Vihhi pdf

The 2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index

A Report on the State of Collections in the U.S. Virgin Islands

Territorial Archives of the U.S. Virgin Islands Government of the United States Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums 8000 Cyril E. King Airport Terminal – 2nd Floor St. Thomas, VI00802

Institute of Museum and Library Services Connecting to Collections Program 1800 M Street NW – 9TH Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5802

Š 2011 Government of the Virgin Islands All rights reserved.

Susan Laura Lugo, C.A. Territorial Coordinator for Archives Territorial Archives of the U.S. Virgin Islands 23 Dronningens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 340-774-2362 www.virginsislandspubliclibraries.org/usvi/archives.asp Susan.Lugo@dpnr.gov.vi

This project was funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) under a 2009 IMLS Statewide Planning Grant awarded to the Department of Planning and Natural Resources of the Government of the Virgin Islands. Additional costsharing funds and resources were provided by the Government of the Virgin Islands, through the Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Alicia V, Barnes, Commissioner.

Introduction and Acknowledgments In a Consultant’s Report on the Virgin Islands Historical Records Needs Assessment (April 1991) by Nicholas C. Burckel, Ph.D., then Associate Dean for Collections & Services at Washington University Libraries,1 Dr. Burckel prepared an executive summary, further elaborated with detailed findings and recommendations, identifying issues which must be addressed in order to establish an effective historical records program for the Virgin Islands (the “Burckel Report”).

The Burckel Report was then paired with A Report from the Virgin Islands Historical Records Advisory Board to the People of the Virgin Islands (1992) and published as a combined treatise under the title Virgin Islands Historical Records: A Needs Assessment2 (the “1992 VIHRAB Assessment”) before being submitted to the Governor of the Virgin Islands and Virgin Islands citizens for consideration and action in 1992.

Over a decade later, only a few of the action items identified in the 1992 VIHRAB Assessment had been addressed and most of those were not sustainable. The position of Territorial Archivist had been filled for only four short years—from 1989 to 1991 by Alan F. Perry, on loan from the National Archives and Records Administration from its regional office in Kansas City, MO, and from 1992 to 1993 by L. Richard Kyle—before remaining vacant for the next 15 years.

With little organizational or financial support from succeeding government administrations, and in the absence of professional leadership and sufficient numbers of trained personnel on hand, the islands’ archives and records management programs languished in the years that followed. Managers and staff of and 1

Dr. Burckel later served as the 52nd President of the Society of American Archivists from 1996-1997.

2

See, Appendix A.

consultants to the Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums (DLAM) of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR), did what they could with the few resources they were provided, but the archives and records management programs fell dormant and the needs of the historical records of the Virgin Islands were subsumed by the financial exigencies of the time.

In 2004, Heritage Preservation launched the nationwide survey that produced the seminal report A Public Trust at Risk: The 2005 Heritage Health Index.3 Recognizing the critical needs of collections identified throughout the U.S. in the Heritage Health Index, the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) announced its Connecting to Collections Program initiative in 2007, in partnership with Heritage Preservation and the American Association for State and Local History.

IMLS is the primary source of federal support for the nation’s 123,000 libraries and 17,500 museums. Its mission is to create strong libraries and museums that connect people to information and ideas. IMLS works at the national level and in coordination with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowledge; enhance learning and innovation; and support professional development.

In 2008, the Territorial Archives applied for and was granted a Connecting to Collections 2009 IMLS Statewide Planning Grant for purposes of identifying the preservation needs of archival and special collections in the Territory. While DPNR/DLAM could and would be guided by the 1992 VIHRAB Assessment findings, updated and expanded assessments were necessary in order to 3

See, www.heritagehealthindex.org .

Introduction and Acknowledgments

iii

marshal an effective response to current needs. A key component of the assessment arsenal would be to conduct a survey of quantifiable and perceived needs for a broad spectrum of Virgin Islands collections. A key deliverable under the grant would be a Strategic Plan for meeting those needs.

In 2009-2010, the Territorial Archives conducted the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index survey, attempting to virtually replicate on a local level the 2004 nationwide survey conducted by Heritage Preservation.

Questions pertaining to Virgin Islands-specific topics of concern were also included in the survey in order to further enhance the local value of the results.

The results presented and reported on here contributed directly to the Strategic Plan produced under the 2009 Virgin Islands Statewide Planning Grant, and there are many whose contributions of expertise, time, and effort deserve to be recognized and publicly acknowledged.

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index benefited greatly from the program guidance and support of IMLS, especially Senior Program Officers Christine Henry and Connie Cox Bodner, as well as that of Heritage Preservation for its generous accommodation in permitting the Territorial Archives to utilize the proprietary format and content of the 2004 national survey and the 2005 report.

