the data by governance, privatecollege/university results were combined with pri-vate nonprofit, state college/university were com-bined with state governance, and county/munici-pal college/university were combined with countyor municipal governance. Data was also run by

academic institutions alone, and these results arementioned in the report when relevant.

The governance question identified that somecorporate/for-profit institutions replied to thesurvey, although this type of institution was notincluded in identifying the Heritage Health Indexsurvey population. While data from this groupwas not dropped, corporate/for-profit is not iden-tified when results are viewed by governancesince they represent only 1% of surveyed institu-tions.

Study ProjectionsThe survey data has been weighted to produce

estimates that reflect the defined population ofU.S. collecting institutions, including types ofinstitutions, sizes of institutions, and regionallocations. There was no evidence to show that thenon-respondents from the 2nd Target Group orthe Random Sample Group have any characteris-tics different from the respondents. Since theresponding institutions from the 1st TargetGroup differ widely in the types and sizes of col-lections they hold and because this groupreceived a high response rate of 90%, it wasdecided not to include these non-respondents inthe population projections. In addition, any col-lecting institution that did not appear in the orig-inal sampling frame would not be accounted forin the projected population. With this in mind,the population estimate is conservative andexcludes 10% of the large institutions, whichhold significant collections.

To produce correct population estimates for theHeritage Health Index, weights were applied tothe sample data to compensate for the following:


Fig. 2.9 Percent and Number of Institutions for Survey Respondents and Estimated Population(by type)



Sampled 6% 35% 11% 41% 7% 100%Survey Respondents n=206 n=1192 n=361 n=1384 n=227 n= 3,370Estimated Population 3% 43% 11% 39% 4% 100%After Weighting N=1,033 N=13,324 N=3,303 N=12,057 N=1,110 N=30,827

• Differential probabilities of sample selectionfor institutional types and sample groups; and

• Non-respondents in the 2nd Target Group andthe Random Sample Group.The base weight for each institution is equal to

the reciprocal of its probability of selection forthe sample group and institution type. The baseweights were adjusted for non-respondents bysubgroup to ultimately produce the study popula-tion of collecting institutions.

The sample surveys of 3,370 institutions repre-sent nearly 31,000 collecting institutions. Theproportion of sampled institutions by type hasbeen adjusted by the weighting to accuratelyreflect the population proportions. The largestadjustment was made to the subgroup of sampledlibraries, where they were underrepresented byeight percent. The results of the weightingscheme are presented in figure 2.9.

Overall Confidence Intervals To describe the precision of institutional esti-

mates made from the Heritage Health Index sur-vey, a level of confidence (or margin of error) wascalculated.2 The 95 percent confidence level forall institutions is generally no greater than +/- 1.5percentage points around any given percentreported. Examining results by institution sizeproduces margins of error less than 3.5 percent-age points. Examining results by the five institu-tional types has confidence intervals rangingfrom 2.3 to 5.5 percentage points. The confidenceintervals are larger around estimates for thesmaller subgroups, such as by the ten institu-

tional types or when data is reported by size and

type of institution. The margins of error for theoverall sample and by type, by size, and withintype and size are presented in figure 2.10.

Methods for Weighting or Imputing Data As with most surveys, both unit (institution)

and item (question) non-response is unavoidable.Weighting adjustments were made for unit non-response as described previously. This sectionfocuses on item non-response and the methodused to compensate for missing responses toquestions.

Annual Operating BudgetsTo estimate total annual operating budgets,

total budgets for conservation/preservation, andthe percentages spent on preservation for the pop-ulation, additional weights needed to be applied.The reporting of financial data had a higher levelof non-response than other questions, and theadditional weights compensate for those institu-tions not reporting. The variability in budgets isvery high across all institutions but much smallerfor subgroups when defined by size and type.Institutions were cross categorized by sizes (large,medium, small) and 10 types (archives, publiclibraries, academic libraries, independentresearch libraries, special libraries, historicalsocieties, art museums, history museums/historicsites/other museums, science museums/zoos/botanical gardens, archaeological repositories/sci-entific research collections). Each institution withvalid data for operating budget and conservation


Fig. 2. 10 Margins of Error (by type, by size, and within type and size)



Large 6.1 8.8 4.8 3.8 10.4 2.6Medium 13.3 21.0 5.1 5.5 10.4 3.4Small 9.2 5.0 3.6 3.2 7.1 2.0

TOTAL 5.5 4.6 2.6 2.3 5.2 1.5

2. The margin of error was calculated using the following formula: 1.96 · √ [(.5· .5)/ n)] · [(N - n) / N -1)] where n assumed100% item response rate.

budget was weighted according to its cross classi-fication and proportion of missing data.

Quantity and Condition of CollectionsInstitutions were asked to report on the num-

ber of collection items they hold and the condi-tion of the items for more than 50 different typesof collections. Many institutions reported hold-ing specific types of collections but were unableto report on the quantity or did not respond tothe conditions. Since one of the main objectivesof the Heritage Health Index was to report on theconditions of all collection items in the UnitedStates, missing data was imputed with valuesfrom similar institutions.

The methods used for imputing quantity andcondition data were generally the same. However,it was the median quantity and the mean condi-tion that was imputed. The variance in quantitysize was so large that imputing the mean quan-tity would result in skewing the population esti-mates. Each of the 58 types of collections wasisolated, and only those institutions holding thatcollection were aggregated by institution size(large, medium, small) and 10 types (archives,public libraries, academic libraries, independentresearch libraries, special libraries, historicalsocieties, art museums, history museums/his-toric sites/other museums, science museums/zoos/botanical gardens, archaeological reposito-ries/scientific research collections). The median

quantity of collection items and mean conditionswere calculated for each possible subgroup. If asubgroup contained less than eight institutionscontributing to the median or means, that sub-group was combined with another subgroup ofthe same size and similar type. For example, ifthere were fewer than eight small science muse-ums reporting quantities of “art on paper,” theirresponses would be combined with another sub-group like small history museums/historicsites/other museums or all small museums.

If an institution indicated holding a specifictype of collection but reported the quantityunknown, the median value by subgroup wasimputed. If an institution indicated holding aspecific type of collection but did not report onthe conditions of the collection, the mean condi-tions by subgroup was imputed. The percentageof a collection in unknown condition was consid-ered a valid response.

RoundingRMC reported data to the first decimal place.

In the Heritage Health Index report, all data isrounded to the nearest whole number. For resultsless than 0.5%, the number is displayed as zero.Due to rounding, responses may add to 99% or101% rather than 100%. Data will not add to 100%in questions where multiple responses wereallowed, and this is noted when it occurs.


The Heritage Health Index had 3,370 respon-dents representing the full range of U.S. collect-ing institutions, large and small, from every stateand U.S. territory. As explained in the methodolo-gy section, the responses were weighted to theestimated population of 30,827 archives,libraries, historical societies, museums, archaeo-logical repositories, and scientific researchorganizations that hold collections in public trust(Methodology, p. 20). Throughout this report, datais presented for national totals and by five gener-al types of institutions, ten specific types of insti-tutions, size, region, and type of governance(Methodology, p. 16-20). Since the survey popula-tion includes such a wide range of institutiontypes and sizes, it should be noted that nationaltotals and averages are influenced by the charac-teristics described in this chapter.

Responding institutions were asked to selecttheir primary function or service for the purposeof classifying them with their peers. Figure 3.1shows the list of 21 options and the percentage ofrespondents in each category. Similar institutiontypes that had comparable survey findings werecombined to create a list of 10 types of institu-tions. Figure 3.2 shows the weighted responses byeach of the 10 types. The categories by type werefurther condensed to five types; their weighted

distribution is shown in figure 3.3. Over 80% ofthe collecting institutions are museums orlibraries, but within those categories the non-art


Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the United States

Archives3%

Libraries43%

Historical Societies11%

Museums39%

Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections

4%

Fig. 3.3 Representation by Type ofInstitution

Fig. 3.1 Heritage Health Index Respondents

Archives 4%Public Library 23%Academic Library 9%Independent Research Library 1%Special Library 7%Historical Society 11%Historic House/Site 9%History Museum 11%Art Museum 6%Children’s Museum 0.04%Natural History Museum 2%Science/Technology Museum 1%General Museum 5%Specialized Museum 5%Archaeological Repository 1%Scientific Research Collection 3%Arboretum/Botanical Garden 1%Aquarium 0.02%Nature Center 1%Planetarium 0%Zoo 1%

museums

include

arboretums,

botanical

gardens,

aquariums,

nature cen-

ters, plane-

taria, zoos

Archives3%

Public Libraries

27%


Historic Houses/Sites,History Museums,General Museums,

Specialized Museums,Children’s Museums

30%

Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections 4%

Art Museums 5% Independent ResearchLibraries 1%

AcademicLibraries 9%

SpecialLibraries 7%

Science Museums/Zoos/Botanical Gardens 5%

Fig. 3.2 Representation by Specific Type of Institution

and non-science museums and public (not aca-demic) libraries are the most prevalent.

The estimated study population consists of74% small institutions, 17% medium-sized insti-tutions, and 9% large institutions (figure 3.4).Therefore, any overall national findings are sig-nificantly influenced by the fact that the majorityof collecting institutions are considered small.Since size is usually determined by annual insti-tutional budgets, it is useful to note that nearlythree-quarters of institutions have annual operat-ing budgets of less than $500,000 (figure 3.5).

Figure 3.6 indicates the average staff sizes bytype of institution, showing that libraries aremore likely to have larger, full-time paid staffsthan historical societies or archaeological reposi-tories/scientific research collections. This infor-mation is useful in keeping preservation staffingand activities in context. For example, historicalsocieties may not have as many conservation/preservation staff or may not have addressed cer-

tain preservation issues, but on average, histori-cal societies have 2 full-time paid staff, 2 part-time paid staff, and 14 part-time unpaid staff orvolunteers.

The distribution of institutions by region isshown in figure 3.7. The Midwest has the highestpercentage of institutions in the U.S., which alsoincludes the highest percentage of small institu-tions (25%), libraries (27%), and historical soci-eties (32%). The Southeast contains the largestpercentage of large (25%) and medium-sized(24%) institutions, along with having the mostarchives (24%), museums (22%), and archaeologi-cal repositories (26%).

The Heritage Health Index survey asked insti-tutions to indicate any additional functions orservices they provide. About one-third do nothave any additional functions, but another thirdhave at least one, and the remaining third havemore than one (figure 3.8). Less than 1% havemore than five additional functions. Archives is


Large9%

Medium17%

Small74%

Fig. 3.4 Representation by Size

<$15,00017%>$500,000-

$1 million10%

>$100,000-$500,000

30%

>$15,000-$100,000

26%

>$1 million-$4 million

12%

>$4 million5%

Fig. 3.5 Representation by AnnualOperating Budget

Fig. 3.6 Average Staff Size (by type)

Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-timepaid staff paid staff unpaid staff unpaid staff

Archives 8 3 0 4Libraries 14 9 0 4Historical Societies 2 2 0 14Museums 10 7 0 34Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections 3 2 0 3

the most frequent secondary function (44%), fol-lowed by libraries (22%), historic house/sites(17%), and museums (15%) (figure 3.9). It is help-ful to remember these additional functions whenconsidering the data by type of institution.Historical societies, followed by museums, werethe most likely to have more than three addition-

al functions (47% and 25% respectively).Responses to the question on governance of

collecting institutions came from nonprofit insti-tutions (42%), county/municipal governed institu-tions (28%), academic entities (17%), state institu-


15%16%

24%

19%

17%

10%

Fig. 3.7 Representation by Region

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

35%

32%

16%

10%

5%

2%

>1%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fig. 3.8 Institutions’ Number of AdditionalFunctions 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

22%

11%

17%

15%

8%

3%

2%

44% Archives

Library

Historical Society

Historic House/Site

Museum

Archaeological Repository

Scientific Research Collection

Aquarium, zoo, aboretum, botanical garden,nature center, planetarium

multiple responses allowed

Fig. 3.9 Institutions’ Additional Functions orServices

multiple responses allowed

tions (6%), and federal institutions (4%) (figure3.10). Federal institutions account for 9% of largeinstitutions but for only 3% of small or medium-sized institutions, indicating that large institu-

tions are more prevalent in this type of gover-nance. Viewing academic institutions alone,about half represents private college/universitiesand the other half represents state college/uni-versities; only 3% of the academic institutionsare from county/municipal college/universitiesand 1% from tribal-governed institutions (figure3.11). When academic institutions’ specific gover-nance is incorporated with non-academic gover-nance, the percentage of nonprofit organizationsincreases to 50% and state-run institutions to15%. Figure 3.12 presents the revised distributionof governance used throughout this report.

It is interesting to note that the New Englandand Mid-Atlantic regions have the highest per-centage of non-profit/foundation institutions;the Southeast has the highest percentage of stateinstitutions; the Midwest and Mountain-Plainsdominate in locally run institutions; and theWest has the largest percent of federal institu-tions.


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

42%

1%17%

6%

1%

17% Academic Entity

Library Nonprofit Organization/Foundation

Corporate/For-Profit

Federal

State

County or Municipal

Tribal

4%

28%

Fig. 3.10 Representation by Governance

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

51%1%

1%

45% Private College/University

State College/University

County/Municipal College/University

Other

3%

28%

Fig. 3.11 Representation of AcademicInstitutions

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

51%4%

1%

50% Nonprofit Organization/Foundation

State

County or Municipal

Tribal

15%

29%

Federal

Corporate/For-Profit1%

Fig. 3.12 Representation Including AcademicEntities in Governance

The central purpose of the Heritage HealthIndex is to determine the condition of U.S. collec-tions. The survey participants, includingarchives, libraries, historical societies, museums,archaeological repositories, and scientificresearch organizations, were asked to estimatethe quantity of collections for which they takepreservation responsibility. Working Groupsspecified 58 categories of collections and organ-ized them in 11 general categories. Respondentsprovided data by specific collections type, and itwas aggregated into the following general cate-gories, which were ordered in the survey ques-tionnaire by the likelihood that institutionswould have such collections:• Books and Bound Volumes• Unbound Sheets, cataloged in linear feet• Unbound Sheets, cataloged in items• Microfilm/Microfiche

• Photographic Collections• Moving Image Collections• Recorded Sound Collections• Digital Materials• Online Files• Art Objects• Historic Objects• Archaeological Collections, individually cataloged• Archaeological Collections, bulk cataloged in

cubic feet• Natural Science Specimens.

For each type of collection, survey participantswere instructed to indicate the percentage oftheir collections in “unknown condition,”1 “noneed,”2 “need,”3 or “urgent need”4 of conserva-tion/preservation. The categories of need wereintentionally broad so that every institution, eventhose that have not done an assessment of theircollections, could easily determine condition. The


Chapter 4: Condition of Collections To create a collection, to inherit one, or to be given oversight of a collection, is also to create, inherit, or

accept a great responsibility. The challenge for collecting institutions is to meet the charge of steward-

ship and to assure that their valued collections, whether works of art, historical documents, scientific

specimens, library collections, or other forms of material culture, are preserved for future generations.

—Position Paper on Conservation and Preservation in Collecting Institutions, American Institute forConservation of Historic and Artistic Works, 2002

The Association supports the preservation of information published in all media and formats. The

Association affirms that the preservation of information resources is central to libraries and librarian-

ship.

—American Library Association Preservation Policy, American Library Association, 2001

Members of the Society for Historical Archaeology have a duty to encourage and support the long-

term preservation and effective management of archaeological sites and collections…for the benefit of

humanity.

—The Society for Historical Archaeology Ethical Principles, The Society for Historical Archaeology, 2003

Digital preservation is an essential aspect of all digital projects: it is imperative that the digital objects

created remain accessible for as long as possible both to intended users and the wider community.

—The NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural Her-

itage Materials, National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage, 2002-2003

1. Unknown condition: Material has not been recently accessed by staff for visual inspection and/or condition is unknown.2. No need: Material is stable enough for use and is housed in a stable environment that protects it from long-term damage

and deterioration.3. Need: Material may need minor treatment or reformatting to make it stable enough for use, and/or the collection needs

to be re-housed into a more stable enclosure or environment to reduce risk of damage or deterioration.4. Urgent need: Material needs major treatment or reformatting to make it stable enough for use, and/or the material is

located in an enclosure or environment that is causing damage or deterioration. For machine-readable collections, dete-rioration of media and/or obsolescence of play-back equipment or hardware/software threaten loss of content.

results of this question highlight what types ofcollections are in greatest need of immediateattention; however, significant percentages ofeach type of collections are in unknown condi-tion, so the amount of collections in need is like-ly to be much higher. The subsequent chapters inthis report elucidate specific needs facing collec-tions and what institutions are doing to care forcollections.5

Quantity of U.S. Collections ItemsU.S. archives, libraries, historical societies,

museums, archaeological repositories, and scientif-ic research organizations care for an estimated 4.8billion collections items (figure 4.1). Books andbound volumes account for the greatest portion ofcollections at 1.7 billion, followed by items of micro-film/microfiche at 1 billion. Archaeological collec-tions cataloged in cubic feet are the lowest quantityat 2.6 million, but considering that these are meas-ured in volume, this is a significant quantity. Digi-tal materials on physical media such as disks orCDs are the next lowest quantity at 9 million.

Given the extensive quantities of books andbound volumes and microfilm/microfiche, it isnot surprising that libraries hold 63% of the totalcollections items in the U.S. (figure 4.2). Muse-ums hold 20% of the items, followed by archaeo-logical repositories/scientific research collec-tions at 8%, archives at 7%, and historical soci-eties at 2%. Figure 4.3 shows that 63% of itemsare held in large institutions, 22% in medium-sized institutions, and 15% in small institutions.

Institutions were instructed to complete thesurvey for the collections for which they takepreservation responsibility. In the FrequentlyAsked Questions that accompanied the survey


5. Care of collections is used as a general term throughout the report and combines conservation (the treatment of materi-als, aided by examination and research, and the study of the environment in which they are placed) and preservation(the protection of materials through activities that minimize chemical and physical deterioration and damage and/orthat prevent loss of informational content).

Archives7%

Libraries63%

HistoricalSocieties

2%

Museums20%


8%

Fig. 4.1 U.S. Institutions Have Taken Responsi-bility to Preserve 4.8 Billion Collections Items

Books/Bound Volumes 1.7 billionMicrofilm/Microfiche 1 billionNatural Science Specimens 820.2 millionPhotographic Collections 727.4 millionArchaeological Collections, individually cataloged 197.8 millionUnbound Sheets, cataloged in items 95.8 millionOnline Files 54.6 millionHistoric Objects 48.3 millionRecorded Sound 46.4 millionUnbound Sheets, cataloged in linear feet 43.6 millionMoving Images 40.2 millionArt Objects 21.2 millionDigital Materials 9 millionArchaeological Collections,cataloged in cubic feet 2.6 million

Fig. 4.2 Collections Held by U.S. Institutions(by type)

Large63%

Medium22%

Small15%

Fig. 4.3 Collections Held by U.S. Institutions(by size)

(Appendix F), examples of collections for whichan institution may not take a preservationresponsibility include non-accessioned collec-tions such as teaching collections or replicas, orcollections that could be disposed of or replacedshould they become lost or damaged, such as cur-rent books, magazines, video tapes, or soundrecordings. Institutions with a small amount ofcollections for which they take preservationresponsibility, such as public libraries and chil-dren’s museums, were encouraged to completethe questionnaire so that the Heritage HealthIndex could truly capture the needs of all U.S. col-lections held in the public trust. Survey partici-pants were instructed to include documentaryevidence relating to object or scientific collec-tions in the appropriate categories, such asarchival records, photographic materials, andrecorded sound materials. The questionnaire didnot include any living collections or historicstructures, even if they are accessioned collec-tions. Survey participants were to include all sub-sidiary collections, such as an institution’slibrary or archives, in their collections counts.

Each type of collection was to be recorded byitem except for archival documents and archaeo-logical artifacts, which asked for quantities inunit measurements. Since archival documentsare frequently measured in linear feet or cubicfeet, institutions were asked to record archivalrecords/manuscripts and maps/oversized itemsin these units. For the purposes of data analysis,cubic feet are converted to linear feet, with onecubic foot equal to one linear foot. Ephemera,broadsides, philatelic and numismatic artifacts,and other paper artifacts were to be recorded byitem. It is not possible to aggregate the two unitsof measurement, so data on unbound sheets isreported by linear feet and item. Some archaeo-logical artifacts are cataloged in bulk in cubicfeet, so institutions had the option of recordingarchaeological artifacts by item and/or by vol-ume. Again, it is not possible to aggregate theseresponses, so they are reported individually. Indetermining the total number of collections beingcared for in the U.S., one linear foot of archivalrecords/manuscripts or maps/oversized itemsand one cubic foot of bulk cataloged archaeologi-cal material is treated as one item unit. The sta-

tistic that U.S. collecting institutions hold 4.8 bil-lion artifacts would be dramatically higher ifevery individual item were included.

The response rates to the Heritage HealthIndex questions are between 97% and 100%, withthe exception of preservation expenditures andfunding (85%-88%) and the quantity and condi-tion of collections. Chapter 10 discusses the lackof intellectual control and collections assess-ments, which explains why this information wasso challenging for institutions to report in thesurvey. Of the institutions holding each type ofcollection, the response rates for quantity of col-lections items are:

Microfilm/Microfiche 64%Art Objects 62%Moving Image Collections 61%Books and Bound Volumes 58%Historic Objects 55%Recorded Sound Collections 54%Unbound Sheets, cataloged in linear feet 52%Natural Science Specimens 50%Photographic Collections 48%Archaeological Collections, individually cataloged 46%Online files 37%Unbound Sheets, cataloged in items 36%Archaeological Collections, bulk cataloged in cubic feet 33%Digital Materials 31%

In the case of missing data, quantity of collec-tions items was imputed by applying the medianquantity of collections items from institutions of


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Have plan

Have plan, but it is not up-to-date

Don’t have plan, but one is being developed

Don’t know 2%

Don’t have plan, but preservation is addressed in overall long-range plan

Don’t have plan50%

20%

11%

8%

9%

Fig. 4.4 Institutions with a Written, Long-range Plan for the Care of the Collection

like type and size (Methodology, p. 22). The Her-itage Health Index was not intended to be a cen-sus of U.S. collections; however, it was importantto gather data on the number of collections to put

condition of collectionsdata in context.

Condition of U.S. Collections Items

Institutions were askedto estimate the percentageof collections items in“unknown condition,” “noneed,” “need,” or “urgentneed.” When viewing theresults it is important tonote the results to surveyquestion D2 that half of U.S.collecting institutions donot have a long-rangepreservation plan for thecare of collections (figure4.4); 9% have such a plan;8% have a plan, but it is notup-to-date; 11% have a planin development; and 20%include collections in otherinstitutional long-rangeplans. Developing a desig-nated plan can be a firststep for an institution mak-ing a commitment to chang-ing the condition of its col-lections.

Of the 4.8 billion collec-tion items in the U.S., morethan 820 million are inneed or urgent need; howev-er, about 1.8 billion are inunknown condition. As seenin figure 4.5, at least one-third of most types of col-lections are in unknowncondition. Natural sciencespecimens (7%) and individ-ually cataloged archaeologi-cal collections items (15%)have the lowest rates ofunknown condition; online

files (59%) and bulk cataloged archaeological col-lections (46%) have the highest. The high numberof collections items in unknown condition is sig-nificant because items that have not been


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

33% Books/Bound Volumes

Unbound Sheets in linear feet32%

Unbound Sheets in Items26%

Microfilm/Microfiche37%

Photographic CollectionsMoving Image

Recorded Sound

Digital Materials

Online Files

Art Objects

Historic Objects

Archaeological Collections, individually cataloged

Archaeological Collections, bulk cataloged

Natural Science Specimens

42%

43%

44%

39%

59%

29%

28%

15%

46%

7%

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





Photographic CollectionsMoving Image

Recorded Sound

Digital Materials

Online Files

Art Objects

Historic ObjectsArchaeological Collections, individually cataloged



37%

46%

42%

46%

36%

49%

44%

66%

33%

70%

Fig. 4.5 Collections Items in Unknown Condition*

Fig. 4.6 Collections Items in No Need*

*Unknown condition: Material has not been recently accessed by staff for

visual inspection and/or condition is unknown.

*No need: Material is stable enough for use and is housed in a stable

environment that protects it from long-term damage and deterioration.

inspected are more likely tohave suffered from neglect.

Collections items in noneed vary from 70% of naturalscience specimens and 66% ofindividually cataloged archae-ological collections items to20% of unbound sheets cata-loged by item and 33% of bulkcataloged archaeological col-lections (figure 4.6). The typesof collections with the great-est percentage in no need arealso the types that have thelowest percentage in unknowncondition, which reinforcesthe accuracy of the “no need”statistic for these types of col-lections.

Unbound sheets catalogedby item are in the greatestneed at 29%, followed by his-toric objects at 23% (figure4.7). Online items (5%) andmicrofilm/microfiche (6%)have the lowest percentages inneed. Urgent need (figure 4.8)follows a similar trend, with aquarter of unbound sheets cat-aloged by item and 5% of his-toric objects in urgent need.Eight percent of unboundsheets cataloged by linear feetare also in urgent need. Lessthan 1% of online files anddigital materials and only 1%of microfilm/microfiche are inurgent need.

It is useful to combine thedata for need and urgent needto understand the full scope ofcollections items in need (fig-ure 4.9). Viewed this way, morethan half of unbound sheetscataloged in items are in need,followed by 28% of historicobjects, 24% of unboundsheets recorded in linear feet, and 22% of artobjects. Online files (5%), microfilm/microfiche

(7%), moving image collections (12%), recordedsound collections (14%), and digital materials


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





Photographic Collections

Moving Image

Recorded Sound

Digital Materials

Online Files

Art Objects

Historic Objects




15%

9%

11%

15%

5%

18%

23%

17%

18%

19%

Fig. 4.7 Collections Items in Need*

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Books/Bound Volumes 4%

Unbound Sheets in linear feet 8%

Unbound Sheets in Items 25%

Microfilm/Microfiche 1%

Photographic Collections 6%

Moving Image 3%

Recorded Sound 3%Digital Materials 0%

Online Files 0%

Art Objects 4%

Historic Objects 5%

Archaeological Collections, individually cataloged 2%

Archaeological Collections, bulk cataloged 3%

Natural Science Specimens 4%

Fig. 4.8 Collections Items in Urgent Need*

*Need: Material may need minor treatment or reformatting to make it stable

enough for use, and/or the collection needs to be re-housed into a more stable

enclosure or environment to reduce risk of damage or deterioration.

*Urgent need: Material needs major treatment or reformatting to make it

stable enough for use, and/or the material is located in an enclosure or

environment that is causing damage or deterioration. For machine-readable

collections, deterioration of media and/or obsolescence of play-back

equipment or hardware/software threaten loss of content.

(15%) appear to be in the least need; however,one-third to more than half of these collectionsare in unknown condition, so the amount of col-lections in need could be much higher. Whendata for collections items in urgent need, need,and unknown condition are added together, it isclear that the condition of all types of items willrequire attention and resources in the decadesahead.

Response rates for the con-dition of collections items arelower than most questions inthe Heritage Health Index,but significantly higher thanthe response rates for quanti-ty of collections. More discus-sion on unknown conditionmay be found in Chapter 10on intellectual control andcondition assessments. Theresponse rates for conditionare:

Microfilm/Microfiche 80%Moving Image

Collections 79%Unbound Sheets,

cataloged in linear feet 78%

Art Objects 78%Recorded Sound

Collections 77%Photographic

Collections 76%Historic Objects 76%Books and Bound

Volumes 76%Archaeological

Collections, individually cataloged 76%

Natural Science Specimens 74%

Online files 73%Digital Materials 70%Archaeological

Collections, bulk cataloged in cubic feet 70%

Unbound Sheets, cataloged in items 69%

To compensate for missing data, condition ofcollections was imputed by applying the meancondition of collections items from institutionsof like type and size (Methodology, p. 22).

Books and Bound VolumesBooks and bound volumes includes

books/monographs, serials/newspapers, and


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





Photographic Collections

Moving Image

Recorded Sound

Digital Materials

Online Files

Art Objects

Historic Objects




21%

12%

14%

15%

5%

22%

28%

19%

21%

23%

Fig. 4.9 Collections Items in Need and Urgent Need

Archives1%

Libraries96%


Museums2%

Large48%

Small21%

Medium31%

by type by size

ArchaeologicalRepositories/Scientific ResearchCollections0%

Fig. 4.10 Institutions Care for 1.7 Billion Books and BoundVolumes

scrapbooks/albums/pamphlets. The survey speci-fied including only serials/newspapers on paperin this category; serials/newspapers on micro-film/microfiche were to be recorded under photo-graphic collections.

U.S. collecting institutions have preservationresponsibility for about 1.7 billion books andbound volumes (figure 4.10). Libraries hold 96%of these items, while museums hold 2%, histori-cal societies and archives each hold 1%, andarchaeological repositories/scientific researchcollections hold less than 1%. Books are amongthe most commonly held collections items, withalmost 100% of libraries and historical societiesholding books and 94% of archives, 88% of muse-ums, and 70% of archaeological repositories/sci-entific research collections having books andbound volumes for which they take preservationresponsibility. Almost half of books and boundvolumes are in the care of large institutions, 31%are in medium-sized institutions, and 21% are insmall institutions. By governance, state, coun-ty/municipal, and nonprofit institutions eachhold approximately one-third of U.S. book andbound volume collections, with federal institu-tions holding 4% and tribal-governed institutionsholding 1%.

One-third of books and bound volumes are inunknown condition, 51% are in no need, 12% arein need, and 4% are in urgent need (figure 4.11).Historical societies report 61% of the 21 millionbook collections they hold are in unknown condi-tion, while 33% of the 1.5 billion books and bound

volumes in libraries are in unknown condition.Museums have 24% of their book collections inunknown condition, with archaeological reposito-ries/scientific research collections having 20%and archives having 12%. Museums have thehighest percentage of books in need at 19% andurgent need at 8%. Archives, libraries, and histor-ical societies all have 4% of their book collectionin urgent need, and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections have 2% in urgentneed. Large institutions, which care for 823 mil-lion books, have the greatest number of books inunknown condition (38% compared to 28% atmid-sized and 28% at small institutions) and inurgent need (6% compared to 2% and 3%).

Figure 4.12 shows the condition of specifictypes of books and bound volumes. Books andmonographs make up the majority of this collec-tions category. Examples of materials thatremain in “other” are musical scores, scripts,bound records, and bound manuscripts, becauseit is unknown whether they are books or pam-phlets. Many unspecified items are also includedin the other category. Scrapbooks/albums/pam-phlets have the highest percentage in need andurgent need, and 40% are in unknown condition.

Unbound Sheets Cataloged in Linear FeetUnbound sheets are recorded by two measure-

ments, linear feet and item, and each group ofcollections is considered separately. Archivalrecords/manuscripts and maps/oversized itemsare recorded in linear feet or cubic feet. For pur-


Urgentneed4%

Unknowncondition

33%

Need12%

No need51%

Fig. 4.11 Condition ofBooks and Bound Volumes

Fig. 4.12 Condition of Books and Bound Volumes (by specific type)

In unknown In no In urgentQuantity condition need In need need

Books andmonographs 1.5 billion 33% 52% 12% 3%

Serials andnewspapers 188 million 25% 54% 14% 7%

Scrapbooks,albums, 22.3 million

Otherbound 5.8 million 59% 27% 11% 3%volumes

poses of analysis, one cubic foot is converted toone linear foot.

U.S. collecting institutions care for 44 millionfeet of archival records/manuscripts and maps/oversized items (more than 8,300 miles). Librarieshold 43% of these collections (about 19 millionfeet), archives 24%, historical societies 18%,museums 15%, and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections less than 1% (figure4.13). Unbound sheets—whether measured in lin-ear feet or by items— are prevalent in all types ofcollections: 98% of archives, 91% of historicalsocieties, 83% of museums, 70% of libraries, and63% of archaeological repositories/scientificresearch collections have these collections. Largeinstitutions hold 63%, medium-sized institutionshold 12%, and small institutions hold 25% ofunbound sheets measured in linear feet. Nonprof-it institutions care for 43% of linear feet ofunbound sheets, state-governed institutions 30%,

federal institutions 14%, county/municipal insti-tutions 11%, and tribal-governed institutions 2%.

Figure 4.14 illustrates that 32% of unboundsheets by linear feet are in unknown condition,43% are in no need, 16% are in need, and 8% arein urgent need for treatment or improved condi-tions. Libraries hold most of these collectionsand have the greatest amount in unknown condi-tion (49%). Archives hold 11 million linear feetand have 30% in unknown condition and thehighest percentage in both need (19%) and urgentneed (22%). Historical societies hold 8 million lin-ear feet of unbound sheets and have the lowestpercentage in unknown condition (8%), need(10%), and urgent need (2%). Large institutionsreport the greatest need; of the 28 million linearfeet of unbound sheets they hold, 39% are inunknown condition, 34% in no need, 17% in need,and 10% in urgent need. Tribal-governed institu-tions hold 2% of U.S. unbound sheets by linear

feet (1 million linear feet),but 66% are in need. Non-profit organizations—thelargest holder of unboundsheets at 19 million linearfeet—have 14% in need and4% in urgent need.

Unbound sheets measuredin linear feet include aboutthree-quarters archivalrecords/manuscripts and onequarter maps/oversized


Museums15%

Libraries43%

HistoricalSocieties

18%Large63%

Small25%

Medium12%

by type by size

ArchaeologicalRepositories/Scientific ResearchCollections1%

Archives24%

Fig. 4.13 Institutions Care for 44 Million Linear Feet ofUnbound Sheets

Urgentneed8%

Unknowncondition

32%

Need16%

No need43%

Fig. 4.14 Condition of UnboundSheets Measured in Linear Feet

Fig. 4.15 Condition of Unbound Sheets Measured in Linear Feet (byspecific type)


Archivalrecords and 31.4 million ft 26% 47% 17% 10%manuscripts

Maps andoversized 12.2 million ft 48% 34% 15% 3%items

items (figure 4.15). The condition of archivalrecords/manuscripts is more likely to be knownand is in greater need (17% in need and 10% inurgent need). Again, this suggests that if the con-dition of maps/oversized items were known, theamount of these collections in need would begreater.

Unbound Sheets Cataloged in ItemsThe remaining unbound sheets are counted in

items. These include ephemera/broadsides, phila-telic/numismatic artifacts (made of paper), andother paper artifacts—96 million items in all.

Figure 4.16 shows that 50% of unbound sheetsrecorded in items are held in libraries, 44% areheld in museums, 2% in both archives and histor-ical societies, and 1% in archaeological reposito-ries/scientific research collections. Differences inthe distribution of holdingsbetween unbound sheets cat-aloged by linear feet and byitem may be accounted for bythe cataloging practices ofinstitutions (e.g., it is a morecommon practice in archivesto catalog in linear feet,while museums are morelikely to catalog by item).Large institutions hold halfof the unbound sheets (48million items), medium-sized

institutions care for 7%, and small institutionshold 43% (41 million items). Like unbound sheetsmeasured in linear feet, 43% of those catalogedby item are held by nonprofit organizations; fed-eral institutions hold 36%, state institutions hold16%, county/municipal institutions hold 4%, andtribal institutions hold 1%.

Twenty-six percent of unbound sheets cata-loged by items are in unknown condition, 20%are in no need, 29% are in need, and 25% are inurgent need (figure 4.17). Of all types of collec-tions, this collections category has the highestpercentage in urgent need at 25% (figure 4.8) andneed and urgent need at 54% (figure 4.9). Muse-ums account for a large part of this percentage,because they hold 44% of total collections andhave 25% in need and 35% in urgent need.Libraries, which hold 48 million items or half of


Archives2%

Museums44%


Libraries50%

Large50%

Small43%

Medium7%by type by size


1%

Fig. 4.16 Institutions Care for 96 Million Items of Unbound Sheets

No need20%

Unknowncondition

26%

Need29%

Urgent need25%

Fig. 4.17 Condition ofUnbound Sheets in Items

Fig. 4.18 Condition of Unbound Sheets in Items (by specific type)


Ephemeraand 22 million 24% 28% 22% 25%broadsides

Philatelic andnumismatic 18.1 million 24% 15% 32% 29%artifacts

Other unboundsheets 55.7 million 28% 19% 31% 23%

Includes ephemera,

broadsides, philatelic, and

numismatic items

total U.S holdings of unbound sheets catalogedby item, have 18% in urgent need and 34% inneed. The figures are also influenced by size ofinstitution, with small institutions holding 43%of items and having 41% in urgent need and 32%in need. Large institutions hold half of these col-lections; 14% are in urgent need and 27% are inneed. By governance, federal institutions havethe largest percentage of items of unboundsheets in urgent need (42%) and need (26%), fol-lowed by nonprofit institutions with 19% inurgent need and 35% in need.

Viewed by specific type of unbound sheets (fig-ure 4.18), about 23% are ephemera/broadsides,19% are philatelic/numismatic artifacts, and theremaining 58% are other unbound sheets byitem. The “other” category mainly includes itemsthat are not recorded in linear feet, such as archi-tectural drawings, blueprints, and sheet music.The three specific types are about equal in thepercentages in unknown condition, no need,need, and urgent need.

Microfilm/MicroficheSince microfilm/microfiche accounts for 58%

of all photographic collections items and differsin condition, it is considered separately fromother photographic collections. U.S. collectinginstitutions care for 1 billion items of micro-film/microfiche. Microfilming is a method for

preserving content of paper artifacts, so theseitems constitute an important collection (in sur-vey question D10, one-third of institutions reporttheir staff is involved in preservation reformat-ting, which includes microfilming, and 16% ofinstitutions contract with external providers forpreservation reformatting). Almost all micro-film/microfiche is held by libraries (99%), witharchives and museums both holding 1%, and his-torical societies and archaeological reposito-ries/scientific research collections having lessthan 1% (figure 4.19). Large institutions hold 59%of microfilm/microfiche; medium-sized institu-tions hold 30%; and small institutions hold 11%.Almost 60% are held by state-governed institu-tions, 19% by nonprofit institutions, 13% by coun-ty/municipal institutions, 4% by federal institu-tions, and 1% by tribal institutions.

Figure 4.20 shows the condition of micro-film/microfiche: 37% in unknown condition, 56%in no need, 6% in need, 1% in urgent need. Muse-ums recorded 77% (about 4.9 million items) ofmicrofilm/microfiche in unknown condition, so itis not surprising that only 1% are in need andless than 1% are in urgent need. Archives,libraries, and historical societies all have about35% in unknown condition and between 7% and13% in need and urgent need. By size, large insti-tutions have the most in unknown condition at46% and most in need and urgent need at 11%.


Archives1%

Libraries99%

Museums1%

Large59%

Small11%

Medium30%

by type by size

Historical Societiesand ArchaeologicalRepositories/Scientific Research Collections0%

Fig. 4.19 Institutions Care for 1 Billion Microfilm andMicrofiche

Urgentneed1%

Unknowncondition

37%

Need6%

No need56%

Fig. 4.20 Condition of Microfilmand Microfiche

Photographic CollectionsPhotograph formats are organized by media

that have similar preservation needs. Black andwhite negatives are further divided into “pre-1950” and “post-1950” because cellulose nitrateand cellulose acetate—highly unstable photo-graphic mediums—were more commonly used inthe late nineteenth century and first half of thetwentieth century, while the comparatively morestable films such as polyesterhave been more commonsince 1950. Formats include:black and white prints; blackand white film negatives, pre-1950; black and white filmnegatives, post-1950; colorprints/negatives/positives;cased objects (such asdaguerreotypes, ambrotypes,tintypes); glass plate nega-tives/lantern slides; andother photographic collec-tions.

There are 727 million pho-tographic items being caredfor by U.S. collecting institu-tions. Archives care for 41%or almost 300 million photo-graphic items; libraries hold29%, museums hold 21%, his-torical societies hold 7%, andarchaeological repositories/scientific research collec-

tions hold 2% (figure 4.21). Photographic collec-tions, including microfilm/microfiche, are com-mon in all U.S. collecting institutions: 96% ofarchives, 93% of historical societies, 90% ofmuseums, 71% of libraries, and 62% of archaeo-logical repositories/scientific research collec-tions have photographic items in their collec-tions. Large institutions take preservationresponsibility for about three-quarters of photo-


Archives2%

Archives41%Historical Societies

7%

Large76%

Small11%

Medium13%

by type by size


2%

Museums21%

Libraries29%

Fig. 4.21 Institutions Care for 727 Million Photographic Items

Urgentneed6%

Unknowncondition

42%

Need15%

No need37%

Fig. 4.22 Condition of Photo-graphic Items

Fig. 4.23 Condition of Photographic Items (by specific type)


Microfilm andMicrofiche 1 billion 37% 56% 6% 1%

Black andwhite prints 251.5 million 33% 44% 19% 5%

Black and whitenegatives 57 million 27% 38% 26% 9%(pre-1950)

Black and whitenegatives 123.8 million 23% 47% 17% 13%(post-1950)

Color prints,negatives, 67.5 million 24% 48% 25% 3%and positives

Cased objects 0.7 million 47% 28% 21% 4%

Glass platenegatives and 9.7 million 34% 40% 21% 5%lantern slides

Otherphotographs 194 million 73% 21% 2% 3%

graphic materials in the U.S., while medium-sizedinstitutions care for 13%, and small institutionscare for 11%. About a third of photographic collec-tions are held in nonprofit institutions, andanother third are held in state-governed institu-tions; almost one quarter is held by federal insti-tutions.

More than 40% of photographic collections arein unknown condition (figure 4.22), 37% are in noneed, 15% are in need, and 6% are in urgent need.At archives, 56% of photographs are in unknowncondition, while at historical societies the figureis 50%. Almost 40% of photographs in libraries,21% in museums, and 14% in archaeologicalrepositories/scientific research collections are inunknown condition. By type of institution,almost all have close to 20% of their photograph-ic collections in need (with the exception ofarchives, which have 6% in need) and about 5% inurgent need. Viewed by size of institution, largeinstitutions, which hold the greatest number ofphotographic items, have the highest percentagein unknown condition at 46%, need at 9%, andurgent need at 2%. The data by governance doesnot vary significantly from the national average,except for tribal-governed institutions, whichhave 10% in unknown condition, 76% in no need,12% in need, and 1% in urgent need.

Figure 4.23 shows the data on photographicmaterials by specific type. The quantities will notadd to the total of 727 million items becausesome institutions were not able to report by spe-

cific category and instead reported total photo-graphic material holdings. Institutions wereinstructed to include digital and inkjet prints inthe “other” category, and these items account fora large portion of collections in this category.Some institutions reported digital photographsin this category and, since they did not indicatewhat media the digital photographs are storedon, it is not possible to move their responses tothe digital material category where they shouldhave been recorded. Therefore, these are includedin “other photographic collections” as well. Blackand white prints account for the greatest numberof photographic items, after microfilm/micro-fiche. There are more than 57 million black andwhite negatives created before 1950, whichincludes some on highly unstable photographicmaterials; some of it (cellulose nitrate) is flam-mable if not stored in the proper conditions. Ninepercent are in urgent need and, most significant-ly, 27% are in unknown condition. Black andwhite negatives, post-1950, have the greatesturgent need at 13%, and almost half of casedobjects are in unknown condition.

Moving Image CollectionsMoving image collections include motion pic-

ture film, magnetic tape (e.g., Beta video, VHSvideo, digital), disk (e.g., laser, CD, DVD, mini-disk), and other moving image collections. Thequantity of moving image collections can berecorded in various ways—for example, in feet of


Archives6%

Historical Societies

2%

Large55%

Small21%

Medium24%

by type by sizeArchaeological

Repositories/Scientific Research Collections

0%

Libraries88%

Museums4%

Fig. 4.24 Institutions Care for 40 Million Moving Image Items

Urgentneed3%

Unknowncondition

43%

Need9%

No need46%

Fig. 4.25 Condition of MovingImage Items

film. Moving Images and Recorded Sound Work-ing Group members discussed the best way toquantify these media and decided that for theease of the majority of respondents, most types ofcollections should be counted by item, such asreels or tapes.

There are 40 million moving image items beingcared for in the U.S. Figure 4.24 shows that 88%are in the care of libraries, 6% are in archives, 4%in museums, 2% in historical societies, and lessthan 1% in archaeological repositories/scientificresearch collections. Moving image collectionsare in 86% of archives, 78% of libraries, 63% ofhistorical societies, 52% of museums, and 30% ofarchaeological repositories/scientific researchcollections. Large institutions hold 55% of mov-ing image collections, while 24% reside in mid-sized institutions and 21% are held by small insti-tutions. More than half (57%) are held by institu-

tions under county/municipalgovernance and 19% by state,17% by nonprofit, 7% by fed-eral, and 1% by tribal-gov-erned institutions.

The condition of movingimage collections includes43% in unknown condition,46% in no need, 9% in need,and 3% in urgent need (figure4.25). Viewed by type of insti-tution, libraries, which holdthe majority of moving image

collections (almost 36 million items), cite that45% are in unknown condition. Museums claimthe greatest need (22%) and urgent need (11%).By size, large institutions—dominated bylibraries—have 51% of moving image collectionsin unknown condition, 8% in need, and 3% inurgent need. The results from libraries alsoexplain the high percentage of moving imagesheld by county/municipal governed institutions.County/ municipal institutions have 44% inunknown condition, 6% in need, and 2% in urgentneed.

Heritage Health Index survey question D10asked what is included in institutions’ preserva-tion programs, and only 23% of institutions indi-cated they are involved in the preservation ofaudio-visual media and play-back equipment.This would include making preservation copies ofmaterials and maintaining equipment without

which older formats of movingimage and recorded sound collec-tions could not be accessed. At 8%of institutions, preservation ofaudio-visual media is done by anexternal provider. Most significant-ly, at 46% of institutions, no suchpreservation activities are takingplace. (Respondents also had theoption of selecting not applicable;25% did so.).

Figure 4.26 shows the quantityand condition of specific types ofmoving image collections. Whilemagnetic tape is more prevalent,accounting for 58% of all movingimage items, film is in the greatest


Fig. 4.26 Condition of Moving Image Items (by specific type)


Motionpicture film 5.9 million 40% 32% 19% 9%

Magnetic tape 23 million 41% 49% 8% 2%

Disk 10.7 million 47% 49% 3% 1%

Other movingimage items 0.3 million 89% 9% 1% 0%

Archives6%


1%

Large52%

Small17%

Medium30%

by type by sizeArchaeological

Repositories/Scientific Research Collections

0%

Libraries89%

Museums4%

Fig. 4.27 Institutions Care for 46 Million Recorded SoundItems

need, with almost one-fifth in need and 9% inurgent need. Other moving image collectionsinclude film loops, filmstrips, film slides, andunspecified collections.

Recorded Sound CollectionsRecorded sound collections include grooved

media (e.g., cylinder, phonodisk), magnetic media(e.g., cassette, open reel tape, DAT), optical media(e.g., CD, DVD), digital media (e.g., MP3s), andother recorded sound collections. All collectionsare counted by item.

U.S. collecting institutions have taken aresponsibility to preserve 46 million recordedsound collections items. The distribution ofthese collections is similar to that of movingimage collections. Most recorded sound items areheld by libraries (89%), with the remaining heldby archives (6%), museums (4%), historical soci-eties (1%), and archaeological repositories/scien-tific research collections (less than 1%) (figure4.27). Recorded sound collections are in 84% ofarchives, 76% of libraries, 64% of historical soci-eties, 50% of museums, and 26% of archaeologi-cal repositories/scientific research collections.Large institutions hold 52%; medium-sized insti-tutions hold 30%; and small institutions have17%. Slightly more than a third are held by stateand county/municipal institutions, 20% by non-profit institutions, 8% by federal institutions,and less than 1% by tribal-governed institutions.

The condition is not known for 44% of record-ed sound items—more than 20 million items (fig-

ure 4.28). Forty-two percent are in no need, 11%are in need, and 3% are in urgent need. Whenviewed by institutional type, libraries and histori-cal societies both have about 46% in unknowncondition, while archives and museums haveabout 30%. Archives have the greatest percentagein need at 43%, followed by museums and archae-ological repositories/scientific research collec-tions, both at 24%. Museums have the mostrecorded sound collections in urgent need at 9%.Large institutions lead in having recorded sounditems in unknown condition (55%), but smallinstitutions do not know the condition of 41% oftheir recorded sound collections. Small institu-tions cite the greatest needs for recorded sound,with 17% in need and 4% in urgent need. By gov-ernance, conditions are relatively close to thenational average, with the exception of federalinstitutions, which have 23% of recorded soundin need and 15% in urgent need, and tribal-gov-erned institutions, which have 83% of their col-lections in unknown condition.

Recorded sound is divided by specific type ofcollections in figure 4.29. The quantities totalslightly less than 46 million items because someinstitutions could only report totals for their col-lections. Magnetic media accounts for the largestportion of recorded sound, has the most condi-tion known, and has one of the highest percent-ages in need at 18% (16% need, 2% urgent need).Grooved and digital media are the most likely tobe in unknown condition. Institutions wereinstructed to include wire and dictabelts in the


Urgentneed3%

Unknowncondition

44%

Need11%

No need42%

Fig. 4.28 Condition ofRecorded Sound Items

Fig. 4.29 Condition of Recorded Sound Items (by specific type)


Grooved media 9.6 million 59% 23% 13% 6%

Magneticmedia 21.5 million 30% 52% 16% 2%

Opticalmedia 12.4 million 52% 43% 2% 3%

Digitalmedia 0.4 million 61% 36% 3% 0%

Other recordedsound items 0.2 million 74% 8% 15% 3%

“other recorded sound collections,” and these for-mats dominate the count in the category. “Other”also includes music box disks and player pianorolls.

Digital MaterialsThe Heritage Health Index is the first survey to

document the condition of digital collections atall institutions that hold them; this is particular-ly significant in the case of digital materials,because they are increasingly larger portions ofcollecting institutions’ holdings and pose new,unique preservation challenges. Digital materialsinclude floppy disks, other disks, CD-R/DVD-R,data tape, online collections (to be recorded infiles), and other digital collections. The survey’sFrequently Asked Questions asked survey respon-dents to carefully consider whether digital or dig-itized materials are items they take a preserva-tion responsibility to maintain. For example, itwas recommended that most electronic materialmade available at an institution through a sub-scription not be recorded in the survey, unless theinstitution maintains the master digital files forthe resource.

While digital materials could have been quanti-fied in bytes of information, Working Groupmembers concluded it would be easiest for mostinstitutions to count digital materials by item.Counts of physical items, such as floppy disks orCDs, are easily understood, whereas counts ofonline files are more complex. An online file

could have one piece of information or thousandsof bytes of information in it. To get a betterunderstanding of the condition of physical itemsthat hold digital information, online files are con-sidered separately from digital material on physi-cal formats.

U.S. institutions have taken preservationresponsibility for 9 million physical items thatstore digital materials. Two-thirds reside inlibraries, 13% in historical societies, 10% inmuseums, 8% in archaeological repositories/sci-entific research collections, and 3% in archives(figure 4.30). Including online files, digital mate-rials are in 73% of archives, 58% of libraries, 55%of archaeological repositories/scientific researchcollections, 44% of historical societies, and 43%of museums. Large institutions care for 58% ofdigital materials; the remaining are at mid-sizedinstitutions (23%) and small institutions (20%).About half of digital materials are held by stateinstitutions (48%), 30% by county/municipal,18% by nonprofit, 3% by federal, and 1% by tribal-governed institutions.

The condition of digital material items is illus-trated in figure 4.31; 39% are in unknown condi-tion, 46% are in no need, 15% are in need, andless than 1% are in urgent need. The percentagein unknown condition ranges from 3% at histori-cal societies to 50% at libraries. The percentagein need also covers a broad range, with 86% inneed at historical societies and 2% in need atlibraries. Perhaps if libraries knew the condition


Archives3%


13%

Large58%

Small20%

Medium23%

by type by size


8%

Libraries66%

Museums10%

Fig. 4.30 Institutions Care for 9 Million Digital Material Items

Urgent need 0%

Unknowncondition

39%

Need15%

No need46%

Fig. 4.31 Condition of DigitalMaterial Items

of more of their digital materials they, like histor-ical societies, might have a greater percentage inneed. At large institutions, 52% of digital materi-als are in unknown condition, 25% are in no need,23% are in need, and less than 1% are in urgentneed. At medium-sized institutions, those figuresare 19% in unknown condition, 79% in no need,3% in need, and less than 1% in urgent need. Atsmall institutions, 26% of digital materials are inunknown condition, 69% are in no need, 5% arein need, and less than 1% are in urgent need.State institutions cite one-third of digital materi-als in unknown condition and 24% in need. Atcounty/municipal institutions, 43% are inunknown condition and only 1% are in need.

Considering online collections, U.S. institu-tions have taken preservation responsibility for55 million files. Archiveshold 47%, libraries 31%,museums 18%, archaeologi-cal repositories/scientificresearch collections 8%, andhistorical societies 1% (fig-ure 4.32). Nearly three-quar-ters are in large institutions,9% in medium-sized institu-tions, and 19% in smallinstitutions. About 40% areheld by federal institutions,while nonprofit and stateinstitutions each have abouta quarter.

The condition of online files includes 59% inunknown condition, 36% in no need, 5% in need,and less than 1% in urgent need (figure 4.33).Archives, which hold the greatest number ofonline files (almost 26 million), have 84% of col-lections in unknown condition. Libraries, the sec-ond largest holders of online files, have 48% inunknown condition. Like physical digital materi-als, there is a range in condition; archaeologicalrepositories/scientific research collections havethe lowest percentage in unknown condition (3%)and the greatest percentage in need (64%), whilearchives have the highest percentage in unknowncondition (84%) and one of the lowest percent-ages in need (2%). Large institutions have 71% ofonline collections in unknown condition, 26% inno need, 2% in need, and less than 1% in urgent


Libraries31%


1%

Large72%

Small19%

Medium9%

by type by size


8%

Libraries66%

Museums18%

Archives47%

Fig. 4.32 Institutions Care for 55 Million Online Files

Unknowncondition

59%

Need5%

No need36%

Urgent need 0%

Fig. 4.33 Condition ofOnline Files

Fig. 4.34 Condition of Digital Materials (by specific type)


Floppy disks 0.6 million 62% 30% 6% 2%

Other disks 1.6 million 91% 7% 1% 0%

CD-R/DVD-R 2 million 46% 50% 4% 0%

Data tape 0.2 million 44% 40% 15% 1%

Online collections 54.6 million 59% 36% 5% 0%(by files)

Other digitalmaterial 1.4 million 16% 76% 8% 0%

need. At mid-sized institutions these figures are22%, 53%, 25%, and less than 1%; at small institu-tions they are 27% in unknown condition, 69% inno need, 3% in need, and less than 1% in urgentneed.

Figure 4.34 shows results by specific types ofdigital materials. Online files account for thelargest number of these materials, but of physicalformats, CD-R/DVD-R is the most prevalent. Datatape has the greatest need at 16%. Some institu-tions could only provide total quantities of digital

materials, so specific categories of digital materi-als will not total 9 million. Other digital collec-tions include databases, e-books, and files speci-fied by content rather than the media on whichthat content is held.

Because digital is a relatively new format, theElectronic Records and Digital Collections Work-ing Group did not expect to find many institu-tions engaged in the preservation of digital mate-rials. However, they recommended that the Her-itage Health Index gauge how many institutionshave recognized that digital materials should bepart of their preservation programs. Survey ques-tion D11 asked, “Does your institution’s conserva-tion/preservation mission or program include theresponsibility to preserve digital collections?”6

The responses, shown in Figure 4.35, include 31%of institutions responding they do, 52% do not,and 7% don’t know; 11% stated it is not applicablefor their institution. Archives (52%) and archaeo-logical repositories/ scientific research collec-tions (49%) are more likely to include digitalmaterials in their preservation programs or mis-sions than libraries (23%), historical societies(33%), and museums (36%). Digital materials areincluded in 47% of large institutions’ preserva-tion missions or programs, compared to 37% formedium-sized institutions and 28% for smallinstitutions.


Don’tknow7%

Includesdigital

collections31%

Notapplicable

11%

Does not includedigital collections

52%

Fig. 4.35 Institutions That Include Responsibil-ity to Preserve Digital Collections in Conserva-tion/ Preservation Missions or Programs

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No need 25%

Need 39%

Urgent need 7%

Don’t know 8%

Not applicable 21%

Fig. 4.36 Need for Preservation of DigitalCollections

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No damage or loss 46%

Some damage or loss 28%

Significant damage or loss 4%

Don’t know 22%

Fig. 4.37 Institutions with Collections Cur-rently in Need of Treatment Due to Obsoles-cence of Play-back Equipment, Hardware, orSoftware

6. Digital collections are defined as computer-based representations of text, numbers, images, and/or sound, e.g., opticaldisks, Web sites, electronic books.

Survey question D10 asked whether institu-tions are involved in the preservation of digitalmaterials and electronic records, and 27% ofinstitutions have staff involved in digital preser-vation, such as migrating data to current soft-ware, while 6% have external providers doingsuch activities. Additional questions on digitalpreservation asked institutions about the need topreserve digital collections (figure 4.36); 46%cited a need. Digital preservation was a topic inquestion D13, which asked about causes of dam-age. The question asked if access to collectionshas been lost due to obsolescence of play-backequipment, hardware, or software. The resultsapply to all machine-readable formats, includingmotion picture, recorded sound, and digital mate-rials. While 46% of institutions have experiencedno loss, 28% have had some damage, 4% have hadsignificant damage, and 22% of institutions don’tknow—one of the highest “don’t know” figures forthis question (figure 4.37).

Art ObjectsArt objects include

paintings (e.g., on canvas,panel, plaster), art onpaper (e.g., prints, draw-ings, watercolors), sculp-tures (including carvings,indoor and outdoor sculp-tures in all media), decora-tive arts (e.g., fine metal-work, jewelry, timepieces,

enamels, ivories, lacquer), and other art objects. U.S. collecting institutions care for 21 million

art objects. Most are held by museums (75%),while libraries hold 17%, historical societies 6%,archives 2%, and archaeological repositories/sci-entific research collections less than 1% (figure4.38). Eighty-six percent of museums have artobjects in their collections, as do 83% of histori-cal societies, 74% of archives, 44% of libraries,and 33% archaeological repositories/scientificresearch collections. Large institutions holdnearly 70% of art objects, followed by 16% atsmall institutions and 15% at medium-sized insti-tutions. More than half of art object collectionsare in nonprofit organizations (54%); 30% are instate organizations; and the remaining amountsare split between federal (7%) and county/munici-pal institutions (8%). Tribal-governed institu-tions account for less than 1% of art object hold-ings.

Figure 4.39 shows that 29% of art objects arein unknown condition, 49% are in no need, 18%


Libraries17%


6%

Large69%

Small16%

Medium15%

by type by size


0%

Archives2%

Museums75%

Fig. 4.38 Institutions Care for 21 Million Art Objects

Urgent need4%

Unknowncondition

29%

Need18%

No need49%

Fig. 4.39 Condition of ArtObjects

Fig. 4.40 Condition of Art Objects (by specific type)


Paintings 1.5 million 22% 49% 23% 7%

Art on paper 12.4 million 29% 48% 19% 4%

Sculptures 0.7 million 20% 55% 23% 3%

Decorative arts 3.1 million 38% 42% 16% 4%

Other art objects 1.4 million 28% 58% 13% 1%

are in need, and 4% are in urgent need. Archiveshave the greatest percentage in unknown condi-tion at 56%, followed by historical societies at45%. Museums, libraries, and archaeologicalrepositories/scientific research collections haveclose to the national average of 29% in unknowncondition. Archaeological repositories/scientificresearch collections have the highest percentagein urgent need at 11%. Archives have the least inneed with 13% in need and 2% in urgent need,while the remaining types of institutions areclose to the average of 18% in need and 4% inurgent need. Small institutions do not know thecondition of 36% of art objects (more than atinstitutions of other sizes) and also have themost in need at 20% in need and 7% in urgentneed. Large institutions, which hold almost15 million art objects, have 30% in unknown con-dition, 17% in need, and 3% in urgent need.

Viewed by specific types of collections (figure4.40), art on paper represents the largest portionof art objects but paintings are in the greatestneed. The total of specific types is under 21 mil-lion objects because some institutions could onlyreport total holdings. Other art objects includeartists’ materials, such as woodblocks or otherprint plates, and mixed media such as collage orfolk art.

Historic and Ethnographic ObjectsCreating a list of artifacts to include in this

category was a great challenge. In other cate-

gories, collections of like media are groupedtogether. However, many historic collections arearranged thematically, making it difficult forinstitutions to separate out specific types such aswooden objects or metal objects. The WorkingGroup on Furniture, Textiles, and Historic Objectssettled on a mixed approach of media and subjectmatter. The specific types for historic and ethno-graphic objects include textiles (including flags,rugs, costumes, and accessories); ceramics andglass artifacts (including stained glass); ethno-graphic and organic collections (e.g., leather,skin, baskets, bark); metalwork (e.g., arms andarmor, medals, coins); furniture; domestic arti-facts (including frames, household tools/machines, dolls/toys, musical instruments); sci-ence, technology, agricultural, and medical arti-facts (including transportation artifacts); andother historic and ethnographic objects.

U.S. collecting institutions care for 48 millionhistoric and ethnographic objects, with 71% atmuseums, 14% at historical societies, 11% atarchaeological repositories/scientific researchcollections, and 2% at both archives and libraries(figure 4.41). Historic and ethnographic objectsare in 95% of historical societies, 90% of muse-ums, 73% of archives, 35% of archaeologicalrepositories/scientific research collections, and33% of libraries. Small institutions hold 42% ofhistoric and ethnographic objects (20 millionitems), while large institutions hold 41% andmedium-sized hold the remaining 17%. Nonprofit


Libraries2%


14%Large41%

Small42%

Medium17%

by type by size


Scientific Research

Collections11%

Archives2%

Museums71%

Fig. 4.41 Institutions Care for 48 Million Historic and Ethnograph-ic Objects

Urgent need5%

Unknowncondition

28%

Need23%

No need44%

Fig. 4.42 Condition ofHistoric and EthnographicObjects

organizations hold most historic and ethno-graphic objects at 57%, followed by state at 27%,federal at 8%, county/municipal at 7%, and tribal-governed institutions at less than 1%.

Twenty-eight percent of historic and ethno-graphic objects are in unknown condition, 44%are in no need, 23% in need, and 5% in urgentneed (figure 4.42). Historic andethnographic objects are second,behind unbound sheets cata-loged by item, as the collectionsin the greatest need (figure 4.9).Museums, which hold the largestnumber of historic and ethno-graphic objects (more than 34million), have similar conditionfigures to the national average,with the exception that 6% arein urgent need. At historicalsocieties, 32% are in unknowncondition, 38% are in no need,24% are in need, and 6% are inurgent need. Small institutionshave 35% of historic and ethno-graphic objects in unknown con-

dition, 36% in no need, 24%in need, and 6% in urgentneed. Large institutionshave 25% in unknown condi-tion, 47% in no need, 24% inneed, and 4% in urgentneed. Results by governanceare close to the nationalaverage, except tribal-gov-erned institutions, whichhave 59% in unknown condi-tion, 23% in no need, 14% inneed, 4% in urgent need.

Figure 4.43 shows historicand ethnographic objects byspecific type. Ceramic andglass artifacts, followed bytextiles, are in the greatestnumbers. Ethnographic/organic collections have thehighest percentage inurgent need at 9% and incombined need and urgentneed at 36%. Specific types

do not add to the total of 48 million itemsbecause some institutions could only record his-toric and ethnographic objects in total. Other his-toric and ethnographic objects include architec-tural elements or models and mixed collectionsidentified by subject matter, such as advertisingor promotional items or war artifacts.


Fig. 4.43 Condition of Historic and Ethnographic Objects (by specific type)


Textiles 9.5 million 26% 39% 30% 5%

Ceramics andglass artifacts 10.8 million 21% 55% 22% 2%

Ethnographicand organic 6.8 million 23% 40% 27% 9%collections

Metalwork 3.2 million 35% 45% 17% 4%

Furniture 1.6 million 27% 41% 26% 6%

Domestic artifacts 7.1 million 29% 44% 21% 6%

Science, technology,agricultural, 4.7 million 28% 45% 23% 5%medical artifacts

Other historic andethnographic 3.3 million 44% 35% 16% 5%objects

Librariesand Archives

0%

Large69%

Small21%

Medium10%

by type by size


Scientific Research

Collections37%


Museums59%

Fig. 4.44 Institutions Care for 198 Million ArchaeologicalItems

Archaeological Collections, Individually Cataloged

Archaeological collections recorded in individ-ual items and cubic feet are considered separate-ly. Each category included two specific types:organic-based material (e.g., textile, fiber, wood,bone, shell, feather) and inorganic material (e.g.,ceramic, glass, metal, plastics).

U.S. collecting institutions care for 198 millionarchaeological collections items. Museums hold59% of these collections, archaeological reposito-ries/scientific research collections 37%, histori-cal societies 3%, and libraries and archives lessthan 1% (figure 4.44). Combining individually andbulk cataloged archaeological collections, half ofmuseums have such holdings, as do 45% of his-torical societies, 36% of archaeological reposito-ries/scientific researchcollections, 22% ofarchives, and 8% oflibraries. Large institu-tions have 69% ofarchaeological collec-tions items, small insti-tutions have 21%, andmedium-sized institu-tions have 10%. Stateinstitutions hold 68% ofarchaeological collec-tions items; federal insti-tutions hold 20% andnonprofit organizations

hold 11% (county/municipal and tribal-governedinstitutions have less than 1%).

The condition of archaeological collectionsitems includes 15% in unknown condition, 66% inno need, 17% in need, and 2% in urgent need (fig-ure 4.45). Museums, which hold approximately118 million archaeological collections items, have21% in unknown condition, 61% in no need, 15%in need, and 3% in urgent need. Archaeologicalrepositories/scientific research collections,which hold 74 million archaeological collectionsitems, have 3% in unknown condition, 77% in noneed, 19% in need, and less than 1% in urgentneed. The condition of archaeological collectionsitems at large institutions is close to the nationalaverage; at small institutions, 11% are inunknown condition, 85% in no need, 4% in need,

and less than 1% in urgentneed. Nonprofit institutionshave the greatest percentagein unknown condition at 33%,and federal institutions havethe greatest percentage incombined need and urgentneed at 20% (need 15% andurgent need 5%).

Archaeological Collections,Bulk Cataloged

Archaeological collectionscataloged in bulk, such as pot-sherds or other small items,


Urgent need2%

Unknowncondition

15%Need17%

No need66%

Fig. 4.45 Condition of Archaeo-logical Collections (individually cataloged)

Libraries1%


23% Large56%

Small17%

Medium27%

by type by size


Scientific Research

Collections36%

Archives1%

Museums39%

Fig. 4.46 Institutions Care for 2.6 Million Cubic Feet ofArchaeological Collections

Urgent need3%

Unknowncondition

46%

Need18%

No need33%

Fig. 4.47 Condition of ArchaeologicalCollections (bulk cataloged)

total 2.6 million cubic feet. Museums hold 39%,archaeological repositories/scientific researchcollections hold 36%, historical societies hold23%, and archives and libraries each hold 1% (fig-ure 4.46). By size, large institutions have 56% ofarchaeological collections cataloged in bulk, 27%are held by mid-sized institutions, and 17% areheld at small institutions. Nonprofit institutionshold 44% of archaeological collections catalogedin bulk; state institutions hold 36%; federal andcounty/municipal hold 9% each; and tribal-gov-erned institutions hold 2%.

Almost half of archaeological collections cata-loged in bulk are in unknown con-dition (46%), 33% are in no need,18% are in need, and 3% are inurgent need (figure 4.47). Histori-cal societies have the greatestpercentage in no need at 83%, fol-lowed by libraries with 72%. Only24% of archaeological reposito-ries/scientific research collec-tions have archaeological collec-tions cataloged in bulk inunknown condition. Libraries citethe highest percentage in urgentneed, but this only accounts forabout 3,000 cubic feet of collec-tions since libraries have suchsmall holdings in this area. Large

institutions report 56% ofarchaeological collectionscataloged in bulk inunknown condition, 31% inno need, 10% in need, and3% in urgent need. Nonprof-it institutions, which holdmost of the archaeologicalcollections cataloged inbulk, have 61% in unknowncondition, 24% in no need,13% in need, and 3% inurgent need. Federal institu-tions have 46% in unknowncondition, 37% in no need,16% in need, and 1% inurgent need. State institu-tions have 32% in unknowncondition, 37% in no need,

26% in need, and 4% in urgent need.Figure 4.48 shows the specific types for

archaeological collections. Since these types arebroadly defined, an “other” category is notincluded. Individually cataloged organic materialis in the greatest need. The level of need may bethe same with bulk cataloged organic materials,if the condition were known.

Natural Science SpecimensNatural science specimens include zoological

specimens (dry, glass slide, and frozen); zoologi-cal specimens (wet preparations); botanical speci-


Fig. 4.48 Condition of Archaeological Collections (by specific type)


Individuallycatalogedorganic-based 37.6 million 24% 49% 25% 2%

material

Individuallycataloged 160.3 million 13% 71% 15% 2%inorganic-basedmaterial

Bulk catalogedorganic-based 0.7 million ft3 48% 33% 16% 3%material

Bulk catalogedinorganic- 1.9 million ft3 46% 33% 18% 4%based material

Archives, Libraries,and Historical Societies

0%

Large88%

Small6%Medium

7%

by type by size


Scientific Research

Collections35%

Museums64%

Fig. 4.49 Institutions Care for 820 Million Natural ScienceSpecimens

mens (dry, glass slide, frozen, culture, palynolo-gy); botanical specimens (wet preparations); geo-logical specimens; vertebrate paleontologicalspecimens; invertebrate paleontologial speci-mens; paleobotany specimens; and other naturalscience specimens. The Natural Science WorkingGroup advised that wet preparations be separatedfrom other preparations because of the specificpreservation needs of these items. Institutionswere instructed to record all collections in items,not in lots. In reviewing some of the figures fornatural science specimens, some of HeritagePreservation’s advisers found the quantities to belower than expected. RMC followed up with sever-al institutions they suspected had reported col-lections in lots, and some submitted corrections;however, it is possible that other such errors

exist in this data. U.S. collecting institutions

care for 820 million naturalscience specimens. Muse-ums hold 64% and archaeo-logical repositories/scientif-ic research collections hold35%, with archives, libraries,and historical societies hold-ing less than 1% each (figure4.49). These collections aredivided among 86% ofarchaeological repositories/scientific research collec-tions, 38% of museums, 27%of historical societies, 9% ofarchives, and 7% of libraries.Large institutions hold 88%of natural science specimencollections, medium-sizedinstitutions hold 7%, andsmall institutions hold 6%.State institutions hold mostnatural science specimens at47%, followed by nonprofitinstitutions at 32%. Federalinstitutions hold 15%.

Of all collections, naturalscience specimens have thesmallest number in unknowncondition (7%) (figure 4.50).Most natural science collec-


Urgent need4%

Need19%

No need70%

Unknown condition

7%

Fig. 4.50 Condition of Natural Science Specimens

Fig. 4.51 Condition of Natural Science Specimens (by specific type)


Zoologicalspecimens 231.5 million 4% 77% 15% 3%(dry, glass slide,and frozen)

Zoologicalspecimens 308.4 million 3% 76% 17% 3%(wet preparations)

Botanicalspecimens 118.5 million 11% 69% 18% 2%(dry, glass slide,and frozen)

Botanicalspecimens 0.3 million 19% 38% 41% 2%(wet preparations)

Geologicalspecimens 7 million 18% 65% 15% 2%

Vertebratepaleontological 30.5 million 10% 50% 31% 9%specimens

Invertebratepaleontological 109.1 million 11% 52% 28% 8%specimens

Paleobotanyspecimens 11.7 million 15% 25% 48% 13%

Other naturalscience 3 million 75% 14% 11% 0%specimens

tions are in no need (70%); 19% are in need and4% are in urgent need. At the two types of institu-tions that hold the most natural science speci-mens, museums have 9% in unknown condition,64% in no need, 23% in need, and 4% in urgentneed; archaeological repositories/scientificresearch collections have 2% in unknown condi-tion, 82% in no need, 11% in need, and 4% inurgent need. Large institutions, which hold 720million natural science specimens, have 6% inunknown condition, 71% in no need, 19% in need,and 4% in urgent need. Federal institutions havethe greatest percentage in need and in urgentneed (25% and 11% respectively).

Figure 4.51 shows the quantity and conditionof specific natural science collections. Zoologicalcollections (wet preparation) account for thehighest number of holdings, followed by theremaining zoological collections. Paleobotanyspecimens are in the greatest urgent need andgreatest need and urgent need combined. Othernatural science specimens include unspecifieditems such as “herbarium collections,” “rock andfossil collections,” etc.

The following chapters will discuss the rea-sons for collections items in need or urgent need,as well as the high percentage of items inunknown condition.


The Heritage Health Index asked institutionsto report on environmental controls in areaswhere the collections are held. Protection fromextremes and harmful fluctuations in tempera-ture and relative humidity, as well as from expo-sure to light, is fundamental to the care of collec-tions. The exact specifications vary depending onthe media or fragility of collections. The ability ofinstitutions to provide strictly controlled collec-tions spaces also varies and may be an unrealis-tic expectation for some institutions. Further-more, even the most sophisticated climate controlsystem may become ineffective if it is not careful-ly monitored and maintained. Given the lengthlimitations of the Heritage Health Index, theWorking Group members suggested that broadlystated questions would accommodate all types ofcollections and institutions and effectively gath-er data on whether institutions are consideringthe environmental conditions of collections.

Survey respondents were asked whether theyused environmental controls to meet 1) tempera-ture, 2) relative humidity, and 3) light level speci-fications for the preservation of their collections.“Specifications for preservation” was intentional-ly not defined to allow institutions with all levelsof preservation expertise and facilities to selectthe response most accurate for them. As through-out the survey, response options included a mid-range between “yes” and “no”—“in some but notall areas.”

Figure 5.1 illustrates the responses for temper-ature, relative humidity, and control of light lev-els. In institutions that employ environmentalcontrols in all or some areas where collectionsare held, temperature is more likely to be con-trolled than relative humidity or light. Of theinstitutions in figure 5.1 that do not control tem-perature, relative humidity, or light levels in anyareas, 26% do not have control for all three fac-tors; figure 5.2 shows these results by type ofinstitution.


Chapter 5: Collections EnvironmentThe ideal environment includes controlled temperature and relative humidity, clean air with good

circulation, controlled light sources, and freedom from biological infestation.

—IFLA Principles for the Care and Handling of Library Material, International Federation of LibraryAssociations and Institutions, 1998

The Accreditation Commission expects that the museum…takes pro-active measures to mitigate the

effects of ultraviolet light, fluctuations in temperature and humidity, air pollution, damage, (and)

pests….

—A Higher Standard: Museum Accreditation Program Standards, American Association ofMuseums, 2005

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Temperature

Relative Humidity

Light

Allareas

Someareas

In noareas

Don’tknow

Fig. 5.1 Institutions’ Use of EnvironmentalControls for the Preservation of Collections

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Archives

Libraries


Museums


9%

40%

16%

14%

28%

Fig. 5.2 Institutions Using No EnvironmentalControls for the Preservation of Collections(by type)

When considering each environmental factorindividually (figures 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5), archiveslead in providing environmental controls in allareas where collections are held. However, theresults are based on a small universe of stand-alone archives; when combined with all institu-tions that have an archival function, the resultsdrop: for control of temperature in all areas from41% to 25%; for control of relative humidity in allareas from 28% to 15%; and for control of lightlevels in all areas from 31% to 14%. Libraries, fol-lowed by archaeological repositories/scientificresearch collections, were most likely not to usetemperature, relative humidity, or light levelcontrols.

The use of environmental controls correlates tosize of institution (figures 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9),with large institutions more likely to control tem-perature, relative humidity, and light levels in alland some areas that hold collections, and smallinstitutions most likely not to use environmentalcontrols in any areas. That 27% of small institu-tions do not control temperature, relative humidi-ty, or light levels in any areas contributes signifi-cantly to the 26% national average. However, it issignificant to note than almost one-fifth of largeinstitutions do not use environmental controls inany areas (libraries and archaeological reposito-ries/scientific research collections account formuch of this figure).

Viewing the data by region (figure 5.10) showsinstitutions in the Southeast are more likely to


0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Archives Libraries

Historical Societies Museums


Allareas

Someareas

In noareas

Don’tknow

Fig. 5.3 Use of Temperature Controls for thePreservation of Collections (by type)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Archives Libraries



Allareas

Someareas

In noareas

Don’tknow

Fig. 5.4 Use of Humidity Controls for thePreservation of Collections (by type)

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Archives Libraries



Allareas

Someareas

In noareas

Don’tknow

Fig. 5.5 Control of Light Levels for thePreservation of Collections (by type)

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Large

Medium

Small

Allareas

Someareas

In noareas

Don’tknow

Fig. 5.6 Use of Temperature Controls for thePreservation of Collections (by size)

control temperature in all areas (32% comparedwith the national average of 24%) and relativehumidity (20% compared with 14%). Data on thecontrol of light levels does not differ as signifi-cantly by region.

When the data is analyzed by governance (fig-ure 5.11), institutions under tribal governmentsor county/municipal governments are more likelyto have no environmental controls in place fortemperature, relative humidity, and light levels(41% and 38%, respectively) compared to thenational average of 26%. Nonprofit and federalinstitutions fall below the national average with19% and 22%, and state institutions are about onaverage at 25%. Question D12 in the Heritage


0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Large

Medium

Small

Allareas

Someareas

In noareas

Don’tknow

Fig. 5.7 Use of Humidity Controls for thePreservation of Collections (by size)

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Large

Medium

Small

Allareas

Someareas

In noareas

Don’tknow

Fig. 5.8 Control of Light Levels for thePreservation of Collections (by size)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Large 19%

Medium 22%

Small 27%

Fig. 5.9 Institutions Using No EnvironmentalControls for the Preservation of Collections(by size)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Temperature

Relative Humidity

Light

Northeast

Mid-Atlantic

Southeast

Midwest

Mountain-Plains

West

Fig. 5.10 Use of Environmental Controls in AllAreas Where Collections Are Held (by region)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nonprofit 19%

Federal 22%

State 25%

County/Municipal 38%

Tribal 41%

Fig. 5.11 Institutions Using No EnvironmentalControls for the Preservation of Collections(by governance)

Health Index questionnaire asked institutions torate various conservation/preservation activitiesby level of need using “no need,” “need,”1 “urgentneed,”2 “don’t know,” and “not applicable.” Thequestion included environmental controls(defined with examples of heating, air condition-ing, de-humidifying, and humidifying) andimprovements to reduce collections’ exposure tolight. As shown in figure 5.12, environmental con-trols are cited as the most urgent need at 19%;the urgent need to reduce exposure to light is 9%.When combining “need” and “urgent need” forenvironmental controls and reduced exposure tolight, the results are 63% and 49%. About a quar-ter of museums and historical societies state anurgent need for environmental controls, morethan other types of institutions. Historical soci-eties have the highest urgent need to reduce lightlevels at 13%.

Of the institutions that do not control tempera-ture in any areas, 67% state a need or urgentneed for environmental controls, but 17% claimno need and 9% don’t know, indicating that abouta quarter of institutions may not appreciate theconnection between environmental conditionsand long-term preservation of collections. Theresults are only slightly more promising for rela-tive humidity; institutions that do not control rel-ative humidity in any areas had a combined needand urgent need for environmental controls of71%, but 16% claim no need and 4% don’t know.

Environmental controls were included in sur-

vey questions about preservation programs andcauses of damage. These questions also broughtin other environmental factors, such as control ofairborne particulates and pests.

In survey question D10 about what is includedin institutions’ preservation programs, the defi-nition for preventive conservation incorporatedenvironmental monitoring (figure 5.13). Theseactivities are likely to be done by institutionalstaff (66%) or not at all (18%). (See the“Preservation Staffing and Activities” chapter foradditional analysis of this question.)

Consistent with the findings on use of environ-mental controls, libraries are least likely to haveinstitutional staff involved in preventive conser-vation at 53%. The results are most influenced bypublic libraries at 45% and special libraries at57%; 76% of academic libraries and 62% of inde-pendent research libraries have institutionalstaff involved in preventive conservation. Therate for archives is 88%, archaeological reposito-ries/scientific research collections 86%, andmuseums 77%. The results on whether conserva-tion/preservation programs include preventiveconservation relate to size, with larger institu-tions more likely to be involved in preventive con-servation activities.

Environmental controls were also part of sur-vey question D13, which asked institutions to


Fig. 5.12 Institutions with UrgentConservation/Preservation Needs2

Environmental controls 19%Finding aids/cataloging collections 17%Condition surveys/assessments 14%Conservation treatment 13%Staff training 12%Security 9%Reduce exposure to light 9%Integrated pest management 8%Preservation of digital collections 7%

1. Need defined as improvement required to reduce risk of damage or deterioration to collections.2. Urgent Need defined as major improvement required to prevent damage or deterioration to collections.

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Done by institution staff 66%

Done by external provider 5%

Not done currently, but planned 5%

Not done 18%

Not applicable 9%

Fig. 5.13 Institutions’ Conservation/Preservation Program Includes PreventiveConservation

identify the causes of damage or loss of access tocollections currently in need of treatment.Respondents indicated whether “no damage orloss,” “some damage or loss,”3 or “significantdamage or loss”4 has occurred. Factors includedwater or moisture (with examples of mold, stains,or warping), light (with examples of fading, dis-coloration), airborne particulates or pollutants(with examples of dust, soot), and pests. Figure5.14 shows that water or moisture and light fall inthe top four causes of significant damage (6%and 5%). When significant and some damage arecombined, the figures are 53% and 59%. The datafrom this question underscores how prone collec-tions can be to environmental damage; however,it should be noted that some collections might

have sustained damage before coming into aninstitution’s care.

Airborne particulates and pests have causedsignificant damage to collections at only 3% and2% of institutions, respectively. When combiningsignificant and some damage, the results are 47%and 33% (figure 5.15). However, the response“don’t know” is high in these categories (16% and13%). The level of need for integrated pest control(defined as approaches to prevent and solve pestproblems in an efficient and ecologically soundmanner) is among the lowest ranking urgentneeds at 8% and also one of the lowest rankingneeds when combining urgent and some need(46%).


Fig. 5.14 Institutions Reporting Causes ofSignificant Damage to Collections

Improper storage or enclosure 7%Water or moisture 6%Light 5%Obsolescence of playback equipment,hardware, or software 4%Airborne particulates or pollutants 3%Handling 3%Pests 2%Prior treatment(s) or restoration 2%Vandalism 1%Fire .04%

3. Some damage or loss defined as change(s) in an item’s physical or chemical state requiring minor treatment.4. Significant damage or loss defined as change(s) in an item’s physical or chemical state necessitating major treatment or

reformatting or resulting in total loss of access.

0

20

40

60

80

100 Water or moisture

Light

Airborne particulates or pollutants

Pests

Significantdamage

Somedamage

None Don’tknow

Fig. 5.15 Institutions Reporting Causes ofDamage to Collections from EnvironmentalFactors

RecommendationBased on these findings, Heritage Preservation recommends that institutions give priority to

finding solutions that will place as many of their collections in proper environmental conditionsas possible.


Storage is a critical component of preventivecollections care because, with few exceptions, itis the environment in which collections are heldmuch of the time. At archives, libraries, archaeo-logical repositories, and scientific research col-lections, most collections are in held in storageareas until accessed by researchers or occasional-ly placed on exhibit. While museum and histori-cal society collections are more likely to be exhib-ited, it is often temporary, after which they arereturned to storage. Most museums and histori-cal societies hold many more collections itemsthan could ever be exhibited at one time.

The Heritage Health Index asked institutionsto report the percentage of collections held inadequate storage, which was defined as largeenough to accommodate current collections with

safe access to them and appropriate storage fur-niture. Respondents were given a range of per-centages from which to select. Given the impor-tance of proper storage, it is troubling that only11% of institutions have adequate storage facili-ties for all their collections (figure 6.1). An addi-tional 25% have less than ideal storage—80% to99% of collections stored in adequate areas—buteven on the low end of this range, this could beconsidered acceptable if institutions are consis-tently working to improve storage conditions.The remaining institutions, 59%, have more sig-nificant storage concerns: 8% have no collectionsin adequate storage; 12% of institutions have only1-19% of their collection stored properly; 10% ofinstitutions have 20-39% in adequate storage;12% have about half of their collection stored

appropriately (40-59%); and 17% have60-79% in adequate storage. Six per-cent don’t know the adequacy of theirstorage facilities.

Seen by type of institution, museums(9%) and libraries (8%) are slightlymore likely to have no collectionsstored in adequate areas (figure 6.2).Museums (6%) and historical societies(3%) are least likely to have 100% oftheir collections stored appropriately,as well as least likely to have 80%-99%stored correctly (16% for historical soci-eties, 21% for museums). Archives(42%), libraries (47%), and archaeologi-cal repositories/ scientific research col-lections (44%) are more likely to have


Chapter 6: Collections StorageEvery effort must be made to minimize the level of risk facing specimens and artifacts as a result of

storage and use.