Even with the reliable and abiding assistance of others the Virgin Islands survey would have been impossible to achieve without the IMLS Connecting to Collections Initiative and critical funding provided under the IMLS Statewide Planning Grant program.

The Territorial Archives also gratefully acknowledges The Honorable John P. de Jongh, Jr., Governor of the Virgin Islands, for his unfailing support for the preservation and information access principles that underlie the functions of archives and records management in the Territory. Others whose support of this survey and the grant project deserve recognition include former DPNR Commissioner Robert S. Mathes, and current DPNR Commissioner Alicia Barnes. Each in his or her own turn demonstrated institutional and departmental support for this grantfunded survey, and recognized its potential

iv Introduction and Acknowledgments

value for decision-making and planning for the future care of the historical records of the Virgin Islands. Similarly, DLAM Territorial Director and Statewide Planning Grant Project Manager Ingrid A. Bough, J.D., and DLAM Assistant Director Donald G. Cole, have been tireless advocates for the preservation, security and integrity of the records and collections of the Virgin Islands.

The survey project is also indebted to the Director of DPNR’s Business and Administrative Services, Althea Grant, and the DPNR federal grants management staff, especially Grants Manager Dianne O’Garro.

On the receiving end of emails, phone calls and in-person consultations too numerous to mention, they helped navigate the sometimes arduous procedural and recordkeeping challenges encountered throughout the extended term of the grant.

Grant consultant Thomas F.R. Clareson of LYRASIS Consulting provided professional guidance, unfailing good humor and educational enlightenment throughout the survey process. He gave generously of his personal attention and time well beyond his consultancy commitment to ensure that the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey delivered on its promise to authoritatively identify and define the current concerns, needs and issues facing the collections of the Virgin Islands.

Dr. Lynn E. Rosenthal, Professor and Chair of Computer Science at the University of the Virgin Islands, and his computational statistics class members, patiently endured the bewildering array of questions posed by the survey team about how best to perform and display the data analysis.

Those who planned, executed and managed the survey extend their deepest thanks especially to the survey participants, without whose committed involvement this report would not be possible. Participants in the Virgin Islands archives and collecting community of caregivers and custodians further enriched the survey results by contributing their insights, observations and caring attention to detail through many rounds of follow-up and inquiry after the survey was completed. The institutions and individuals that invested their time, energy

and expertise to participate in the survey are listed in Appendix B. On behalf of the 16 Virgin Islands Statewide Planning Grant Partners, and with grateful thanks to each and every one of them, this survey report is further dedicated to all stewards of Virgin Islands history, records, artifacts, published works, ephemera, art, science and digital collections of every nature

and kind, wherever located and whether in the custody of individuals, institutions, or government agencies. Preservation and access may continue to be the greatest challenges for Virgin Islands collections, but through collaborative community efforts these collections will yield the priceless gift of knowledge and understanding to current and future users for generations to come.

PROJECT MANAGER 2009 VIRGIN ISLANDS STATEWIDE PLANNING GRANT Susan Laura Lugo, C.A. Territorial Coordinator for Archives Government of the Virgin Islands DPNR/Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums November 30, 2011

Introduction and Acknowledgments

v

vi Introduction and Acknowledgments

Institute of Museum and Library Services

2009-2010 Virgin Islands Statewide Planning Grant

Grantee Department of Planning and Natural Resources Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums Government of the Virgin Islands Project Director Ingrid A. Bough, J.D. Territorial Director

Project Manager Susan Laura Lugo, C.A. Territorial Coordinator for Archives

Partners Office of the Lieutenant Governor of the Virgin Islands University of the Virgin Islands, Department of Information and Technology Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Virgin Islands National Park District Court of the Virgin Islands Community Foundation of the Virgin Islands, Inc. Economic Development Authority, Enterprise Zone Commission Friends of the Elaine I. Sprauve Public Library St. Croix Landmarks Society, Inc. Virgin Islands Social History Associates, Inc. Virgin Islands Source Virgin Islands Bar Association St. Thomas-St. John Library Association, Inc. St. Croix Library Association, Inc. Caribbean Genealogy Library, Inc. St. John Historical Society, Inc. St. Thomas Historical Trust, Inc.