—Guidelines for the Care of Natural History Collections, Society for the Preservation of NaturalHistory Collections, 1998

Librarians must be committed to preserving their collections through appropriate and non-damag-

ing storage….


An accreditable museum must demonstrate that it allocates its space and uses its facilities to meet

the needs of the collection….


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None

1-19% 12%

8%

20-39%

40-59%

60-79%

80-99%

100%

Don’t know

10%

12%

17%

25%

11%

6%

}59%

Perc

enta

ge o

f col

lect

ions

sto

red

in a

dequ

ate

area

s

Fig. 6.1 Percentages of Institutions’ Collections Storedin Areas Large Enough to Accommodate Them Safelyand Appropriately


0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Archives Libraries



None 1-19% 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% 80-99% 100% Don’t know

Percentage of collections stored in adequate areas

Perc

enta

ge o

f ins

titut

ions

Fig. 6.2 Institutions’ Collections Stored in Areas Large Enough to Accommodate Them Safelyand Appropriately (by type)

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Large

Medium

Small

None 1-19% 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% 80-99% 100% Don’t know

Percentage of collections stored in adequate areas

Perc

enta

ge o

f ins

titut

ions

Fig. 6.3 Institutions’ Collections Stored in Areas Large Enough to Accommodate Them Safely andAppropriately (by size)

more than 80% of their collections storedin adequate areas.

Considered by size, large institutionsand medium-sized institutions are morelikely to have more than 80% of their col-lections stored in adequate areas, but thefigures for large and mid-sized institu-tions are relatively similar (large 46%,medium 42%, and small 33%) (figure 6.3).Viewed by governance, the results are rela-tively similar, with the exception of 25% oftribal-governed institutions having no col-lections stored in adequate areas. Morethan 80% of collections are stored proper-ly at 42% of federal, state, and county/municipal institutions. The percentage ofcollections in adequate storage does notdiffer significantly by region.

Survey respondents were asked to indi-cate where improvements were needed forstorage that is not adequate. They weregiven four categories of improvement:additional on-site storage, additional off-site storage, renovated storage space(either on-site or off-site), and new orimproved storage furniture/accessories(such as shelves, cabinets, racks). Figure6.4 illustrates the need and urgent needfor storage improvements. About two-thirds of institutions indicated need ineach of the four categories. There is anurgent need for additional on-site storageat 32% of institutions, storage renovationsat 31% of institutions, new/improved stor-age furniture at 29% of institutions, andoff-site storage at 23% of institutions. Amonginstitutions that selected urgent need in morethan one category, 3% selected urgent need for allfour, 7% for three, and 11% for two areas ofimprovement to storage. Results are fairly equalacross institution types, but one-third ofarchives, historical societies, and museums havean urgent need for new/renovated storage, com-pared with one-quarter of libraries and archaeo-logical repositories/scientific research collec-tions having an urgent need for storage renova-tions. By size, results are close to the totals, withthe exception of large institutions having agreater urgent need for off-site storage (32%).

Improper storage or enclosures, which couldcause collections to be crushed, bent, creased,adhered together, broken, or otherwise damaged,ranks as one of the greatest threats to collectionsdocumented by the Heritage Health Index. As seenin figure 6.5, 7% of institutions have had signifi-cant damage to collections due to improper stor-age or enclosures, and 58% have had some dam-age. Damage from handling can also be related toimproper storage because cramped conditionsmake item retrieval by staff or researchers risky.Significant damage due to handling has occurredat 3% of institutions, and some damage from han-dling has happened at 51% of institutions.


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Need

Urgent need

Don’t know

Additionalon-site storage

New/additionaloff-site storage

Renovatedstorage spaceNew/improvedstorage furniture/accessories

Fig. 6.4 Institutions’ Need for Storage Improvements

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Handling

Improper storage or enclosure

Significantdamage

Somedamage

None Don’tknow

Fig. 6.5 Institutions Reporting Causes of Damage toCollections from Storage Conditions

Not surprisingly, adequacy of storage and dam-age due to improper storage correlate.Institutions with 100% of their collections inproper storage report low levels of damage due tostorage. As the number of collections stored inadequate areas decreases, the amount of damagedue to improper storage or enclosures increases.The percentage of institutions that don’t knowabout damage due to improper storage alsoincreases as the percentage of collections storedin adequate areas decreases.

Storage can be a challenging preservationissue to address if collections have outgrown

available space and new facilities are necessary.This represents a considerable expense. Storagemight be in areas known to have imperfect envi-ronmental conditions, such as basements, attics,or commercial storage warehouses, and to correctthe problems would demand a significant invest-ment. Improving storage conditions by re-hous-ing items in proper enclosures or storage furni-ture requires extensive human resources. Sincecollections storage is often out of the public eye,many institutions may be deferring solutions tostorage issues. To do so puts collections at unduerisk.


Recommendation

Institutions must give priority to providing safe conditions for the collections they hold intrust.

In fall 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Ritabrought renewed attention to the critical need foremergency planning at all levels of communitylife. For collecting institutions, the damage sus-tained by historic sites, libraries, archives, andmuseums on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi andLouisiana was a reminder of the importance ofprotecting collections from natural disasters. Inthis context, it is particularly alarming that theHeritage Health Index finds that 80% of U.S. col-lecting institutions do not have a written emer-gency/disaster plan that includes collections withstaff trained to carry it out. Figure 7.1 shows thisstatistic by institutional type—historical societiesare least likely to have a plan with trained staff,and archives are more likely to have these preven-tive measures in place.

The Heritage Health Index survey asked fourquestions to gauge the risk to collections of swiftand catastrophic loss. Natural causes constitutejust a portion of the types of disasters that coulddamage a collection; floods can result from burstpipes or malfunctioning sprinkler systems, and afire or hostile act could put collections in danger.With 80% of institutions not having proper plan-ning to protect their collections from emergen-cies or disasters, 2.6 billion items are at risk.Figure 7.2 illustrates that libraries without emer-gency plans hold most of these items, followed bymuseums, archaeological repositories/scientificresearch collections, archives, and historical soci-eties. Viewed by type of collections, the lack ofdisaster preparedness puts about half of eachtype of collection items at risk for damage or


Chapter 7: Emergency Planning and SecurityAn institution demonstrates preservation awareness and well-integrated conservation policies

through an emergency preparedness and response plan that is regularly reviewed and updated by con-

servation professionals and other appropriate staff.


An organization that practices responsible stewardship maintains and enforces a well-developed

Disaster Plan.

—Standards and Practices for Historic Site Administration, Tri-State Coalition for Historic Places,2000

Archivists protect all documentary materials for which they are responsible and guard them against

defacement, physical damage, deterioration, and theft.

—Code of Ethics for Archivists, Society for American Archivists, 2005

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Archives

Libraries


Museums


70%

78%

92%

78%

86%

Figure 7.1 Institutions with No EmergencyPlan with Staff Trained to Carry It Out

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Archives

Libraries


Museums


41% of collections or 149 million items

52% of collections or1.6 billion items

64% of collections or64 million items



Fig. 7.2 Collections at Risk BecauseInstitutions Do Not Have Emergency Plans

loss; an exception is that 72% of historical andethnographic collection items are not covered byemergency planning.

The finding that 80% of U.S. collecting institu-tions do not have a written emergency/disasterplan that includes collections and staff trained tocarry it out was determined from the responsesto two questions. Question D4 “Does your institu-tion have a written emergency/disaster plan thatincludes the collections?” was deliberately word-ed. Qualifying that the plan is “written” demon-strates that it has been carefully considered andcodified as institutional policy. The wording“that includes collections” is also significant.Some institutions do have emergency plans inplace for the safety of staff and visitors, andwhile that is paramount in the event of an emer-gency, planning for the protection of the collec-tion is an essential component of responsiblestewardship.

Answer choices to D4 included “yes,” “yes, butit is not up-to-date,” “no, but one is being devel-oped,” “no,” and “don’t know.” In analyzing theresponses to this question, Heritage Preservationconsidered “yes,” and “yes, but it is not up-to-date” as affirmative responses. While an up-to-date plan is important in an emergency, an oldplan is better than no plan at all. Likewise, theresponse “no, but one is being developed” wasincluded with the “no” responses, because a planin development is not adequate protection shoulddisaster strike. “Don’t know” was also includedwith “no” because all staff should be aware of the

existence of a plan. The results to this questionare:

Yes 22%Yes, but it is not up-to-date 11%No, but one is being developed 13%No 50%Don’t know 5%

According to the analysis parameters, 68% donot have an emergency/disaster plan thatincludes collections.

An essential aspect of emergency/disaster pre-paredness is that staff be trained to carry out theplan. A follow-up question for respondents withwritten emergency/disaster plans that includecollections asked, “Is your staff trained to carryit out?” The responses are:

Yes 56%No 29%Don’t know 14%

Heritage Preservation considered the high per-centage of “don’t know” responses to indicatethat staff is not trained.

Because a written plan without staff trained tocarry it out is likely to be ineffective, HeritagePreservation staff and the advisers who reviewedthe survey data concluded that understandingthe actual level of preparedness by U.S. collectinginstitutions required cross-tabulating theresponses to the two questions. The cross-tabu-lated result is that 80% of institutions do nothave an emergency plan with staff trained tocarry it out.

This finding correlates to size (figure 7.3).Considered together, 60% of large institutionshave no plan with trained staff; of these, archaeo-logical repositories/scientific research collec-tions have the highest percentage without plan-ning at 76%, followed by libraries at 63%.Emergency planning with staff training is lack-ing at 59% of large museums. Historical societiesand archives are below the average of 60%, with44% and 43% respectively. Mid-sized institutionsare all close to the 66% average for this group,except for archaeological repositories/scientificresearch collections, with 86% having no emer-gency plan with staff trained to carry it out. Ofthe small institutions, historical societies are


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Large 60%

Medium 66%

Small 85%

Fig. 7.3 Institutions with No Emergency Planwith Staff Trained to Carry It Out (by size)

least likely to have a plan with staff trained(94%), followed by archaeological repositories/scientific research collections at 88%. Archives,libraries, and museums are at about the 85%average for small institutions.

As shown in figure 7.4, large institutions with-out emergency plans and staff trained to carrythem out put the largest amount of collections atrisk: 43% of collections held at large institutionsor 1.3 billion items. Medium-sized and small insti-tutions hold the remaining approximately 1.3 bil-lion items at risk because they are not covered byan emergency plan and trained staff.

Institutions in the Northeast and Southeastare only slightly more likely to have adequateemergency planning in place (figure 7.5), withother regions close to the 80% national average.Given the margin of error of between +/- 3% and+/- 4%, the differences between regions are slight.Viewing the statistic by governance (figure 7.6),institutions under federal, state, and tribal gov-ernments are more likely to have emergency plan-ning in place than nonprofit institutions.

Findings from the Heritage Preservation reportCataclysm and Challenge: Impact of September

11, 2001, on Our Nation’s Cultural Heritage under-scored the importance of having collectionsrecords stored off-site. The report states, “Of sig-nificant concern, the survey found more than half(53 percent) of the respondents kept no off-site

record of their inventory. Had the destruction ofSeptember 11 spread more widely, many collectinginstitutions would have been left with no com-plete record of what had been lost.”1 Based onthis finding from Cataclysm and Challenge, theHeritage Health Index survey included a questionto determine how many institutions would besimilarly at risk should disaster strike. The ques-tion asked, “Are copies of vital collections recordsstored off-site?” and gave examples of “inventory,catalog, insurance polices,” but otherwise allowedinstitutions to define what “vital” meant. Figure7.7 shows that only 26% are sufficiently prepared


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Large

Medium

Small

43% of collections itemsor 1.3 billion

63% of collections items or 660 million

81% of collections items or 606 million

Fig. 7.4 Collections at Risk Because InstitutionsDo Not Have Emergency Plans (by size)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nonprofit 84%

Federal 70%

State 73%


Tribal 73%

Fig. 7.6 Institutions with No Emergency Planwith Staff Trained to Carry It Out(by governance)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Northeast 77%

Mid-Atlantic 80%

Southeast 77%

Midwest 80%

Mountain-Plains 83%

West 81%

Fig. 7.5 Institutions with No Emergency Planwith Staff Trained to Carry It Out (by region)

1. Heritage Preservation, Cataclysm and Challenge: Impact of September 11, 2001, on Our Nation’s Cultural Heritage, 2002,18.

with copies of all vital records stored off-site; 31%have some records off-site, and 44% are unpre-pared (the 2% with no collections records at alland 4% that responded “don’t know” can be logi-cally added to the 38% “no” responses).

Although the results correspond to size (figure7.8), the differences between large and smallinstitutions are not dramatic; the largest gapbetween the two is 11% in the “no” response.When considering responses to “no collectionsrecords stored off-site” by governance (figure 7.9),federal institutions have the lowest percentage at28%, compared to the national average of 38%,and institutions under tribal governance havethe highest at 48%. By type of institution, 52% of

archaeological repositories/scientific researchcollections have no collections records stored off-site, followed by 45% of science museums/zoos/botanical gardens. At 38%, independent researchlibraries are most likely to have all their vital col-lections records stored off-site.

Another catastrophic risk to collections istheft or vandalism. Heritage Health Index surveyquestion D7 asked, “Do you have adequate securi-ty systems to help prevent theft or vandalism ofcollections?” Since the level and sophistication ofsecurity systems can vary depending on the sizeand type of institutions and the collections, “ade-quate” was left to the judgment of the respondinginstitution. The type of examples given to demon-strate the range of types of security includedsecurity guard, staff observation, and intrusiondetection. The Heritage Health Index finds that44% of collecting institutions deem their securi-ty systems to be adequate, leaving 56% withoutadequate protection (figure 7.10). This data bytype of institution shows that libraries (34%) andarchaeological repositories/scientific researchcollections (33%) are most likely to have inade-quate or no security systems. Art museums aremost likely to have adequate security in all areas(59%), followed by history museums/historicsites/other museums (50%). Data from this ques-tion relates to size, with 29% of small institu-tions having inadequate or no security systems,compared with only 12% of large institutions and


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Copies of records stored off-site 26%

Some, but not all, copies of records stored off-site 31%

No copies of records stored off-site 38%

Do not have copies 2%

Don’t know 4%

Fig. 7.7 Institutions with Copies of VitalCollection Records Stored Off-site

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Large Medium Small

Copies of records stored off-site

Some, but not all, copies of records stored off-site

No copies of records stored off-site

Don’t know

Do not have copies

Fig. 7.8 Institutions with Copies of VitalCollections Records Stored Off-site (by size)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nonprofit 40%

Federal 28%

State 35%


Tribal 48%

Fig. 7.9 Institutions with No Copies of VitalCollections Records Stored Off-site(by governance)

21% of medium-sized institutions (figure 7.11).In question D12, which asked institutions the

urgency of preservation/conservation needs, 9%cited an urgent need for security (figure 7.12),ranking below five other factors (figure 5.12, p.54). Combining “some need” and “urgent need,”45% of institutions need security improvements;this is the lowest ranking need, just below preser-vation of digital collections and integrated pestmanagement, both at 46%.

Vandalism was cited as the cause of significantdamage at 1% of institutions and of some damageat 22% of institutions. It was the least frequentcause of significant and some damage, after fireat 0.4% and 3% respectively. However, of all caus-es of damage listed, fire is most likely to result inan immediate and a total loss to the object.


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adequate systems 44%

Adequate systems in some, but not all, areas 29%

Inadequate or no systems 26%

Don’t know 1%}56%

Fig. 7.10 Adequacy of Security Systems

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Large Medium Small

Adequate systems

Adequate systems in some, but not all, areas

Inadequate or no systems

Don’t know

Fig. 7.11 Adequacy of Security Systems(by size)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No need 44%

Need 37%

Urgent need 9%

Don’t know 5%

Not applicable 7%

Fig. 7.12 Need for Security Improvements

RecommendationEvery collecting institution must develop an emergency plan to protect its collections and train

staff to carry it out.


The Heritage Health Index found that morethan half of U.S. collecting institutions care formore than six types of collections (figure 8.1);given the diverse needs of collections, it is partic-ularly important to have personnel who devotetime to collections care.

Survey question D8 asked institutions abouttheir level of conservation/preservation staffing.Institutions could select as many options asapplicable. Only 20% of institutions have paidconservation/preservation staff, whether full-time or part-time (figure 8.2). Instead, most insti-tutions depend on assigning collections careduties to other staff as needed (30%), to volun-teers (44%), or to external providers (15%).

Twenty-two percent of institutions report that nodesignated staff person has conservation/preser-vation responsibilities.

Viewed by type of institution, about one-thirdof archives and archaeological repositories/scien-tific research collections have paid conserva-tion/preservation staff (figure 8.3). Museums arealso above the national average, with 27% havingpaid staff dedicated to collections care. However,only 12% of libraries and 15% of historical soci-eties have paid conservation/preservation staff.Archives and archaeological repositories/scientif-ic research collections are also least likely tohave no designated staff with collections careresponsibilities at 5% and 8% respectively, while


Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing & ActivitiesAn institution demonstrates preservation awareness and well-integrated conservation policies

through a conservation staff if resources allow, or well established relationships with consulting con-

servation professionals who have expertise in specific material types or issues appropriate to collec-

tions.


Professional responsibilities involving the care of the collections should be assigned to persons with

the appropriate knowledge and skill or who are adequately supervised.

—ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, International Council of Museums, 2004

Collection care is principally the responsibility of staff members (regardless of job titles) directly

involved with specimens and artifacts: curators, collection managers, curatorial assistants, conserva-

tors, registrars, preparators, and technical assistants in these areas.

—Guidelines for the Care of Natural History Collections, Society for the Preservation of NaturalHistory Collections, 1998

1 collection type5%

2-5collections

types40%

6-10 collections

types55%

Collections types:• Books and bound volumes• Unbound sheets• Photographic • Moving image • Recorded sound • Digital material• Art objects• Historic and ethnographic objects• Archaeological• Natural science

Fig. 8.1 Most Institutions Care for More than SixTypes of Collections

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Dedicated paid staff 20%

Various staff as needed 30%

Volunteers 44%

External provider 15%

No staff person 22%Multiple responses allowed

Fig. 8.2 Institutions’ Staffing forConservation/Preservation

libraries are the most likely not to have staff(38%). Of libraries, only 17% of academic librariesand 22% of independent research libraries haveno designated staff, while 45% of public librariesand 39% of special libraries have none. Abouthalf of archives, libraries, museums, and archae-ological repositories/scientific research collec-tions use various staff to handle collections careduties. Museums are most likely to useexternal providers for conservation/preser-vation services (26%). Historical societiesare most likely to use volunteers (64%) aspart of their personnel for conservation/preservation; 30% of historical societies useonly volunteers to cover conservation/preservation duties.

Results relate to size of institution, withlarger institutions more likely to have paidstaff, have access to other staff, and useexternal providers, while smaller institu-tions are more likely to use volunteers orhave no staff assigned to conservation/preservation (figure 8.4). Public librariesand special libraries contribute the mosttoward the 10% of large institutions with nodesignated staff.

By governance, federal institutions aremost likely to have paid conservation/

preservation staff (36%), followed by state insti-tutions (28%) (figure 8.5). County/municipal andtribal-governed institutions are most likely tohave no staff assigned to conservation/preserva-tion (35% and 36% respectively). These figuresinclude academic institutions (Methodology, p.20), but viewing academic institutions aloneshows that state college/universities are the mostlikely to have paid conservation/preservationstaff and county/ municipal college/universitiesare most likely to have no staff. These figures


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Dedicated paid staff

Various staff as needed

Volunteers

External provider

No staff person

Archives Libraries Historical Societies

Museums Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections

Fig. 8.3 Institutions’ Staffing forConservation/Preservation (by type)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Volunteers

External provider

No staff person

Large

Medium

Small

Multiple responses allowed


Fig. 8.4 Institutions’ Staffing forConservation/Preservation (by size)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Volunteers

External provider

No staff person

Nonprofit Federal State County/Municipal Tribal


Fig. 8.5 Institutions’ Staffing forConservation/Preservation (by governance)

influence the data by overall governance (figure8.6). Of all the variables, including type and size,academic institutions are more likely to use vari-ous staff as needed for conservation/preserva-tion.

The second survey question about preservationstaffing (D9) asked institutions to indicate thenumber of internal staff and volunteers who per-form conservation/preservation activities.Institutions were to record human resourcesdevoted to collections care using full-time equiva-lent (FTE), which is equal to a worker who worksyear-round for an average of 40 hours a week.The online version of the survey included an FTEcalculator to assist respondents with this calcula-tion. Institutions were to include all workers andvolunteers including temporary, part-time, sea-sonal, work study, and intern help. Staffing wasdivided into three categories: professional con-servation/preservation staff, support conserva-tion/preservation staff, and volunteers.Respondents were given the choice of six answerchoices that included ranges of numbers(Appendix F, p. 5).

“Professional staff” was intentionally notdefined to allow institutions to define it mostappropriately for their institutions. Instead,examples of professional staff, including preser-vation administrators, conservators, andresearch scientists, were given. For example, at anatural science museum, a collections manager

could be considered professional conservation/preservation staff, but at an art museum, thisposition could be considered support staff. Sixty-five percent of institutions responded that theyhad no professional conservation/preservationstaff (figure 8.7). Only slightly more than a quar-ter (27%) have up to one full-time equivalent staffperson; only 5% have 2-5 FTEs; 1% have 6-10FTEs; and less than 1% have more than 11 full-time equivalent internal professional conserva-tion/preservation staff.

Support conservation/preservation staffincludes collections care assistants, technicalassistants, and collections handlers; again theterm was not rigidly defined so institutions coulddefine it for themselves. Fewer than half of insti-tutions (47%) have no FTE support staff; 39%have up to one FTE; 10% have 2-5 FTEs; 1% have 6-10 FTEs; and fewer than 1% have more than 11full-time equivalent internal support conserva-tion/preservation staff (figure 8.7).

There are no volunteers involved with conser-vation and preservation activities at 58% of col-lecting institutions. One-quarter use up to oneFTE volunteer: only 10% use 2-5 FTEs; 2% use 6-10 FTEs; 1% uses 11-20 FTEs; and 1% use morethan 20 full-time equivalent volunteers. In allthree staffing categories, 3% of institutionsreplied “don’t know.”

Averaging all three responses together, usingmidpoints for the ranges 2-5, 6-10, and 11-20 and


0 20 40% 60% 80% 100%



Volunteers

External provider

No staff person

Private College/University

State College/University

County/MunicipalCollege/University

Other

%


Fig. 8.6 Institutions’ Staffing forConservation/Preservation (by academic governance)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0 FTE

up to 1 FTE

2-5 FTE

6-10 FTE

11-20 FTE

Professional staff

Support staff

Volunteersmore than 20 FTE

Don’t know

Fig. 8.7 Institutions’ Internal Staff WhoPerform Conservation/Preservation Activities

30 for “more than 20,” 30% of institutions do nothave any internal staff who perform conserva-tion/preservation activities (figure 8.8); 25% haveone full-time equivalent; 18% have two full-timeequivalent staff members, whether they be con-servation/professionals, support staff, volun-teers, or some combination of the three.Seventeen percent have 3-5 FTEs; 7% have morethan 5 but less than 10 FTEs; and only 4% havemore than 10 FTEs. Overall, almost three-quar-ters of institutions have fewer than two full-timeequivalent staff members with conservation/preservation responsibilities. At institutions thathave internal conservation/preservation staff(professional, support, or volunteers), 36% haveone FTE; 25% have two FTEs; 24% have 3-5 FTEs;11% have more than 5 but less than 10; and only4% have more than 10 FTEs.

Figure 8.9 shows the average by type of institu-tion. Libraries are most likely to have no internalstaff (44%), followed by historical societies (23%),museums (18%), archives (14%), and archaeologi-cal repositories/scientific research collections(10%). Results are fairly even across institutionsthat have 1 FTE, with museums at the lowest(23%) and archaeological repositories/scientificresearch collections at the highest (31%) percent-age. Results remain balanced in the 3-5 and lessthan five and more than 10 categories, with theexception of libraries-about 10% lower than other

institutions in both cases. Only 1% of librarieshave more than 10 FTEs, compared with about 5%of other institutions.

Institutions were asked to report whether theirconservation/preservation program included anyof six types of activities: • preventive conservation (e.g., housekeeping,

holdings maintenance, re-housing, environ-mental monitoring)

• preservation management (e.g., administra-tion, planning, assessment)

• conservation treatment (e.g., repair, massdeacidification, specimen preparation)

• preservation reformatting (e.g., preservationphotocopying, microfilming)

• preservation of audio-visual media and play-back equipment (e.g., preservation copies ofmedia, maintaining equipment)

• preservation of digital materials and electronicrecords collections (e.g., migrating data to cur-rent software).Respondents could indicate that the activity

was done by institution staff; done by externalproviders; not done currently, but planned; notdone; or not applicable. Preventive conservationis mostly likely to be done by internal staff at66%, followed by preservation management at55%, conservation treatment at 37%, preserva-tion reformatting at 33%, preservation of digitalmaterials at 27%, and preservation of audio-visu-


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None 30%

1 FTE 25%

2 FTE 18%

3-5 FTE 17%

more than 10 FTE 4%

more than 5-10 FTE 7%

}73%

Includes conservation/preservation professional

and support staff and volunteers

Fig. 8.8 Average Number of Internal StaffWho Perform Conservation/PreservationActivities

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None

1 FTE

2 FTE

3-5 FTE

more than 10 FTE

5-10 FTE

}73%Archives

Libraries


Museums


Includes conservation/preservation professional

and support staff and volunteers

Fig. 8.9 Average Number of Internal Staff WhoPerform Conservation/Preservation Activities (by type)

al materials at 23% (figure 8.10). Conservationtreatment is done by external providers at 21% ofinstitutions. External providers are next mostlikely to be used for preservation reformatting(16%) and preservation of audio-visual media (8%).Preservation of digital material has the highestpercentage of “not done currently, but planned” at12%, but between 9% and 11% of the remainingactivities are also planned, with the exception ofpreventive conservation (5%). Between one-quar-ter and one-third of institutions are not involvedin these preservation activities, again with theexception of preventive conservation, which is notdone at 18% of institutions.

Staff training for conservation and preserva-tion is needed at 59% of institutions and urgentlyneeded at 11% of institutions, resulting in a com-bined need figure of 70%, more than any otherneed cited by institutions (figure 8.11). This needis fairly balanced across types of institutions (fig-ure 8.12), with archives and museums having themost need responses (63%) and archives, histori-cal societies, and museums having the highesturgent need responses at 14% each. Results bysize are also about equal, with more large andmedium-sized institutions citing a need andslightly more small institutions citing an urgentneed (12%) (figure 8.13).

Urgent need for staff training correlates withaverage size of internal staff for conservation/preservation, with more institutions citing anurgent need for training if they have fewer staff.


0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Done by institution staff

Done by external provider

Preventive conservation

Preservation management

Conservation treatment

Preservation reformatting

Preservation of A/V mediaand playback equipment

Preservation of digital materials


Fig. 8.10 What Institutions’ Conservation/Preservation Program Includes

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No need 19%

Need 59%

Urgent need 11%

Don’t know 4%

Not applicable 7%

}70%

Fig. 8.11 Institutions’ Need for Staff Training

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No need

Need

Urgent need

Don’t know

Not applicable

Archives

Libraries


MuseumsArchaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections

Fig. 8.12 Institutions’ Need for Staff Training(by type)

0 20 40% 60% 80% 100%

No need

Need

Urgent need

Don’t know

Not applicable

Large

Medium

Small

%

Fig. 8.13 Institutions’ Need for StaffTraining (by size)

For example, 29% of institutions with an urgentneed for staff training have no internal staff; 24%of institutions with an urgent need for stafftraining have 1 full-time equivalent staff; 19%with an urgent need have 2 FTEs; 17% with anurgent need have 3-5 FTEs; 8% with an urgentneed have less than five but more than 10 FTEs;and 4% with an urgent need for staff traininghave more than 10 FTEs. The trend is the samewhen considering only institutions that haveinternal staff.

One-third of institutions report some (31%) orsignificant (2%) damage to collections due toprior treatment or restoration. While this dam-age may have occurred before an item entered theinstitution that currently holds it, it underscoresthe importance of using trained conservators toundertake treatment projects. It also indicatesthat a percentage of collections in need mayrequire specialized treatment to ameliorate previ-ous repair.

Half of all institutions have a need and 12%have an urgent need for conservation treatment(figure 8.14). By institutional type, archives havethe greatest need at 65%; historical societieshave the greatest urgent need at 17%, followed

closely by museums at 16% and archaeologicalrepositories/scientific research collections at14% (figure 8.15). One-fifth of art museums havean urgent need for conservation treatment, morethan any other specific type.

The services of a professional conservatorwould be required to address the problems ofitems described here and elsewhere in this reportas being in urgent need. Not every institution hasthe resources to have a professional conservatoron staff, but in these cases, institutions can callupon conservators in private practice and atregional conservation centers for assistance.

For more routine preventive conservationactivities, institutions can take advantage oftraining opportunities (a list is provided on theResources page of www.heritagehealthindex.org).Such training is necessary to ensure that staffknow the fundamentals in collections handling,storage, environmental monitoring, and otherbasic preservation activities. Most problemsidentified by Heritage Health Index data could bereversed if every institution had adequate stafffor preservation. At a minimum, every collectinginstitution should have a dedicated staff personwho addresses collections care issues.


RecommendationEvery institution must assign responsibility for caring for collections to members of its staff.

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No need 19%

Need 50%

Urgent need 12%

Don’t know 9%

Not applicable 10%

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No need

Need

Urgent need

Don’t know

Not applicable

Archives

Libraries



Fig. 8.14 Institutions’ Need forConservation Treatment

Fig. 8.15 Institutions’ Need for ConservationTreatment (by type)

The section of the Heritage Health Index sur-vey devoted to preservation expenditures andfunding revealed that few U.S. collecting institu-tions regularly designate funds to conservation/preservation and that most institutions’ budgetsfor conservation/preservation are surprisinglylow. Only 13% have access to preservation fund-ing from permanent funds, such as endowments.Furthermore, many institutions are not seekingexternal funds to support preservation of theircollections and are not engaged in activities toraise awareness from potential preservation fun-ders. This data leads Heritage Preservation toconclude that preservation is not a core activitythat is budgeted for regularly. Lack of financialsupport is at the root of all the issues identifiedin the Heritage Health Index. Making funds forpreservation a consistent and stable part of annu-

al operating budgets would begin to addressthese issues.

Only 23% of collecting institutions, whichinclude archives, libraries, historical societies,museums, and archaeological repositories/scien-tific research collections, have funding specifical-ly allocated for conservation/preservation activi-ties in their annual budgets (figure 9.1). In somecases, institutions rely on other budget lines forconservation/preservation—for example, a muse-um may include preservation in a curatorialbudget or a library might include preservation ina technical services budget. However, only 36%allocate funds through other budget categories.Forty percent of U.S. collecting institutions allo-cate no funds for the care of their collections.

The data on allocation of funds for preserva-tion correlates to size (figure 9.2), with larger


Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and FundingLibrarians must educate the public about the choices and the financial commitments necessary to

preserve our society’s cultural and social records.


An institution demonstrates preservation awareness and well-integrated conservation policies

through an annual budget appropriation, appropriate to the size of the institution, for preservation and

conservation of the collection.


It is the director’s responsibility to identify priorities of the museum that are consistent with its

board-approved policy and to recommend the allocation of funds required to support them.

—Professional Practices in Art Museums, Association of Art Museum Directors, 2001

Don’t know 2%

Have allocated

funds 23%No allocated funds 40%

No specific line item, but other budgeted funds available 36%

Fig. 9.1 Institutions with Funds Allocated forConservation/Preservation in Annual Budget

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Large

Medium

Small

Have allocated funds

No specific line item but other budgeted funds available

No allocated funds

Don’t know

Fig. 9.2 Institutions with Funds Allocated forConservation/Preservation in Annual Budget(most recently completed fiscal year) (by size)

institutions more likely to have a specific line-item for preservation, and smaller institutionsmore likely to not have any budgeted funds. Morethan one-third of institutions (36%), regardless ofsize, use funds from other budget lines forpreservation. By institutional type, libraries areleast likely to allocate for preservation at 54%.This figure is influenced by 60% of publiclibraries and special libraries not specificallyallocating for preservation in their institutionalbudgets (including 42% of large public librariesand 55% of large special libraries). Art museumsare most likely to have funds specifically allocat-ed for preservation (45%), followedby independent research libraries(40%). By region, institutions in theNortheast are most likely to specifi-cally allocate funds at 32%, andinstitutions in the Mountain-Plainsregion are least likely at 19%.

In question E3, survey partici-pants were asked to record theamount of their institutions’ con-servation/preservation budget forthe most recently completed fiscalyear. Half the respondents reporteddata for FY2003; the other halfreported data for FY2004. The ques-tion explained that if no specificline-item for preservation budgetexists, respondents should include

an estimate of other budgeted funds used in themost recent fiscal year. This estimate was toinclude funds for staffing, supplies, equipment,surveys, treatment, preservation reformatting,commercial binding, consultants, contractors,and other preservation costs. The instructionsreferred institutions to what they recorded in thepreservation staffing question to ensure that allpersonnel costs were included in the preservationbudget response. Funds for utilities, security,capital projects, or overhead were not to beincluded in the preservation budget, although insome cases these expenses could be related topreservation. Institutions were instructed toinclude all funds from the most recently complet-ed fiscal year, even if that figure was higher thanusual due to a special project or grant. This ques-tion received an 86% response rate—lower thanmost of the survey questions, which haveresponses close to 100%. If the question was leftblank, data was considered to be missing ratherthan assumed to be zero.

Given such a broad definition of preservationexpenses, preservation budgets are surprisinglylow (figure 9.3). Almost a third (30%) had nofunds budgeted, and 38% had less than $3,000budgeted in the most recently completed fiscalyear. As seen in figure 9.4, libraries at 44% aremost likely to have a preservation budget of zero(50% of public libraries, 44% of special libraries,43% of independent research libraries, and 25%


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None 30%

Less than $3,000 38%

$3,001 - $15,000 18%

$15,001 - $50,000 8%

$50,001 - $100,000 3%

more than $100,000 3%

Fig. 9.3 Institutions’ Annual Budget forConservation/Preservation (most recentlycompleted fiscal year)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Archives Libraries



None

Less than $3,000

$15,001- $50,000

$50,001 - $100,000

$3,001- $15,000

more than $100,000

Fig. 9.4 Institutions’ Annual Budget for Conservation/Preservation (most recently completed fiscal year) (by type)

of academic libraries). Results for preservationbudget amounts correlate to size (figure 9.5).

In the preservation funding category of lessthan $3,000, 78% of libraries and 78% of histori-cal societies have preservation budgets this low—10% less than the national average of 68%. Thelibrary figure (figure 9.6) is dominated by 87% ofpublic libraries and 76% of special libraries hav-ing a preservation budget of less than $3,000.Archives fall to the bottom of the list with only43% having less than $3,000, but this figure isbased on a small number of institutions with a

primary function as an archives. When consider-ing all institutions that reported having archivesamong their functions, 59% had less than $3,000budgeted for preservation in the most recentlycompleted fiscal year. As shown in figure 9.7,80% of institutions under county/municipal gov-ernance had a preservation budget less than$3,000, while only 43% of federal institutionshave preservation budgets this low.

The Heritage Health Index questionnaire askedinstitutions to record their total annual operatingbudget for the most recently completed fiscalyear so that it would be possible to put preserva-tion budgets in some context. To consider theaverage percentage of total budgets devoted topreservation, the percentage is figured for eachinstitution and weighted for institutions with


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nonprofit 65%

Federal 43%

State 61%


Tribal 72%

Fig. 9.7 Institutions with Annual Budgets forConservation/Preservation Less than $3,000(most recently completed fiscal year) (by governance)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Large

Medium

Small

None

Less than $3,000

$3,001 - $15,000

$15,001 - $50,000

$50,001 - $100,000

More than $100,000

Fig. 9.5 Institutions’ Annual Budget forConservation/Preservation (most recently complet-ed fiscal year ) (by size)

Fig. 9.6 Institutions with Annual Budgetsfor Conservation/Preservation Less than$3,000

Public Libraries 87%Historical Societies 78%Special Libraries 76%Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections 63%History Museums/Historic Sites/Other Museums 60%

Academic Libraries 50%Science Museums/Zoos/Botanical Gardens 50%

Art Museums 49%Independent Research Libraries 45%Archives 43%

Fig. 9.8 Average Percentage of AnnualOperating Budget Allocated to Conservation/Preservation (most recently completed fiscalyear) (by type)

Archives 14%Libraries 3%Historical Societies 12%Museums 9%Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections 34%

missing data (Methodology, p. 21); then an aver-age is taken across all or similar institutions. Inthis case (figure 9.8), the range goes from anaverage of only 3% of library budgets allocatedfor preservation to 34% of archaeological reposi-tories/scientific research collections’ operatingbudgets spent on preservation. At large and medi-um-sized institutions, an average of 5% of totaloperating budgets is spent on preservation; atsmall institutions the average is 9%. In somecases, institutions recorded the same figure fortotal annual operating budget and preservationbudget, indicating 100% of the institutions’ budg-et goes to collections care expenses. This situa-tion is conceivable, especially in collecting insti-tutions where overhead is covered by a parentinstitution, such as an academic university ormunicipality.

To get a more complete understanding ofnationwide conservation/preservation expendi-tures, it is useful to consider the proportion oftotal spending to total preservation spending.Budget figures for annual budgets and preserva-tion budgets are each totaled and weighted tocompensate for missing data (Methodology, p. 21).The response rate for the question about annualoperating budget was 87%; for the questionabout annual conservation/preservation budget,84%; and on both questions, 81%. Data needed tobe weighted to compensate for missing data inabout 20% of the cases. The total annual operat-ing budgets of collecting institutions in the mostrecently completed fiscal year was $32,831,262,572,while the spending on conservation/preservationnationwide was $720,708,717—a proportion of 2%.The proportion does not change in relation to thesize of the institution. Considered by type of

institution (figure 9.9), 7% of total archives budg-ets was directed to preservation and only 1% oflibrary budgets was spent on preservation.

To ascertain the consistency of preservationfunding at institutions, the Heritage HealthIndex asked, “In the last three years, have any ofyour conservation/preservation expendituresbeen met by drawing on income from endowedfunds?” Only 13% (figure 9.10) use such income;80% do not or their institution does not haveendowed funds; and 7% don’t know. Librarieswere least likely to use income from endowedfunds for preservation, though viewing the databy specific type of institution show there is arange among library responses; 32% of independ-ent research libraries have used income fromendowed funds (more than any other type ofinstitution), while only 6% of public libraries and6% of special libraries have done so. At 25% and21% respectively, art museums and science muse-ums/zoos/botanical gardens were among institu-tions with the highest likelihood of using endow-ment income for preservation. Larger institu-tions (24%) were more likely than medium-sized(15%) or small (11%) institutions to use incomefrom endowed funds. This data has more varia-tion when viewed by region than other fundingdata; 22% of institutions in the Northeast and15% of institutions in the Midwest draw onincome from endowed funds for preservationexpenses, compared with 8% in the West andabout 12% for the remaining regions.


Don’t know 7%

Have not used endowmentincome/do not haveendowment income

80%

Have used endowmentincome 13%

Fig. 9.10 Institutions that Used Income fromEndowed Funds for Conservation/Preservation(last three years)

Fig. 9.9 Proportion of Total Annual OperatingBudgets to Total Conservation/PreservationBudgets (most recently completed fiscal year)(by type)

Archives 7%Libraries 1%Historical Societies 3%Museums 4%Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections 5%

Considering the type of institutional gover-nance and how it relates to use of endowmentincome (figure 9.11), state government and non-profit institutions have higher rates than thenational average of 13%. While the higher per-centage is to be expected from nonprofit institu-tions, the figure for state-governed institutions islikely influenced by data from state colleges/uni-versities. Since academic institutions are morelikely to have endowments, their collecting enti-ties are more likely to have this potential sourcefor preservation funding.

The Heritage Health Index survey includedthree questions about where collecting institu-tions were obtaining support for conservation/

preservation activities. Institutions were asked ifin the last three years they had received fundingfrom various sources outside their institution(figure 9.12). At 27%, individual donors are themost likely source for external preservationfunds; this category included funds from mem-bership or friends groups. Most noteworthy isthat 40% of institutions have applied for no addi-tional, external funding for preservation and 8%do not know. Breaking down 40% by size of insti-tution reveals that 31% of large institutions, 39%of medium-sized institutions, and 41% of smallinstitutions have sought no additional externalfunding. Libraries are the most likely not to havereceived external funds in the last three years at58%. Almost two-thirds of special libraries havereceived no external funding for preservation;neither have more than half of public librariesand academic libraries. The next most likely notto have received any external preservation fund-ing in the last three years was archaeologicalrepositories/scientific research collections at40%, followed by 30% of archives, 26% of muse-ums, and 24% of historical societies. There are nosignificant differences among regions regardingobtaining external funds for preservation.

Many external funding sources require anapplication, and 62% of institutions indicate thatthey have not applied for funding from any publicor private source in the last three years (figure9.13). This was followed by a question for thosethat have not made grant applications to under-


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nonprofit 16%

Federal 5%

State 17%

County/Municipal 8%

Tribal 3%

Fig. 9.11 Institutions That Used Income fromEndowed Funds for Conservation/Preservation(last three years) (by governance)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Federal 12%

State 18%

Municipal 12%

Corporation/Company 6%

Foundation 15%Individual/Private Philanthropist 27%(includes members, friends groups)

Have received no external funding 40%

Don’t know 7%

Fig. 9.12 Source of Support for Institutions thatHave Received External Conservation/Preservation Funding (last three years)

Don’t know 6%

Have notapplied62%

Have applied32%

Fig. 9.13 Whether Institutions Have Appliedfor Conservation/Preservation Funding (last three years)

Multiple responses allowed Includes from private or public funding sources

stand what factors influenced their decision notto apply. Lack of staff time or expertise in apply-ing for grants was the most frequent response at50% (figure 9.14). The next highest response at36% was “not aware of appropriate fundingsources.” A third of institutions cite a need foradditional time to plan projects before request-ing grant funds. It is important to note that 30%responded that conservation/preservation is notan institutional priority and so additional fund-ing has not been sought in the last three years.

Promoting awareness of what institutions doto care for collections is an additional way toattract outside funding for conservation andpreservation. The results to a question on thistopic (figure 9.15) illustrate that more institu-tions could employ strategies to attract funding.More than 40% serve as a source for preserva-

tion information for the public,and a little more than a thirdeducate donors and/or trusteesabout preservation throughsuch activities as tours ordemonstrations. Only 8% fea-ture preservation topics on theirWeb site, and few (6%) usepreservation for earnedincome—for example, by sellingpreservation-quality materialsin their gift shops or providingconservation services on a fee-for-service basis.