Preservation Management/Conservation Consultant Thomas F.R. Clareson LYRASIS Consulting

Introduction and Acknowledgments

vii

viii Introduction and Acknowledgments

Table of Contents Introduction and Acknowledgments............................................................................. iii Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... ix Table of Figures ........................................................................................................... xi Executive Summary .....................................................................................................1 Chapter 1:

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development...........................7

Chapter 2:

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology.........................17

Chapter 3:

Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI .....................25

Chapter 4:

Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items .........................35

Chapter 5:

Collections Environment ..................................................................75

Chapter 6:

Collections Storage ...........................................................................85

Chapter 7:

Emergency Planning and Security ....................................................91

Chapter 8:

Preservation Staffing and Activities ...............................................101

Chapter 9:

Preservation Expenditures and Funding .........................................115

Chapter 10:

Assessments and Intellectual Control .............................................129

Appendix A:

Virgin Islands Historical Records: A Needs Assessment: A Report from the Virgin Islands Historical Records Advisory Board to the People of the Virgin Islands (1992) and Consultant’s Report on the Virgin Islands Historical Records Needs Assessment (April 1991) by Nicholas C. Burckel, Ph.D. (“1992 VIHRAB Assessment”) .............................139

Appendix B:

2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey Participants......................................................................................207

Appendix C:

2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey...............209

Appendix D:

2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey – More Information (Definitions; Frequently Asked Questions) ................227

Appendix E:

2009-2010 Final VIHHI Survey Transmittal ..................................233

Appendix F:

2009 Trial VIHHI Survey Transmittal ............................................239

Table of Contents

ix

x Table of Contents

Table of Figures [qX#] = Question Section/Item number on Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey

Chapter 2: Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5

Chapter 3: Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 3.7 Fig. 3.8 Fig. 3.9 Fig. 3.10 Fig. 3.11 Fig. 3.12

Chapter 4: Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5 Fig. 4.6 Fig. 4.7 Fig. 4.8

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology Type of institutions: St. John [qB1, qA5] ................................................................17 Type of institutions: St. Croix [qB1, qA5] ............................................................... 18 Type of institutions: St. Thomas [qB1, qA5] .......................................................... 18 Details of “Other” primary functions (by island) [qB1, qB1v, qA5] ....................... 21 Details of “Other” primary functions (all islands) [qB1, qB1v].............................. 21

Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI Primary function categories declared in qB1 ........................................................... 25 Primary functions of institutions (all islands by number of respondents) [qB1] ............................................................................................................................ 26 Primary function categories in qB1 with additional functions of archives, library and/or historic site [qB2a, qB2b, qB2d] ..................................................... 27 Governance of institutions [qB5] ............................................................................. 27 Details of “Other” governance responses [qB5, qB5g] ........................................... 28 Average staff size by type of institution [qH1a-qH1d]............................................ 29 Additional functions (by type and number of respondents) [qB2a-qB2i]............ 29 Annual operating budget (institutional) [qE2] ....................................................... 30 Additional functions by type (percentage and count) [qB2a-qB2i] ...................... 31 Details of “Other” additional functions [qB2i-qB2j] .............................................. 31 Number of collection holders (by collection type) [qF4a-qF4j] ............................ 32 Percentage of collection holders (by collection type) [qF4a-qF4j] ....................... 33

Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items Respondent USVI institutions (n = 34) must preserve 550,000 collection items and 1.4 miles of unbound collections ............................................................. 37 Collection holders with written, long-range preservation plan [qD2] .................. 37 Percentage of reported collection quantities held by institution types [qF4, qB1].................................................................................................................... 38 Collection items in unknown condition [qF5] ........................................................ 39 Collection items in urgent need [qF5] ..................................................................... 40 Collection items in need [qF5] ................................................................................. 41 Collection items in no need [qF5] ............................................................................ 41 Condition of collections in the U.S. Virgin Islands (by type) 2009-2010 [qF5] ............................................................................................................................ 42

Table of Figures

xi

Fig. 4.9 Fig. 4.10

Fig. 4.11 Fig. 4.12

Fig. 4.13 Fig. 4.14

Fig. 4.15 Fig. 4.16 Fig. 4.17

Fig. 4.18 Fig. 4.19 Fig. 4.20 Fig. 4.21 Fig. 4.22

Fig. 4.23 Fig. 4.24

Fig. 4.25 Fig. 4.26 Fig. 4.27 Fig. 4.28 Fig. 4.29 Fig. 4.30 Fig. 4.31 Fig. 4.32 Fig. 4.33 Fig. 4.34

Condition of books and bound volumes (total items = 105,574) [qF5] ................ 43 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 105,574 books and bound volumes (monographs, serials, newspapers, scrapbooks, albums, pamphlets) [qF5] ....................................................................................................... 44 Condition of unbound sheets (lf) (archival records, manuscripts, maps and oversized items; 7,151 linear feet) [qF5]........................................................... 44 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 7,151 linear feet of unbound sheet collections (archival records, manuscripts, maps, and oversized items) [qF5] .............................................................................................. 45 Condition of unbound sheets (ephemera, broadsides, philatelic, numismatic and other paper artifacts; 1,115 items) [qF5] ..................................... 46 Percentage of institutions caring for 1,115 items in unbound sheet collections (ephemera, broadsides, philatelic and numismatic artifacts, and other paper artifacts) [qF5] ............................................................................... 47 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 14,525 microfilm reels/microfiche [qF5] .............................................................................................. 48 Condition of microfilm and microfiche (14,525 items) [qF5]................................ 48 Condition of photographic items (photographic prints, negatives, slides, transparencies, daguerrotypes, ambrotypes, tintypes, glass plate negatives, lantern slides; 60,548 items) [qF5] ....................................................... 49 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 60,548 photographic items [qF5] ............................................................................................................................ 50 Condition of moving image collections (motion picture film, video film, laser disc, CD, DVD, minidisc; 4,741 items) [qF5] ..................................................51 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 4,741 moving image items (motion picture film, video film , laser disc, CD, DVD, minidisc) [qF5] ...............51 Condition of recorded sound collections (cylinder, phonodisc, cassette, open reel tape, DAT, CD, DVD, MP3; 4,820 items) [qF5] ..................................... 52 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 4,820 recorded sound items (cylinder, phonodisc, cassette, open reel tape, DAT, CD, DVD, MP3) [qF5]................................................................................................................. 53 Condition of digital materials collections (floppy discs, CD-R, DVD-R, data tape [excludes online files]; 11,299 files) [qF5] .............................................. 54 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 11,299 digital materials collection items (floppy discs, CD-R, DVD-R, data tape [excludes online files]) [qF5] ................................................................................................................ 55 Institutions that include responsibility to preserve digital collections in preservation/conservation missions or programs [qD11] ..................................... 56 Perceived need for preservation of digital collections [qD12h] ............................. 56 Digital formats actively under collection [qG11] .................................................... 57 Digital formats actively under collection (by institution type) [qG11].................. 58 Institutions converting materials to digital formats (by type) [qG14] .................. 59 Institutions converting materials to digital formats [qG14] ..................................60 Materials converted to digital formats (by institution type) [qG14] ..................... 60 Institutions with plan for managing digital assets for ten or more years [qG12] .......................................................................................................................... 61 Frequency of digital asset backup file creation by institutions [qG15] ................. 62 Institutions’ digital asset backup files storage locations [qG16] ........................... 62

xii Table of Figures

Fig. 4.35 Fig. 4.36 Fig. 4.37 Fig. 4.38 Fig. 4.39

Fig. 4.40

Fig. 4.41

Fig. 4.42

Fig. 4.43 Fig. 4.44 Fig. 4.45 Fig. 4.46 Fig. 4.47 Fig. 4.48

Chapter 5: Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6 Fig. 5.7

Institutions operating a digital repository [qG13] .................................................. 63 Condition of online files (338,161 items) [qF5] ...................................................... 63 Percentage of institutions caring for 338,161 online files [qF5] ............................ 64 Institutions with collections currently in need of treatment due to obsolescence of play-back equipment, hardware or software [qD13j] ................. 65 Condition of art objects (paintings, prints, drawings, sculpture, decorative arts, [e.g., fine metalwork, jewelry, timepieces, enamels, ivories, lacquer]; 428 items) [qF5] .......................................................................... 66 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 428 art objects in collections (paintings, prints, drawings, sculpture, decorative arts [e.g., fine metalwork, jewelry, timepieces, enamels, ivories, lacquer]) [qF5] ............... 67 Condition of historic and ethnographic objects (textiles, ceramics, glass, ethnographic artifacts, metalwork, furniture, domestic artifacts, technological and agricultural artifacts, medical and scientific artifacts, and transportation vehicles; 1,149 items) [qF5] ..................................................... 67 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 1,149 historic and ethnographic objects in collections (textiles, ceramics, glass, ethnographic artifacts, metalwork, furniture, domestic artifacts, technological and agricultural artifacts, medical and scientific artifacts, and transportation vehicles) [qF5] .......................................................................... 68 Condition of archaeological collections, individually cataloged (900 items) [qF5] ............................................................................................................... 69 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 900 archaeological collection items individually cataloged [qF5] ......................................................... 70 Condition of archaeological collections, bulk cataloged (1,100 cubic feet) [qF5] .............................................................................................................................71 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 1,100 cubic feet of archaeological collections (bulk cataloged) [qF5] .................................................. 72 Condition of natural science specimens (zoological, botanical, geological, paleontological, paleobotanical; 5,000 items) [qF5] ............................................. 72 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 5,000 natural science specimens (zoological, botanical, geological, paleontological, paleobotanical) [qF5] ................................................................................................ 73

Collections Environment Institutions (by type) using no environmental controls for the preservation of collections [qC1-qC3] ..................................................................... 75 Use of environmental controls for the preservation of collections (by % of institutions) [qC1-qC3] ............................................................................................. 76 Governance of institutions using no environmental controls for the preservation of collections [qB5] ............................................................................. 76 Use of temperature controls for the preservation of collections (by institution type) [qC1] ............................................................................................... 77 Use of humidity controls for the preservation of collections (by institution type) [qC2] .............................................................................................. 78 Control of lighting levels for the preservation of collections (by institution type) [qC3] ................................................................................................................. 79 Urgent preservation/conservation needs reported by institutions (%) [qD12a-qD12i] ............................................................................................................80