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not aware of funding sources 36%

Lack of time/expertise 50%

Needed additional planning 33%

Conservation not a priority 30%

Have sufficient funding 8%

Have been unsuccessful previously 4%

Don’t know 9%

Fig. 9.14 Reasons Why Institutions Have NotApplied for Conservation/Preservation Funding(last three years)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Use

Educating donors/trustees

Presentations to members/friends groups

Feature in exhibitions

Serving as source for information

Part of strategy for earned income

Feature on Web site

Not used currently,but planned

Not used Don’t know

Fig. 9.15 Institutions that Promote Awareness ofConservation/Preservation Using the Following Activities


Includes from private or public funding sources


RecommendationInstitutions’ budgets should reflect that preservation of collections is among their top priori-

ties. Designated giving for the care of collections can help ensure this. Individuals at all levels ofgovernment and in the private sector must assume responsibility for providing support that willallow collections to survive.

The preservation needs documented by theHeritage Health Index are infinitely harder toaddress if archives, libraries, historical societies,museums, archaeological repositories, and scien-tific research organizations do not have recentassessments of their collections’ conditions.Institutions will also find it challenging to man-age the care of collections if they do not have suf-ficient intellectual control over what they hold.Although knowing the quantity and condition ofcollections is a fundamental component of collec-tions stewardship, too many institutions do nothave this information. Results from the surveyquestions that asked institutions to report on thepercentage of collections that are cataloged andthe availability of current assessments reveal thisneed. In addition, the percentage of miss-ing information and “don’t know” respons-es throughout the survey is telling aboutthe lack of intellectual control over collec-tions.

The Heritage Health Index asked insti-tutions to estimate the percentage of theircollections accessible through a catalog.1

The definition of “catalog” did not specifywhat descriptive detail it must contain toallow institutions the broadest possibleinterpretation to this question. Only 12%said that all their collections were accessi-ble through a catalog, but 34% have a largeportion (80%-99%) of their collection cata-loged (figure 10.1). A little over 10% of

institutions have a backlog in cataloging, withonly 60-79% of collections cataloged. Almost 40%of institutions have a significant backlog in cata-loging, with 59% or less of their collection nothaving basic information recorded about it—including 18% of institutions with no catalogingrecords on any of their collections. That so manyinstitutions lack information about their collec-tions may explain the low response rate on thesurvey question that asked for the quantity of col-lections.

Looking at cataloging levels by institution,libraries are significantly more likely to have col-lections cataloged, with 69% of libraries havingmore than 80% of their collections cataloged (fig-ure 10.2). Archives are least likely, with only 30%


Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual ControlCataloging and documenting works of art in the collections are basic responsibilities of the museum.

—Professional Practices in Art Museums, Association of Art Museum Directors, 2001

Archivists strive to preserve and protect the authenticity of records in their holdings by document-

ing their creation and use in hard copy and electronic formats. They have a fundamental obligation to

preserve the intellectual and physical integrity of those records.

—Code of Ethics for Archivists, Society for American Archivists, 2005

The Accreditation Commission expects that the scope of a museum’s collections stewardship

extends to both the physical and intellectual control of its property.


1. Catalog: research tool or finding aid that provides intellectual control over collection through entries that may containdescriptive detail, including physical description, provenance, history, accession information, etc.

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None

1-19%

20-39%

40-59%

Don’t know 4%

60-79%

18%

8%

6%

7%

11%

80-99% 34%

100% 12%

Perc

enta

ge o

f cat

alog

ed c

olle

ctio

ns

Fig. 10.1 Institutions’ Percentage of CollectionsAccessible Through a Catalog

having a catalog that includes more than 80% oftheir collections. Only one-third of museums andarchaeological repositories/scientific researchcollections have more than 80% of their collec-tions cataloged. Institutions with no catalogingrecords include 31% of historical societies, 28%of museums, and 20% of archaeological reposito-ries/scientific research collections. Only 7% oflibraries and 8% of archives do not have anythingcataloged.

Percentage of collections cataloged directlyrelates to size of institution, with smaller institu-tions more likely to have little or no collectionsdata. Of the large institutions with none of theircollections information in a catalog, 14% arelarge science museums/zoos/botanical gardens,10% are large art museums, and 6% are large his-

tory museums/historic sites/other muse-ums (figure 10.3). Small institutions withthe highest percentage of having no collec-tions cataloged include science muse-ums/zoos/botanical gardens (43%), artmuseums and historical societies (33%),history museums/historic sites/othermuseums (31%), and archaeological reposi-tories/scientific research collections(26%).

By governance, federal institutions aremost likely to have more than 80% of theircollections cataloged (60%), followed by59% of institutions with county/municipalgovernance and 52% of state governedinstitutions. Tribal (50%) and non-profit(21%) organizations were most likely tohave none of their collections cataloged.

Seventeen percent of institutions citedan urgent need for finding aids or cata-loging of collections; it ranks as the sec-ond greatest urgent need cited by institu-tions after environmental controls (figure10.4). Combining need and urgent need fig-ures, 65% of institutions need cataloging—the third most frequent need after stafftraining and condition assessments.Historical societies (29%) and archives andhistory museums/historic sites/othermuseums (both 23%) cite an urgent needfor cataloging.

To get a sense of the accessibility of col-lections information, the Heritage Health Index


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None

1-39%

40-79%

80-99%

Don’tknow

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f cat

alog

ed c

olle

ctio

ns Archives

Libraries



Fig. 10.2 Institutions’ Percentage of CollectionsAccessible Through a Catalog (by type)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None

1-39%

40-79%

80-99%

Don’tknow

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f cat

alog

ed c

olle

ctio

ns

Large

Medium

Small

Fig. 10.3 Institutions’ Percentage of CollectionsAvailable Through a Catalog (by size)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No need 26%

Need 48%

Urgent need 17%

Don’t know 4%

Not applicable 5%

Fig. 10.4 Need for Finding Aids or Catalogingof Collections

included a question on the estimated per-centage of the collection’s catalog avail-able online, whether for institutional orpublic use. Only 31% have such informa-tion available for more than 80% of theircatalog, and half of all U.S. collectinginstitutions have no cataloging informa-tion available online (figure 10.5). At 64%,libraries are most likely to have onlinecatalog access, while historical societies,museums, and archaeological reposito-ries/scientific research collections areleast likely to have any collections dataavailable online (figure 10.6). Large insti-tutions are more likely than small institu-tions to have their catalogs availableonline, with 41% of large institutions hav-ing more than 80% available, comparedwith 26% of small institutions (figure10.7).

Only a quarter of institutions provideonline access to the content of their col-lections or holdings through such thingsas online exhibitions, interactiveresources, digital art, or digital copies ofphotographs, documents, or books (figure10.8). Eight percent predict that they willbegin to provide such content within ayear. Archives (41%), libraries (29%), andmuseums (23%) are most likely to makecollections content available online (fig-ure 10.9). Large institutions are more


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None

1-19%

20-39%

40-59%

3%

60-79%

80-99%

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f cat

alog

ed c

olle

ctio

ns 50%

8%

3%

2%

4%

15%

16%

Don’tknow

Fig. 10.5 Institutions’ Percentage of CollectionsCatalog Available Online

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None

1-39%

40-79%

80-99%

Don’tknow

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f cat

alog

e av

aila

ble

onlin

e

Archives

Libraries



Fig. 10.6 Institutions’ Percentage of CollectionsCatalog Available Online (by type)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None

1-39%

40-79%

80-99%

Don’tknow

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f cat

alog

e av

aila

ble

onlin

e

Large

Medium

Small

Fig. 10.7 Institutions’ Percentage of CollectionsCatalog Available Online (by size)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provide online access to content

Don’t provide online access to content,but will have access within the next year

Don’t provide onlineaccess to content

Don’t know 1%

25%

8%

65%

Fig. 10.8 Institutions That Provide OnlineAccess to the Content of Any of TheirCollections or Holdings

than twice as likely to provide access to content(46%) than small institutions (20%) (figure 10.10).The availability of such resources indicates notonly an additional level of information about col-lections but also the existence of digital materi-als that should be potentially be part of an insti-tution’s preservation program.

Collections AssessmentsThe Heritage Health Index asked collecting

institutions whether a survey of the general con-dition2 of their collections has been done.Respondents were able to select from the follow-ing choices: “yes,” “yes, but only of a portion ofthe collection,” “yes, but it is not up-to-date,” “yes,but only a portion of the collection, and it is notup-to-date,” “no,” and “don’t know.” Thirty percentof institutions have done a survey of the condi-tion of their collections, but 35% have not doneone (figure 10.11). The remaining one-third ofinstitutions have surveys for only a portion oftheir collections or their surveys are out-of-date.Museums have a slightly higher percentage ofhaving done surveys than other types of institu-tions (37%), and historical societies have the low-est percentage (22%) (figure 10.12). Libraries arethe most likely not to have done any survey at all

at 46%, including 47% of public libraries, 40% ofacademic libraries, and 50% of special libraries.Large, medium, and small institutions have simi-lar percentages of having current surveys thatincluded all of their collections (figure 10.13). Thepercentage of institutions that have done surveysis about equal across types of governance. Tribal-governed museums have the lowest percentage of


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Don’tknow

Archives Libraries Historical Societies Museums


Don’t provide online access to content

Fig. 10.9 Institutions That Provide OnlineAccess to the Content of Any of TheirCollections or Holdings (by type)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Don’tknow

Large Medium Small

Don’t provide online access to content

Fig. 10.10 Institutions That Provide OnlineAccess to the Content of Any of TheirCollections or Holdings (by size)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Have done a survey

Have done a survey only of a portion of the collection

Have done a survey but it is not up-to-date

Don’t know 3%

Have done a survey only of a portion and it is not up-to-date

Have not done a survey 35%

10%

12%

11%

30%

Fig. 10.11 Institutions That Have Done aSurvey of the General Condition of TheirCollections

2. Survey of general condition: an assessment based on visual inspection of the collections and the areas where they areexhibited or held.

having assessments (8%), but 19% of tribal insti-tutions indicated “don’t know” in this question.

In ranking needs, “condition surveys or assess-ments of collections” had a combined need andurgent need figure of 68%, the second most com-mon cited need after staff training (figure 10.14).That assessments are such a common need andthat only one-third of collecting institutions havea current assessment of their entire collection isconsistent with the fact that many indicated“condition unknown” in the question about condi-tion of collections items. It also explains whysome survey questions, such as the one thatasked institutions to indicate the causes of dam-age to items, had higher percentages of “don’tknow” responses.

As more institutions conduct surveys on thecondition of their artifacts, there is the potentialfor the percentages of U.S. collections items inneed to increase.


0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don’t know

Archives Libraries Historical Societies Museums


Have done a survey




Have not done a survey

Fig. 10.12 Institutions That Have Done a Surveyof the General Condition of Their Collections(by type)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don’t knowLarge Medium Small

Have done a survey




Have not done a survey

Fig. 10.13 Institutions That Have Done aSurvey of the General Condition of TheirCollections (by size)

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No need 22%

Need 54%

Urgent need 14%

Don’t know 5%

Not applicable 6%

Fig. 10.14 Need for Condition Surveys orAssessments of Collections


American Association for State and Local HistoryAmerican Association of MuseumsAmerican Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic WorksAmerican Library AssociationAmerican Library Association/ALCTS Preservation and Reformatting SectionAssociation of Art Museum DirectorsAssociation of Moving Image ArchivistsAssociation of Regional Conservation CentersAssociation of Research LibrariesCenter for Arts and CultureCouncil on Library and Information ResourcesGetty FoundationInstitute of Museum and Library ServicesLibrary of CongressNational Archives and Records AdministrationNational Association of Government Archives and Records AdministratorsNational Commission on Libraries and Information ScienceNational Conference of State Historic Preservation OfficersNational Conference of State Museum AssociationsNational Endowment for the ArtsNational Endowment for the HumanitiesNational Gallery of ArtNational Historical Publications and Records CommissionNational Park Service, Museum Management ProgramNational Preservation InstituteNational Science FoundationNational Trust for Historic PreservationNatural Science Collections AllianceRegional Alliance for PreservationRLGSmithsonian InstitutionSociety for Historical ArchaeologySociety for the Preservation of Natural History CollectionsSociety of American Archivists

The Heritage Health Index Report A1

Appendix A—Heritage Health Index Institutional Advisory Committee

A2 The Heritage Health Index Report

Photographic materialsChair, Debra Hess Norris, Director, Art Conservation Program, University of Delaware Nora Kennedy, Conservator of Photographs, Metropolitan Museum of ArtSteve Puglia, Preservation and Imaging Specialist, National Archives and Records Administration James Reilly, Director, Image Permanence Institute Andrew Robb, Senior Photograph Conservator, Library of CongressGrant Romer, Director of Conservation, George Eastman HouseDeborah Willis, Professor of Photography & Imaging, New York University

Books, manuscripts, documents, maps, newspapersChair, Dianne van der Reyden, Senior Paper Conservator, Smithsonian Center for Materials Research

and EducationBrenda Banks, Deputy Director, Georgia State ArchivesCharles F. Bryan, Jr., Director, Virginia Historical Society (president-elect of American Association of

State and Local History)Richard Cameron, Director of State Programs, National Historical Publications and Records Commis-

sionSonja Jordan, Division Chief, Special Collections and Preservation, Chicago Public LibraryBarclay Ogden, Head of Access/Preservation, University of California, BerkeleyLorraine Olley, Executive Director of American Library Association-Library Administration and Man-

agement AssociationRodney Phillips, Director of the Humanities and Social Sciences Library, The New York Public Library

Paintings, prints, drawings Chair, Barbara Heller, Head Conservator, Detroit Institute of ArtsAlbert Albano, Executive Director and Head Paintings Conservator, Intermuseum Conservation Asso-

ciationRachel Allen, Deputy Director, Office of the Director, Smithsonian American Art Museum Georgia Barnhill, Andrew W. Mellon Curator of Graphic Arts, American Antiquarian SocietyRebecca Buck, Registrar, Newark MuseumMaria Grandinette, Head, Conservation Treatment, Stanford University LibrariesRoss Merrill, Chief of Conservation, National Gallery of ArtTerrie Rouse, past President and CEO of African American Museum in Philadelphia

Anthropological and ethnographic objects Chair, Jerry Podany, Head of Antiquities Conservation, Getty MuseumMarla C. Berns, Director, Fowler Museum of Cultural History, University of California Los AngelesJudith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of History & Archeology, Alaska Department

of Natural ResourcesJ. Claire Dean, Conservator, Dean & Associates Conservation Services Jonathan Haas, MacArthur Curator, North American Anthropology, Field MuseumJessica Johnson, Senior Objects Conservator, National Museum of the American IndianNancy Odegaard, Conservator, Arizona State Museum, University of ArizonaRobert Sonderman, Senior Staff Archeologist, Regional Archeology Program, Museum Resource Cen-

ter, National Park Service

The Heritage Health Index Report B1

Appendix B—Working Group Members*

Furniture, textiles, historic objectsChair, Sara Wolf, Director, Northeast Museum Services Center, National Park ServiceMary Jo Davis, Project Director, Vermont Collections Care ProgramSharon Fawcett, Deputy Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries, National Archives and Records

AdministrationLarry Franklin, Trustee, Panhandle-Plains Historical MuseumMary Lou Hultgren, Curator, Hampton University MuseumJulie Reilly, Associate Director and Chief Conservator, Ford Conservation CenterRalph Wiegandt, Conservator, Rochester Museum and Science Center

Moving images and recorded soundChair, Sarah Stauderman, Preservation Officer, Technical Services Division, Smithsonian InstitutionLisa Carter, Audio-visual Archivist, Special Collections & Archives, University of Kentucky Alan Lewis, Subject Area Expert for Audiovisual Preservation, Special Media Archives Services,

National Archives and Records AdministrationGregory Lukow, Assistant Chief, Motion Picture, Broadcasting & Recorded Sound Division, Library of

CongressChris Paton, Archivist, Popular Music Collection, Georgia State UniversityRowena Stewart, Executive Director, American Jazz MuseumBonnie Wilson, Curator, Sound and Visual Collections, Minnesota Historical Society

Decorative arts, sculpture and mixed media Chair, Meg Craft, Objects Conservator, The Walters Art MuseumCatherine Futter, Curator of Decorative Arts, Nelson-Atkins Museum of ArtGlen P. Gentele, Director, Laumeier Sculpture Park and MuseumEdward McManus, Chief Conservator, National Air and Space MuseumAnn-Marie Reilly, Registrar, American Folk Art MuseumGabriela Truly, Collections Manager, Dallas Museum of ArtGlenn Wharton, Sculpture Conservator, Glenn Wharton & Associates

Electronic records and digital collectionsChair, Paul Conway, Director, Information Technology Services, Duke University LibrariesPhilip C. Bantin, Director of Indiana University Archives, Indiana UniversityLinda Evans, Chief Cataloger, Chicago Historical SocietyCarl Fleischhauer, Technical Coordinator, National Digital Library Program, The Library of CongressClyde Grotophorst, Associate University Librarian for Library Systems, George Mason UniversityJames Henderson, State Archivist of Maine, Maine State ArchivesRichard Rinehart, Digital Media Director, Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archive

Natural science specimensChair, Hugh Genoways, Curator of Zoology, University of Nebraska-LincolnJanet Braun, Curator, Division of Mammalogy, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural HistoryChris Collins, Director of Collections and Conservation, American Museum of Natural HistoryJulie Golden, Acting Director & Curator of Paleontologic Collections, University of Iowa Ann Pinzl, Curator Emerita (Botany), Nevada State MuseumRobert Waller, Chief Conservator, Canadian Museum of NatureTim White, Senior Collection Manager Invertebrate Paleontology, Peabody Museum of Natural His-

tory, Yale University*Affiliations as of May 2002

B2 The Heritage Health Index Report

Appendix C—Heritage Preservation Board Members

Board Members 2005-2006

Chairperson of the BoardDebra Hess Norris, Chair and Professor, University of Delaware/Winterthur Museum Art Conserva-

tion Program

Vice ChairpersonMervin Richard, Deputy Chief of Conservation, National Gallery of Art

TreasurerJulie Reilly, Associate Director and Chief Conservator, Nebraska State Historical Society

SecretaryNancy Schamu, Executive Director, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

Tom Clareson, Program Director for New Initiatives, PALINET

Dennis Fiori, Director, Maryland Historical Society

Doris Hamburg, Director, Preservation Programs, National Archives and Records Administration

Sherelyn Ogden, Head of Conservation, Minnesota Historical Society

Jerry Podany, Head, Antiquities Conservation, J. Paul Getty Museum

Victoria Steele, Head, Department of Special Collections, Young Research Library, UCLA

Previous Board Members During the Heritage Health Index Project

Ingrid Bogel, Executive Director, Conservation Center for Art & Historic Artifacts

Inge-Lise Eckmann

Barbara Heller, Chief Conservator, Detroit Institute of Arts

Maribelle Leavitt

Frank Matero, Chairman, Graduate Program in Historic Preservation, University of Pennsylvania

Stephen Williams, Strecker Museum Complex, Baylor University

The Heritage Health Index Report C1

C2 The Heritage Health Index Report

Appendix D—Sources Consulted in Identifying the Heritage HealthIndex Study Population

ArchivesArchivesUSA, June 2002 update (http://archives.chadwyck.com).Association of Moving Image Archivists, Membership Directory, 2002.Council of State Historical Records Coordinators, State Historical Records Coordinators, retrieved

from www.coshrc.org/stcoords.htm December 10, 2003. Library of Congress, A Directory of Folklife Resources in the United States, retrieved from

www.loc.gov/folklife/source/archive1.html July 11, 2003.National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture, Member Directory, retrieved from www.namac.org/direc-

tory_org.cfm?id=4&cid=56&monly=0 June 1, 2004.National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators, Member Web Sites,

retrieved from http://www.nagara.org/websites.html November 12, 2001.National Film Preservation Foundation, Archives List, retrieved from www.filmpreservation.org/pre-

served/archive.php?link1=ALL June 14, 2002.Society for American Archivists, 2000-2001 Directory of Individual and Institutional Members.

Society of American Archivists’ Archivists and Archives of Color Roundtable, Archivists of Color Direc-

tory, retrieved from www.archivists.org/saagroups/aac/AAC_Directory.pdf January 13, 2004.Tennessee State Records Coordinator, Historical, Regional, and Academic Repositories, 2004.University of Idaho, Repositories of Primary Sources, retrieved from www.uidaho.edu/special-collec-

tions/Other.Repositories.html May 3, 2004.U.S. National Archives & Records Administration, NARA Locations by States, retrieved from

www.archives.gov/locations/regional-archives.html July 23, 2003.

LibrariesAmerican Society for Engineering Education, Engineering Libraries Division, retrieved from

http://eld.lib.ucdavis.edu/libraries.php March 2003.Association of Research Libraries, Member Libraries, retrieved from http://www.arl.org/members.html

July 16, 2002.California Indian Library Collections Project, University of California Berkeley, Libraries Where Cali-

fornia Indian Library Collections Are Located, retrieved from www.mip.berkeley.edu/cilc/bibs/loca-tions.html January 13, 2004.

Independent Research Library Association, Members, retrieved from http://irla.lindahall.org July 16,2002.

Information Today, Inc. American Library Directory, Vol. 1 Libraries in the United States, 2003-2004and 2004-2005.

Library of Congress, State Library Web Listing, retrieved fromwww.loc.gov/global/library/statelib.html July 16, 2002.

Library of Congress, Federal Library and Information Center Committee, WWW Sites of Federal

Libraries, retrieved from www.loc.gov/flicc/fliccmem.html July 16, 2002.Lotsee F. Patterson, Oklahoma University, Directory of Native American Tribal Libraries, retrieved

from http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/P/Lotsee.F.Patterson-1/directory.htm January 13, 2004.Kalamazoo College, Oberlin Group Libraries, retrieved from www.kzoo.edu/is/library/obegroup.html

July 16, 2003. Kumeyaay Nation, Library Locations-California, retrieved from

www.kumeyaay.com/education/library.html January 15, 2004.Lehigh University, University Libraries Group List of Member Institutions, retrieved from

The Heritage Health Index Report D1

www.lehigh.edu/~inulg July 16, 2003. RLG, Members of the Research Libraries Group, retrieved from www.rlg.org/memlist.html July 16,

2002.United States National Agriculture Library, Land Grant Libraries and Other Cooperating Institutions,

retrieved from www.nal.usda.gov/pubs_dbs/landgrant.htm July 16, 2003.United States National Agriculture Library, Tribal Land-Grant University Libraries, retrieved from

www.nalusda.gov/pubs_dbs/tribal.htm July 23, 2003.

Historical Societies and Historic SitesAlta Mira Press, Directory of Historical Organizations in the United States and Canada, 2002.

Arizona Historical Society, Arizona Historical Society Museums, retrieved fromhttp://ahs.dreamteamtech.com May 28, 2004.

Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, Properties List, retrieved fromwww.apva.org/apva/properties.php April 16, 2004.

Colorado Historical Society, Colorado Regional Museums, retrieved fromwww.coloradohistory.org/hist_sites/hist_sites.htm May 28, 2005.

Minnesota Historical Society, Map of Historic Sites, retrieved fromwww.mnhs.org/places/sites/index.html May 28, 2004.

National Park Service Curators Office, National Park Service Units with Collections, December 2002.National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Trust Historic Sites, retrieved from www.national-

trust.org/national_trust_sites/list.html May 28, 2004.National Trust for Historic Preservation, Save America’s Treasures Grant Recipients, retrieved from

www.saveamericastreasures.org/grantrecipients.htm April 5, 2004. Nebraska State Historical Society, Facilities and Sites, retrieved from

www.nebraskahistory.org/sites/index.htm May 28, 2004.New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Historic Sites, retrieved from http://nys-

parks.state.ny.us/sites/list.asp?txtReg=&HS=Null&sortBy=0&showall=36 May 28, 2004. Ohio Historical Society, Local History Office’s Mailing List, 2003. Ohio Historical Society, Sites by Name, retrieved from www.ohiohistory.org/places/ April 8, 2004. Oklahoma Historical Society, Sites and Museums, retrieved from www.ok-history.mus.ok.us/mas/mas-

page.htm May 26, 2004. Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, Pennsylvania Trail of History, retrieved from

www.phmc.state.pa.us/bhsm/trailofhistory.asp?secid=14 May 28, 2004. South Dakota Historical Records Advisory Board, Guide to Historical Repositories in South Dakota,

2002.State Historical Society of North Dakota, North Dakota State Historic Sites, retrieved from

www.state.nd.us/hist/sites/sitelist.htm June 1, 2004.The Library of Virginia, Local Historical Societies in Virginia, retrieved from

www.lva.lib.va.us/whoweare/directories/vhs/index.htm April 7, 2004.Vermont Historical Society, Passport to Vermont History, 2003.Wisconsin Historical Society, Historic Sites and Attractions, retrieved from

http://wisconsinhistory.org/sites June 1, 2004.

MuseumsAERO.COM, Air and Apace Museums, retrieved from www.aero.com/museums/museumss.htm April

28, 2004. Alabama Museums Association, Museums Directory, retrieved from

www.alabamamuseums.org/museum.htm April 7, 2004.

D2 The Heritage Health Index Report

American Association of State and Local History, American Indian Museums Program Mailing List,2003. Association of African American Museums, Annual Meeting Participants List, 2002.

Association of African American Museums, Museum Links, retrieved fromwww.blackmuseums.org/index2.htm January 12, 2004.

Association of Children’s Museums, Member Museums with Permanent Collections, 2003.B & O Railroad Museum, Other Resources, retrieved from www.borail.org/related-links.shtml April 1,

2004. Georgia College & State University, African American Resources, retrieved from

http://library.gcsu.edu/~sc/resafr.html January 15, 2004. Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, Washington State Tribal Director List of Tribal Museums, July

2004. Harvard University, Harvard University Museum, retrieved from

www.peabody.harvard.edu/harvard_head.html June 4, 2004. Henry J. Luce Foundation, Grant recipients from 1982 to 2003, 2003.Henry J. Luce Foundation, List of Museums Surveyed for the “American Collections Enhancement Ini-

tiative,” 1994/1995.Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Web Site Links, retrieved from

www.smart.net/~pope/hbcu/hbculist.htm January 15, 2004.International Association of Sports Museums and Halls of Fame, Museum or Hall of Fame Search,

retrieved from www.sportshalls.com May 12, 2004. Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, History and Heritage: A Walking Tour of Lower Manhat-

tan’s Museums and Landmarks, 2003.Michigan Historical Museum System, History, Arts and Libraries, retrieved from

www.michigan.gov/hal June 3, 2004. Mountain-Plains Museums Association, Tribal Museum Network Members, retrieved from

www.mpmatribalmuseums.org/members.html March 7, 2003.Museum of Afro American History Boston, Museums, Exhibits, Organizations, retrieved from

www.afroammuseum.org/links.htm January 12, 2004. National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration, Tribal Museum Directory, retrieved from

www.lewisandclark200.org/index_nf.php?cID=535 January 13, 2004. National Register Publishing, The Official Museum Directory, 2004.

Native American Super Site, Iowa Native American Places to Visit, retrieved fromwww.500nations.com/Iowa_Places.asp May 25, 2004.

Print Council of America, List of Trustee Members, 2002.Smithsonian Institution Center for Museum Studies, Tribal Museum Directory, 1998.U.S. Army Center of Military History, Army System Directory retrieved from

www.army.mil/cmh/Museums/AMS-Directory/index.htm March 24, 2004. University Museums and Collections, Worldwide Database of University Museums and Collections,

retrieved from http://publicus.culture.hu-berlin.de/collections/list.php?id=i&l=United+States+of+America May 7, 2004.

Virginia Association of Museums, Links to Virginia Museums, retrieved fromwww.vamuseums.org/museum_dir.asp May 12, 2004.

Virginia Tech, Aircraft Design Information Sources: Museums, retrieved fromwww.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason/museums.bills.s1.html April 20, 2004.

Scientific Research CollectionsAmerican Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta, Member Garden List, retrieved from

The Heritage Health Index Report D3

www.aabga.org/public_html/ November 24, 2003. American Bryological and Lichenological Society, Herbaria and Collections, retrieved from

www.unomaha.edu/~abls/resources.html May 12, 2004. American Malacological Society, Systematic Research Collections, retrieved from

http://erato.acnatsci.org/ams/home/links.html May 12, 2004.American Society of Mammologists, Mammal Collections in the Western Hemisphere, May 1997.American Zoo and Aquarium Association, AZA Member Zoos and Aquariums, retrieved from

www.aza.org/FindZooAquarium November 10, 2003. Botany.net, Internet Directory for Botany: Arboreta and Botanical Gardens, retrieved from

www.botany.net/IDB/botany.html November 11, 2003.Center for North American Herpetology, Museums, retrieved from www.cnah.org/schools.asp?id=2

November 14, 2003. Gina Mikel Illustration, Scientific Illustration Resources: Collections retrieved from www.scientificil-

lustrator.com/art-resources.html November 10, 2003.International Mineralogical Association Commission on Museums, Mineral Museum Web Sites,

retrieved from www.smmp.net/IMA-CM/museums.htm April 1, 2004. Iowa State University, Entomology Index, retrieved from www.ent.iastate.edu/List/Insect_Collec-

tions.html November 19, 2003.Lepidopterists’ Society, Collections, retrieved from

www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/topical.html November 14, 2003.National Biological Information Infrastructure, Museums & Collections, retrieved from

www.nbii.gov/datainfo/syscollect/alpha_list.html May 27, 2004.Natural Science Collections Alliance, Institutional Members,

www.nscalliance.org/about/members_alpha.asp November 14, 2003.New York Botanical Garden, Index Herbariorum, retrieved from

http://sciweb.nybg.org/science2/IndexHerbariorum.asp October 3, 2003.Phycological Society of America, Culture and Museum Collections, retrieved from

www.psaalgae.org/res/links.shtm November 14, 2003.Society of Mineral Museum Professionals, Membership List, retrieved from

www.agiweb.org/smmp/membership.htm November 14, 2003.Society of Systematic Biologists, Museum/Herbaria, retrieved from http://systbiol.org/info/misc.html

November 14, 2003.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Systematic Collections of the Agricultural Research Service, August

1998. University of Texas at Austin School of Biological Sciences, Research Centers, retrieved from

www.biosci.utexas.edu/research June 3, 2004. University of Wyoming, Herbaria in Wyoming, retrieved from

www.rmh.uwyo.edu/herbaria/wyherb.htm November 20, 2003.

Archaeological RepositoriesArmy Corps of Engineers St. Louis District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archaeological Collections

Condition Assessment, 2000. Interagency Federal Collections Alliance, Mailing List, 2002. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Museum Property Program Reclamation Repositories and Non-Reclama-

tion Repositories Housing Reclamation Collections, retrieved from www.usbr.gov/cultural/mp/recla-mation.htm May 27, 2004.

D4 The Heritage Health Index Report

AlabamaAir University LibraryAlabama Department of Archives and HistoryAlabama Supreme Court and State Law LibraryAlabama’s Constitution VillageAliceville Museum Inc.American Truck Historical SocietyArchaeological Resource Laboratory, Jacksonville

State UniversityArchaeology Laboratory, Auburn University Mont-

gomeryAthens State University LibraryAutauga-Prattville Public LibraryBay Minette Public LibraryBirmingham Botanical Society, Inc.Birmingham Public LibraryBridgeport Public LibraryCarrollton Public LibraryCenter for Archaeological Studies, University of

South AlabamaDauphin Island Sea Lab EstuariumDepot Museum, Inc.Dismals CanyonEarle A. Rainwater Memorial LibraryElton B. Stephens LibraryFendall HallFreeman Cabin/Blountsville Historical SocietyGaineswood MansionHale County Public LibraryHerbarium, Troy State UniversityHerbarium, University of Alabama, TuscaloosaHistorical Collections, Lister Hill Library of

Health SciencesHuntington Botanical GardenJ. F. Drake Memorial Learning Resources CenterJacksonville State University LibraryJefferson County Law LibraryJohn D. Freeman Herbarium, Auburn UniversityKarl C. Harrison Museum of George WashingtonMagnolia GroveMobile Medical MuseumMobile Municipal ArchivesMobile Museum of ArtMontgomery City-County Public LibraryMontgomery Museum of Fine ArtsMontgomery Zoo

Morgan County Alabama ArchivesNational Voting Rights MuseumNatural History Collections, University of South

AlabamaNorth Alabama Railroad MuseumPalisades ParkPelham Public LibraryPond Spring–General Joseph Wheeler HouseRuffner Mountain Nature CenterSouth University LibraryState Black Archives Research Center and

MuseumTroy State University Library

AlaskaAlaska Division of ArchivesAlaska Historical SocietyAlaska Native Language CenterAlaska State Council on the ArtsAlaska State MuseumsAlutiiq Museum and Archaeological RepositoryAnchorage Museum of History and ArtBethel Broadcasting, Inc.Copper Valley Historical SocietyElmendorf Air Force Base MuseumHerbarium, U.S. Department of Agriculture For-

est Service, Alaska RegionHerbarium, University of Alaska FairbanksHerbarium, University of Alaska JuneauHistorical Collections, Alaska State LibraryHoonah Cultural CenterKatmai National Park and PreserveKenai Peninsula College LibraryKlondike Gold Rush National Historical ParkKodiak Historical SocietyMaxine and Jesse Whitney MuseumNational Archives and Records

Administration–Pacific Alaska RegionNenana Public LibrarySitka National Historical ParkTakotna Community LibraryThird Medical–Medical LibraryTri-Valley School-Community LibraryUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks LibrariesUniversity of Alaska MuseumWasilla Public Library

The Heritage Health Index Report E1

Appendix E—Heritage Health Index Participants*

American SamoaAmerican Samoa Office of Archives and Records

Management

ArizonaArizona Historical SocietyArizona Historical Society Pioneer MuseumArizona Jewish Historical SocietyArizona State Library, Archives and Public

RecordsArizona State MuseumAvondale Public LibraryBenson Public LibraryBisbee Mining and Historical MuseumBuckeye Valley MuseumCanyon De Chelly National MonumentCline Library, Northern Arizona UniversityCollection of Mammals, University of ArizonaCopper Queen LibraryDeaver Herbarium, Northern Arizona UniversityDepartment of Mines and Mineral Resources

LibraryDesert Foothills LibraryDouglas Williams HouseEmpire Ranch FoundationGila County Historical MuseumHeard MuseumHerbarium, University of ArizonaHistoric Sahuaro RanchHubbell Trading Post National Historic SiteInternational Wildlife MuseumKitt Peak National ObservatoryLake Havasu Museum of HistoryMesa Historical MuseumMesa Room-Local History and Special CollectionsMohave Museum of History and ArtsMuseum of Northern ArizonaNavajo Nation MuseumNogales-Santa Cruz County LibraryPhoenix Museum of HistoryPhoenix Police MuseumPhoenix Public LibraryPhoenix ZooPinal County Historical Society and MuseumPueblo Grande MuseumQuartzsite Public LibrarySedona Public LibraryTelephone Pioneer MuseumTempe Public Library

Tombstone Courthouse State Historic ParkTubac Center of the ArtsTucson Botanical GardenUFO Information Retrieval CenterUniversity of Arizona LibraryUniversity of Arizona Zoological CollectionsWalnut Canyon National MonumentWestern Archeological and Conservation CenterWinslow Public Library

ArkansasArkansas Air MuseumArkansas Archeological SurveyArkansas Archeological Survey Parkin Research

StationArkansas Arts CenterArkansas Geological Commission LibraryArkansas History CommissionBoone County LibraryClinton Presidential Materials ProjectCollection of Recent Mammals, Arkansas State

UniversityDelta Cultural CenterHerbarium, Biological Sciences Department,

Arkansas State UniversityHistoric Arkansas MuseumJacksonport State ParkLake Chicot State ParkMarked Tree Delta Area MuseumPhillips County LibraryPine Bluff/Jefferson County Historical MuseumPrairie Grove Battlefield State ParkRandolph County LibrarySoutheast Arkansas College LibrarySouthwest Arkansas Regional ArchivesSpringdale Public LibraryUniversity Museum Collections, University of

ArkansasUniversity of Arkansas Libraries

CaliforniaAcademy Film Archive, Academy of Motion Pic-

ture Arts and SciencesAmador County ArchivesAntelope Valley Indian MuseumAnthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State

UniversityArmand Hammer Museum of Art and Cultural

Center, University of California, Los Angeles

E2 The Heritage Health Index Report

Asian Art Museum of San FranciscoBeaumont Library DistrictBenthic Invertebrate Collection, Scripps Institu-

tion of OceanographyBrand Library and Art CenterButte County Pioneer Memorial MuseumCabrillo Marine Aquarium LibraryCalaveras County ArchivesCalifornia African American MuseumCalifornia Historical SocietyCalifornia State ArchivesCalifornia State LibraryCalifornia State Railroad MuseumCalifornia State UniversityCamp Pendleton Command MuseumsCentral California Information CenterCharmlee Wilderness Park Nature CenterChula Vista Public LibraryCity of SonoraClarke Historical MuseumColusa County Free LibraryCommunity Memorial Museum of Sutter CountyCoronado Historical AssociationCosta Mesa Historical SocietyCovina Valley Historical SocietyCrestmont College Salvation Army LibraryDana AdobeDe Saisset MuseumDeath Valley National ParkDel Norte County Library DistrictDescanso Gardens Guild Inc.Edward Laurence Doheny Memorial LibraryEffie Yeaw Nature CenterElverhoj Museum of History and ArtErik Erikson LibraryEssig Museum of EntomologyEthnomusicology Archive, University of Califor-

nia, Los AngelesExotic Feline Breeding Compound, Inc.Exposition Park Rose GardenFine Arts Museums of San FranciscoFoothill/De Anza Community College District

ArchivesFort Jones MuseumFresno County Public LibraryGeological Collections, Scripps Institution of

OceanographyGolden Drift Historical SocietyGolden Gate National Recreation Area

Gustine Historical SocietyThe Haggin MuseumHayward Area Historical SocietyHearst Art Gallery, Saint Mary’s CollegeHerbarium, Biology Department, University Of

RedlandsHerbarium, Botany and Plant Sciences Depart-

ment, University of California, RiversideHerbarium, Department of Biology, San Diego

State University Historical Society of Long BeachHoover Institution Library and ArchivesHumboldt Redwoods State Park Visitor CenterHuntington Library, Art Collections and Botani-

cal GardensImperial Public LibraryIrwindale Public LibraryJ. Paul Getty MuseumJapanese American National LibraryLanterman HouseLaw Library for San Bernardino CountyLompoc MuseumLong Beach Public Library and Information CenterLos Angeles City ArchivesLos Angeles City College LibraryLos Angeles County Museum of ArtLouis Robidoux Nature CenterMarine Vertebrates Collection, Scripps Institu-

tion of OceanographyMariposa Museum and History Center, Inc.Mechanics’ Institute LibraryMission Inn FoundationMoonridge Animal ParkMoore Laboratory of ZoologyMosquito Association Inc. Library and ArchivesMuseum of California Foundry HistoryMuseum of Contemporary Art, Los AngelesMuseum of Contemporary Art San DiegoMuseum of Natural History Collections, Univer-

sity of California, Santa CruzMuseum of Vertebrate ZoologyMusic Center ArchivesNational Archives and Records Administration,

Pacific Region (Laguna Niguel)National Archives and Records Administration,

Pacific Region (San Francisco)National City Public LibraryNational Liberty Ship Memorial/S.S. Jeremiah

O’Brien


Natural History Museum of Los Angeles CountyNorth American Radio ArchivesNorthern Mariposa County History CenterOrange County Resources and Development Man-

agement Department LibraryPacific Coast Air MuseumPalo Alto Junior Museum and ZooPatterson Township Historical Society MuseumPelagic Invertebrates Collection, Scripps Institu-

tion of OceanographyPepperdine University LibraryPhilosophical Research Society LibraryPhoebe Hearst Museum of AnthropologyPoint Arena Lighthouse and MuseumPomona College Museum of ArtQuail Botanical GardensRancho Del Oso Nature and History CenterRavenswood Historic SiteReedley MuseumResearch Library, Getty Research InstituteRichard Nixon Library and BirthplaceRichmond Public LibraryRobert L. Powell LibraryRoman Catholic Diocese of FresnoRonald Reagan Presidential Library and MuseumRosicrucian Fellowship LibraryRoundhouse Marine Studies Laboratory and

AquariumSacramento Public LibrarySahyun LibrarySan Bernadino County MuseumSan Buenaventura Mission MuseumSan Diego Archaeological CenterSan Diego Automotive MuseumSan Diego Museum of ManSan Diego Natural History MuseumSan Francisco Art InstituteSan Francisco Museum of Modern ArtSan Francisco Public LibrarySan Francisco State UniversitySan Joaquin Valley Library SystemSanta Barbara Botanic GardenSanta Clara City LibrarySanta Monica Pier AquariumShadelands Ranch Historical MuseumShasta County LibrarySouthwest MuseumStanford University LibrariesTallac Historic Site and Museum

Taoist Temple and MuseumTehama County LibraryTomales Regional History CenterTurtle Bay Exploration ParkUniversity of California, Berkeley Art Museum

and Pacific Film ArchiveUniversity of California, Berkeley LibrariesUniversity of California, Berkeley University and

Jepson HerbariaUniversity of California, Davis LibrariesUniversity of California, Los Angeles Film and

Television ArchiveUniversity of California, Los Angeles LibrariesUniversity of California, Riverside LibrariesUniversity Of California, Riverside Nematode Col-

lectionUniversity of California, San Diego LibrariesUniversity of Southern California LibrariesVallejo Naval and Historical MuseumVertebrate Exhibit Museum, Gray Lodge Wildlife

AreaVertebrate Museum, California State University,

Long BeachWatsonville Public LibraryWells Fargo History Museum–Los AngelesWhittier College LibrariesWildCare: Terwilliger Nature Education and

Wildlife RehabilitationWilson Riles Archives and Institute for Educa-

tionWorkman and Temple Family Homestead

MuseumWorld Museum of Natural History, La Sierra Uni-

versityYolo County Law LibraryYorba Linda Public Library

ColoradoBeulah Historical SocietyBoettcher MansionBuena Vista Heritage MuseumCanyons of the Ancients National

Monument/Anasazi Heritage CenterCheyenne Mountain ZooCheyenne Wells MuseumCity of Greeley MuseumsColorado College Charles Leaming Tutt LibraryColorado Historical SocietyColorado Legislative Council Library


Colorado Railroad MuseumColorado State University LibrariesCortez Cultural Center, Inc.Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad CommissionDenver Art MuseumDenver Botanic GardensDenver Museum of Nature and ScienceDenver Public LibraryDinosaur National MonumentEast Morgan County Library DistrictEastern Colorado Historical SocietyFort Collins Public LibraryGarfield County Public Library SystemHistoric GeorgetownHistoric Parish HouseIgnacio Community Library DistrictJames A. Michener Library, University of North-

ern ColoradoKauffman House/Grand Lake Area Historical

SocietyKiowa County Public Library DistrictLafayette Miners Museum/Lafayette Historical

SocietyLincoln County Historical Society and MuseumMammalogy Teaching Collection, Colorado State

UniversityMesa Verde National Park MuseumMountain Bike Hall of Fame MuseumNational Archives and Records Administration,

Rocky Mountain Region (Denver)Old Colorado City Historical SocietyPikes Peak Library DistrictPioneer MuseumPueblo County Historical SocietyRegis University LibraryRocky Ford Public LibraryRocky Mountain Arsenal Technical InformationSouth Platte Valley Historical SocietySpanish Peaks Library DistrictThird Cavalry MuseumU.S. Air Force Academy Library SystemUniversity of Colorado at Boulder LibrariesWestern State College of Colorado LibrariesWheat Ridge Historical SocietyWings Over the Rockies Museum, Hangar 1

ConnecticutAmerican Clock and Watch MuseumArchbishop O’Brien Library

Brainerd Memorial LibraryBridgeport Public Library Historical CollectionsBrookfield Museum and Historical SocietyCentral Connecticut State University LibraryCharles B. Graves Herbarium, Connecticut CollegeCharles E. Shain LibraryChildren’s Museum of Southeastern ConnecticutConnecticut Electric Railway Association, Inc.Connecticut Historical SocietyConnecticut State LibraryConnecticut’s Beardsley ZooCyrenius H. Booth LibraryDorothy Whitfield Historic SocietyEssex Library Association, Inc.Fairfield Historical SocietyFlorence Griswold MuseumHerbarium, Biological Sciences Department, Cen-

tral Connecticut State UniversityHerbarium, Entomology Department, Connecti-

cut Agricultural Experiment StationHistorical Society of GlastonburyJewish Historical Society of New HavenKillingworth LibraryManchester Historical SocietyThe Maritime Aquarium at NorwalkMattatuck MuseumMystic Seaport—The Museum of America and the

SeaNew Fairfield Historical SocietyNorfolk LibraryOld Bethlehem Historical SocietyPeabody Museum of Natural HistoryPlumb Memorial LibraryPutnam Public LibraryRose Farm GalleryScherer Library of Musical TheatreShelton Historical SocietySilas Bronson LibrarySlater Memorial MuseumSomers Historical SocietyStonington Historical SocietyThomaston Historical SocietyTrinity College LibraryU.S. Coast Guard MuseumUniversity of Connecticut LibrariesWilloughby Wallace Memorial LibraryWinchester Historical SocietyWintonbury Historical SocietyWoodstock Historical Society, Inc.


Yale University Art GalleryYale University Library

DelawareBridgeville Public Library, Inc.Cultural and Recreational Services Section,

Delaware Division of Parks and RecreationDelaware Art MuseumDelaware Center for HorticultureDelaware Museum of Natural HistoryDelaware State MuseumsIron Hill Museum of Natural HistoryLaurel Public LibraryLewes Historical SocietyLombardy Hall FoundationNew Castle Historical SocietyRehoboth Art LeagueSussex County Department of LibrariesUniversity Museums, University of DelawareUniversity of Delaware LibraryWinterthur Museum, Garden and Library

District of ColumbiaAmerican Nurses Association Library/Informa-

tion CenterAnacostia Museum and Center for African Ameri-

can History, Smithsonian InstitutionAnderson House Museum/Society of CincinnatiArchitect of the Capitol–Curator’s OfficeArchives of American Art, Smithsonian InstitutionArthur M. Sackler Gallery/Freer Gallery of Art,

Smithsonian InstitutionAssociation of American Medical Colleges Mary

H. Littlemeyer ArchivesBasilica of the National Shrine of the Immacu-

late ConceptionBender Library and Learning Resources CenterCatholic University of America LibrariesCenter for Folklife and Cultural Heritage, Smith-

sonian InstitutionCorcoran Gallery of ArtDefense Pest Management Information Analysis

Center, U.S. Department of DefenseDistrict of Columbia Office of Public RecordsDrug Enforcement Administration LibraryDumbarton OaksFederal Judicial Center LibraryFolger Shakespeare LibraryGeneral Services Administration Fine Arts Program

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,Smithsonian Institution

Horticulture Collections Management and Educa-tion, Smithsonian Institution

Library of CongressNational Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian

InstitutionNational Archives and Records AdministrationNational Gallery of ArtNational Geographic Society LibraryNational Museum of African Art, Smithsonian

InstitutionNational Museum of American History, Smith-

sonian InstitutionNational Museum of Natural History, Smithson-

ian InstitutionNational Museum of the American Indian, Smith-

sonian InstitutionNational Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian InstitutionNational Postal Musuem, Smithsonian InstitutionNational Register of Historic Places CollectionNational Zoological Park, Smithsonian InstitutionNaval Historical CenterThe Phillips CollectionSmithsonian American Art Museum, Smithson-

ian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution ArchivesSmithsonian Institution LibrariesTextile MuseumTrinity University LibraryU.S. Army Center of Military HistoryU.S. Capitol CollectionsU.S. Department of Justice LibrariesU.S. House CollectionUnited States Holocaust Memorial MuseumWashington National CathedralWashington Theological Union LibraryWomen’s History and Resource Center

FloridaAfrican American Cultural SocietyAir Force Armament MuseumAlachua County Library DistrictAltamonte Springs City LibraryAmerican Entomological InstituteAnton Brees Carillon Library, Historic Bok

SancturayArchives and Record Services, City of TampaAstronaut Hall of Fame


The Bailey-Matthews Shell MuseumThe Barnacle Historic State ParkBradford County Public LibraryBureau of Braille and Talking Book Library Ser-

vicesBureau of Natural and Cultural Resources,

Florida Division of Recreation and ParksClearwater Marine AquariumCollier County Public LibraryColonial Spanish Quarter MuseumColumbia County Public LibraryDestin LibraryEustis Memorial LibraryFairchild Tropical Garden Library/ ArchivesFlorida Atlantic University LibrariesFlorida Holocaust MuseumFlorida Museum of Natural HistoryFlorida State University LibrariesFort Gadsen State Historic SiteGifford Arboretum, University of MiamiGillespie Museum of MineralsGodfrey Herbarium, Florida State UniversityGulf Coast Heritage AssociationGulfport Public LibraryHerbarium, Archbold Biological StationHerbarium, Biology Department, University of

South FloridaHighlands Hammock State ParkHistoric Bok SanctuaryHistorical Museum of Southern FloridaIndian Temple Mound MuseumJohn and Mable Ringling Museum of ArtMiami International University of Art and DesignMiami MetrozooMiami-Dade Public LibraryMontgomery Botanical CenterMorikami Museum and Japanese GardensMounts Botanical GardenMuseum of Arts and Sciences/Center for Florida

HistoryMuseum of Florida HistoryNational Museum of Naval AviationNavy SEAL MuseumNorth Miami Public LibraryNorton Museum of ArtOkeechobee County Public LibraryOrange County Public Library SystemOrange County Regional History CenterOrlando Museum of Art

Pasco County Library SystemPinellas County Historical SocietyPolk County Historical MuseumPutnam County Library SystemRecords and Archives Division, City of Hollywood Rollins College LibrarySalvador Dali MuseumSamuel P. Harn Museum of Art, University of

FloridaSoutheast Archeological CenterSt. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary LibraryState Library and Archives of FloridaStuart Heritage MuseumTallahassee Museum of History and Natural

ScienceTimucuan Ecological and Historic PreserveTree Hill Jacksonville’s Nature CenterU.S. Space Walk of Fame FoundationUniversity of Florida LibrariesYbor City Museum Society

GeorgiaAndersonville National Historic SiteAntonio J. Waring, Jr. Archaeological Laboratory,

State University of West GeorgiaAtlanta History CenterAtlanta-Fulton Public Library SystemBrooks County Public LibraryBryan-Lang Historical LibraryChattahoochee Technical College LibraryChief John Ross HouseDalton State College LibraryDunwoody Nature CenterEmory University LibrariesForsyth County Public LibraryFort Morris State Historic SiteGeorgia ArchivesGeorgia Museum of ArtGeorgia Music Hall of FameGeorgia Southern Botanical GardenGirl Scout First HeadquartersGlobal Health Odyssey MuseumHammonds House GalleriesHerbarium, Biology Department, Emory UniversityHerbarium, Biology Department, Georgia South-

western State UniversityHigh Museum of ArtJimmy Carter Library and MuseumKinchafoonee Regional Library System


Madison-Morgan Cultural CenterMedical College of Georgia LibraryOcmulgee National MonumentOhoopee Regional Library SystemOxbow Meadows Environmental Learning CenterPolk County Historical SocietyRobert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta University

CenterRome Area History MuseumSandy Creek Nature CenterShips of the Sea Maritime Museum at William

Scarbrough HouseSpecial Collections Department, Georgia State

University LibrarySteffen Thomas Museum and ArchivesTroup County Historical Society and ArchivesUniversity of Georgia LibrariesWesleyan College LibraryWest Georgia Museum of TallapoosaWest Georgia Regional LibraryWilliam H. Reynolds Memorial Nature Preserve

GuamGuam Law LibraryGuam Public Library SystemUniversity of Guam Library

HawaiiBishop MuseumCeltic Evangelical ChurchHarold L. Lyon ArboretumHawai’i Nature Center, ’Iao ValleyHawaii Chinese History Center LibraryHawaii State ArchivesHawaiian Historical SocietyHerbarium, Botany Department, University of

HawaiiHonolulu Academy of ArtsHonolulu Community College LibraryHonolulu Police Department Law Enforcement

MuseumHonolulu ZooKona Historical SocietyKona Outdoor Circle Educational CenterLahaina Restoration FoundationLaupahoehoe Train MuseumNational Tropical Botanical GardenPacific Tsunami MuseumPanaewa Rainforest Zoo

Supreme Court Law LibraryUniversity of Hawaii Libraries

IdahoThe Archives of FalconryBannock County Historical MuseumBenewah County District LibraryCassia County Historical Society and MuseumCouncil Valley MuseumDepartment of Veterans Affairs LibraryHerbarium, Biology Department, Boise State Uni-

versityHerbarium, Rocky Mountain Research StationIdaho Legislative Reference LibraryIdaho Military History MuseumIdaho Museum of Natural HistoryIdaho State Historical SocietyKetchum Sun Valley Heritage and Ski MuseumLatah County Historical MuseumLemhi County Historical MuseumLewiston City LibraryMadison Library DistrictMullan Historical SocietyOld Mission State ParkOsburn Public LibraryPriest Lake Museum AssociationRegional History Department, Community

Library AssociationSouth Bannock County Historical CenterSpecial Collections and Archives, University of

Idaho Library

IllinoisAbraham Lincoln Presidential LibraryAdler Planetarium and Astronomy MuseumAlsip-Merrionette Park Public LibraryAmerican College of Surgeons ArchivesAmerican Dental Association LibraryAmerican Hospital Association Resource CenterAnita Purves Nature CenterAnthropology Museum, Northern Illinois UniversityArt Institute of ChicagoBeardstown Houston Memorial LibraryBlackberry Farms, Pioneer VillageBurkett House/Wabash County MuseumButterworth Center and Deere-Wiman HouseCalumet City Public LibraryCanal and Region Historical Collection, Lewis

University


Carthage Public Library DistrictCary Area Public Library DistrictCatholic Theological Union LibraryCenter for Archaeological Investigations, South-

ern Illinois UniversityCenter for Research LibrariesCentral Illinois Landmarks FoundationChatsworth Township LibraryChicago and Northwestern Historical SocietyChicago Botanic GardenChicago Heights Free Public LibraryChicago Historical SocietyChicago Public LibraryChicago Zoological ParkCollinsville Historical MuseumCook Memorial Public Library DistrictCortland Community LibraryDavid Davis Mansion State Historic SiteDepot Veterans Memorial and Coal Miner’s

MemorialDillon Home MuseumDuSable Museum of African American HistoryThe Elderly Learning and Living FacilityElmhurst Historical MuseumEvanston Historical SocietyFabyan VillaFeehan Memorial Library, Mundelein SeminaryFlagg Township Historical Society and MuseumFox River Grove Public Library DistrictFrankfort Area Historical MuseumGalena Public Library DistrictGalter Health Sciences LibraryGeneseo Public Library DistrictGlen Ellyn Public LibraryGlen Oak ZooGovernor Duncan MansionGregg House MuseumHarris Agricultural MuseumHavana Public Library DistrictHenry County Genealogical SocietyHerbarium, Biological Sciences Department, North-

ern Illinois UniversityHerbarium, Crop Sciences Department, Univer-

sity of IllinoisHerbarium, Plant Biology Department, University

of IllinoisHighland Historical SocietyHyde Park Historical SocietyIllinois and Michigan Canal Museum

Illinois Natural History SurveyIllinois State LibraryIllinois State MuseumIllinois State Museum Chicago GalleryIllinois State Water Survey LibraryIllinois Transportation Archaeological Research

ProgramIllinois Wesleyan UniversityIndependent Media Center Urbana-ChampaignJesuit-Krauss-McCormick Library, Lutheran

School of Theology and McCormick TheologySeminary

John A. Logan College MuseumJohnson County Genealogical and Historical

SocietyJoliet Area Historical MuseumKishwaukee GenealogistsKlehm Arboretum and Botanic GardenKline Creek FarmKnox College LibraryLake County Discovery MuseumLake Forest College LibraryLake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical SocietyLakes Region Historical SocietyLaws of Nature Natural History CenterLincoln Home National Historic SiteLincoln Memorial Garden and Nature CenterLincoln Park Zoological GardenLittle White School MuseumMain Street EldoradoMammal Collection, Southern Illinois UniversityMartin Township Public LibraryMcHenry Nunda Public Library DistrictMessenger Public Library of North AuroraMilner Library, Illinois State University Morris Area Public Library DistrictThe Morton ArboretumMount Carroll Township Public LibraryMount Olive Public LibraryNaper SettlementNational Archives and Records Administration,

Great Lakes Region (Chicago)Newberry LibraryO’Fallon Historical Society, Inc.Odell Public Library DistrictOriental Institute MuseumPark Forest Public LibraryPaul and Emily Douglas Library, Chicago State

University


Pecatonica Historical SocietyPeoria County Genealogical SocietyPlainfield Public Library DistrictQuincy MuseumQuincy Public LibraryRick Warren Memorial Public LibraryRuby E. Dare Library, Greenville College Schiller Park Historical SocietySouthern Illinois University Carbondale LibrariesSpertus Museum of JudaicaSpring Valley Nature Center and Heritage FarmSquaw Grove Public Library DistrictSterling Public LibraryStickney-Forest View Public Library DistrictTheatre Historical Society of AmericaTilton Historical SocietyUkrainian National MuseumUniversal Oil Products Library and Information

ServicesUniversity Museum, Southern Illinois University University of Illinois at Chicago LibraryUniversity of Illinois at Springfield ArchivesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

LibraryValley Public Library DistrictVasey Herbarium, Illinois State UniversityVideo Data BankWashington Historical SocietyWestern Illinois University Art GalleryWheaton College LibrariesWhite County Historical SocietyWilliam Leonard Public Library DistrictWillow Branch Township LibraryZoological Collections, Illinois State University

IndianaAngel Mounds State Historic SiteArchives of Traditional MusicArthur and Kriebel Herbaria, Purdue UniversityArtlink, Inc.Auburn Cord Duesenberg MuseumB.F. Hamilton LibraryBartholomew County Public LibraryBrown County Historical SocietyCenterville and Center Township Public LibraryChildren’s Museum of IndianapolisConner PrairieDearborn County Historical SocietyEarlham College Libraries

Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and West-ern Art

Franklin Township Historical SocietyFriesner Herbarium, Butler UniversityGas City Historical SocietyGibson County Historical SocietyGirls IncorporatedGlenn A. Black Laboratory of ArchaeologyGreene-Nieuwland Herbarium, University of

Notre DameHannah Lindahl Children’s MuseumHerbarium, Biology Department, Indiana Univer-

sity SoutheastHillforest Historical Foundation, Inc.Hobart Historical Society Inc.Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public LibraryImagination StationIndiana Historical SocietyIndiana State ArchivesIndiana State LibraryIndiana State MuseumIndiana University Art MuseumIndiana University Bloomington LibrariesIndiana University-Purdue University Indianapo-

lis LibrariesIndiana Veteran’s Home Lawrie LibraryIndianapolis Museum of ArtIndianapolis-Marion County Public LibraryInternational Circus Hall of FameJeffersonville Township Public LibraryKosciusko County Historical Society Inc.Lake County Historical Society and MuseumLincoln Heritage Public LibraryMarshall County Historical Society Inc.Morgan Library, Grace CollegeNorth Judson-Wayne Township Public LibraryNorth Manchester Center for HistoryOrleans Town and Township Public LibraryPresident Benjamin Harrison HomeRandolph County Historical SocietySalem Public LibraryScotland Historical Society IncShelbyville-Shelby County Public LibrarySpeedway Public LibrarySpring Mill State Park Pioneer VillageUniversity of Indianapolis LibrariesWabash College ArchivesWakarusa-Olive and Harrison Township Public

Library


Wesselman Woods Nature PreserveWest Lebanon-Pike Township Public LibraryWilliam H. Harrison MansionWilliam Hammond Mathers MuseumWylie House MuseumYorktown-Mt. Pleasant Township Community

Library

IowaAda Hayden HerbariumAlbert City Historical AssociationAmana Heritage SocietyAnamosa Public LibraryArmstrong Public LibraryAshton Public LibraryAudubon County Historical SocietyBeaman Community Memorial LibraryBlanden Memorial Art MuseumClearfield Public LibraryCoe College LibraryCorrectionville MuseumCouncil Bluffs Public LibraryDes Moines Art CenterDes Moines Public LibraryDexter Historical MuseumDordt College LibraryDubuque Arboretum and Botanical GardensDubuque County LibraryDubuque Museum of ArtEagle Grove Memorial LibraryElgin Public LibraryEmmet County Historical SocietyFayette County Historical CenterFigge Art MuseumFlynn Mansion at Living History FarmsForest City Public LibraryForest Park MuseumGeisler Library, Central CollegeGrand Lodge of Iowa Masonic LibraryGrand View College LibraryGrant Herbarium, Biology Department, Univer-

sity of Northern IowaHerbarium, Biology Department, Wartburg CollegeHerbert Hoover Presidential Library and MuseumHistorical Society of Marshall CountyHistorical Society of Pottawattamie CountyIowa Aviation MuseumIowa Wesleyan College LibraryJasper County Historical Museum

Johnson County Historical SocietyJohnston Public LibraryKellogg Historical SocietyLake Park Public LibraryLiberty Hall Historic CenterLiving History FarmsLuther College Anthropology LaboratoryLuther College Geology CollectionMonona County Historical ComplexNorway Public LibraryOffice of the State Archaeologist, University of

IowaOttumwa Public LibraryParker Historical Museum of Clay CountyPrairie Trails Museum of Wayne County Histori-

cal SocietyPutnam Museum of History and Natural ScienceRod Library, University of Northern Iowa LibraryState Historical Society of IowaState Library of IowaSteamboat Bertrand CollectionStrawberry Point Public LibraryTabor Public LibraryTerrace Hill Historic Site and Governor’s MansionTipton Public LibraryUnion Pacific Railroad MuseumUniversity of Iowa LibrariesUniversity of Iowa Paleontology RepositoryUniversity of Northern Iowa Gallery of ArtUshers Ferry Historic VillageVander Veer Botanical ParkVesterheim Norwegian-American MuseumVinton Public Library

KansasAbilene Public LibraryBoot Hill MuseumBurnley Memorial LibraryCrawford County Historical MuseumDickinson County Heritage CenterDwight D. Eisenhower Library and MuseumDyck Arboretum of the Plains, Hesston CollegeElam Bartholomew Herbarium, Fort Hays State

UniversityEllsworth County Historical SocietyFord County Historical Society/Mueller-Schmidt

House MuseumFort Hays State Historic SiteGrant County Library


Greenwood County Historical SocietyHerbarium, Biology Department, Washburn Uni-

versityHerbarium, Kansas State UniversityHistoric Preserveration Association of Bourbon

County Jackson County Historical SocietyJewell County Historical MuseumJohnson County LibraryKansas Department of Transportation LibraryKansas Museum of HistoryKansas State LibraryKansas State University LibrariesLawrence Public LibraryLibrary and Archives Division, Kansas State His-

torical SocietyLowell D. Holmes Museum of AnthropologyMcPherson County Old Mill MuseumMid-America Nazarene University LibraryNatural History Museum and Biodiversity

Research CenterOld Depot MuseumOttawa LibraryPittsburg Public LibraryPrairie Museum of Art and HistoryPratt Education Center and AquariumRepublic County Historical Society MuseumRichmond Public LibraryRiley County Kansas Genealogical Society

LibraryRooks County Historical Society and Frank

Walker MuseumRussell Public LibrarySchmidt Museum of Natural History/ Herbarium,

Emporia State UniversitySpencer Museum of ArtStafford County Historical SocietySternberg Museum of Natural HistoryTheodore M. Sperry Herbarium, Pittsburg State

UniversityU.S. Army, Combined Arms Research LibraryUniversity of Kansas LibrariesWakefield Museum AssociationWatkins Community Museum of HistoryWichita Art MuseumWichita State University LibrariesWyandotte County Museum

KentuckyAllen County Historical and Genealogical SocietyAmerican Saddle Horse Museum AssociationAugusta Dils York HouseBernheim Arboretum and Research ForestBluegrass Railway MuseumBobby Davis Museum and Park, Inc.Boyle County Public LibraryCampbell County Historical/Genealogical SocietyEastern Kentucky University LibrariesGrayson County Public LibraryHerbarium, Biological Sciences Department,

Eastern Kentucky UniversityHighlands Museum and Discovery CenterHutchins Library, Berea College Kentucky Department of ParksKentucky Historical SocietyKentucky Library and MuseumKentucky Room, Lexington Public LibraryKnott County Public LibraryLarue County Historical SocietyLewis County Historical SocietyLiberty Hall Historic SiteLocust GroveLouisville Free Public LibraryLouisville Genealogical SocietyLouisville Zoological GardenMcCreary County Public Library DistrictMount Saint Joseph MuseumNorthern Kentucky Talking Book LibraryNorthern Kentucky University LibrariesNorthpoint Training Center Residents’ LibraryProgram in Archaeology Laboratory, University of

LouisvilleRiverside, The Farnsley-Moremen LandingSpeed Art MuseumUnion College LibraryUniversity of Kentucky LibrariesUniversity of Louisville LibrariesWestern Kentucky University Anthropology

Laboratory

LouisianaAudubon Nature InstituteAudubon Louisiana Nature CenterBeauregard-Keyes HouseDiocese of Lafayette, ArchivesFort Polk Military Museum


Herbarium, Department of Ecology and Evolu-tionary Biology, Tulane University

Historic New Orleans CollectionHomosexual Information Center LibraryIberville Parish LibraryJean Lafitte National Historic Park and PreserveLa Maison DuchampLouisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Compliance Assistance LibraryLouisiana Division of ArchaeologyLouisiana Purchase Garden and ZooLouisiana State ArboretumLouisiana State ArchivesLouisiana State University LibrariesMiddle American Research Institute, Tulane Uni-

versityNew Orleans Museum of ArtNorthwestern State University of Louisiana

LibrariesR. W. Norton Art GallerySouthern Forest Products Association LibrarySouthern Forest Range Program HerbariumState Library of LouisianaTulane University LibrariesTulane University Museum of Natural HistoryWalter B. Jacobs Memorial Nature ParkWest Baton Rouge MuseumZoological Collections, Southeastern Louisiana

University

MaineAbbe MuseumAbbot Historical SocietyAlexander-Crawford Historical SocietyArt Gallery, University of New EnglandBagaduce Music Lending LibraryBangor Public LibraryBelfast Free LibraryBelfast Historical Society and MuseumBowdoin College LibraryBowdoin College Museum of ArtBustins Island Historical SocietyChewonki FoundationColby College LibrariesColby College Museum of ArtDenmark Public LibraryEpiscopal Diocese of Maine ArchivesFairfield Historical SocietyFarnsworth Art Museum and Wyeth Center

Friends of Southport Historical SocietyHerbarium, Department of Natural and Behavioral

Sciences, University of MaineHubbard Free LibraryIsland Falls Historical SocietyKatahdin Public LibraryLong Island Historical SocietyLubec Historical SocietyMaine Folklife CenterMaine Historical SocietyMaine State ArchivesMaine State LibraryMaine State MuseumMilbridge Historical SocietyMonhegan MuseumMoosehead Historical MuseumMuseum of African CultureNaples Historical SocietyNickels-Sortwell HouseNortheast Historic FilmPejepscot Historical SocietyPenobscot Nation MuseumPhillips Historical SocietyPresque Isle Historical SocietyRumford Historical SocietySagadahoc History and GenealogySouth Portland Public LibraryStanley Museum, Inc.Thompson Free LibraryThuya GardensUnited Society of Shakers Library and MuseumUniversity of Maine at Presque Isle LibraryUniversity of Maine LibraryWaterville Historical SocietyWoodland Historical Society

MarylandAdkins ArboretumAllegany County Historical SocietyB&O Railroad MuseumThe Baltimore Museum of ArtBeneficial-Hodson Library, Hood CollegeBerlin Heritage FoundationCarroll County Farm MuseumCity of Bowie MuseumsCollege Park Airpark MuseumCompton School MuseumCylburn ArboretumDorchester County Historical Society


Friends of Jerusalem MillFrostburg State University LibraryGermantown Historical SocietyHancock MuseumHistoric St. Mary’s CityHorn Point Laboratory Library, University of

MarylandJewish Museum of MarylandJohns Hopkins University LibrariesLangsdale Library, University of Baltimore Mammal Collection, Frostburg State UniversityMaryland Archeological Conservation Labora-

tory/Jefferson Patterson Park and MuseumMaryland Historical SocietyMaryland State ArchivesMontgomery County Public LibrariesMorgan State University LibrariesMount Clare Museum HouseNabb Research Center for Delmarva History and

CultureNational Capital Region, Museum Resource CenterNational Cryptologic MuseumNational Library of MedicineNational Oceanographic and Atmospheric Adminis-

tration Central LibraryNorton-Brown Herbarium, University of Mary-

landPoint Lookout Civil War MuseumPrince George’s Community College LibrarySaint Mary’s College of Maryland LibraryThurgood Marshall Library, Bowie State UniversityU.S. National Fungus CollectionsU.S. National Seed HerbariumUniversity of Maryland LibrariesWalters Art MuseumWashington County Museum of Fine ArtsWashington County Rural Heritage MuseumWestside Historical Society

MassachusettsAbington Public LibraryAdams National Historical ParkAddison Gallery of American ArtAlden House Historic SiteAmerican Antiquarian SocietyAmherst Historical Society/Strong House

MuseumArchives and Special Collections, Mount Holyoke

College Library

Art Complex MuseumBancroft Memorial LibraryBay State Historical LeagueBeauport, Sleeper-McCann House, Historic New

EnglandBelchertown Historical AssociationBerkshire MuseumBoston AthenaeumBoston College LibrariesBoston Public LibraryBotanic Garden of Smith CollegeBotanical Museum and Herbaria, Harvard Uni-

versityButtonwood Park ZooButtonwoods MuseumCambridge Historical CommissionCape Cod National SeashoreCardinal Cushing Library, Emmanuel CollegeChester C. Corbin Public LibraryChesterwoodChicopee Public LibraryCodman House, Historic New EnglandCollections and Conservation Center, Historic

New EnglandDanvers Archival CenterDighton Public LibraryEastham Public LibraryFrederick Law Olmstead National Historic SiteGeorge Peabody House MuseumThe Gibson Society, Inc.Gordon LibraryGordon-Conwell Theological Seminary LibraryGore Place Society, Inc.Hampshire College LibraryHarvard Historical SocietyHarvard University Art MuseumsHarvard University LibraryHarvard University Mineralogical and Geological

MuseumHarwich Historical SocietyHerbarium, Biology Department, University of

MassachusettsHeritage Museums and GardensHingham Historical SocietyIsabella Stewart Gardner MuseumJohn F. Kennedy Library and MuseumJosiah Quincy House, Historic New EnglandKingston Public LibraryLibrary and Archives, Historic New England


Longfellow National Historic SiteLowell National Historical ParkMarine Biological Laboratory and Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution LibraryMartha’s Vineyard Historical SocietyThe Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment

of HumanityMassachusetts ArchivesMassachusetts Horticultural SocietyMassachusetts Institute of Technology LibrariesMassachusetts Museum of Contemporary ArtMassachusetts Trial Court Worcester Law LibraryMattapoisett Historical SocietyMilford Town LibraryMIT List Visual Arts CenterMIT MuseumMount Holyoke College Art MuseumMount Holyoke College Botanic GardenMuseum of Afro-American HistoryMuseum of Comparative ZoologyMuseum of Fine ArtsMuseum of Fine Arts, BostonNational Archives and Records Administration,

Northeast Region (Boston)Needham Historical SocietyNewton History MuseumThe Norman Rockwell Museum at StockbridgeNorth Andover Historical SocietyNorth Shore Community College LibraryOld South Meeting HouseOld Sturbridge VillageOtis House MuseumPeabody Institute Library ArchivesPeabody Museum of Archaeology and EthnologyPembroke Public LibraryPlimoth Plantation, Inc.Pocumtuck Valley Memorial AssociationPolly Hill ArboretumProject SAVE Armenian Photograph ArchivesRehoboth Antiquarian SocietyReuben Hoar LibraryRichards Memorial LibraryRichmond Historical SocietyRose Art MuseumRutland Historical SocietySandy Bay Historical Society and Museum, Inc.School of Theology Library, Boston University Smith College LibrariesSmith College Museum of Art

Somerville Hospital LibrarySpringfield Armory National Historic SiteSpringfield Science MuseumState Library of MassachusettsStephen Phillips Trust HouseSterling and Francine Clark Art InstituteStonehill Industrial History CenterSturgis LibrarySwampfield Historical SocietyUniversity of Massachusetts at Amherst LibrariesWayland Historical SocietyWillard House and Clock MuseumWilliam Brewster Nickerson Memorial Room,

Cape Cod Community CollegeWilliams College LibrariesWilliams College Museum of ArtWinchester Public LibraryWorcester Art Museum

MichiganA. E. Seaman Mineral MuseumAda Historical SocietyAlbion College LibraryArenac County Historical SocietyBay County Historical SocietyBentley Historical LibraryBloomfield Township Public LibraryBrandon Township Public LibraryBridgeport Public LibraryBuchanan District LibraryBurton Historical Collections at the Main Branch,

Detroit Public LibraryCenter for Adventist ResearchCentral Michigan University LibrariesClinton-Macomb Public LibraryCranbrook Institute of ScienceDepartment of Biology, Hope CollegeDepartment of Geology Collections, Wayne State

UniversityDetroit Garden Center, Inc. LibraryDetroit Historical MuseumThe Detroit Institute of ArtsEdwardsburg Museum Group, Inc.Ferris State University LibraryFinnish-American Historical ArchivesFlat River Community LibraryFlint Institute of ArtsGerald R. Ford LibraryGerald R. Ford Museum


Governor Warner MuseumGrand Rapids Public LibraryGrand Traverse Lighthouse MuseumHeddon MuseumThe Henry FordHerbarium, Biology Department, Alma CollegeHerbarium, Biology Department, Eastern Michi-

gan UniversityHerbarium, Biology Department, University of

Michigan–FlintHidden Lake GardensHolland MuseumIndian River Area LibraryInstitute for Fisheries Research Division LibraryIshpeming Carnegie Public LibraryJesse Besser MuseumJohn Ball Zoological SocietyKalamazoo Valley MuseumKettering University ArchivesLeila Arboretum SocietyLibrary of MichiganLittle Traverse Historical Society, Inc.Marialyce Canonie Great Lakes Research LibraryMarquette County Historical MuseumMason County Historical Society/ Historic White

Pine VillageMichigan Historical CenterMichigan State University HerbariumMichigan State University LibrariesMichigan State University MuseumMichigan Technological University LibrariesMilford Historical SocietyMissaukee District LibraryMonroe County Historical MuseumMontague MuseumMuskegon Museum of ArtNewaygo Carnegie LibraryNorthern Michigan University LibraryPictured Rocks National LakeshorePort Austin Area Historical SocietyPresque Isle County Historical SocietyRaven Hill Discovery CenterRochester College LibrarySaint Joseph Public LibrarySanilac District LibrarySaugatuck-Douglas District LibrarySeven Ponds Nature CenterSodus Township LibrarySouth Lyon Area Historical Society

Southeast Michigan Council of GovernmentsLibrary

Spring Lake District LibrarySteiner MuseumSynergy Medical Educational AllianceUniversity of Michigan HerbariumUniversity of Michigan Museum of AnthropologyUniversity of Michigan Museum of ArtUniversity of Michigan University LibraryVan Wylen Library, Hope College W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment ResearchWestern Michigan University LibrariesWhite Lake Township Library

MinnesotaAnoka County Historical SocietyAnoka County Law LibraryThe BakkenBeltrami County Historical SocietyBeth-el Synagogue LibraryBloom Library, Mount Zion TempleCarpenter St. Croix Valley Nature CenterChatfield Brass Band, Music Lending LibraryChippewa County Historical SocietyCloquet Public LibraryCokato MuseumEloise Butler Wildflower and Bird SanctuaryFire-EMS-Safety Center Library, Minnesota State

Colleges and UniversitiesFlaten Art MuseumFreeborn County Historical SocietyGoodhue County Historical SocietyGreat River Regional LibraryHerbarium, Biology Department, University of

MinnesotaHibbing Historical SocietyHill Museum and Manuscript LibraryInsect Collection, University of Minnesota International Falls Public LibraryItasca County Historical SocietyMacalester College LibrariesMarshall County Historical SocietyMartin Luther College LibraryMille Lacs Community LibraryMille Lacs Indian Museum and Trading PostThe Minneapolis Institute of ArtsMinneapolis Public LibraryMinnesota Air Guard MuseumMinnesota Historical Society


Minnesota Library for the Blind and PhysicallyHandicapped

Minnesota Orchestra Music LibraryOlmsted County Historical SocietyOwatonna Public LibraryPennington County Historical SocietyPine County Historical SocietyPope County Historical SocietyRockford Area Historical SocietyRoseau County Historical Museum and Interpre-

tive CenterSacred Heart Area Historical SocietySaint Paul Public LibraryScience Museum of MinnesotaScott County Historical SocietySherburne County Historical SocietySinclair Lewis Museum and Interpretive CenterSwift County Historical SocietyTamarack Nature CenterUniversity of Minnesota LibrariesUniversity of St. Thomas Art History CollectionWadena County Historical Society and MuseumWashington County Historic CourthouseWestwood Hills Nature CenterWinona County Historical Society

MississippiCobb Institute of ArchaeologyDivision of Library and Information Resources,

Jackson State University LibrariesHerbarium, Biological Sciences Department, Mis-

sissippi State UniversityHerbarium of the Gulf Coast Research LaboratoryLauren Rogers Museum of ArtMendenhall Public LibraryMeridian Museum of ArtMississippi Library CommissionMississippi River Commission History CenterMississippi State Department of Archives and

HistoryNortheast Mississippi Museum AssociationNoxubee County Library SystemPlanter’s HallPullen Herbarium, Biology Department, Univer-

sity of MississippiRowland Medical Library, University of Missis-

sippiUniversity of Mississippi Libraries

MissouriBarton County Historical SocietyBootheel Youth MuseumCenter for Archaeological Research, Southwest

Missouri State UniversityChristian County LibraryClarksville MuseumCommunity of ChristDickerson Park ZooDouglas County Public LibraryEpiscopal Diocese of Missouri ArchivesFort OsageGentry County LibraryGeorge A. Spiva LibraryGrandview Historical Society Depot MuseumHarry S. Truman Library and MuseumHenry County Museum and Cultural Arts CenterHerbarium, Biology Department, Southeast Mis-

souri State UniversityHerbarium, Missouri Department of Natural

ResourcesHugh Stephens Library, Stephens CollegeHunter-Dawson State Historic SiteInman E. Page LibraryKamphoefner HouseKirkwood Historical SocietyLakeside Nature CenterLinda Hall Library of Science, Engineering and

Technology Little Dixie Regional LibrariesMcDonald County LibraryMidwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

LibraryMissouri Botanical GardenMissouri Historical SocietyMissouri State ArchivesMissouri State LibraryMissouri State MuseumMuseum of Art and Archaeology, University of

Missouri-ColumbiaNational Personnel Records Center, National

Archives and Records AdministrationNelson-Atkins Museum of ArtNew Santa Fe Historical SocietyNodaway County Historical SocietyOakland House MuseumOzarks Regional Herbarium, Southwest Missouri

State UniversityRalph Foster Museum


Ray County Historical SocietySaint Louis County LibrarySaint Louis Public LibrarySaint Louis Science CenterSaint Louis University LibrariesScott Joplin House State Historic SiteSt. Charles County Historical SocietyState Historical Society of MissouriUniversity of Missouri Botanic GardenUniversity of Missouri Museum of AnthropologyUniversity of Missouri-Columbia LibrariesWashington University Bernard Becker Medical

LibraryWashington University LibrariesWestern Historical Manuscript Collection, Uni-

versity of Missouri-ColumbiaWild Canid Survival and Research CenterWorld Aquarium

MontanaArchie Bray Foundation for the Ceramic ArtsBozeman Public LibraryButte-Silver Bow Public ArchivesFly Fishing Discovery CenterGlacier National ParkHeadwaters Heritage MuseumHockaday Museum of ArtK. Ross Toole Archives, University of MontanaLambert Historical SocietyMai Wah Society, Inc.Montana Historical SocietyMontana Museum of Art and CultureMontana State LibraryMontana State University LibrariesMuseum of the RockiesO’Fallon Historical MuseumRocky Mountain Laboratories LibraryUpper Musselshell Historical SocietyWildlife Laboratory, Montana State UniversityYellowstone Art Museum

NebraskaArbor Lodge State Historical ParkAshfall Fossil Beds State Historical ParkBenne Memorial Museum/Jesse C. Bickle HouseBrown County Historical SocietyBuffalo Bill Ranch State Historical ParkDawson County Historical SocietyEdgerton Explorit Center

Fairbury City MuseumG. W. Frank HouseGarfield County Historical SocietyGilman Park ArboretumGothenburg Historical SocietyHall County Historical SocietyHarold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology,

University of Nebraska-LincolnHitchcock County Historical SocietyHolt County Historical SocietyHooker County LibraryHouse of YesteryearInternational Quilt Study CenterKilgore Memorial LibraryMari Sandoz High Plains Heritage CenterMcPherson County Historical SocietyMidwest Archeological CenterNebraska City Historical SocietyNebraska Health Care Association LibraryNebraska Library CommissionNebraska State Historical SocietyOmaha Public LibraryPaxton Public LibraryPierce Historical SocietyPioneers Park Nature CenterPotter MuseumRaymond A. Whitwer Tilden Public LibraryRock County Historical SocietySaunders County Historical ComplexSheldon Memorial Art Gallery and Sculpture

GardenShelton Township LibrarySidney Public LibraryUnion College LibraryUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha University

LibraryUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln LibrariesUniversity Place Art CenterValley County Historical SocietyVerdigre Heritage MuseumWashington County Historical AssociationWilla Cather Pioneer Memorial and Educational

FoundationWood River Valley Historical Society

NevadaArchaeological Collections, University of Nevada,

Las VegasDouglas County Historical Society


Fourth Ward School MuseumHerbarium, Biological Sciences Department, Uni-

versity of NevadaHerbarium, University of Nevada, RenoLas Vegas-Clark County Library DistrictLiberace MuseumLost City MuseumNevada Historical SocietyNevada Museum of ArtNevada State Library and ArchivesNevada State Museum and Historical SocietyNortheastern Nevada MuseumSparks Heritage Foundation and MuseumSpecial Collections and Archives Department,

University of Nevada-Reno LibrariesSpring Mountain Ranch State ParkUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas LibrariesVirgin Valley Heritage Museum

New HampshireThe Art Gallery, University of New HampshireBedford Historical SocietyCanterbury Shaker VillageChurch Media CenterCurrier Museum of ArtDerry Public LibraryDunbar Free LibraryEnfield Free Public LibraryGafney Library Inc.Hall Memorial LibraryHampstead Public LibraryHampton Historical SocietyHerbarium, Biology Department, Keene State

CollegeHistorical Society of Cheshire CountyHood Museum of ArtHoratio Colony House Museum and Nature PreserveJackson Public LibraryMorrison House MuseumNew Hampshire Archeological SocietyNew Hampshire Division of Archives and Records

ManagementNew Hampshire Historical SocietyNew Hampshire State LibraryPhilip Read Memorial LibraryPortsmouth Naval Shipyard Library, U.S. Navy Saint-Gaudens National Historic SiteSanbornton Public LibrarySeacoast Science Center

Silsby Free Public LibraryStrawbery Banke MuseumUniversity Museum, University of New Hamp-

shireWadleigh Memorial LibraryWebster Memorial LibraryWhipple House Museum/Ashland Historical Society

New JerseyAllaire Village, Inc.Bernardsville Public LibraryBranchburg Historical SocietyBurlington County LibraryCarteret Public LibraryCedar Grove Free Public LibraryCollingswood Free Public LibraryDelaware River Basin Commission LibraryDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Natural

Resources, Rutgers UniversityDixon Homestead LibraryEdgewater Free Public LibraryEdison National Historic SiteEssex County Law LibraryGloucester City LibraryHancock House State Historic SiteHistorical Society of Ocean GroveHistorical Society of PrincetonHopewell Public LibraryInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

History CenterIrvington Public LibraryLong Branch Free Public LibraryMadison Township Historical SocietyMetuchen Public LibraryMonmouth County ArchivesMonroe Township Public LibraryMount Olive Public LibraryNew Jersey Historical SocietyNew Jersey Room, Fairleigh Dickinson University

LibraryNew Jersey Room, Jersey City Public LibraryNew Jersey State ArchivesNew Jersey State LibraryNew Jersey State MuseumThe Newark MuseumPassaic County Community College Art GalleriesPaterson Free Public LibraryPoricy ParkRamsey Free Public Library


Rutgers University LibrariesSea Isle City Historical MuseumSister Mary Grace Burns ArboretumSummit Historical SocietyTalbott Library, Rider UniversityTinton Falls Public LibraryYankee Air Force/Yankee Air Museum Northeast