Table of Figures

xiii

Fig. 5.8 Fig 5.9 Fig. 5.10

Chapter 6: Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4

Chapter 7: Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2

Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 7.5 Fig. 7.6 Fig. 7.7 Fig. 7.8 Fig. 7.9

Chapter 8: Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2 Fig. 8.3 Fig. 8.4 Fig. 8.5 Fig. 8.6 Fig. 8.7 Fig. 8.8

Institutions’ preservation/conservation program includes preventive conservation [qD10a] ................................................................................................ 81 Percentage of institutions reporting causes of damage to collections from environmental factors [qD13b-qD13d and qD13g] ................................................. 82 Percentage of institutions reporting causes of significant damage to collections [qD13a-qD13k] ....................................................................................... 83

Collections Storage Percentage of institutions’ collections stored in areas large enough to accommodate them safely and appropriately [qC4] .............................................. 85 Collections stored in areas large enough to accommodate them safely and appropriately (by % institution type) [qC4] ............................................................ 86 Institutions’ need for storage improvements [qC5a-qC5d] ................................... 87 Institutions reporting causes of damage to collections from storage conditions [qD13a, qD13f] ........................................................................................88

Emergency Planning and Security Percentage of institutions (by type) with neither an emergency plan nor staff trained to carry it out [qD4-qD5] .................................................................... 92 Collection items at risk because institutions do not have emergency plans (total at risk = 346,201 items [not including collections measured in linear or cubic feet]) [qD4, qF5] .............................................................................. 93 Institutions with copies of vital collection records stored off-site [qD6] ............. 94 Institutions with no copies of vital collections records stored off-site (by governance) [qD6, qB5] ............................................................................................ 94 Adequacy of security systems [qD7] ........................................................................ 96 Need for security improvements [qD12d] ............................................................... 96 Institutions insuring the contents of collections against loss, damage or theft [qG5] .................................................................................................................. 97 Institutions with an electrical power backup system [qG6] .................................. 98 Institutions using documentation (e.g., donor agreements) to establish ownership of collections [qG1] ................................................................................. 99

Preservation Staffing and Activities Most (85%) institutions care for three or more collection types [qF5] ...............101 Institutions’ staffing for preservation/conservation [qD8] ................................. 102 Average number of internal staff who perform preservation/conservation activities [qD9] ........................................................................................................ 103 What institutions’ preservation/conservation program includes and who performs the tasks [qD10a-qD10f] ........................................................................ 105 Institutions’ need for staff training [qD12c] ......................................................... 106 Institutions’ need for staff training (by type and indicating % of respondent pool) [qD12c] ....................................................................................... 107 Institutions’ need for conservation treatment [qD12g] ....................................... 108 Employee and volunteer staff of reporting institutions (by type) [qH1] ............ 108

xiv Table of Figures

Fig. 8.9 Fig. 8.10 Fig. 8.11 Fig. 8.12

Chapter 9: Fig. 9.1 Fig. 9.2 Fig. 9.3 Fig. 9.4 Fig. 9.5 Fig. 9.6 Fig. 9.7 Fig. 9.8 Fig. 9.9 Fig. 9.10 Fig. 9.11 Fig. 9.12 Fig. 9.13 Fig. 9.14 Fig. 9.15

Chapter 10: Fig. 10.1 Fig. 10.2 Fig. 10.3 Fig. 10.4 Fig. 10.5 Fig. 10.6 Fig. 10.7

Institutions reporting visitors during last 12 months (by location type) [qH2] ..........................................................................................................................110 Institutions’ visitors or users served during last 12 months [qH2] ...................... 111 Number of institutions holding collections (by language) [qG8]......................... 111 Institutions (by type) holding collections (by language) [qG8] ........................... 112

Preservation Expenditures and Funding Institutions with funds allocated for preservation/conservation in annual budget [qE1].............................................................................................................. 116 Annual budget for fiscal year 2009 preservation/conservation expenses [qE3]........................................................................................................................... 116 Annual budget for fiscal year 2009 total operating expenses [qE2] .................... 119 Institutions that used income from endowed funds for preservation/conservation (last three years) [qE4] ............................................. 120 Source of support for institutions that have received external preservation/conservation funding (last three years) [qE5] ............................... 120 Whether institutions have applied for preservation/conservation funding (last three years) [qE6] ............................................................................................ 121 Reasons why institutions have not applied for preservation/conservation funding (last three years) [qE7] ............................................................................. 122 Institutional promotion for awareness of preservation/conservation performed using the following activities [qD14a-qD14f] ..................................... 123 Annual frequency of institutions’ collections used in public exhibits [qG2] ......................................................................................................................... 124 Institutions charging for use or viewing of collections [qG4] ............................. 124 Percentage of institutions (by type) charging for use or viewing of collections [qG4] ..................................................................................................... 125 Percentage of institutions (by governance) charging for use or viewing of collections [qG4] ..................................................................................................... 126 Institutional use of Web 2.0 tools to promote collections [qG13] ....................... 126 Institutions with events, programs and resources targeting students [qG7].......................................................................................................................... 127 Institutions (by type) with events, programs and resources targeting students [qG7] ......................................................................................................... 127

Assessments and Intellectual Control Percentage of institutions’ collections accessible through a catalog [qF1] ......... 129 Percentage of collections accessible through a catalog (by institution type) [qF1] ................................................................................................................ 130 Need for finding aids or cataloging of collections [qD12a] ................................... 131 Institutions’ percentage of collections catalog available online [qF2] ................ 132 Percentage of collections catalog available online (by institution type) [qF2] .......................................................................................................................... 132 Institutions that provide online access to the content of any of their collections or holdings [qF3] .................................................................................. 133 Institutions (by type) that provide online access to the content of any of their collections or holdings [qF3]......................................................................... 134

Table of Figures

xv

Fig. 10.8 Fig. 10.9 Fig. 10.10

Institutions that have done a survey of the general condition of their collections [qD3] ..................................................................................................... 136 Institutions (by type) that have done a survey of the general conditions of their collections [qD3] .............................................................................................137 Need for condition surveys or assessments of collections [qD12b] .................... 138

xvi Table of Figures

Executive Summary

The U.S. Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey was conducted over a 10-month period from October 2009 to September 2010. The U.S. Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index was one of several information gathering activities under a 2009 Statewide Planning Grant (the “Planning Grant�) awarded to the Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums (DLAM) in the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) of the Government of the Virgin Islands by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), an independent federal agency. Statewide Planning Grants, a part of the IMLS Connecting to Collections Grant Program, provide funding to states and territories for the purpose of preparing a strategic plan for the protection, preservation and conservation of collections held by repositories and institutions within each respective state and territory.

The Planning Grant assembled a partnership of 16 Virgin Islands collecting institutions throughout the Territory. (See, p. vii) These partners assisted by advising and participating in the planning strategy, overseeing the grant deliverables, and facilitating advocacy and information gathering.

To evaluate the variety of collecting formats, scope of collections, and magnitude of the collecting and preservation challenges facing caregivers and custodians in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 50 site visits were made to collecting institutions and storage locations throughout the Territory by the Grant Project Manager, Susan Laura Lugo, who serves as the Territorial Coordinator for Archives for the Government of the Virgin Islands, and the Grant Consultant, Thomas F.R. Clareson of LYRASIS Consulting.

Site visit assessment reports were prepared for nine of these locations and shared with the

collecting institutions. The site visit field observations further informed the preparation of the U.S. Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey. As a direct result of key survey indicators noted in the initial round of the survey results, the universe of survey participants was expanded to capture broader and more inclusive collection mandates than originally conceived.

Although statistical sampling and response rates often determine the validity and error margins of the results of such surveys, the enduring value of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey will be the profiled community of collections as documented by its caregivers.

[T]he enduring value of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey will be the profiled community of collections as documented by its caregivers.

In 2009-2010,the U.S. Virgin Islands population was only slightly more than 104,000 and this one factor, more than any other, delimited the size, variety, resource availability and management practices of collecting institutions in the Virgin Islands.

On all three major islands (St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John) only one example of a particular type of collecting institution might exist due to the compact size of the population and geographical area served, lack of sustainable funding and the scarcity of professional managers. In the entire Territory, more often than not for these same reasons, there may be no examples at all of the many types of collections or collecting institutions contemplated under the national survey.

Executive Summary

1

Building on the scaffolding of the 2004 national Heritage Health Index Survey, the conclusions that may be drawn from the extensive data analysis of the less statistically nuanced U.S. Virgin Islands survey nevertheless serve to dependably and accurately suggest a plan of action to address the needs of collections, collecting institutions and collections caregivers throughout the Territory.

Valid cross-comparisons between territorial results and the nationwide survey become possible and statistically relevant by recognizing that the complex planning and structure of the dataset generated by the U.S. Heritage Health Index survey underpins the U.S. Virgin Islands results as well.

Remediation steps and action plans suggested by the nationwide dataset therefore were confidently adapted when appropriate to the scaled needs of the U.S. Virgin Islands collections community knowing the results that prompted such actions had undergone nationwide scrutiny and evaluation for effectiveness and professional best practices.