Division

New MexicoAnderson Museum of Contemporary ArtAnthropology Laboratory, New Mexico Highlands

University Bolack Museum of Fish and WildlifeBureau of Geology and Mineral ResourcesCarlsbad Museum and Art CenterChaco Cultural National Historical ParkEspanola Public LibraryGeorgia O’Keeffe MuseumHubbard Museum of the American WestLas Cruces Natural History MuseumLos Alamos County Historical MuseumMaxwell Museum of AnthropologyMillicent Rogers Museum of Northern New MexicoMuseum of New MexicoMuseum of Southwestern BiologyNew Mexico Farm and Ranch Heritage MuseumNew Mexico Museum of Natural HistoryNew Mexico State LibraryNew Mexico State Records Center and ArchivesNew Mexico Supreme Court Law LibraryRandall Davey Audubon CenterRange Science Herbarium, New Mexico State

UniversityRoswell Museum and Art Center LibrarySan Juan County Archaeological Research Center

at Salmon RuinsSpecial Collections Library, Albuquerque-

Bernalillo County Library SystemThomas Branigan Memorial LibraryTinkertown MuseumUniversity of New Mexico University LibrariesVietnam Veterans National Memorial

New YorkAgricultural Research Service Collection of Ento-

mopathogenic Fungal Cultures, U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture

Alley Pond Environmental Center

American Bible Society LibraryAmerican Folk Art MuseumAmerican Museum of Natural HistoryThe American Numismatic SocietyArgyle Free LibraryBaker-Cederberg Museum and ArchivesBayard Cutting ArboretumBayside Historical SocietyBlount Library Inc.The Branch Libraries, The New York Public

LibraryBrooklyn Botanic GardenBrooklyn Historical SocietyBrooklyn MuseumC. V. Starr East Asian LibraryCanajoharie Library and Art GalleryCanastota Canal Town CorporationCayuga Museum of History and ArtThe Center for Jewish HistoryCenters for Nature Education, Inc.Chautauqua County Historical SocietyChenango County Historical SocietyColumbia County Historical SocietyColumbia University LibrariesConrad N. Hilton Library, Culinary Institute of

AmericaCooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum, Smith-

sonian InstitutionCornell University Insect CollectionCornell University LibraryCornell University Museum of VertebratesCradle of Aviation MuseumCrosby Public LibraryCrouse Hospital LibraryCrown Point State Historic SiteCutler Botanic GardensDepartment of Biological Sciences, State Univer-

sity of New YorkDiscovery Center of Science and TechnologyDobbs Ferry Public LibraryDowd Fine Arts Gallery, State University of New

York College at CortlandEducational Resources Center, Clarkson UniversityExperimental Television CenterThe Explorers Club Library and ArchivesFort Plain Free LibraryFort Plain MuseumThe Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center, Vassar

College


Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library andMuseum

Franklin Furnace ArchiveFrick CollectionGannett-Tripp Library, Elmira CollegeGeorge Eastman House International Museum of

Photography and FilmGodwin-Ternbach MuseumGraycliffGreece Historical SocietyGreene County Historical SocietyHall of Fame for Great AmericansHalsey Thomas House and Southampton Histori-

cal MuseumThe Handweaving Museum and Arts CenterHeckscher Museum of ArtHepburn Library of LisbonHerbarium, Monroe County Parks DepartmentHerbarium, Planting Fields Arboretum State His-

toric ParkHerbert F. Johnson Museum of ArtHerkimer County Historical SocietyHerkimer Home State Historic SiteHistorical Society of Newburgh Bay and the

HighlandsHofstra University Special CollectionsHoly Trinity Orthodox Seminary and Monastery

LibraryHome Sweet Home MuseumHornby MuseumInternational Center of PhotographyInternational Trademark Association LibraryIschua Valley Historical SocietyIthaca College LibraryJacques Marchais Museum of Tibetan ArtJewish MuseumJohnson Hall State Historic SiteJohnstown Public LibraryThe Landmark Society of Western New YorkLefferts Historic HouseLeo Baeck InstituteLesbian Herstory ArchivesThe Lewiston MuseumLewiston Public LibraryLong Beach Public LibraryLorenzo State Historic SiteMahopac LibraryMarcella Sembrich Opera MuseumMartin House Restoration Corporation

Mayfield Historical SocietyMemorial Art GalleryMetropolitan Museum of ArtMiddleville Free LibraryMidmarch Arts Press, Women Artists ArchivesMooers Free LibraryMorris Raphael Cohen Library, City College of the

City University of New YorkMorris-Jumel MansionMuseum at the Fashion Institute of TechnologyMuseum of Arts and DesignMuseum of disABILITY HistoryMuseum of Jewish Heritage–A Living Memorial to

the HolocaustMuseum of Modern ArtMuseum of the City of New YorkNanticoke Valley Historical SocietyNaples LibraryNational Archives and Records Administration,

Northeast Region (New York)National Baseball Hall of Fame and MuseumNational Bottle MuseumNew Castle Historical SocietyNew City Free LibraryNew Museum of Contemporary ArtNew York Academy of Medicine LibraryNew York AquariumThe New York Botanical GardenNew York City Municipal ArchivesNew York Historical SocietyNew York Museum of TransportationNew York School of Interior Design LibraryNew York State ArchivesNew York State LibraryNew York State MuseumNew York University LibrariesNorth Collins Historical SocietyOgdensburg Public LibraryOlana State Historic SiteOld Fort Niagara AssociationOssining Public LibraryPalmyra Historical MuseumParishville MuseumThe Parrish Art MuseumPat Parker-Vito Russo Center LibraryPfeiffer Nature Center and FoundationPierpont Morgan LibraryQueen Sofia Spanish Institute, Inc.Queens County Farm Museum


Randolph Free LibraryRare Books and Special Collections Library, Uni-

versity of Rochester LibrariesRaynham Hall MuseumThe Research Libraries, The New York Public

Library Rhizome.orgRice Creek Field Station, State University of New

York College at OswegoRochester Civic Garden CenterRochester Museum and Science CenterRockefeller Archives CenterRoeliff Jansen Historical SocietyRome Historical SocietyRoosevelt–Vanderbilt National Historic SitesRose Museum at Carnegie HallSackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic SiteSagamore Hill National Historic SiteSaint John Fisher College Lavery LibrarySaint Mark’s LibrarySalamanca Public LibrarySenate House State Historic SiteSeneca Falls Historical SocietySeneca Park ZooSeward HouseShaker Museum and LibrarySidney Historical AssociationSix Nations Indian MuseumSkidmore College LibrariesSolomon R. Guggenheim MuseumSomers Historical SocietyStaatsburgh State Historic SiteStaten Island Historical SocietySterling Historical SocietyStrong MuseumTown of Crawford Free LibraryTown of Esopus Public LibraryTown of Gainesville Public LibraryTrolley Museum of New YorkTyler Art Gallery, State University of New York at

OswegoUnited States Military Academy LibraryUniversity Art Museum, State University of New

York at AlbanyUniversity at Albany Libraries, State University

of New YorkUniversity at Buffalo-SUNY Libraries, State Uni-

versity of New YorkUtica Public Library

Utica ZooWallace Library, Rochester Institute of TechnologyWalworth-Seely Public LibraryWard O’Hara Agricultural Museum of Cayuga

County Washington’s Headquarters State Historic SiteWaterloo Library and Historical SocietyWaterman Conservation Education CenterWayne County Historical SocietyWest Winfield LibraryWhaling Museum SocietyWilliam Pryor Letchworth MuseumThe Yager Museum

North CarolinaAckland Art MuseumAppalachian Regional LibraryArcheology Laboratories, Wake Forest UniversityAsheville Art MuseumAsheville-Buncombe Library SystemBattleship North CarolinaBeaufort Historical Association, Inc.Caldwell County Public LibraryCape Fear MuseumDepartment of Entomology, North Carolina State

UniversityDepartment of Zoology, North Carolina State

UniversityDr. Josephus W. Hall HouseDuke University LibrariesForsyth County Public LibraryFort Macon State ParkGreensboro Historical MuseumHarnett County Public LibraryHerbarium, Biology Department, Duke UniversityHerbarium, Biology Department, University of

North CarolinaHerbarium, Botany Department, North Carolina

State UniversityHickory Museum of Art, Inc.Hickory Public LibraryHighlands Nature CenterHorizons UnlimitedHouse in the Horseshoe State Historic SiteHunter Library, Western Carolina UniversityJames Addison Jones Library/Brock MuseumJames H. Carson LibraryMint Museum of ArtMoravian Music Foundation Library


Mountain Heritage Center, Western CarolinaUniversity

Murphy Public LibraryNational Railroad Museum and Hall of FameNewbold-White HouseNorth Carolina Collection Gallery, University of

North CarolinaNorth Carolina Maritime Museum at SouthportNorth Carolina Museum of ArtNorth Carolina Museum of HistoryNorth Carolina Railway MuseumNorth Carolina State ArchivesNorth Carolina State Museum of Natural SciencesNorth Carolina State University LibrariesNorth Carolina Wesleyan Pearsall LibraryNorth Carolina Zoological ParkOld Wilkes JailPerquimans County LibraryPublic Library of Johnston County and SmithfieldRandolph Public LibraryReed Gold Mine State Historic SiteReynolda House Museum of American ArtSampson-Livermore Library, University of North

Carolina, PembrokeSarah P. Duke Gardens, Duke UniversitySchiele Museum of Natural History, Inc.Sciworks of Forsyth CountyScottish Tartans Museum and SocietyThomas Wolfe MemorialTryon Palace Historic Sites and GardensUniversity Galleries, North Carolina A&T State

UniversityUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte Botani-

cal GardensUniversity of North Carolina-Chapel Hill LibraryVertebrate Collection, Department of Biology,

Wake Forest UniversityVertebrate Collections and David J. Sieren Herbar-

ium, University of North CarolinaWake County Public Library SystemWake Forest College BirthplaceWestern Piedmont Community CollegeWilson County Public Library

North DakotaArchaeology Technologies LaboratoryBagg Bonanza FarmCass County Historical Society MuseumChahinkapa Zoo

Department of Biological Sciences, North DakotaState University

Enderlin Municipal LibraryFort Union Trading Post National Historic SiteGateway to Science Center, Inc.Grand Forks Public City-County LibraryJoachim Regional MuseumMcLean County Historical Society MuseumNorth Dakota State LibraryNorth Dakota State University LibrariesPlains Art MuseumState Historical Society of North DakotaThree Affiliated Tribes MuseumUniversity of North Dakota LibraryWells County Historical Society

Northern Mariana IslandsCommonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Museum of History and CultureJoeten-Kiyu Public LibraryNorthern Marianas College/Public Library–Tinian

OhioAkron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad Historical

SocietyAkron Department of Planning and Urban Devel-

opment LibraryAkron-Summit County Public LibraryAmherst Historical SocietyAshland University ArchivesAshtabula County District LibraryAthens County Historical Society and MuseumAurora Historical Society, Inc.Barberton Public LibraryBedford Historical Society Museum and LibraryBelmont County Historical Society, Inc.Belmont Historical SocietyBelpre Historical SocietyBlack River Historical SocietyBosveld Library on Applied PoetryBrother Edmond Drouin LibraryBrukner Nature CenterCarillon Historical ParkCincinnati Art MuseumCincinnati Museum Center at Union TerminalCincinnati Zoo and Botanical GardenCleveland Museum of ArtCleveland Museum of Natural HistoryCleveland Public Library


Cleveland State University LibraryClinton County Historical Society and MuseumColumbus Zoo and AquariumCOSI ColumbusCuyahoga County Public LibraryDayton Metro LibraryDayton Society of Natural HistoryDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology,

Wright State UniversityEnon Historical SocietyFolklife Archives, Ohio State University Gnadenhutten Historical Society and MuseumGranville Historical SocietyGreater Buckeye Lake Historical SocietyGreene County Historical SocietyGreenville Public LibraryHerbarium, Biological Sciences Department,

Kent State UniversityHerbarium, Biology Department, Denison

UniversityHeritage Village MusemHistoric Costume and Textiles Collection, Ohio

State UniversityHistoric New Richmond, Inc.Historical Society of GermantownHubbard Historical SocietyKelso House MuseumKelton House Museum and GardenKent State University MuseumKinsman Historical SocietyLake FarmparkLakeside Heritage SocietyLakewood Historical SocietyLaw Library Association of Geauga CountyLewisburg Historical SocietyLicking County Historical SocietyLogan County Historical Society and MuseumMarblehead Lighthouse Historical SocietyMarion County Historical SocietyMarlboro Township Historical SocietyMassillon Public LibraryMedical Heritage Center, Ohio State UniversityMerry-Go-Round MuseumMesopotamia Historical and Memorial AssociationMiami University Art MuseumMinerva Public LibraryMinster Historical SocietyMuseum of Biological DiversityNational Packard Museum

National Underground Railroad Freedom CenterNature Center at Shaker LakesNew Knoxville Historical SocietyNewcomerstown Historical SocietyOberlin College ArchivesOberlin College LibrariesOberlin Heritage Center/O.H.I.O.Ohio Agricultural Research and Development

CenterOhio Department of Transportation LibraryOhio Genealogical Society LibraryOhio Historical SocietyThe Ohio State University LibrariesOhio University Chillicothe Quinn LibraryOhio University LibrariesPioneer and Historical Society of Muskingum

CountyPublic Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton

CoountyPuskarich Public LibraryRitter Public LibraryRiverside Historical SocietyRobert S. Marx Law LibraryRockford Carnegie LibraryRussell Township Historical SocietySeville Historical SocietySisters of Charity of CincinnatiSlovak Institute and Reference LibrarySociety for the Preservation of Ohio One-Room

SchoolsSpangler Library, Ohio Dominican UniversityStan Hywet Hall and GardensStanley M. Rowe ArboretumStark County District LibraryState Library of OhioStruthers Historical SocietySwedenborg Memorial Library, Urbana University Taft Museum of ArtToledo ZooUniversity of Cincinnati LibrariesUniversity of Toledo LibrariesVinton County Historical and Genealogical

SocietyWay Public LibraryWestern Reserve Historical SocietyWestlake Porter Public LibraryWildwood Manor HouseWright State University LibrariesWyandot County Historical Society


OklahomaBartlesville Public LibraryBreak O’Day Farm and Metcalfe Museum, Inc.Carl Albert Center Archives, University of OklahomaCherokee Heritage CenterColbert Historical MuseumCollection of Vertebrates, Oklahoma State UniversityCordell Public LibraryCovington Historical MuseumCreek Council House MuseumEastern Oklahoma District Library SystemFort Supply Historic SiteGardner MansionGilcrease MuseumGrady County Historical MuseumHoney Springs BattlefieldJoe M. Anderson Herbarium, Northeastern State

UniversityJulian P. Kanter Political Commercial ArchiveKanza Museum Kaw Tribal ComplexMcAlester Public LibraryMuseum and Herbarium, Biology Department,

University of Central OklahomaMuseum of the Red RiverNash LibraryNational Rod and Custom Car Hall of FameNewkirk Community MuseumOklahoma Archeological SurveyOklahoma City Museum of ArtOklahoma City National MemorialOklahoma Department of LibrariesPawnee Bill Ranch SitePayne County Historical SocietyPercussive Arts SocietyPhilbrook Museum of ArtSac and Fox National Public LibrarySam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural HistorySanta Fe Depot MuseumShattuck Windmill Museum and ParkTulsa Air and Space MuseumTulsa Zoo and Living MuseumWaynoka Historical SocietyWestern Plains Library SystemWilliam Fremont Harn GardensWynnewood Historical Society

OregonAgness-Illahee MuseumBaker Cabin Historical Society

Brownsville Community LibraryConfederated Tribes of Grand Ronde LibraryCurry Public Library DistrictDolly Wares Doll MuseumE.W. McMillan LibraryEcho Historical MuseumEcho Public LibraryEpiscopal Diocese of Oregon ArchivesGold Hill Historical Society MuseumHallie Ford Museum of ArtHendricks Park Rhododendron GardenHeritage StationHoyt ArboretumIchthyological and Herpetological Collections,

Oregon State UniversityJacknife-Zion-Horseheaven Historical SocietyJefferson County Historical Society MuseumKam Wah Chung MuseumLibrary and Media ServicesMarshfield Sun Printing MuseumMount Angel Abbey LibraryNewport Public LibraryNorth Bend Public LibraryNorth Lincoln County Historical MuseumOregon Air and Space MuseumOregon Historical SocietyOregon State ArchivesOregon State LibraryOregon State University LibrariesOregon Supreme Court Law LibraryOregon Trail Library DistrictPacific University MuseumPine Valley Community MuseumPortland Art MuseumPortland Police Historical SocietyPortland State University LibrariesReed College LibrarySandy Public LibraryStanley Parr Archives and Records CenterThe Museum at Warm SpringsTillamook County Pioneer MuseumTualatin Public LibraryUmatilla Public LibraryVertebrate MuseumWatzek Library, Lewis & Clark CollegeWillamette University Libraries

PennsylvaniaAcademy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia


Air and Waste Management Association LibraryAmerican Philosophical Society LibraryAuditor General Law LibraryAwbury Arboretum AssociationBarnes FoundationBartram’s GardenBeaver County Historical Research and Land-

marks FoundationBrandywine River MuseumBrownsville Free Public LibraryCarnegie Free LibraryCarnegie Library of PittsburghCarnegie Museum of ArtCarnegie Museums of Natural HistoryCenter for American Music, University of PittsburghChanticleerChester County Historical SocietyCollege of Physicians of PhiladelphiaThe Conestoga Area Historical SocietyConneaut Valley Area Historical SocietyCornwall Iron FurnaceCrafton Public LibraryDimmick Memorial LibraryElk County Historical SocietyEquinunk Historical SocietyErie County Historical SocietyEva K. Bowlby Public LibraryEverhart Museum of Natural History, Science and

ArtExeter Community LibraryThe Fabric Workshop and MuseumFireman’s Hall MuseumForest Resources School Bird and Mammal Col-

lections, Pennsylvania State UniversityFort Necessity National BattlefieldFrancis Harvey Green LibraryFranklin InstituteFranklin Public LibraryFreeport Area Historical SocietyFrick Art and Historical CenterFrost Entomological MuseumGen. John Burrows Historical Society of Mon-

toursvilleGertrude Kistler Memorial LibraryGettysburg National Military ParkGirard College Founders HallGlenolden LibraryGoschenhoppen Folklife Library and MuseumGovernor Wolf Historical Society

Hastings Public LibraryHerbarium, Biological Sciences Department, Uni-

versity of the Sciences in PhiladelphiaHerbarium, Biology Department, Slippery Rock

UniversityHermitage Historical SocietyHershey GardensHighlands Historical SocietyHistoric ShaefferstownHistorical Society of Berks CountyHistorical Society of PennsylvaniaHistorical Society of the Phoenixville AreaHistorical Society of Western PennsylvaniaThe Horticulture CenterHuntingdon County Historical SocietyIndependence National Historical ParkJ. Lewis Crozer LibraryJacobsburg Historical SocietyJenkins ArboretumKing’s College D. Leonard Corgan LibraryLackawanna Historical SocietyLancaster County Historical SocietyLehigh University Library and Technology ServicesLiberty Forge ArboretumLibraries at the University of PittsburghLibrary Company of PhiladelphiaLinesville Historical SocietyLogue Library, Chestnut Hill College Longwood GardensLuzerne County Historical SocietyMars Area History and Landmarks SocietyMartin Art GalleryMcKean County Historical SocietyMifflinburg Buggy Museum Association, Inc.Mill Grove Audubon CenterMineral Collections, Bryn Mawr CollegeMinersville Public LibraryMonongahela Area LibraryMoravian ArchivesMount Joy Area Historical SocietyMütter MuseumNew Castle Public LibraryNorth East Historical SocietyNorthampton County Historical and Genealogical

SocietyNorthern York County Historical and Preserva-

tion SocietyNorthwestern Pennsylvania Steam and Antique

Equipment Association


Old York Road Historical SocietyParkesburg Free LibraryPenn Wynne LibraryPennsylvania Academy of the Fine ArtsPennsylvania German SocietyPennsylvania Historical and Museum CommissionPennsylvania Historical and Museum Reference

LibraryPennsylvania Hospital ArchivesPennsylvania State University LibrariesPennypacker MillsPhiladelphia Museum of ArtPhiladelphia Orchestra LibraryPhiladelphia Sketch ClubPhilip Schaff LibraryPhipps Conservatory and Botanical GardenPinnacleHealth System Library at Harrisburg

HospitalPlease Touch MuseumPolisher Research Institute LibraryPortage Area Historical SocietyThe Print CenterQuaint Corner Children’s MuseumReading Company Technical and Historical

SocietyRed Lion Area Historical SocietyReformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

LibraryRena M. Carlson LibraryRice Avenue Community Public LibraryRidley Township Public LibraryRosenbach Museum and LibraryRyerss Museum and LibrarySamuel W. Smith Memorial Public LibrarySayre Historical SocietySchuylkill Canal Association, Inc.Schwenkfelder Library and Heritage CenterThe Scott Arboretum, Swarthmore CollegeScottish Historical and Research Society of

Delaware ValleyShadek-Fackenthal Library, Franklin & Marshall

CollegeShippensburg University Vertebrate MuseumSisters of the Holy Family of NazarethState Library of PennsylvaniaStrasburg Heritage SocietyTrinity Episcopal School for Ministry LibraryU.S. Army Corps of Engineers District LibraryUnion County Library System

Uniontown Public LibraryUniversity of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeol-

ogy and AnthropologyUpper Darby Historical SocietyUpper Dublin Public LibraryValley Forge National Historic ParkWagner Free Institute of ScienceWallenpaupack Historical SocietyWaymart Area Historical SocietyWayne County Public LibraryWayne E. Manning Herbarium, Bucknell

UniversityWharton Esherick MuseumWood Turning CenterWoodmere Art MuseumYeadon Public LibraryZelienople Historical Society

Puerto RicoArchivo General de Puerto RicoCayey University College LibraryDepartment of Biology, University of Puerto RicoDepartment of Marine Sciences Museum, Univer-

sity of Puerto RicoEncarnación Valdés Library, Pontifical Catholic

University of Puerto RicoInternational Institute of Tropical Forestry, U.S.

Department of AgricultureLaboratory of Primate Morphology and Genetics,

University of Puerto RicoMuseo de Arte de PonceMuseo de las AmericasMuseo del Cafe de Puerto Rico, Inc.Museum of Contemporary Art of Puerto RicoSan Juan National Historic SiteUniversidad Central del Caribe

Rhode IslandBrown University LibrariesEast Smithfield Public LibraryGreenville Public LibraryHerbarium, Biological Sciences Department, Uni-

versity of Rhode IslandJames P. Adams Library, Rhode Island College Jamestown Philomenian LibraryLittle Compton Historical SocietyMuseum of Natural History and PlanetariumNew England Institute of Technology LibraryNewport Restoration Foundation


Providence Public LibraryRhode Island Historical SocietyRhode Island School of Design LibraryThe Rhode Island School of Design MuseumRhode Island State ArchivesRoger Williams University LibraryUnited States Naval War College Library

South CarolinaAnderson College LibraryAnderson County MuseumAudubon Center at Francis Beidler ForestBeaufort County Public Library SystemCentral Heritage SocietyCharleston Library SocietyCheraw Lyceum MuseumClemson University LibraryColumbia Museum of ArtDarlington County Historical CommissionFlorence Museum of Art, Science and HistoryG. Allen Fleece Library, Columbia International

UniversityHampton Museum and Visitors’ CenterHerbarium, Biology Department, Converse CollegeHerbarium, Biology Department, Newberry CollegeIda Jane Dacus LibraryIves Herbarium, Furman UniversityKalmia Gardens, Coker CollegeKaminski House MuseumKeowee-Toxaway State ParkLancaster County LibraryNewsfilm Library, University of South CarolinaOconee County LibraryPendleton Historic FoundationSouth Carolina Cotton Museum Inc.South Carolina Department of Archives and

HistorySouth Carolina State LibrarySouth Carolina State MuseumSouth Carolina Tobacco MuseumWessels Library, Newberry College Winthrop University GalleriesZoological Collections, Furman UniversitySouth DakotaAugustana College LibrariesBlack Hills Institute of Geological ResearchBramble Park ZooCity of Deadwood–ArchivesCodington County Historical Society

Community Historical Center and MuseumCzech Heritage Preservation SocietyDakota Sunset MuseumDakotas Conference of the United Methodist

Church Archives and History LibraryDalessburg Lutheran Church Archive CommitteeFall River County Historical MuseumGreat Plains Native Plant SocietyHerbarium, Biology Department, South Dakota

State UniversityHeritage Center Inc.I. D. Weeks Library, University of South DakotaKaiser-Ramaker Library, North American Baptist

SeminaryKarl E. Mundt Library, Dakota State UniversityLommen Health Sciences Library, University of

South DakotaMammalogy Teaching Collection, South Dakota

State UniversityMcCook County Historical Society and MuseumMoody County Genealogical AssociationMoody County Historical SocietyMount Rushmore National MemorialMuseum of the South Dakota State Historical

SocietyMuseum of Wildlife Science and IndustryNewell MuseumPresentation Sisters ArchivesSouth Dakota Art MuseumSouth Dakota State ArchivesSouth Dakota State LibrarySouth Dakota State University LibraryTimber Lake and Area Historical SocietyTripp County Library-Grossenburg MemorialWashington Pavilion of Arts and ScienceWhite Area Historical Society

TennesseeAlbert Gore, Sr. Research CenterAmerican Museum of Science and EnergyAnderson County ArchivesBeck Cultural Exchange CenterBelle Meade PlantationBig South Fork National River and Recreation AreaBriceville Public LibraryChattanooga African American MuseumChattanooga-Hamilton County Bicentennial

LibraryClay County Public Library


Country Music Hall of Fame and MuseumCumberland County History and Genealogical

SocietyThe Dixon Gallery and GardensEast Ridge City LibraryErlanger Health System LibraryFisk University LibraryGordon Browning Museum and Genealogical

LibraryHerbarium, Department of Biology, University of

the SouthJewish Federation of Nashville and Middle Ten-

nessee ArchivesKnox County Public Library SystemLawrence County ArchivesLewis County Public LibraryLincoln County ArchivesLittle River Railroad and Lumber Company

MuseumMadison County ArchivesMckee Library, Southern Adventist UniversityThe Museum at Mountain Home, East Tennessee

State UniversityNashville Public LibraryNational Ornamental Metal MuseumPaul L. Hollister Herbarium, Tennessee Techno-

logical UniversityProject PreservationRobertson County ArchivesRocky Mount MuseumShelby County ArchivesSouthern Baptist Historical Library and ArchivesTennessee Valley Authority ArchivesTennessee Sports Hall of Fame and MuseumTennessee State Library and ArchivesTennessee State MuseumUniversity of Tennessee LibrariesVanderbilt University LibrariesWaggoner Library, Trevecca Nazarene UniversityWashington County-Jonesborough LibraryWayne County Historical SocietyWhite County Archives

TexasA. Frank Smith Jr. Library CenterAgricultural Heritage Center and MuseumAlamoAmerican Heart Association LibraryAngelo State Natural History Collection

Archdiocese of San Antonio Catholic ArchivesArchives of the Episcopal ChurchArmstrong Browning Library, Baylor UniversityArnulfo L. Oliveira Memorial LibraryArt Museum of Southeast TexasThe Art Studio, Inc.Austin County Library SystemAustin Public LibraryBarnard’s Mill Art MuseumBedford Public LibraryBotanical Research Institute of TexasBuffalo Gap Historic VillageChildress County Heritage MuseumCity of Wolfforth LibraryCoke County LibraryCollection of Recent Mammals, Midwestern State

UniversityCollin County Historical Society, Inc./Collin

County History MuseumConcordia University at Austin Founders LibraryCulture Collection of Algae, University of Texas at

AustinDallas Municipal ArchivesDallas Museum of ArtDallas Public LibraryDeaf Smith County Historical SocietyDenton Public LibraryDepot MuseumDinosaur Valley State ParkDiocese of Amarillo Diocesan ArchivesDr. Pepper Museum and Free Enterprise InstituteDripping Springs Community LibraryEast Texas Oil MuseumEl Paso Museum of ArtEl Paso Public LibraryEl Paso ZooEl Progreso Memorial LibraryEllen Trout ZooEthel L. Whipple Memorial LibraryFairfield Library AssociationFarmers Branch Manske LibraryFayette Public LibraryFirst Presbyterian Church LibraryFort Bend County Libraries George MemorialFort Clark Historical SocietyFort Concho National Historic LandmarkFort Croghan MuseumFort Richardson State Historical ParkFort Sam Houston Museum


Fort Stockton Public LibraryFriona Public LibraryFulton MansionGladys City BoomtownGrace Armantrout MuseumGregg County Historical MuseumHarrie P. Woodson Memorial LibraryHarry Ransom Humanities Research CenterHerbarium (ASTC), Biology Department, Stephen F.

Austin State UniversityHerbarium, Biological Sciences Department,

Tarleton State UniversityHerbarium, Biology Department, Our Lady of the

Lake UniversityHerbarium, Biology Department, Texas A&M

UniversityHerbarium, Plant Resources Center, University of

TexasHorlock History Center and MuseumHouston County Historical Commission ArchivesHouston Public LibraryInsect Collection, Texas A&M UniversityIrving Public LibraryJack S. Blanton Museum of ArtJacksonville Public LibraryJames Gilliam Gee Library, Texas A&M Univer-

sity-CommerceKell House MuseumLady Bird Johnson Wildflower CenterLake Meredith Aquatic and Wildlife MuseumLunar and Planetary InstituteLyndon Baines Johnson Library and MuseumMansfield Public LibraryMary Couts Burnett Library, Texas Christian

UniversityMcFaddin-Ward HouseMcNamara House MuseumMelissa Public LibraryMickelsen Libraries, United States Army Air

Defense Artillery SchoolMuseum of Fine Arts HoustonNational Archives and Records Administration,

Southwest Region (Fort Worth)Panhandle-Plains Historical MuseumPanna Maria Historical Society/St. Joseph School

MuseumQuitman Public LibraryRice UniversityRichard Wade and Glen Vyck McKinney Library

Round Rock Public Library SystemSan Antonio Museum of ArtSan Antonio Zoological Gardens and AquariumSan Marcos Public LibrarySeagoville Public LibrarySherman County Depot MuseumSpecial Collections/Archives Department, Prairie

View A&M UniversityStark Museum of ArtTexas A&M University LibrariesTexas Archeological Research LaboratoryTexas Cooperative Wildlife CollectionTexas Medical Center LibraryTexas Memorial MuseumTexas State Library and Archives CommissionTexas Tech University LibrariesTexas Tech University MuseumTexas ZooU.S. Army Medical Department MuseumUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonUniversity of Texas at Arlington LibraryThe University of Texas at Austin LibrariesUniversity of Texas at El Paso LibraryUniversity of Texas at San Antonio LibraryVal Verde County LibraryVertebrate Natural History Collection, Sam Hous-

ton State UniversityVictoria Public LibraryWelder Wildlife FoundationWhitehouse Community LibraryWilliam T. Cozby Library

U.S. Virgin IslandsElaine Ione Sprauve Public Library and MuseumRalph M. Paiewonsky LibrarySaint Croix Campus LibraryVirgin Islands National Park

UtahAnasazi State Park MuseumBrigham Young Winter Home and OfficeCamp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park and

MuseumCanyonlands National ParkDinosaur National MonumentDonner Reed Pioneer MuseumHerbarium, Biology Department, Utah Valley

State CollegeHerbarium, Fishlake National Forest


Herbarium, U.S. Department of Agriculture For-est Service Region 4

Heritage Museum of LaytonIntermountain HerbariumJ. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah John Wesley Powell River History MuseumManti-Iasal National Forest HerbariumMidvale Historical SocietyMuseum of Natural ScienceNatural History Museum, Dixie CollegeNora Eccles Harrison Museum of ArtOgden Nature CenterRichfield Public LibrarySalt Lake City Arts CouncilSandy MuseumStevens Henager College LibraryTerritorial Statehouse State Park MuseumUtah Field House of Natural History State ParkUtah Museum of Fine ArtsUtah Museum of Natural HistoryUtah State Historical SocietyUtah State Library DivisionWestern Heritage Museum

VermontThe Bennington MuseumBillings Farm and MuseumBiology and Life Sciences Department, Norwich

UniversityBirds of Vermont MuseumBlack River Academy Museum and Historical

SocietyChimney Point State Historic SiteConcord Historical SocietyCrystal Lake Falls Historical AssociationDavies Memorial LibraryEast Middlebury Historical SocietyElmore Historical SocietyFairbanks Museum and PlanetariumGreen Mountain Club, Inc.Green Mountain Perkins Academy and Historical

AssociationHerbarium, Natural Sciences Department, Lyn-

don State CollegeHolland Historical Society MuseumHubbardtown Battlefield State Historic SiteIsle La Motte Historical SocietyKreitzberg Library, Norwich University Lake Champlain Maritime Museum

Latham Memorial Library/Thetford Town LibraryMount Holly Community Historical MuseumNorth Hero Historical SocietyPeacham Historical AssociationPittsford Historical SocietyPlymouth Historical SocietyRokeby MuseumSalisbury Historical SocietyShelburne MuseumSt. Johnsbury AthenaeumTyson LibraryUniversity of Vermont LibrariesVermont State ArchivesWest Haven Historical Society

VirginiaAlexandria Black History MuseumAllen E. Roberts Masonic Library and MuseumAmelia County Historical SocietyAmherst County MuseumArcheological Society of VirginiaAugusta County Historical SocietyAugusta Military Academy MuseumBedford City County MuseumBlue Ridge Community College ArboretumBlue Ridge Division Historical HoldingsBoatwright Memorial Library, University of

RichmondCampbell County Public LibraryCape Henry LighthouseCaroline Historical SocietyCatholic Historical Society of the Roanoke ValleyCherry Hill FarmChesapeake & Ohio Historical SocietyChrysler Museum of ArtColonial National Historical ParkColonial WilliamsburgContemporary Art Center of VirginiaDepartment of Geology and Environmental Sci-

ence, James Madison UniversityFairfax County Public LibraryFairfax Museum and Visitor CenterFluvanna County Public LibraryFoundation for Historic Christ ChurchFranklin County Historical SocietyGeorge Mason University LibrariesGreen Springs GardensHampton University Museum and ArchivesHanover Tavern Foundation


Herbarium, Biological Sciences Department, MaryWashington College

Herbarium, Biology Department, College ofWilliam and Mary

Herbarium, Biology Department, James MadisonUniversity

Herbarium, Biology Department, Virginia Mili-tary Institute

Herbarium, George Mason UniversityHerbarium, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityHighland Historical SocietyHistoric SmithfieldHistorical Society of Washington CountyJames Graham Leyburn Library, Washington and

Lee UniversityLanghorne HouseLee Chapel and MuseumThe Library of VirginiaMaier Museum of ArtMarine Corps University Research ArchivesMassey Herbarium, Virginia Polytechnic Insti-

tute and State UniversityMelvin Sabshin Library and ArchivesMenokin Foundation, Home of Francis Lightfoot

LeeMill Mountain ZooMonticelloMount VernonMuseum of the ConfederacyNational Science Foundation LibraryThe Newsome House Museum and Cultural CenterNorfolk Public LibraryThe Old Coast Guard StationOld Dominion University LibrariesPetersburg MuseumsPittsylvania Historical SocietyPowhatan County Historical SocietyPrince William County Genealogical SocietyPrince William Forest ParkScience Museum of Virginia-Danville Science CenterSeed Laboratory, Virginia Department of Agricul-

ture and Consumer ServicesShenandoah County Historical SocietyStone House FoundationSuffolk MuseumThomas Balch LibraryTidewater ArboretumU.S. Army Quartermaster MuseumU.S. Geological Survey Library

University of Virginia, Alderman LibraryValentine Richmond History CenterVirginia Commonwealth University LibrariesVirginia Department of Historic Resources,

ArchivesVirginia Historical SocietyVirginia Institute of Marine ScienceVirginia Living MuseumVirginia Museum of Fine ArtsVirginia Museum of Natural HistoryVirginia’s Explore ParkWilliam R. and Norma B. Harvey Library, Hamp-

ton UniversityWilliamsburg Regional Library

WashingtonAberdeen Museum of HistoryAdams County Historical Society MuseumArnold Digital LibraryB Reactor Museum AssociationBellingham Public LibraryBurke Museum of Natural History and CultureCamp 6 Logging MuseumCarpenter House and Cle Elum Telephone MuseumsChastek LibraryChewelah Historical MuseumChimpanzee and Human Communication InstituteColville Confederated Tribe LibraryColville Tribal History Repository, Archives and

MuseumDes Moines Historical SocietyDr. Frank R. Burroughs Home and Depot MuseumsElisabeth C. Miller Horticultural LibraryFranklin County Historical Society and MuseumHerbarium, Biology Department, Western Wash-

ington UniversityJefferson County Rural Library DistrictJohnson FarmKalama Public LibraryKitsap County Historical SocietyLog House MuseumLopez Island Historical MuseumLopez Island LibraryMarian Gould Gallagher Law LibraryMaryhill Museum of ArtMason County Historical Society MuseumMonte Cristo Preservation AssociationMuseum of Anthropology, Washington State

University


Museum of FlightMuseum of History and IndustryMycological Herbarium, Plant Pathology Depart-

ment, Washington State UniversityNational Archives and Records Administration,

Pacific Alaska Region (Seattle)North Clark Historical MuseumOhme GardensOrcas Island Historical MuseumOur Lady of the Rock LibraryPuget Sound Coast Artillery MuseumRhododendron Species Botanical GardenSamish Tribal ArchivesSeattle Art MuseumSeattle Genealogical Society LibrarySeattle Municipal ArchivesSkagit County Historical MuseumSky Valley Historical SocietySno-Isle Genealogical SocietyStillaguamish Tribal LibraryStillaguamish Valley Genealogical SocietyTacoma Public LibraryTumwater Historical AssociationUniversity of Washington Fish CollectionUniversity of Washington LibrariesW.W. Seymour Botanical Conservatory/Wright

Park ArboretumWalla Walla County Rural Library DistrictWashington State ArchivesWashington State Historical SocietyWashington State Jewish Historical SocietyWashington State LibraryWashington State University LibrariesWhatcom Museum of History and ArtWhitman College LibrariesWing Luke Asian MuseumYakima Valley Genealogical Society Library

West VirginiaAvampato Discovery MuseumBrooks Memorial ArboretumCabell County Public LibraryCass Scenic Railroad State ParkCore ArboretumGauley Bridge Historical SocietyGrave Creek Mound Archaeological ComplexHarpers Ferry National Historical ParkHerbarium, Biology Department, West Virginia

University

Keyser-Mineral County Public LibraryLibrary Services, West Virginia Library

Commission Living Heritage MuseumOhio County Public LibraryPocahontas County Free LibraryWest Augusta Historical SocietyWest Virginia Division of Culture and HistoryWest Virginia Mammal SurveyWest Virginia University Libraries

WisconsinAmery Historical SocietyArboretum, University of Wisconsin-MadisonArchives and Area Research Center, University of

Wisconsin-Parkside Arvid E. Miller Memorial Library/ MuseumAshland Historical Society and MuseumAztalan MuseumBarbershop Harmony Society Old Songs LibraryBay Beach Wildlife SanctuaryBeaver Creek ReserveBoerner Botanical GardensBrigham Memorial LibraryBuffalo County Historical SocietyCharles A. Wustum Museum of Fine ArtsCharles Allis/Villa Terrace Art MuseumsChippewa Falls Public LibraryClintonville Area Historical SocietyDane County Legal Research CenterDartford Historical SocietyDeForest Area Historical SocietyDoor County Maritime MuseumEdward U. Demmer Memorial LibraryElvehjem Museum of ArtFox Lake Historical MuseumFrederic Area Historical SocietyFriends of Schumacher Farm, Inc.Geology Museum, Department of Geology and

Geophysics, University of Wisconsin–MadisionGeorge W. Brown Jr. Ojibwe Museum and Cultural

CenterGreenfield Historical SocietyH. H. Bennett Studio and History CenterHelen Louise Allen Textile CollectionHerbarium, Department of Biological Sciences,

University of Wisconsin– MilwaukeeHerbarium, University of Wisconsin– MadisonHistoric Indian Agency House


Hoard Historical MuseumInsect Research Collection, University of

Wisconsin–MadisonIola Village LibraryJohn Michael Kohler Arts CenterJordan Park Nature CenterJump River Valley Historical SocietyLacrosse County Historical SocietyLakeland College LibraryLeo Dehon LibraryLogan Museum of AnthropologyMadison Public LibraryMarathon County Public LibraryMarquette University LibrariesMason Area Historical SocietyMerrill Historical MuseumMilwaukee Art MuseumMilwaukee County Zoological GardensMilwaukee Public LibraryMilwaukee Public MuseumMurphy Library Resource Center, University of

Wisconsin-La CrosseNeenah Historical Society/Smith Octagon HouseNew Holstein Public LibraryOmro Area Historical SocietyOneida Nation MuseumOshkosh Public MuseumOutagamie County Historical SocietyPewaukee Historical SocietyRacine Art MuseumRipon Public LibrarySinsinawa Dominican ArchivesSterling North SocietyUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison General Library

SystemWaupaca Historical SocietyWaupun Public LibraryWest Bend Community Memorial LibraryWisconsin Automotive MuseumWisconsin Historical SocietyWisconsin Maritime MuseumWright Museum of Art

WyomingAmerican Heritage CenterBuffalo Bill Historical CenterCarbon County Library SystemCentral Wyoming College HerbariumChugwater MuseumFort Bridger State Historic SiteGrand Encampment Museum Inc.Homesteaders MuseumMuseum of the Mountain MenNational Museum of Wildlife ArtPark County ArchivesRobert A. Peck Art CenterSaratoga MuseumSweetwater County Library SystemTeton County LibraryUniversity of Wyoming Archaeological RepositoryUniversity of Wyoming Insect MuseumUniversity of Wyoming LibrariesWyoming State ArchivesWyoming State Law LibraryWyoming State LibraryWyoming State MuseumYellowstone National Park Heritage and Research

Center


* In addition, 511 institutions asked to remain anonymous.