The 2004 National Heritage Health Index The 2004 national Heritage Health Index was the first comprehensive survey ever conducted of the condition and preservation needs of all U.S. collections held in the public trust. The project was conceived and implemented by Heritage Preservation, a national nonprofit organization, in partnership with IMLS. The Heritage Health Index asked institutions across the U.S. to report on all aspects of conservation and preservation and to estimate the quantity and condition of the collections for which they had a preservation responsibility. Based on responses from 3,370 institutions, the final study population was established to be 30,827 institutions with a data margin of error of +/- 1.5%. The survey results provided the first national data on all the holdings of U.S. collecting institutions and created baseline data that proved useful in measuring future preservation efforts.

2 Executive Summary

The survey found that more than 4.8 billion artifacts were being cared for across the nation, including rare books and manuscripts, photographs, documents, sound recordings, moving images, digital materials, art, historic and ethnographic objects, archaeological artifacts, and natural science specimens. The survey reported that U.S. collections were visited an impressive 2.5 billion times a year.

It is significant that for collections of almost every type, about 30% of artifacts were reported in unknown condition. In the case of bulk cataloged archaeological collections, recorded sound collections, and moving image collections, more than 40% were in unknown condition. Of collections known to be in need4, unbound sheets cataloged by item rather than linear feet, such as ephemera, broadsides, philatelic and numismatic paper artifacts, had the highest percentage at 54%.

However, because such significant percentages were in unknown condition, the amount of collections reported in need was likely to be much higher and this, in fact, proved to be the case.

The national Heritage Health Index data revealed that environmental and storage conditions, emergency planning, staffing, and funding were the aspects of collections stewardship with the greatest needs.

“[E]nvironmental and storage conditions, emergency planning, staffing, and funding were the aspects of [U.S.] collections stewardship with the greatest needs.”

--A Public Trust at Risk (2005)

Moreover, the report stated that if these needs were not addressed, many collections would remain at higher risk for damage or loss.

Above all, the most urgent preservation need at U.S. collecting institutions in 2004 was environmental control.

One of the most alarming national Heritage Health Index statistics was that 80% of “In need” is 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.

4

collecting institutions did not have an emergency or disaster plan that included collections, with staff trained to carry it out.

Because of this, more than 2.6 billion items were deemed at risk. Only 26% of institutions had copies of vital collections records stored off-site in case of emergency, even though continuity of operations planning recognized that it was essential that a collecting institution experiencing a disaster be able to have access to a record of its holdings.

Only 20% of institutions had paid staff, whether full-time or part-time, dedicated to conservation or preservation responsibilities. Instead, many institutions depended on assigning collections care duties to other staff as needed, to volunteers, or to external providers. For those with staff, staff training for conservation and preservation was needed at 70% of institutions, the most common need cited in the Heritage Health Index survey.

Due in part to inadequate staffing levels, basic information about the content and condition of collections was incomplete: 39% of institutions had a significant backlog in cataloging their collections and 70% had no current assessment of the condition of their collections.

The instability of preservation funding is another issue that the 2004 Heritage Health Index detailed. Less than a quarter of institutions specifically allocated funds for preservation in their annual budgets; 36% relied on other budget lines to fund preservation; and, 40% did not allocate for preservation at all. Only 13% of institutions reported access to permanent funds, such as an endowment, for preservation.

Despite the national survey’s broad definition that included any expenses related to collections care, 68% of the respondents reported that less than $3,000 was budgeted for preservation in their most recently completed fiscal year.

Overall, only 2% of the total annual budgets of U.S. collecting institutions was spent on preservation in the most recent fiscal year.

The 2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index The Heritage Health Index Survey conducted in the Virgin Islands during 2009-2010 significantly resembled the 2004 national Heritage Preservation survey, both in format, content and, in many cases, results. The overarching objective of the Virgin Islands effort was to be a comprehensive survey of the condition and preservation needs of all collections in the U.S. Virgin Islands held in the public trust and, to a certain extent, the 1992 VIHRAB Assessment5 provided a logical foundational and historical reference point from which to proceed.

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index expanded on the 1992 VIHRAB Assessment, however, and was based on responses from 34 institutions, from a broadly defined final study population of just over 250 institutions. Thus, the 2009-2010 Virgin Islands survey results attempted to aggregate current territory-wide data on the universe of Virgin Islands collecting institutions spanning a wider variety of collection emphases, formats and specialized needs.

Based on the responses of the 34 survey participants, the Virgin Islands survey found that more than 550,000 collection items, 1.4 miles of unbound collections (measured in linear feet) and 1,100 cubic feet of bulk cataloged material are being cared for in the Territory. No attempt has been made here to extrapolate collection levels for the final study population of 250, as the majority of the nonrespondent institutions are government offices and agencies and school libraries known to contain smaller collections, but the numbers would be significantly higher nevertheless if the totals were extended.