Appendix F—Heritage Health Index Survey Instrument, Instructions,and Frequently Asked Questions

The Heritage Health Index Report F1

Heritage PreservationThe National Institute for Conservation

HHIHeritage Health Indexa partnership between Heritage Preservation and the Institute of Museum and Library Services

With support from:Institute of Museum and Library

ServicesGetty Grant ProgramThe Henry Luce FoundationBay FoundationSamuel H. Kress FoundationPeck Stacpoole FoundationGladys Krieble Delmas Foundation

Advisory Committee:American Association for State and

Local HistoryAmerican Association of MuseumsAmerican Institute for the

Conservation of Historic and ArtisticWorks

American Library AssociationAssociation of Art Museum DirectorsAssociation of Moving Image

ArchivistsAssociation of Regional Conservation

CentersAssociation of Research LibrariesCenter for Arts and CultureCouncil on Library and Information

ResourcesNational Association of Government

Archives and Records AdministratorsNational Conference of State Historic

Preservation OfficersNational Preservation InstituteNational Trust for Historic

PreservationNatural Science Collections AllianceRegional Alliance for PreservationRLGSociety for Historical ArchaeologySociety for the Preservation of Natural

History CollectionsSociety of American Archivists

Ex Officio:Library of CongressNational Archives and Records

AdministrationNational Commission on Libraries and

Information ScienceNational Endowment for the ArtsNational Gallery of ArtNational Historical Publications &

Records CommissionSmithsonian Institution

August 16, 2004

Dear Director,

The survey you have just opened represents a historic opportunity for archives, museums,libraries, historical societies, and scientific research organizations in the United States.The Heritage Health Index, sponsored by Heritage Preservation in partnership with theInstitute of Museum and Library Services, is the first attempt to prepare a comprehensivepicture of the condition and preservation needs of this country’s collections.

We strongly encourage you to take the time to complete this survey because:

• The survey results will be used extensively in the years ahead as administrators, policymakers, government agencies, and private funding sources make decisions that affect thepreservation of collections.

• The Heritage Health Index will assess collections in all media, in all formats, in all typesof institutions, and in every state. We need your help to ensure that institutions of yourtype are accurately represented in the final results.

• Institutions that tested the questionnaire found it to be a thorough self-assessment, help-ing them gather information that was useful for long-range planning and fundingrequests.

• In appreciation of your time, probably one to three hours, we will send you a copy ofthe final survey report that will be publicized nationwide.

Please complete the questionnaire by October 12, 2004. We encourage you to submit thequestionnaire online at www.heritagehealthindex.org. Your institution’s password is

Doing the survey online gives you helpful tools andinstant access to some of the preliminary results. If you prefer, you may complete theenclosed form and return it in the postage-paid envelope provided.

Information that will help you complete the questionnaire may be found on the insidecover and enclosed blue sheets. For additional assistance, contact Kristen Laise([email protected], 202-233-0824, or 202-233-0800) or another member ofthe Heritage Health Index staff at 202-233-0800.

We appreciate the gift of your time and information. Thank you for participating in thisimportant project to document the needs and condition of our nation’s cultural and scien-tific heritage.

Sincerely,

Lawrence L. Reger Robert S. Martin, Ph.D.President DirectorHeritage Preservation Institute of Museum and Library Serviceswww.heritagepreservation.org www.imls.gov

Herit ge He lth Index p ge 1 of 14

A. Institutional Identifying Information

A1. Name:

A2. Address 1:

A3. Address 2:

A4. Address 3:

A5. City, State and Zip:

A6. Name of parent institution, if applicable:____________________________________________________

A7. Web site password:

InstructionsSubmitting the Survey

We encourage you to submit your responses online at www.heritagehealthindex.org. If you prefer, you may complete thepaper questionnaire and return it using the enclosed, addressed, stamped envelope. If the envelope is misplaced, please sendyour survey to: RMC Research Corporation, 1000 Market Street, Building 2, Portsmouth, NH 03801, attn: HHI.

ConfidentialityRMC Research Corporation will keep your individual responses, whether submitted online or on paper, completely confi-

dential. Only the aggregate data will be reported; your individual responses will never be published or identified by HeritagePreservation, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), or any organization cooperating in this project.

Why Should You Participate?The data you provide will communicate the scope and nature of the preservation needs of collections nationwide and

will guide the efforts of decision-makers and funders to address those needs. The results of the Heritage Health Index willshow you your preservation needs in the context of those of your peers in a form that can be used as a tool for raising insti-tutional awareness and promoting long-range planning for the care of collections.

Scope of the Questionnaire• Complete the questionnaire for the collecting institution identified above in question A1.• If you are one entity within a parent institution, fill out the survey only for your own holdings, not those of other col-

lecting entities in your parent institution. They may receive their own surveys. For example, a library and a museumbelonging to the same university may each receive separate surveys.

• If you are not under a parent institution, include information on all collections at your institution. For example, a muse-um that has its own library and archives should fill out one survey, including information on all of its museum, library,and archival holdings.

• Complete the questionnaire for collections that are a permanent part of your holdings or for which you have acceptedpreservation responsibility.

• Do not include living collections and historic structures in your responses to this questionnaire, even if they are a part ofyour institution’s preservation responsibilities.

How to Complete the Questionnaire• For questions that ask for a number or dollar amount, please provide your best estimate. Remember, these figures will

constitute a national profile, so even a rough estimate is useful.• For questions about issues such as institutional budget and staffing, you may need to consult your colleagues.• If your responses will not fit in the spaces provided, please write them on the attached blank page.• Do not leave questions blank. If there are questions that you cannot answer, select “Don’t Know.” If there are questions

that are not applicable to your institution, select “Not Applicable.”

More InformationWhen you see the , refer to the enclosed blue sheets, which define terms used throughout the survey and provide

answers to “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs). For questions about the survey, contact Kristen Laise at 202-233-0824,202-233-0800, or [email protected] or another member of the Heritage Health Index staff at 202-233-0800.For technical assistance with online submissions, contact RMC at 800-258-0802 or [email protected].

i

Heritage Health Index—page 2 of 14

= refer to “More Information” on the enclosed blue sheetsi

B. Description of Collecting or Holding InstitutionB1. For purposes of comparing you with your peers, which of the following most closely describes your primary

function or service? (select one)❑ a. Archives

❑ b. Public library

❑ c. Academic library

❑ d. Independent research library

❑ e. Special library

❑ f. Historical society

❑ g. Historic house/site

❑ h. History museum

❑ i. Art museum (including art gallery, art center, or arts organization)

❑ j. Children’s/youth museum

❑ k. Natural history museum

❑ l. Science/technology museum

❑ m. General museum (collection represents 2 or more disciplines)

❑ n. Museum with one narrowly defined discipline, please specify:__________________________________

❑ o. Archaeological repository or research collection

❑ p. Agency or university department with scientific specimen/artifact collections

❑ q. Arboretum or botanical garden

❑ r. Aquarium

❑ s. Nature center

❑ t. Planetarium

❑ u. Zoo

❑ v. Other, please specify one function ___________________________________

B2. Which additional functions or services do you provide? (select all that apply)❑ a. Archives

❑ b. Library

❑ c. Historical society

❑ d. Historic house/site

❑ e. Museum (including art gallery, art center, or arts organization)

❑ f. Archaeological repository or research collection

❑ g. Agency or university department with scientific specimen/artifact collections

❑ h. Aquarium, Zoo, Arboretum, Botanical Garden, Nature Center or Planetarium

❑ i. Other, please specify: _______________________________

❑ j. None

B3. Does your institution have Internet access?❑ a. Yes ❑ b. No



B4. Does your institution have a Web site?❑ a. Yes ❑ b. No

B5. Which of the following most closely describes your institution’s governance? (select one)❑ a. College, university or other academic entity

❑ b. Non-profit, non-governmental organization or foundation

❑ c. Corporate or for-profit organization

❑ d. Federal

❑ e. State

❑ f. Local (county or municipal)

❑ g. Tribal

B6. If you are controlled by a college, university, or other academic entity, which of the following most closelydescribes your governance? (select one)❑ a. Private college or university

❑ b. State college or university

❑ c. County or municipal college or university

❑ d. Other, please specify: _____________________________________________

❑ e. Not applicable (not controlled by an academic entity)

C. Environment

C1. Do you use environmental controls to meet tem-perature specifications for the preservation ofyour collection? (select one)❑ a. Yes, in all areas

❑ b. In some, but not all areas

❑ c. No, in no areas

❑ d. Don’t know

❑ e. Not applicable

C2. Do you use environmental controls to meet rela-tive humidity specifications for the preservation ofyour collection? (select one)❑ a. Yes, in all areas



❑ d. Don’t know


C3. Do you control light levels to meet the specifica-tions for the preservation of your collection?(select one)❑ a. Yes, in all areas



❑ d. Don’t know


C4. What estimated percentage of your collection isstored in areas you consider to be adequate (largeenough to accommodate current collections withsafe access to them and appropriate storage furni-ture, if necessary)? (select one)❑ a. 0 %

❑ b. 1-19%

❑ c. 20-39%

❑ d. 40-59%

❑ e. 60-79%

❑ f. 80-99%

❑ g. 100%

❑ h. Don’t know

i

C5. For the storage areas that are not adequate, indicate the degree of improvement needed in each of the follow-ing four categories. If all of your storage areas are adequate, select “no need.”

No need Need Urgent need Don’t know Not applicable

a. Additional on-site storage ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

b. New or additional off-site storage ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

c. Renovated storage space ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

(either on-site or off- site)

d. New or improved storage furniture/ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

accessories (e.g., shelves, cabinets, racks)

D. Preservation Activities



i

D1. Does the mission of your institution includepreservation of your collection? (select one) ❑ a. Yes

❑ b. No

❑ c. Don’t know

D2. Does your institution have a written, long-rangepreservation plan for the care of the collection (adocument that describes a multi-year course ofaction to meet an institution’s overall preservationneeds for its collection)? (select one)❑ a. Yes

❑ b. Yes, but it is not up-to-date❑ c. No, but one is being developed❑ d. No, but preservation is addressed in overall

long-range plan❑ e. No❑ f. Don’t know

D3. Has a survey of the general condition of your col-lection been done (an assessment based on visualinspection of the collection and the areas where itis exhibited or held)? (select one)❑ a. Yes

❑ b. Yes, but only of a portion of the collection

❑ c. Yes, but it is not up-to-date

❑ d. Yes, but only of a portion of the collection,

and it is not up-to-date

❑ e. No

❑ f. Don’t know

D4. Does your institution have a writtenemergency/disaster plan that includes the collec-tion? (select one)❑ a. Yes

❑ b. Yes, but it is not up-to-date

❑ c. No, but one is being developed

❑ d. No

❑ e. Don’t know

D5. If you have a written emergency/disaster plan, isyour staff trained to carry it out? (select one)❑ a. Yes

❑ b. No

❑ c. Don’t know

❑ d. Have no written emergency/disaster plan

D6. Are copies of vital collection records (e.g., invento-ry, catalog, insurance policies) stored offsite? (selectone)❑ a. Yes

❑ b. Some, but not all

❑ c. No

❑ d. Do not have copies

❑ e. Don’t know

❑ f. Do not have collection records

D7. Do you have adequate security systems (e.g., secu-rity guard, staff observation, intrusion detection) tohelp prevent theft or vandalism of collections?(select one)❑ a. Yes


❑ c. No

❑ d. Don’t know



D8. Which of the following most closely describes your current staffing for conservation/preservation? (select all that apply)❑ a. Paid conservation/preservation staff (full-time or part-time)

❑ b. Volunteers (full-time or part-time)

❑ c. Conservation/preservation duties assigned to various staff as needed

❑ d. Conservation/preservation services obtained through external provider

❑ e. No staff person has conservation/preservation responsibilities

D9. Indicate the internal staff who perform conservation/preservation activities. Please select an estimate from theranges provided. If the number of FTE falls between possible responses, round to the nearest whole number.

• Include all workers who perform conservation/preservation activities whether full-time, part-time, seasonal,work study, interns, etc.

• Express the total amount of staff time spent on conservation/preservation in full-time equivalents (FTEs)(e.g., two part-time staff who each work 20 hours a week on conservation/preservation activities would be count-ed as 1 full-time equivalent staff person).

D10. What does your conservation/preservation program include? (select all that apply) Done by Done by Not done

institution external currently, Not Not staff provider but planned done applicable

a. Preventive conservation(e.g., housekeeping, holdings maintenance, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑rehousing, environmental monitoring)

b. Preservation management❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

(e.g., administration, planning, assessment)

c. Conservation treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

(e.g., repair, mass deacidification, specimen preparation)

d. Preservation reformatting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

(e.g., preservation photocopying, microfilming)

e. Preservation of audio-visual media and playback equipment ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑(e.g., preservation copies of media, maintaining equipment)

f. Preservation of digital materials and electronic records collections ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑(e.g., migrating data to current software)

i

Professional conservation/ preser-vation staff (e.g., preservationadministrators, conservators,research scientists)

❑ a. 0 FTE

❑ b. up to 1 FTE

❑ c. 2-5 FTE

❑ d. 6-10 FTE

❑ e. 11-20 FTE

❑ f. More than 20 FTE

❑ g. Don’t know

Support conservation/preservationstaff (e.g., collections care assistants,technical assistants, handlers)

❑ a. 0 FTE

❑ b. up to 1 FTE

❑ c. 2-5 FTE

❑ d. 6-10 FTE

❑ e. 11-20 FTE


❑ g. Don’t know

Volunteers (e.g., unpaid conserva-tion/preservation workers, unpaidinterns)

❑ a. 0 FTE

❑ b. up to 1 FTE

❑ c. 2-5 FTE

❑ d. 6-10 FTE

❑ e. 11-20 FTE


❑ g. Don’t know

i



D11. Does your institution’s conservation/preservation mission or program include the responsibility to pre-serve digital collections (computer based representation of text, numbers, images, and/or sound, e.g., opticaldiscs, Web sites, electronic books)? (select one)❑ a. Yes

❑ b. No

❑ c. Don’t know

❑ d. Not applicable

D12. Please indicate your institution’s level of need in the following areas related to conservation/preservation.No Urgent Don’t Not

Need Need Need know applicable

a. Finding aids or cataloging of collections ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

b. Condition surveys or assessments of collection ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

c. Staff training ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

d. Security ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

e. Environmental controls ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

(e.g., heating, air conditioning, de-humidifying, humidifying)

f. Improvements to reduce collections’ exposure to light ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

g. Conservation treatment (include specimen preparation) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

h. Preservation of digital collections (digitized and born-digital) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

i. Integrated pest management (approaches to prevent and solve pest problems ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑in an efficient and ecologically sound manner)

D13. For all your collections that are currently in need of treatment identify all the causes of the damage or lossof access to them.

No damage Some damage Significant Don’tor loss or loss damage or loss know

a. Handling (e.g., by researchers, staff, in shipping) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

b. Water or moisture (e.g., mold, stains, warping) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

c. Light (e.g. fading, discoloration) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

d. Airborne particulates or pollutants (e.g., dust, soot) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

e. Fire ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

f. Improper storage or enclosure ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

(e.g., bent, creased, adhered together)

g. Pests ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

h. Vandalism ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

i. Physical or chemical deterioration (due to temperature, humidity, aging, e.g., brittle paper, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑flaked paint, cracked leather, degradation of electronic media)

j. Obsolescence of playback equipment, hardware,❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

or software

k. Prior treatment(s) or restoration ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

i

i



D14. Do you promote awareness of conservation/preservation activities using the following?Not done currently, Don’t Not

Yes No but planned know applicable

a. Educating donors and/or trustees about preservation activities ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

(e.g., in tours, demonstrations)

b. Presenting preservation activities to members’ or friends’ groups❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

(e.g., in educational programming, printed/promotional materials)

c. Highlighting preservation activities in exhibitions ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

or other programs for the public

d. Serving as a source for conservation/preservation information ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

to the public (e.g., responding to queries)

e. Using conservation/preservation as part of a strategy for earned income (e.g., selling archivally safe materials in shop, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑providing conservation on a fee-for-service basis)

f. Featuring preservation work on Web site ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

E. Expenditures and Funding

E1. Do you have funds specifically allocated for conservation/preservation activities in your annual budget?(select one)❑ a. Yes

❑ b. No specific line-item in budget, but other budgeted funds are available

❑ c. No

❑ d. Don’t know

E2. What was the total annual operating budget of the entity indicated on page 1, question A1 for the mostrecently completed fiscal year? If exact amount is unknown, please provide an estimate.

Most recently completed fiscal year (select one) Total annual operating budget

❑ a. FY 2002 ❑ b. FY 2003 ❑ c. FY 2004 $ _______________________

E3. For the most recently completed fiscal year, what was your institution’s annual budget forconservation/preservation? (round off or provide an estimate)

• If you have no specific line-item in the budget, but use other budgeted funds for conservation/preservation,estimate the amount of budgeted funds used for conservation/preservation.

• Include: budgeted funds for staff (for those staff documented on page 4, question D9), supplies and equip-ment, surveys, treatment, preservation reformatting, commercial binding, consultants or contractors, andother preservation costs related to your collection(s). Include grants and any other temporary funding.

• Do not include: budgeted funds for utilities, security, capital projects or overhead.

Most recently completed fiscal year (select one) Annual budget for conservation/preservation

❑ a. FY 2002 ❑ b. FY 2003 ❑ c. FY 2004 $ _______________________

E4. In the last three years, have any of your conservation and preservation expenditures been met by drawing onincome from endowed funds? (select one)❑ a. Yes

❑ b. No

❑ c. Don’t know

i

i

i



F. Collections and Holdings

E5. From which of the following external sources haveyou received funding that you have used to supportconservation or preservation activities during thelast 3 years (whether you applied for it or not)?(select all that apply)❑ a. Federal

❑ b. State

❑ c. Municipal

❑ d. Corporation or company

❑ e. Foundation

❑ f. Individual donor or private philanthropist

❑ g. Other external source, please specify: ________

__________________________________________

❑ h. Have received no funding from external sources

❑ i. Don’t know

E6. Has your institution made an application, whethersuccessful or unsuccessful, for conservation/preserva-tion funding from any public or private source in thelast 3 years? (select one)❑ a. Yes

❑ b. No

❑ c. Don’t know

E7. If your institution did not make a grant applicationfor conservation/preservation funding from any pub-lic or private source in the last 3 years, which of thefollowing factors influenced the decision not toapply? (select all that apply)❑ a. Not aware of appropriate funding sources

❑ b. Lack of staff time or expertise to complete application

❑ c. Additional project planning or preparation necessary before requesting grant funds

❑ d. Conservation/preservation not an institutional priority

❑ e. Currently have sufficient sources of funding

❑ f. Have applied for grant(s) from external sources in the past but have been unsuccessful

❑ g. Other, please specify: _____________________

__________________________________________

❑ h. Not applicable

❑ i. Don’t know

F1. What estimated percentage of the collection is acces-sible through a catalog (research tool or finding aidthat provides intellectual control over collectionthrough entries that may contain descriptive detail,including physical description, provenance, history,accession information, etc.)? (select one)❑ a. 0 %

❑ b. 1-19%

❑ c. 20-39%

❑ d. 40-59%

❑ e. 60-79%

❑ f. 80-99%

❑ g. 100%

❑ h. Don’t know

F2. What estimated percentage of the collection’s catalogis accessible online (whether for institutional use, ormade accessible to the public through your institutionor a service provider)?❑ a. 0 %

❑ b. 1-19%

❑ c. 20-39%

❑ d. 40-59%

❑ e. 60-79%

❑ f. 80-99%

❑ g. 100%

❑ h. Don’t know

F3. Do you provide online access to the content of anyof your collections or holdings (e.g., online exhibi-tions, interactive resources, digital art, digitally scannedphotographs, documents, books, and other artifacts)? ❑ Yes

❑ No, but will have access within the next year

❑ No

❑ Don’t know



F4. Does your institution hold collections of the following types? Yes No

a. Books and Bound Volumes—monographs, serials, newspapers, scrapbooks, albums, pamphlets ❑ ❑

b. Unbound Sheets—archival records, manuscripts, maps, oversized items, ❑ ❑ephemera, broadsides, philatelic and numismatic artifacts, other paper artifacts

c. Photographic Collections—microfilm, microfiche, photographic prints, negatives, slides, ❑ ❑transparencies, daguerrotypes, ambrotypes, tintypes, glass plate negatives, lantern slides

d. Moving Image Collections—motion picture film, video tape, laser disc, CD, DVD, minidisc ❑ ❑

e. Recorded Sound Collections—cylinder, phonodisc, cassette, open reel tape, DAT, CD, ❑ ❑DVD, MP3

f. Digital Material Collections—floppy discs, CD-R, DVD-R, data tape, online collections ❑ ❑

g. Art Objects—paintings, prints, drawings, sculpture, ❑ ❑decorative arts (e.g., fine metalwork, jewelry, timepieces, enamels, ivories, lacquer)

h. Historic and Ethnographic Objects—textiles (including flags, rugs, costumes and accessories), ❑ ❑ceramics, glass (including stained glass), ethnographic artifacts (e.g., leather, skin, baskets, bark),metalwork (e.g., arms and armor, medals, coins), furniture, domestic artifacts (including frames,household tools/machines, dolls/toys, musical instruments), technological and agricultural artifacts,medical and scientific artifacts, transportation vehicles

i. Archaeological Collections ❑ ❑

j. Natural Science Specimens—zoological, botanical, geological, paleontological, ❑ ❑paleobotany specimens

F5. In the following chart, please indicate the estimated number for each type of collection you hold.• Include only collections that are a permanent part of your holdings or for which you have accepted preservation

responsibility.• Estimate your total holdings in each category. For types of collections not listed, record under the appropriate

“other” category. If possible, please specify what you have included.• Do not leave any category blank; where applicable, check “have no holdings” or “quantity unknown.”• For each collection, note the estimated percentage that is in need of preservation. It is not necessary for your

institution to have done a condition survey on all or part of your collections to provide this estimate. If you do notknow the condition of your materials and cannot even provide an estimate, enter 100% in “unknown condition.”

• On each line, the percentages indicating condition should total 100%.

Books and Bound Volumes Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % in(record in volumes) holdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Books/monographs ❑ ❑ % % % %

Serials/newspapers (on paper) ❑ ❑ % % % %

Scrapbooks, albums, pamphlets ❑ ❑ % % % %

Other books and bound volumes ❑ ❑ % % % %

(please specify)

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

i



Unbound Sheets Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % inholdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Archival records/manuscripts ❑ ft ❑ % % % %

(record in linear/ cubic feet)Maps and oversized items

❑ ft ❑ % % % %(record in linear/ cubic feet)

Ephemera and broadsides ❑ ❑ % % % %

(record in items)

Philatelic and numismatic artifacts ❑ ❑ % % % %

(record in items)

Other paper artifacts (please specify) ❑ ❑ % % % %

____________________________

____________________________

____________________________

Photographic Collections Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % in(record in items) holdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Microfilm and Microfiche ❑ ❑ % % % %

(record number of units)

Black and white prints, all processes❑ ❑ % % % %

(e.g., albumen, collodion, silver gelatin)

Black and white film negatives, pre-1950 ❑ ❑ % % % %

(e.g., cellulose nitrate, cellulose acetate)

Black and white film negatives, post-1950❑ ❑ % % % %

(e.g., cellulose acetate, polyester)

Color prints, negatives, and positives❑ ❑ % % % %

(including slides and transparencies)

Cased objects ❑ ❑ % % % %

(e.g., daguerreotype, ambrotype, tintype)

Glass plate negatives and lantern slides ❑ ❑ % % % %

Other photographic collections (e.g.,digital and inkjet prints) (please specify) ❑ ❑ % % % %

____________________________

____________________________

____________________________



Moving Image Collections Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % in(record in items, e.g., reel, can, cassette) holdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Motion picture film ❑ ❑ % % % %

(record in items, e.g., reels, cans)

Magnetic tape ❑ ❑ % % % %

(e.g., Beta video, VHS video, digital)

Disc (e.g., laser, CD, DVD, minidisc) ❑ ❑ % % % %

Other moving image collections ❑ ❑ % % % %

(please specify)

____________________________

____________________________

____________________________

Recorded Sound Collections Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % in(record in items, e.g., reel, cassette, disc) holdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Grooved media (e.g., cylinder, phonodisc) ❑ ❑ % % % %

Magnetic media ❑ ❑ % % % %

(e.g., cassette, open reel tape, DAT)

Optical media (e.g., CD, DVD) ❑ ❑ % % % %

Digital media (e.g., MP3s) ❑ ❑ % % % %

Other recorded sound collections ❑ ❑ % % % %

(e.g., wire, dictabelts) (please specify)

__________________________

__________________________

____________________________

Digital Material Collections(record in items, do not include Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % inmoving images or recorded sound) holdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Floppy discs ❑ ❑ % % % %

Other discs ❑ ❑ % % % %

CD-R/DVD-R ❑ ❑ % % % %

Data tape (record in cassettes or reels) ❑ ❑ % % % %

Online collection❑ ❑ % % % %

(record in number of files)

Other digital collections (please specify) ❑ ❑ % % % %

____________________________

____________________________

____________________________



Art Objects Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % in(record in items) holdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Painting (e.g., on canvas, panel, plaster)❑ ❑ % % % %

Art on paper ❑ ❑ % % % %

(e.g., prints, drawings, watercolors)

Sculpture (include carvings, indoor and ❑ ❑ % % % %

outdoor sculpture in all media)

Decorative arts (e.g., fine metalwork,❑ ❑ % % % %

jewelry, timepieces, enamels, ivories, lacquer)

Other art objects (please specify)❑ ❑ % % % %

____________________________

____________________________

____________________________

Historic and Ethnographic Objects Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % in(record in items) holdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Textiles (include flags,❑ ❑ % % % %

rugs, costumes and accessories)

Ceramics and glass artifacts ❑ ❑ % % % %

(include stained glass)

Ethnographic and organic collections ❑ ❑ % % % %

(e.g., leather, skin, baskets, bark)

Metalwork ❑ ❑ % % % %

(e.g., arms and armor, medals, coins)

Furniture ❑ ❑ % % % %

Domestic artifacts (include frames,❑ ❑ % % % %

household tools/machines, dolls/toys,musical instruments)

Science, technology, agricultural,medical artifacts

❑ ❑ % % % %(include transportation vehicles)

Other historic and ethnographic objects❑ ❑ % % % %

(please specify)

____________________________

____________________________

____________________________



Archaeological Collections,Individually Cataloged Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % in(record in items) holdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Individually cataloged organic based material ❑ ❑ % % % %(e.g., textile, fiber, wood, bone, shell, feather)

Individually cataloged inorganic based material ❑ ❑ % % % %(e.g., ceramic, glass, metal, plastics)

Archaeological Collections, Bulk Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % in(record in cubic feet) holdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Bulk organic material (e.g., textile, fiber, wood, bone, shell, ❑ ft3 ❑ % % % %feather) (record in cubic feet)

Bulk inorganic material(e.g., ceramic, glass, metal, plastics) ❑ ft3 ❑ % % % %(record in cubic feet)

Natural Science Specimens Have no Approx. Quantity % in unknown % in % in % in(record in items) holdings # of units unknown condition no need need urgent need

Zoological specimens: dry,❑ ❑ % % % %

glass slide, and frozen

Zoological specimens: wet preparations ❑ ❑ % % % %

Botanical specimens: dry, glass slide, frozen,culture, and modern palynology materials ❑ ❑ % % % %

Botanical specimens: wet preparations ❑ ❑ % % % %Geological specimens

❑ ❑ % % % %(e.g., rocks, gems, minerals, and meteorites)

Vertebrate paleontological specimens ❑ ❑ % % % %

Invertebrate paleontological specimens(include appropriate microfossils ❑ ❑ % % % %and nannofossils)

Paleobotany specimens(include appropriate microfossils,

❑ ❑ % % % %nannofossils, and fossil palynology materials)Other natural science specimens

❑ ❑ % % % %(please specify)

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________



G. Respondent Information

G1. How many staff are currently employed in your collecting institution (as identified on page 1, question A1)?Do not express in full-time equivalents (FTEs). Indicate “0” if you have no staff in a category.

Number of staff Don’t know

a. Full-time paid staff _____________ ❑

b. Part-time paid staff _____________ ❑

c. Full-time unpaid staff _____________ ❑

d. Part-time unpaid staff _____________ ❑

G2. How many visitors or users did you serve last year? Indicate “0” if you had no visitors or users in a category.Number of visitors or users Don’t know

a. On site _________________ ❑

b. Off site (e.g., traveling exhibitions, _________________ ❑bookmobiles, educational programs)

c. Electronic (e.g., visits to Web site, electronic _________________ ❑distribution lists, electronic discussion groups)

To be completed by lead person completing or coordinating the survey.

This information will be used only if RMC Research Corporation needs to clarify a response. RMC ResearchCorporation will keep this information, like all the information you provided in this survey, completely confiden-tial. Only aggregate data will be reported. Your individual responses will never be published or identified byHeritage Preservation, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, or any other organization cooperating inthis project.G3. Name of lead person completing or coordinating survey (will remain confidential)____________________________________________________

G4. Title ___________________________________________________________________________________

G5. Responsibility for preservation activities _______________________________________________________

G6. Phone number _____________________________ G7. Fax number _______________________________

G8. Email address ____________________________________________________________________________

G9. Did more than one person complete this survey?❑ a. Yes ❑ b. No

G10. May we have permission to include the name of your institution on a published list of survey participants?Your survey responses will not be linked to your name; results will be reported only in aggregate.❑ a. Yes ❑ b. No

G11. (optional) Use the space below to explain your most pressing conservation/preservation need.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________THANK YOU!

i

ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR RESPONSES (IF NEEDED):

©2004 Heritage Preservation, Inc. All rights reserved.

About Heritage Preservation—Heritage Preservation is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving ournation's heritage. Its members include libraries, museums, archives, historic preservation organizations, historicalsocieties, conservation organizations, and other professional groups concerned with saving the past for thefuture. For information on the Heritage Health Index, contact Kristen Overbeck Laise, Heritage Preservation,1012 14th Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, 202-233-0800, [email protected], orwww.heritagepreservation.org.

About the Institute of Museum and Library Services—IMLS is an independent Federal agency that fostersleadership, innovation, and a lifetime of learning by supporting the nation's museums and libraries. Created bythe Museum and Library Services Act of 1996, P.L. 104-208, IMLS administers the Library Services andTechnology Act and the Museum Services Act. The Institute receives policy advice from the Presidentiallyappointed, Senate confirmed National Museum and Library Services Board. Over the last two decades, IMLS hasmade more than 5,200 grants for conservation through their Conservation Project Support grant andConservation Assessment Program. For more information, including grant applications, contact IMLS at 1100Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506, 202-606-8536, or www.imls.gov.

Heritage Preservation receives funding from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinionscontained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior.

Printed in the United States of America.

More Information

DefinitionsAs you complete the survey, you may wish to refer to the definitions and comments below for further clarifica-

tion of certain questions and terminology.Throughout the survey, we have used the following definitions for conservation and preservation:Conservation: The treatment of materials, aided by examination and research, and the study of the environ-ments in which they are placed.Preservation: The protection of materials through activities that minimize chemical and physical deteriorationand damage and/or that prevent loss of informational content.

Question C5: Storage Needs (page 4)Need: Improvement required to reduce risk of damage or deterioration to collections.Urgent Need: Major improvement required to prevent damage or deterioration to collections.

Question D10: What Your Conservation/Preservation Program Includes (page 5)Institution staff: Workers at the entity indicated on page 1, question A1. Include temporary, hourly, and vol-unteer workers but do not include hired consultants.External providers: Workers, including volunteers, from outside the entity indicated on page 1, question A1,or its parent institution(s) that provide conservation/preservation services, such as consultants and workers atanother institution or firm.

Question D12: Conservation/Preservation Needs (page 6)Need: Improvement required to reduce risk of damage or deterioration to collections.Urgent Need: Major improvement required to prevent damage or deterioration to collections.

Question D13: Collections in Need of Treatment (page 6)Some damage or loss: Change(s) in an item’s physical or chemical state requiring minor treatment.Significant damage or loss: Change(s) in an item’s physical or chemical state necessitating major treatment orreformatting or resulting in total loss of access.

Question F5: Estimated Quantity and Condition of Holdings (page 9)• Enter the number or an estimate of items in each category, unless another unit of measurement is noted.• For object and scientific collections, documentary evidence should be recorded in appropriate categories (e.g.,

photographs, archival records, recorded sound tapes).• Use the following definitions:

No need: Material is stable enough for use and is housed in a stable environment that protects it from long-term damage and deterioration.Need: Material may need minor treatment to make it stable enough for use, and/or the collection needs to be rehoused into a more stable enclosure or environment to reduce risk of damage or deterioration.Urgent Need: Material needs major treatment or reformatting to make it stable enough for use, and/or the material is located in an enclosure or environment that is causing damage or deterioration. For machine-readable collections, deterioration of media and/or obsolescence of play-back equipment or hardware/software threatens loss of content.Unknown: Material has not been recently accessed by staff for visual inspection and/or condition is unknown.

Frequently Asked Questions

What do you mean by “collections for which you accept preservation responsibility”? Not all collections that are important to your institution are meant to be preserved. Some are meant to be

used by visitors or patrons and are disposed of or replaced if they are lost or damaged. Others are not acces-sioned into the collection because they fall outside the institution’s mission or could be replaced if necessary.Some examples of collections for which you do not accept preservation responsibility might be:

iHHIHeritage Health Indexa partnership between Heritage Preservation and the Institute of Museum and Library Services

• current books, magazines, video tapes, sound recordings of which multiple copies exist at the institutionand/or could be replaced if lost or damaged and/or are deemed expendable

• reference books or materials that aid in staff research but are not part of the accessioned collections• teaching aids or collections (e.g., commonly found specimens, hands-on exhibits at a youth museum)• replicas of historic objects.

Our collecting institution has very few collection items that we take a preservation responsibili-ty for; should we still complete the questionnaire?

Yes, please complete the questionnaire. We expect that some institutions take preservation responsibility foronly a few items. It is important that such institutions are represented in the Heritage Health Index data. If yourinstitution has no collections for which you take preservation responsibility, please return the survey with thisnoted.

Our collecting institution has various types of collections; should we complete the HeritageHealth Index for all of them?

Yes, but some exceptions and clarifications apply, such as:

• If you are a botanical garden, arboretum, zoo, aquarium, or nature center that has living collections, completethe questionnaire only for your nonliving collections.

• If your institution has historic buildings, complete the questionnaire only for your collections, not your his-toric buildings (even if those buildings are a part of your institution’s preservation responsibility or are acces-sioned as collections).

• If you are a public library system with branches, you should include collections held at branches for whichyour system accepts preservation responsibility.

• If you are a library with an archives, history room, or other collections, include all collections for which youaccept preservation responsibility.

• If you are a museum or historical society that has an archives or library as part of your institution, include thearchival and/or library materials for which you accept preservation responsibility.

Our collecting institution is part of a university; should we include other campus collections inthe survey?

Every college or university is organized differently, but Heritage Preservation has attempted to identify the sep-arate entities on campus that should receive the Heritage Health Index. If the entity identified on page 1, ques-tion A1, of the questionnaire is distinct from other university collections, complete the questionnaire for all col-lections that are held by this entity. It is possible that other university collections will receive their own survey.

Some specific examples:• If the entity identified on page 1, question A1, is “University Natural History Museum,” that entity should

complete the survey for all collections under its care, including its library and archival collections. Do notinclude collections not under your care that are instead held by other museums, libraries, or archives withinthe university.

• If the entity identified on page 1, question A1, is “University Main Library,” and this library is only one entityin a system of university libraries, which has centralized many library functions, such as cataloging, gatheringstatistics, and preservation activities, then the survey should be completed for all the libraries and archives inthe university library system. Do not include any departments or schools that are not included in centraloperations of this library system.

• If the entity identified on page 1, question A1, is a scientific research collection that is operated by a specificdepartment, complete the questionnaire just for this collection. Other research collections on campus mayreceive their own survey.

The environmental and storage conditions in our collecting institution vary greatly from build-ing to building, or even room to room. How should we handle questions that ask for oneresponse covering several different sets of conditions?• On page 3, questions C1 through C3 address three components of environmental controls, and it might be

most appropriate for your institution to select “in some, but not all areas.”

• On page 3, question C4, you can identify how much storage at your institution is adequate.• On page 4, question C5, you should average the amount of need your institution has in the various areas. If

you have a small collection that is in “urgent need” of new or improved storage furniture/accessories, but mostof the collection has lower level “need” for storage furniture/accessories, it may be most accurate to choose“need” as an institutional average. Use your best judgment.

In a few months our collecting institution will begin to address some of the preservation issuesbrought up in the Heritage Health Index. Should we report what we are currently doing orwhat we plan to do?

Heritage Preservation understands that preservation is an ongoing process. The Heritage Health Index isplanned to be repeated every four years, so that we will be able to track national progress in addressing preserva-tion needs.

Some questions allow you to indicate that certain activities are being planned (page 5, question D10, and page7, question D14).

All other questions should be answered for the current situation and condition of your collections unless thework is already in progress. For example, you should report on preservation staff that are currently working,not staff you plan to hire or who no longer work with you. Estimates for the need to do preservation activitiesshould reflect your current conditions, unless one of those needs is currently being addressed. For example, onpage 6, question D12, row “e,” if your institution is currently undergoing a renovation to install new environmen-tal controls, it may be most accurate to select “no need.” The estimate of condition should, again, reflect the cur-rent state of your collections unless improvement is in progress (e.g., black and white photographs currentlybeing rehoused in appropriate sleeves and boxes).

We often hire paid, part-time student workers to assist with simple preservation tasks; howev-er, they are only temporary workers. Should we include them in our preservation staff?

Yes. Temporary workers should be included in your response on page 5, question D9. In the case of studentworkers, they would likely be considered “support conservation/preservation staff.” For example, if you currentlyhave two paid student workers who each work 10 hours a week for 6 months, then the full-time equivalent ofyour support conservation/preservation staff is .25 (2 workers x 10 hours=20 hours or .5 FTE) (.5 FTE x .5year=.25 FTE). Remember that estimates are acceptable. Note that 1 FTE = a year-round worker who works anaverage of 40 hours per week.

If your number of FTE falls between possible responses (e.g., between 1 and 2 FTE or between 5 and 6 FTE),round to the nearest whole number.

Our institution is open April to October only, and we have trained some volunteers to do rou-tine housekeeping. Are they preservation staff?

Yes. Any volunteers who assist with the care of collections should be counted on page 5, question D9. Forinstance, if two volunteers each work 5 hours a week for 6 months, then the full-time equivalent would beapproximately .13 (2 workers x 5 hours = 10 hours or .25 FTE) (.25 FTE x .5 year = .13 FTE).

Should we report on the operating budget of our entire institution? You should report on the total annual operating budget for the entity identified on page 1, question A1. You

should not provide the operating budget for a parent institution, if your institution has one. For example, if theentity identified on page 1, question A1 is “University Natural History Museum,” just the total annual operatingbudget for the museum should be reported—not the entire university’s budget. If you have corrected the entityon page 1, question A1, please report on the entity you identified.

Our institution doesn’t have a line item for preservation and conservation, but we do use bud-geted funds for staff and supplies. Last year we also received some grant funding for a preser-vation and conservation project. How should we complete question E3 on page 7?

Whether or not your institution has a specific budget line-item for preservation and conservation, you shouldcomplete question E3 on page 7. Again, estimates are acceptable. To calculate staff costs, use the figures for

preservation/conservation staff that you indicated on page 5, question D9. Include any portion of your institu-tion’s supply or equipment budget that was used to purchase items relating to preservation and conservation.Include any expenditures made for preservation and conservation activities, whether done internally or by anexternal provider. You should include any grant funds or other temporary funding used for preservation andconservation. Do not include utilities, security, capital expenditures, or overhead in your response to questionE3.

Our institution has undertaken a major conservation treatment project this year, and our con-servation/preservation budget and staffing levels are higher than usual. Should we record thisfigure even if it is not typical?

The Heritage Health Index is meant to be a snapshot of current activities, and we expect to capture dips andpeaks in staffing and funding levels. While your institution’s project may not be typical, it will give us importantinformation about the level of preservation activity nationally. However, note the instructions on page 7, ques-tion E3, about what should and should not be included in the preservation budget (e.g., capital expenditures notincluded).

Some of the categories on pages 9-13, question F5, do not match the categories our institutionuses in cataloging. How should we answer the question?

Every institution organizes its collection in a way that is meaningful to them. Therefore, the categories listedon pages 9-13, question F5, may not exactly match the system you use. If you have collections that do not fit inthe specified categories, please record them in the appropriate “other” category and briefly indicate the type ofcollection they are.

We have not cataloged some of our collections. How should we go about determining theapproximate number of units for question F5 on pages 9-13?

An estimate is fine. The number is important so that Heritage Preservation can determine the scope ofnational preservation needs. Even figures such as “10, 100, 1,000, 5,000” are useful for the purposes of this ques-tionnaire. If it is not possible to provide an estimate, check “quantity unknown.” Make sure to check “have noholdings” if your institution has no collections in that category.

Our institution has object collections organized by subject matter and archives identified bysubject or person. Within these collections there are many media and formats, including manu-scripts, photographs, ephemera, and art on paper, but we don’t know the exact quantity andcondition of these items. How should these collections be recorded in question F5 on pages 9-13?

Archival records and manuscripts should be recorded in linear feet in the “Unbound Sheets” section on page10. If it is feasible to quantify or estimate other specific formats (e.g., photographs, domestic artifacts) by num-ber of items, please record them in the relevant category and exclude them from the estimate of linear footage. Ifyour thematic collections contain various media, provide estimates and record them in the appropriate cate-gories.

We have never done a condition assessment of our collections. How can we determine the per-centages of materials in need of preservation?

Even if you have not undertaken a condition assessment of all or part of your collections, provide your bestestimate of the need of collections in each category, based on your working knowledge of the materials in yourcare. Make sure that the percentages indicating condition in each line add up to 100%. If it is not possible toprovide an estimate of need for all or part of the collection, indicate that percentage in the “unknown condition”column.

Our digital collections include back-up copies and online journal subscriptions. How shouldthese be counted in question F5 “Digital Material Collections” on page 11?

Again, you should include all collections for which you accept preservation responsibility. This would includeservice or back-up copies, since they would need to be maintained (e.g., through migration to another format).

However, you should not include digital materials that your institution makes available through a subscriptionservice, such as electronic journals or databases, unless you or your parent institution maintains master digitalfiles for these resources. In the case of most online or database subscriptions, the service provider would have theresponsibility for preserving those materials, not your institution.

For example, if your institution owns original survey maps, purchased CD-ROMs with digital copies of thesemaps from a vendor, integrated those scanned maps into your online catalog, and subscribes to a database of sur-vey maps from around the country, you would want to complete question F5 to record the original number ofmaps, number of CDs, and number of online files. You would not record the database subscription.

Our digital collections include digital images of some photographs that are in our collection.How should these be counted in question F5 “Digital Material Collections” on page 11?

You should consider whether these digital copies are a permanent part of your collection for which you takepreservation responsibility. If they are, record the media on which they are stored in the “Digital MaterialsCollections” section of question F5 on page 11.

The original photographs should also be recorded under “Photographic Collections” in question F5 on page10.

We are a large museum that has many millions of visitors per year. We also have a library andan archives. Question G2a on page 14 asks for onsite visitors; should we include only thoseresearchers and users who access the collections for research purposes?

The response to question G2a should include all visitors/users who come to the institution identified in ques-tion A1. In your case, record all museum visitors including researchers who use the museum’s library andarchives.

There are several questions we cannot answer. Do you still want us to respond to the survey?Heritage Preservation hopes that you will be able to provide responses to each question. In many cases, we

have given you the option of selecting “don’t know” or “unknown.” Please complete the survey to the best ofyour ability and return it as directed, even if there are questions you cannot answer.

I have additional questions. Who can help me? You may contact Kristen Laise at 202-233-0824, 202-233-0800, or [email protected] or another

member of the Heritage Health Index staff at 202-233-0800.

Submit Your Heritage Health Index QuestionnaireOnline at www.heritagehealthindex.org

Advantages of the online survey:

Ability to save your responses so that you may com-plete the questionnaire in multiple sessions

Reminders of which sectionsare completed and which ones arein progress

Helpful tools, such as a calculator thatcomputes your full-time equivalent(FTE) staff

Access to a running tally of somepreliminary results and returns by state and type of insti-tution

Convenient way to have staff members contribute to data gathering

Printable version of the completed questionnaire for your records

One-click access to definitions and Frequently Asked Questions

Instant and confidential data submission

Technical questions? Contact RMC at 800-258-0802 or [email protected].

Questions about the survey? Contact Kristen Laise at 202-233-0824, 202-233-0800,or [email protected] or another member of the Heritage Health

Index staff at 202-233-0800.

Find your unique password on page 1 of the survey booklet.

Appendix G—Selected Bibliography of Sources Consulted in Planningthe Heritage Health Index

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Caring for the Past, Managing for the Future: Federal Stew-

ardship and America’s Historic Legacy, 2001.

Alaska State Library, Library Services and Technology Act; Alaska State Plan 2003-2007, 2003.

Alaska State Museum, Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, Division of Libraries,Archives, and Museums, Alaska Museum Survey 2000, 2002.

Alberta Museums Association, Standard Practices Handbook for Museums, 1990.

———, Standard Practices Handbook for Museums Self-Evaluation Checklists, 1991.

American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Foundation Funding for the Humanities: An Overview of Cur-

rent and Historical Trends, 2004.

———, Academy Report Finds Empirical Information About Humanities Lacking, 2002.

———, Making the Humanities Count, 2002.

American Association of Law Libraries, Survey of Preservation Efforts in Law Libraries, 2002.

American Association of Museums, Caring for Collections: Strategies for Conservation, Maintenance,

and Documentation, 1984.

———, Data Report from the 1989 National Museum Survey, 1992.

———, Museums Count: A Report by the American Association of Museums, 1994.

———, 1999 AAM Museum Financial Information, 1999.

———, “Your Past is Disappearing: What Museums Should Know about the 20th Century Archives Cri-sis,” Museum News 78, no. 1 (1999):46.

———, Trusting Museums, 2000.

———, 2002 AAM Museum Financial Information Survey, 2001.

———, “Behind the Scenery: Strategies for Visual Storage,” Museum News 82, no. 4 (2002):34.

———, “In Praise of the Small Museum,” Museum News 82, no. 2 (2002).

———, Covering Your Assets: Facilities and Risk Management in Museums, 2005.

American Association of Museums & Northeast Document Conservation Center, Preservation of

Library and Archive Materials: A Manual, 1994.

American Association of State and Local History, A Culture at Risk: Who Cares for America’s Heritage,1984.

———, A Census of History Organizations: Case Statement Draft, 2001.

American Folklife Center, Library of Congress, Folk Heritage Collections in Crisis: Survey and Prelimi-

nary Survey Report, 2000.

American Institute for Conservation, Research Priorities in Art & Architecture Conservation: A Report

of an AIC Membership Survey, 1994.

———, What is Conservation? AIC Definitions of Conservation Terminology, 1997.

———, Notes on the State of Conservation in Argentina, 2001.

———, Risk Assessment and Conservation Planning at the Canadian Museum of Nature (AIC Presenta-

tion), 2001.

———, Position Paper on Conservation and Preservation in Collecting Institutions, 2002.

The Heritage Health Index Report G1

American Library Association, Report on Implementation of the ALA Preservation Policy, 1993.

———, Report on Staffing Issues in Preservation Programs, 1994.

———, Getting the Most Out of Web-based Surveys, LITA Guide #6, 2000.

———, Survey of Internet Access Management in Public Libraries, 2000.

———, American Library Association Preservation Policy, 2001.

American Society of Mammalogists, Mammal Collections in the Western Hemisphere: A Survey of

Existing Collections, 1997.

American Symphony Orchestra League, Show Them the Money: Calculating the Economic Impact of

America’s Orchestras, 1997.

———, Quick Orchestra Facts From the 1999-2000 Season, 1999-2000.

Americana Foundation, Using Heritage: New Approaches to Cultural & Natural Resource Stewardship,2001.

Americans for National Parks, Press Packet for Americans for the National Parks, 2002.

Americans for the Arts, Call for Communities: Arts and Economic Prosperity: A New National Eco-

nomic Impact Study, 2000.

———, National and Local Profiles of Cultural Support Project Questionnaire, 2000/2001.

———, Congressional Arts Voting Record, 2001.

———, Americans for the Arts Survey, 2002.

———, Art Ask for More, 2002.

———, Arts & Economic Prosperity: The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts Organizations and Their

Audiences, 2002.

Amigos Library Services, Amigos Imaging & Preservation Services Planning & Impact Survey, 2000.

———, Amigos Preservation Service Planning/Impact Survey, 2000.

———, The Cost to Preserve Authentic Electronic Records in Perpetuity: Comparing Costs Across Cost

Models and Cost Frameworks, 2002.

Art Libraries Society of North America, North American Lantern Slide Survey, 2004.

Association of Art Museum Directors, Association of Art Museum Directors Statistical Survey, 2000.

———, Association of Art Museum Directors Releases Survey on State of the Nation’s Museums: Survey

Reveals Museums Remain Stable in the Face of Current Challenges, 2001.

———, State of the Nation’s Art Museum Survey Results, 2003.

Association of Moving Image Archivists, Small Gauge Film Survey, 2000.

Association of Moving Image Archivists and National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Local

Television: A Guide to Saving Our Heritage, 2004.

Association of Regional Conservation Centers, Messages from the Past: Conserving Our Cultural Her-

itage, 1993.

Association of Research Libraries, Sound Savings: Preserving Audio Collections Proceedings from the

Symposium, 2003.

———, Preservation Program Models: A Study Project and Report, 1991.

———, ARL Preservation Statistics, 1992-1993.




G2 The Heritage Health Index Report

———, ARL Preservation Statistics Questionnaire, 1998-1999.

———, ARL Preservation Statistics Questionnaire, 1999-2000.

———, Preservation and Digitization in ARL Libraries (Spec Kit 262), 2001.

———, ARL Statistics and Measurement Program: From Descriptive Data to Performance Measures,2001.

———, ARL Endorses Digitization as an Acceptable Preservation Reformatting Option, 2004.

Association of Research Libraries, Modern Language Association & American Historical Association,Preserving Research Collections: Collaboration between Librarians and Scholars, 1999.

Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, Museums and the Online Archive of California

(MOAC), 2001.

———, Archiving the Avant Garde: Documenting and Preserving Variable Media Art, 2002.

Bi-National Project Advisory Committee, South African Culture, History, and Education Needs Assess-

ment, 1999-2000.

California State Archives, California Historical Records Statewide Planning Project: State Government

Records Assessment Program, 2001.

———, California Historical Records Statewide Planning Project: Assessment Report of Records Pro-

grams in Local Governments and Historical Repositories, 2001.

California State Library, The California Preservation Program, 1995.

———, CALIPR: Preservation Planning Software, 1997.

Canadian Council of Archives, The Conservation Assessment Guide for Archives, 1995.

Canadian Heritage Information Network, Information Technology in Canadian Museums, 2002.

———, Internet Use by Canadian Heritage Professionals, 2002.

Canadian Museum of Nature, Assessment of Risks to Collections, 1994.

Center for Arts and Culture, Preserving Our Heritage: Art, Culture, and the National Agenda, 2001.

———, Proceedings of 2001 Forum on Preservation, 2001.

———, America’s Cultural Capital: Recommendations for Structuring the Federal Role, 2001.

———, Access and the Cultural Infrastructure, 2002.

Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Informing Cultural Pol-

icy: The Research and Information Infrastructure, 2002.

CIMI Consortium, Survey of Collection-Level Description Activity, 2001.

Columbia University Press, The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life, 1998.

Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts, Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts

(CCAHA) Review of Preservation Services Survey Form, 2001.

———, Notes on Collections Central Storage & Access Initiative, 2001.

Council on Library and Information Resources, Building Preservation Knowledge in Brazil, 1999.

———, The Future of the Past, 1999.

———, Securing Our Dance Heritage: Issues in the Documentation and Preservation of Dance, 1999.

———, Managing Cultural Assets from a Business Perspective, 2000.

———, Preservation Science Survey: An Overview of Recent Developments in Research on the Conserva-

tion of Selected Analog Library and Archival Materials, 2000.

———, The Evidence in Hand: the Report on the Task Force on the Artifact in Library Collections, 2001.

———, Folk Heritage Collections in Crisis, 2001.


———, Council on Library and Information Resources and Cornell Launch Web-Based Preservation

Tutorial, 2002.

———, The State of Preservation Programs in American College and Research Libraries: Building a

Common Understanding and Action Agenda, 2002.

———, Usage and Usability Assessment: Library Practices and Concerns, 2002.

———, Developing Print Repositories: Models for Shared Preservation Access, 2003.

———, National Digital Preservation Initiatives: An Overview of Australia, France, the Netherlands, the

United Kingdom and of Related International Activity, 2003.

———, New Model Scholarship: How Will It Survive?, 2003.

———, A Survey of Our Digital Cultural Heritage Initiative and Their Sustainability Concerns, 2003.

———, Survey on the State of Audio Collections in Academic Libraries, 2004.

Cultural Ministers Council & Heritage Collections Committee (Australia), National Conservation and

Preservation Policy for Movable Cultural Heritage, 1995.

Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago, Contingent Valuation Studies in the Arts and Culture:

An Annotated Bibliography, 2002.

Dance Heritage Coalition, Inc., National Dance Heritage Videotape Registry, 2002/2003.

———, Dance Videotapes at Risk, 2003.

Digital Library Federation, Carnegie Mellon University, How and Why Libraries are Changing, 2001.

Dundee University (UK), Development of the Dundee University Survey Tool (DUST), 2001.

Elsevier Science Ltd., Investigating Subjectivity Within Collections Condition Surveys, 1999.

English Heritage, Conservation Future Challenges, 1998.

———, State of the Historic Environment Report, 2002.

Federal Library Information Center (FLIC) and Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK),Federal Library and Information Center Preservation and Binding Working Group, Proposed

Preservation Survey, 2002.

Gerald R. Ford Conservation Center, A Race Against Time: Preserving Indian Cultural Heritage, 2001.

Getty Conservation Institute, The Nature of Conservation: A Race Against Time, 1986.

———, Economics and Heritage Conservation, 1998.

———, Time & Bits: Managing a Digital Community, 1998.

———, The Conservation Assessment: A Proposed Model for Evaluating Museum Environmental Man-

agement Needs, 1999.

———, Values and Heritage Conservation Research Report, 2000.

Heritage Collections Council, Australia’s Heritage Collections: National Conservation and Preserva-

tion Policy and Strategy, 1998.

Heritage Preservation, Report from the Regional Centers Study Committee to the National Conserva-

tion Advisory Council, 1976.

———, Report of the Study Committee on Libraries and Archives, 1978.

———, Ethnographic and Archaeological Conservation in the United States, 1984.

———, Historic Buildings: A Study on the Magnitude of Architectural Conservation Needs in America,1984.

———, Overview of the Current State of Conservation: A Presentation to the National Institute for Con-

servation Council, 1986.


———, Charting a National Agenda: An Assessment of the Current State of Activities Required for the

Continuing Care of our Nation’s Heritage, 1989.

———, A National Agenda for the Stabilization of Collections of Material Culture and Training Pro-

grams for Conservation and Collections Care, 1989.

———, Preserving Natural Science Collections, 1993.

———, Collections Care Funding Survey, 1997.

———, Conservation Assessment Program Site Questionnaire, 2004.

Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Collections Preservation and Backlog Processing Planning Project,2002.

Illinois Association of Museums, Museums Yes! Results of 1999 Survey of Museums in Illinois Com-

missioned & Published by the Illinois Association of Museums, 1999.

Independent Media Arts Preservation, Cultural History at Risk: Independent Media Arts Preservation

Report 2000, 2000.

Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Needs Assessment of Small, Emerging, Minority,

and Rural Museums in the United States, 1992.

———, Conservation Project Support Program Evaluation, 1994.

———, True Needs True Partners: Museums and Schools Transforming Education, 1996.

———, A Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections, 2001.

———, Technology Survey for Libraries & Museums, 2001.

———, Creating a Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections, 2002.

———, Status of Technology and Digitization in the Nation’s Museums and Libraries Questionnaire,2002.

———, Sustaining Digital Resources: Web Wise 2003, 2003.

———, True Needs True Partners: Museums Serving Schools, 2003.

———, Institute of Museum and Library Services: Museum Data Collection Report and Analysis, 2005.

International Association of Museum Facilities Administrators, Benchmarking 2003 Update, 2003.

International Institute for Conservation, Conservation in Museums and Galleries: A Survey of Facili-

ties in the UK, 1974.

Kentucky Historical Society, The State of Museums and History Organizations in Kentucky, 2001.

Knight Foundation & Exhibits USA, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Communities Museum

Needs Assessment, 2001.

Library of California, Tierra Del Sol Tribal Library Census and Needs Assessment, 2001.

Library of Congress, Television and Video Preservation Study, Vols. 1-5, 1997.

———, To Preserve and Protect: The Strategic Stewardship of Cultural Resources, 2001.

———, Preserving Our Digital Heritage: Plan for the National Digital Information Infrastructure and

Preservation Program, 2002.

Library Resources and Technical Services, Use of General Preservation Assessments, 2005.

London Metropolitan Archives, Benchmarks in Collections Care for UK Libraries, 2000.

Luce Foundation, American Collections Enhancement (ACE) Initiative, 1996.

Maine State Archives, An Action Agenda for Preservation Planning in Maine, 1991-1992.

Maryland Historical Trust, Technical Update No. 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological

Investigations in Maryland: Collections and Conservation Standards, 1999.


———, Preserving a Quality of Life: The Governors Task Force on the Preservation and Enhancement of

Maryland’s Heritage Resources, 2000.

Media Alliance, Magnetic Media Preservation Sourcebook, 1998.

Mid-America Arts Alliance & Nebraska Arts Council, Nebraska Museums and Libraries Assessment,2004.

Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (UK), Standards in the Museum Care of Photographic Col-

lections, 1996.

———, Cost/Benefits Appraisals for Collections Care, 1998.

———, Levels of Collection Care: A Self Assessment Checklist for UK Museums, 1998.

———, Museum Focus: Facts and Figures on Museums in the UK (Issue I), 1998.

———, Ours for Keeps? A Resource for Raising Awareness of Conservation and Collection Care, 1998.

———, Museum Focus: Facts and Figures on Museums in the UK (Issue 2), 1999.

———, Benchmarks for Collection Care in Museums, Archives, and Libraries, 2002.

———, Preserving the Past for the Future: Towards a National Framework for Collections Management,2002.

Museums and Galleries Commission (UK) & English Heritage, A Survey of Archaeological Archives in

England, 1998.

National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Foundation, Survey of Master Recording Libraries:

Results, 1998.

National Archives and Records Administration, Preservation Risk and Needs Assessment - Textual

and A/V Records, date unknown.

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, Legislative Appropriations Annual Survey, 2001.

———, Policy Partners: Making the Case for State Investments in Culture, 2002.

National Center for Education Statistics, Library Statistics Cooperative Program, 1997.

———, Academic Libraries, 1998.

———, Database Documentation for Data File: Public Libraries Survey, 1998.

———, Library Statistics Program-Highlights, 2001.

National Center for Film and Video Preservation, American Film Institute, The Administration of Tele-

vision Newsfilm and Videotape Collections: A Curatorial Manual, 1997.

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Secretary’s Review of Significant Threats

to Historic Properties, 1992.

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers & Cultural Resources, 1988 Historic

Preservation Needs Assessment: Report to Congress Regarding the Preservation Needs of His-

toric and Archeological Properties in the United States, 1988.

National Endowment for the Arts, Museums USA, 1974.

———, Age and Arts Participation, 1982-1997.

———, American Canvas, 1997.

———, 2002 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, 2004.

National Endowment for the Humanities, We the People Initiative, 2002.

National Endowment for the Humanities & Exhibits USA, Results of Museum Survey, 2000.

———, Touring Humanities Exhibitions Feasibility Study, 2000.


National Film Preservation Foundation, Film Preservation 1993: A Study of the Current State of Ameri-

can Film Preservation, 1993.

National Historic Publications & Records Commission, Evaluation of the Vermont Historical Records

Advisory Board 2000-2001 Grant Program, 2002.

National Historic Publications & Records Commission and Council of State Historical Records Coordi-nators, Maintaining State Records in an Era of Change: A National Challenge, 1996.

———, Where History Begins: A Report on Historical Records Repositories in the United States, 1998.

National Library of Australia, Preservation Needs Assessment Surveys, 2001.

National Park Service, National Park Service Checklist for Preservation and Protection of Museum

Collections, conducted annually since 1986.

———, Table of Contents for 1988 NPS’s Historic Preservation Needs Assessment, 1988.

———, Collections and Curation into the 21st Century, 1996.

———, National Park Service Strategic Plan, 1997.

———, Archeological Curation Fees Across the United States, 1999.

———, The Historic Preservation Fund: Annual Report, 2000.

———, Archeological Repositories: Functions and Policies, 2001.

———, Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century, 2001.

———, National Historic Landmarks: Illustrating the Heritage of the United States, date unknown.

National Preservation Institute, Historic Site Survey Pilot Project, Compilation of Findings, 2002.

———, A National Survey of the Current State and Needs of Historic Sites, 2002.

National Preservation Office, British Library, Preservation Assessment Survey for Libraries and

Archives: User’s Guide, 2001.

National Science Foundation, National Survey of Academic Research Instruments and Instrumenta-

tion Needs, conducted biannually.

National Trust for Historic Preservation, America’s Changing Population and Implications for Historic

Preservation, 2001.

———, Building on the Past, Traveling to the Future, 2001.

New York Folklore Society, Folklore in Archives: A Guide to Describing Folklore and Folklife Materials,1998.

New York State Library, The New York State Program for the Conservation and Preservation of Library

Research Materials, 1990.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Survey of North Carolina Cultural Repositories,2000.

Northeast Document Conservation Center, Northeast Document Conservation Center Preservation

Services Survey, 2001.

———, Northeast Document Conservation Center Digital Collections Survey, 2005.

OCLC, OCLC (RONDAC) Preservation Needs Assessment Study, Detailed Report, 1991.

OCLC and Washington State Library, Washington Preservation Initiative of the Washington State

Library, 2004.

OCLC/RLG Working Group on Preservation Metadata, Preservation Metadata for Digital Objects: A

Review of the State of the Art, 2001.


Office of Arts and Libraries (now Heritage Libraries & Museums), The Cost of Collecting: Collection

Management in UK Museums, 1989.

Oregon Heritage Commission, Oregon Heritage Commission Needs Assessment, 1998.

———, Oregon Heritage Commission Needs Assessment, 2001.

———, Heritage Needs Assessment Survey, 2001-2005.

———, Defining and Measuring Heritage Health, 2002.

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Pennsylvania’s Preservation Plan, 2001.

Pew Charitable Trusts, Optimizing America’s Cultural Resources Initiative, 2000.

———, Building Research and Analysis Capacity for the Performing Arts, 2001.

President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities, Looking Ahead: Private Sector Giving to the Arts

and Humanities, 1994-1995.

———, Creative America: A Report to the President, 1997.

Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Data on Arts Organizations: A

Review and Needs Assessment, with Design Implications, 1996.

———, Cultural Policy and the Arts National Data Archive, 2003.

Rand, The Performing Arts in a New Era, 2001.

RLG, PREMIS: Preservation Metadata Implementation Strategies Update 1. Implementing Preserva-

tion Repositories for Digital Materials: Current Practice and Emerging Trends in the Cultural

Heritage Community, 2004.

Scottish Museums Council, A Conservation Survey of Museum Collections in Scotland, 1989.

Smithsonian Center for Materials Research & Education, Smithsonian Center for Materials Research

& Education Paper Preservation Priority Worksheet, 1990s.

Smithsonian Institution, National Collections Program Summaries on Smithsonian Museums,

Archives and Libraries, 1999.

———, National Collections Program Summaries on Smithsonian Museums, Archives and Libraries,2000.

———, Smithsonian Institution’s Office of Policy and Analysis Collections Policy Study, 2001.

———, Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on the National Museum of American History, 2002.

———, Concern at the Core: Managing Smithsonian Collections, 2005.

Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections, Priorities for Natural History Collections

Conservation Research: Results of a Survey of the SPNHC Membership, 2001.

Society of American Archivists, Society of American Archivists Salary Survey, 1996.

———, A*Census: Archival Census and Education Needs Survey in the United States, 2005.

Solinet, The Solinet Preservation Planning and Evaluation Report, 1994.

———, The Solinet Preservation Planning and Evaluation Project II: Report, 1997.

South West Museums Council (UK), Museum Mapping 2000: A Survey of Museums and Collections in

the South West of England, 2000.

———, Collections Care Standards: A Self-Assessment Pack for Museums, 2001.

———, Part 2: The Tool Kit: A Curatorial Assessment Framework and Part 3: Case Study: The North

Devon Museum Trust Agricultural History Collection, to be published.

Swedish Institute, The Cultural Heritage in Sweden: Preserving the Past for Posterity, 1998.


Texas Association of Museums & Exhibits USA, Training Needs Assessment for Texas Museums,2001.

The White House, Executive Order: Preserve America, 2003.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Convention Concerning the Protec-

tion of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972.

———, Survey of Endangered Audiovisual Carriers, 2003.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Keep Up the Good Work(s): Readers on Documenting the

American South, 2002.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, Department of Defense and US Army Corps of Engi-

neers Curation Options Project, Western and Mid-Atlantic States, 1999.

———, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archaeological Collections Condition Assessment, 2000.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Survey of Federally Associated Collections Housed in Non-Federal

Institutions, 1994.

———, America’s Historic Landmarks at Risk: The Secretary of the Interior’s Report to the 105th Con-

gress on Threatened National Historic Landmarks, 1997.

Vermont Collections Care Program, Notes on Survey of Vermont Collections Care Program, 2002.

Vermont Museum and Gallery Alliance, The Status of Museums and Galleries in Vermont, 1980.

———, Vermont Museum and Gallery Alliance Membership Survey, 1998.

———, Evaluation of the Vermont Collections Care Program, 1992-2002, 2002.

William Penn Foundation, Preserving Our Heritage: Conservation of Art and Historic Artifacts in the

Philadelphia Area, 1988.

———, Survey of Collection Management and Conservation in the Greater Philadelphia Region, 1997.

Wisconsin Historical Society, History Where it Happened: Wisconsin’s Historic Sites, 2002.



The following indicates the weighted number of institutions that are included in the data shown inthe figures of the Heritage Health Index. Fig. 3.1 Heritage Health Index Respondents n=3,370, weighted n=30,827 (hereafter n= weighted

number of institutions unless otherwise noted)

Fig. 3.2 Representation by Specific Type of Institution n=30,827 institutions

Fig. 3.3 Representation by Type of Institution n=30,827 institutions

Fig. 3.4 Representation by Size n=30,827 institutions

Fig. 3.5 Representation by Annual Operating Budget n=26,709 institutions

Fig. 3.6 Average Staff Size

Full-time Paid Staff n=26,980 institutions

Part-time Paid Staff n=26,751 institutions Full-time Unpaid Staff n=23,511 institutions

Part-time Unpaid Staff n=24,640 institutions

Fig. 3.7 Representation by Region n=30,827 institutions

Fig. 3.8 Institutions’ Number of Additional Functions n=30,827 institutions

Fig. 3.9 Institutions’ Additional Functions or Services n=30,827 institutions

Fig. 3.10 Representation by Governance n=30,411 institutions

Fig. 3.11 Representation of Academic Institutions n=5,168 institutions

Fig 3.12 Representation Including Academic Entities in Governance n=30,259 institutions

Fig 4.1 U.S. Institutions Have Taken Responsibility to Preserve 4.8 Billion Collections Items

Books and Bound Volumes n=16,288 institutions

Microfilm/Microfiche n=7,737 institutions

Natural Science Specimens n=3,100 institutions

Photographic Collections n=9,974 institutions

Archaeological Collections, Individually Cataloged n=3,059 institutions

Unbound Sheet, Cataloged in Items n=4,036 institutions

Online Files n=1,890 institutions

Historic Objects n=9,894 institutions

Recorded Sound n=9,273 institutions

Unbound Sheets, Cataloged in Linear Feet n=9,467 institutions

Moving Images n=11,308 institutions

Art Objects n=11,697 institutions

Digital Materials n=3,497 institutions

Archaeological Collections, Bulk Cataloged n=1,486 institutions

Fig 4.2 Collections Held by U.S. Institutions (by type) n=4,845,774,889 collections items

Fig 4.3 Collections Held by U.S. Institutions (by size) n=4,845,774,889 collections items

Fig. 4.4 Institutions with a Written, Long-range Plan for the Care of the Collection n=30,426 insti-tutions

The Heritage Health Index Report H1

Appendix H—N Values for Data Shown in Report Figures

Fig. 4.5 Collections Items in Unknown Condition, Fig. 4.6 Collections Items in No Need, Fig. 4.7 Collections Items in Need, Fig. 4.8 Collections Items in Urgent Need & Fig. 4.9 Collections Items inNeed and Urgent Need

Books and bound volumes n=21,408 institutions

Unbound sheets-cataloged in linear feet n=14,365 institutions

Unbound sheets-cataloged in items n=7,811 institutions

Microfilm/Microfiche n=9,608 institutions

Photographic collections n=15,821 institutions

Moving image collections n=14,594 institutions

Recorded sound collections n=13,155 institutions

Digital material collections n=7,899 institutions

Online files n=3,857 institutions

Art objects n=14,785 institutions

Historic and ethnographic objects n=13,704 institutions

Archaeological collections-individually cataloged n=5,108 institutions

Archaeological collections-bulk cataloged n=3,140 institutions

Natural science specimens n=4,553 institutions

Fig. 4.10 Institutions Care for 1.7 Billion Books and Bound Volumes n=16,288 institutions

Fig. 4.11 Condition of Books and Bound Volumes n=21,408 institutions

Fig. 4.12 Condition of Books and Bound Volumes (by specific type)

Quantity n=16,288 institutions

Condition n=21,408 institutions

Fig. 4.13 Institutions Care for 44 Million Linear Feet of Unbound Sheets n=9,467 institutions

Fig. 4.14 Condition of Unbound Sheets Measured in Linear Feet n=14,365 institutions

Fig. 4.15 Condition of Unbound Sheets Measured in Linear Feet (by specific type)



Fig. 4.16 Institutions Care for 96 Million Items of Unbound Sheets n=4,036 institutions

Fig. 4.17 Condition of Unbound Sheets in Items n=7,811 institutions

Fig. 4.18 Condition of Unbound Sheets in Items (by specific type)



Fig. 4.19 Institutions Care for 1 Billion Microfilm and Microfiche n=7,737 institutions

Fig. 4.20 Condition of Microfilm and Microfiche n=9,608 institutions

Fig. 4.21 Institutions Care for 727 Million Photographic Items n=9,974 institutions

Fig. 4.22 Condition of Photographic Items n=15,821 institutions

Fig. 4.23 Condition of Photographic Items (by specific type)



Fig. 4.24 Institutions Care for 40 Million Moving Image Items n=11,308 institutions

Fig. 4.25 Condition of Moving Image Items n=14,594 institutions

H2 The Heritage Health Index Report

Fig. 4.26 Condition of Moving Image Items (by specific type)



Fig. 4.27 Institutions Care for 40 Million Recorded Sound Items n=9,273 institutions

Fig. 4.28 Condition of Recorded Sound Items n=13,155 institutions

Fig. 4.29 Condition of Recorded Sound Items (by specific type)



Fig. 4.30 Institutions Care for 9 Million Digital Material Items n=3,497 institutions

Fig. 4.31 Condition of Digital Material Items n=7,899 institutions

Fig. 4.32 Institutions Care for 55 Million Online Files n=1,890 institutions

Fig. 4.33 Condition of Online Files n=3,857 institutions

Fig. 4.34 Condition of Digital Material Items (by specific type)

Quantity (digital material items) n=3,497 institutions

Condition (digital material items) n=7,899 institutions

Quantity (online files) n=1,890 institutions

Condition (online files) n=3,857 institutions

Fig. 4.35 Institutions that Include Responsibility to Preserve Digital Collections inConservation/Preservation Mission or Program n=30,093 institutions

Fig. 4.36 Need for Preservation of Digital Collections n=30,157 institutions

Fig. 4.37 Institutions with Collections Currently in Need of Treatment Due to Obsolescence of Play-back Equipment, Hardware, or Software n=29,840 institutions

Fig. 4.38 Institutions Care for 21 Million Art Objects n=11,697 institutions

Fig. 4.39 Condition of Art Objects n=14,785 institutions

Fig. 4.40 Condition of Art Objects (by specific type)



Fig. 4.41 Institutions Care for 48 Million Historic and Ethnographic Objects n=9,894 institutions

Fig. 4.42 Condition of Historic and Ethnographic Objects n=13,704 institutions

Fig. 4.43 Condition of Historic and Ethnographic Objects (by specific type)



Fig. 4.44 Institutions Care for 198 Million Archaeological Items n=3,059 institutions

Fig. 4.45 Condition of Archaeological Collections (individually cataloged) n=5,108 institutions

Fig. 4.46 Institutions Care for 2.6 Million Cubic Feet of Archaeological Collections n=1,486 institu-tions

Fig. 4.47 Condition of Archaeological Collections (bulk cataloged) n=3,140 institutions

Fig. 4.48 Condition of Archaeological Collections (by specific type)

Quantity (individually cataloged) n=3,059 institutions

Condition (individually cataloged) n=5,108 institutions

Quantity (bulk cataloged) n=1,486 institutions

Condition (bulk cataloged) n=3,140 institutions


Fig. 4.49 Institutions Care for 820 Million Natural Science Specimens n=3,100 institutions

Fig. 4.50 Condition of Natural Science Specimens n=4,553 institutions

Fig. 4.51 Condition of Natural Science Specimens (by specific type)



Fig. 5.1 Institutions’ Use of Environmental Controls for the Preservation of Collections

Temperature n=28,588

Relative Humidity n=28,483

Light n=28,251

Fig. 5.2 Institutions Using No Environmental Controls for the Preservation of Collections (by type)n=7,788

Archives n=95 institutions

Libraries n=5,225 institutions

Historical Societies n=533 institutions

Museums n=1,632 institutions

Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections n=303 institutions

Fig. 5.3 Use of Temperature Controls for the Preservation of Collections (by type) n=28,588 institu-tions

Archives n=1,029 institutions


Historical Societies n=3,146 institutions


Archaeological Repositories/Scientific Research Collections n=1,094 institutions

Fig. 5.4 Use of Humidity Controls for the Preservation of Collections (by type) n=28,483






Fig. 5.5 Control of Light Levels for the Preservation of Collections (by type) n=28,251






Fig. 5.6 Use of Temperature Controls for the Preservation of Collections (by size) n=28,588 institu-tions

Large n=2,621 institutions

Medium n=4,996 institutions

Small n=20,970 institutions


Fig. 5.7 Use of Humidity Controls for the Preservation of Collections (by size) n=28,483 institutions




Fig. 5.8 Control of Light Levels for the Preservation of Collections (by size) n=28,251 institutions




Fig. 5.9 Institutions Using No Environmental Controls for the Preservation of Collections (by size)n=7,788 institutions

Large n=513 institutions



Fig. 5.10 Use of Environmental Controls in All Areas Where Collections are Held (by region)

Temperature n=28,588 institutions

Northeast n=2,917 institutions

Mid-Atlantic n=4,942 institutions

Southeast n=5,458 institutions

Midwest n=6,651 institutions

Mountain-Plains n=4,331 institutions

West n=4,288 institutions

Relative Humidity n=28,483 institutions







Light n=28,251 institutions








Fig. 5.11 Institutions Using No Environmental Controls for the Preservation of Collections (by gov-ernance) n=7,788 institutions

Nonprofit n=2,841 institutions

Federal n=234 institutions

State n=1,153 institutions

County/Municipal n=3,354 institutions

Tribal n=89 institutions

(Not shown: Corporate/For Profit n=115 institutions)

Fig. 5.12 Institutions with Urgent Conservation/Preservation Needs

Environmental controls n=30,282 institutions

Finding aids/cataloging collections n=30,264 institutions

Condition surveys/assessments n=30,207 institutions

Conservation treatment n=30,102 institutions

Staff training n=30,210 institutions

Security n=30,121 institutions

Reduce exposure to light n=30,224 institutions

Integrated pest management n=30,125 institutions

Preservation of digital collections n=30,157 institutions

Fig. 5.13 Institutions’ Conservation/Preservation Program Includes Preventive Conservationn=29,738 institutions

Fig. 5.14 Institutions Reporting Causes of Significant Damage to Collections

Improper storage or enclosure n=29,954 institutions

Water or moisture n=30,003 institutions


Obsolescence of playback equipment, hardware, or software n=29,840 institutions

Airborne particulates or pollutants n=29,996 institutions

Handling n=29,892 institutions

Pests n=29,987 institutions

Prior treatment(s) or restoration n=29,137 institutions

Vandalism n=29,890 institutions

Fire n=29,920 institutions

Fig. 5.15 Institutions Reporting Causes of Damage to Collections from Environmental Factors

Water or moisture n=30,003 institutions


Airborne particulates or pollutants n=29,996 institutions

Pests n=29,987 institutions

Fig. 6.1 Percentages of Institutions’ Collections Stored in Areas Large Enough to AccommodateThem Safely and Appropriately n=30,454 institutions


Fig. 6.2 Institutions’ Collections Stored in Areas Large Enough to Accommodate them Safely andAppropriately (by type) n=30,454 institutions






Fig. 6.3 Institutions’ Collections Stored in Areas Large Enough to Accommodate them Safely andAppropriately (by size) n=30,454 institutions




Fig. 6.4 Institutions’ Need for Storage Improvements

Additional on-site storage n=21,670 institutions

New/additional off-site storage n=9,266 institutions

Renovated storage space n=18,505 institutions

New/improved storage furniture n=22,085 institutions

Fig. 6.5 Institutions Reporting Causes of Damage to Collections from Storage Conditions

Handling n=29,892 institutions

Improper storage or enclosure n=29,954 institutions

Fig. 7.1 Institutions with No Emergency Plan with Staff Trained to Carry It Out (by type) n=24,228institutions






Fig. 7.2 Collections at Risk Because Institutions Do Not Have Emergency Plans (by type) n=24,228institutions






Fig. 7.3 Institutions with No Emergency Plan with Staff Trained to Carry It Out (by size) n=24,228institutions





Fig. 7.4 Collections at Risk Because Institutions Do Not Have Emergency Plans (by size) n=24,228institutions




Fig. 7.5 Institutions with No Emergency Plan with Staff Trained to Carry It Out (by region)n=24,228 institutions







Fig. 7.6 Institutions with No Emergency Plan with Staff Trained to Carry It Out (by governance)n=24,228 institutions







Fig. 7.7 Institutions with Copies of Vital Collections Records Stored Off-Site n=28,960 institutions

Fig. 7.8 Institutions with Copies of Vital Collections Records Stored Off-Site (by size) n=28,960institutions




Fig. 7.9 Institutions with No Copies of Vital Collections Records Stored Off-Site (by governance)n=10,861 institutions







Fig. 7.10 Adequacy of Security Systems n=30,227 institutions

Fig. 7.11 Adequacy of Security Systems (by size) n=30,227 institutions




Fig. 7.12 Need for Security Improvements n=30,121 institutions


Fig. 8.1 Most Institutions Care for More than Six Types of Collections n=30,827

Fig. 8.2 Institutions’ Staffing for Conservation/Preservation n=30,503 institutions

Fig. 8.3 Institutions’ Staffing for Conservation/Preservation (by type) n=30,503 institutions






Fig. 8.4 Institutions’ Staffing for Conservation/Preservation (by size) n=30,503 institutions




Fig. 8.5 Institutions’ Staffing for Conservation/Preservation (by governance) n=30,503 institutions


Federal n=1,078 institutions





Fig. 8.6 Institutions’ Staffing for Conservation/Preservation (by academic governance) n=5,178institutions

Private College/University n=2,311 institutions

State College/University n=2,676 institutions

County/Municipal College/University n=148 institutions

Other n=43 institutions

Fig. 8.7 Institutions’ Internal Staff who Perform Conservation/Preservation Activities

Professional staff n=29,041 institutions

Support staff n=28,478 institutions

Volunteers n=29,324 institutions

Fig. 8.8 Average Number of Internal Staff who Perform Conservation/Preservation Activitiesn=26,474 institutions

Fig. 8.9 Average Number of Internal Staff who Perform Conservation/Preservation Activities (bytype) n=26,474 institutions







Fig. 8.10 What Institutions’ Conservation/Preservation Program Includes

Preventive conservation n=29,738 institutions

Preservation management n=29,822 institutions

Conservation treatment n=29,859 institutions

Preservation reformatting n=29,991 institutions

Preservation of A/V media and playback equipment n=29,947 institutions

Preservation of digital materials n=29,894 institutions

Fig. 8.11 Institutions’ Need for Staff Training n=30,210 institutions

Fig. 8.12 Institutions’ Need for Staff Training (by type) n=30,210 institutions






Fig. 8.13 Institutions’ Need for Staff Training (by size) n=30,210 institutions




Fig. 8.14 Institutions’ Need for Conservation treatment n=30,102

Fig. 8.15 Institutions’ Need for Conservation treatment (by type) n=30,102






Fig. 9.1 Institutions with Funds Allocated for Conservation/Preservation in Annual Budgetn=30,158 institutions

Fig. 9.2 Institutions with Funds Allocated for Conservation/Preservation in Annual Budget (bysize) n=30,158 institutions




Fig. 9.3 Institutions’ Annual Budget for Conservation/Preservation (most recently completed fiscalyear) n=26,709 institutions

Fig. 9.4 Institutions’ Annual Budget for Conservation/Preservation (most recently completed fiscalyear) (by type) n=26,709







Fig. 9.5 Institutions’ Annual Budget for Conservation/Preservation (most recently completed fiscalyear) (by size) n=26,709




Fig. 9.6 Institutions with Annual Budgets for Conservation/Preservation Less than $3,000n=18,138 institutions

Public Libraries n=6,326 institutions


Special Libraries n=1,463 institutions


History Museums/Historic Sites/Other Museums n=4,686 institutions

Academic Libraries n=1,198 institutions

Science Museums/Zoos/Botanical Gardens n=635 institutions

Art Museums n=649 institutions

Independent Research Libraries n=43 institutions


Fig. 9.7 Institutions with Annual Budgets for Conservation/Preservation Less than $3,000 (mostrecently completed fiscal year) (by governance) n=18,138 institutions







Fig. 9.8 Average Percentage of Annual Operating Budget Allocated to Conservation/Preservation(most recently completed fiscal year) (by type) n=26,092 institutions






Fig. 9.9 Proportion of Total Annual Operating Budgets to Total Conservation/Preservation Budgets(most recently completed fiscal year) (by type) n=25,215 institutions






Fig. 9.10 Institutions that Used Income from Endowed Funds for Conservation/Preservation (lastthree years) n=29,672 institutions


Fig. 9.11 Institutions that Used Income from Endowed Funds for Conservation/Preservation (lastthree years) (by governance) n=23,780 institutions







Fig. 9.12 Sources of Support for Institutions that Have Received External Conservation/Preserva-tion Funding (last three years) n=29,057 institutions

Fig. 9.13 Whether Institutions Have Applied for Conservation/Preservation Funding (last threeyears) n=29,526 institutions

Fig. 9.14 Reasons Why Institutions Have Not Applied for Conservation/Preservation Funding (lastthree years) n=17,211 institutions

Fig. 9.15 Institutions that Promote Awareness of Conservation/Preservation Using the FollowingActivities

Educating donors/trustees n=30,121 institutions

Presentations to members/friends groups n=30,083 institutions

Feature in exhibitions n=30,074 institutions

Serving as source for information n=30,113 institutions

Part of strategy for earned income n=30,076 institutions

Feature on Web site n=29,986 institutions

Fig. 10.1 Institutions’ Percentage of Collections Accessible Through a Catalog n=30,246 institutions

Fig. 10.2 Institutions’ Percentage of Collections Accessible Through a Catalog (by type) n=30,246institutions






Fig. 10.3 Institutions’ Percentage of Collections Accessible Through a Catalog (by size) n=30,246institutions




Fig. 10.4 Need for Finding Aids of Cataloging of Collections n=30,264 institutions

Fig. 10.5 Institutions’ Percentage of Collections Catalog Available Online n=29,460 institutions


Fig. 10.6 Institutions’ Percentage of Collections Catalog Available Online (by type) n=29,460 institu-tions






Fig. 10.7 Institutions’ Percentage of Collections Catalog Available Online (by size) n=29,460 institu-tions




Fig. 10.8 Institutions That Provide Online Access to the Content of Any of Their Collections or Hold-ings n=30,199 institutions

Fig. 10.9 Institutions That Provide Online Access to the Content of Any of Their Collections or Hold-ings (by type) n=30,199 institutions






Fig. 10.10 Institutions That Provide Online Access to the Content of Any of Their Collections or Hold-ings (by size) n=30,199 institutions




Fig. 10.11 Institutions that Have Done a Survey of the General Condition of Their Collectionsn=30,382 institutions

Fig. 10.12 Institutions that Have Done a Survey of the General Condition of Their Collections (bytype) n=30,382 institutions






Fig. 10.13 Institutions that Have Done a Survey of the General Condition of Their Collections (bysize) n=30,382 institutions




Fig. 10.14 Need for Condition Surveys or Assessments of Collections n=30,207 institutions


1012 14th St. Suite 1200Washington, DC 20005202-233-0800fax 202-233-0807www.heritagepreservation.orginfo@heritagepreservation.org

Documents

A P T RISK The Heritage Health Index Report on the … Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s Collections ©2005 Heritage Preservation, Inc. Heritage Preservation