At the core of almost every significant survey finding was the fact that 0% of Virgin Islands collection holders surveyed have a written, long-range institutional preservation plan in place for the care of collections. (See, Fig. 4.2)

5

See, Appendix A. Additional background information on the 1992 VIHRAB Assessment is also available in Introduction and Acknowledgments, at Page iii.

Executive Summary

3

At the core of almost every significant survey finding was the fact that 0% of Virgin Islands collection holders surveyed have a written long-range institutional preservation plan in place for the care of collections.

Without a designated plan, no institution can properly enforce and fortify a commitment to change the condition of its collections. Any attempt to strategically address the issues of preservation and conservation of collections in the Territory therefore must necessarily include collection care management and custody training and education to cultivate the professional skills necessary for preparing a preservation plan.

A preservation plan can only provide for collection needs if collections are described and needs are known. According to the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index, about 70% of all the Territory’s collections are in unknown condition and, in some collecting categories— unbound sheets measured in linear feet, microfilm/microfiche and online files— unknown conditions apply to as much as 93% of the total items.

Without current assessments and information on the condition of collection items, an effective Territorial preservation plan cannot be developed, implemented, monitored or evaluated for measurable outcomes.

Without current assessments and information on the condition of collection items, an effective Territorial preservation plan cannot be developed, implemented, monitored or evaluated for measurable outcomes. Virgin Islands institutions signaled their recognition of this fact when a significant 29% responded that they had an urgent conservation and preservation need for such surveys and assessments, and 29% realized the urgent need for descriptive inventories such as

4 Executive Summary

finding aids and catalogs to further identify the extent of their collections.

But, like the national survey, environmental conditions rated highest in urgent preservation needs at 38% of Virgin Islands collections caregivers. Over 18% reported significant damage from improper storage conditions, exceeded only by 26% attributing such damage to physical and chemical deterioration, and 68% reporting at least some damage from water or moisture, followed closely by light (62%), pests (53%) and airborne particulates (50%).

In the Virgin Islands, storage conditions were even more heavily implicated in collections damage: improper collections storage or enclosures are the cause of damage to collection items in 77% of collecting institutions.

Institutional staff training is a reported urgent need or need at 76% of Virgin Islands institutions and may at least partly account for another 65% of institutions citing damage to collections due to improper handling of collection items. Most Virgin Islands institutions (85%) care for three or more collection types yet, when asked to indicate the number of full-time staff equivalents of internal staff and volunteers who perform preservation and conservation duties, a disturbing 57% reveal they have no staff at all assigned to these tasks. One fact is certain: risks to collections proliferate under such conditions.

Collecting institutions were also surveyed about whether they had an emergency or disaster plan, with staff trained to carry it out. Heritage Preservation was alarmed by the 80% of nationwide respondents that stated they did not have such a plan or staff capability. Unfortunately, the Virgin Islands profile was even worse: 88% of Virgin Islands institutions have neither a current emergency/disaster plan nor staff competent in emergency plan procedures.

If there is a common thread running through the disheartening survey results for environmental and storage conditions,

emergency planning, staffing, and assessments, it is the lack of funding for preservation and conservation planning for Virgin Islands collections.

If there is a common thread running through the disheartening survey results for environmental and storage conditions, emergency planning, staffing and assessments, it is the lack of funding for preservation and conservation planning for Virgin Islands collections.

Only 9% of Virgin Islands institutions have funds specifically allocated for preservation or preventive care expenditures compared to 24% of the national respondents. Of the Virgin Islands organizations surveyed, a mere 3% reported relying on endowed funds during the last three years for such expenditures.

Another 80% have not used or had access to such funds, and another 18% do not even know if endowed support is available.

While funding may be a critical need to promote and achieve collections care in the Virgin Islands, funding in and of itself may not be the primary solution. Note, for example, that 65% of institutions reveal that they have not even applied for preservation or

conservation funding during the last three years, and another 17% do not know if they have applied.

When Virgin Islands collecting entities were asked to state the reasons why they have not applied for such funding, 35% indicated a prerequisite for additional planning, 32% cited the lack of time or expertise to apply, and another 21% were either unaware of funding sources or did not consider conservation of collections to be an institutional priority.

In fact, these reasons are the telltale survey indicators that reveal that the greatest institutional need in the Virgin Islands is for professional training in collections care and management. Collecting institutions that operate or propose to operate in the absence of informed policies, procedures and strategic objectives, cannot and will not achieve the desired result of improved collections care through funding alone.

Administered by trained management and staff, and given resources to carry them out, such policies and procedures, however, can provide a proper foundation for and foster a professional community of collecting institutions and professionals capable of preserving and monitoring the status of the Territory’s cultural, historical and scientific collections.

A summary of the 2004 national Heritage Health Index results is found in A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s Collections, an illustrated booklet published in 2005.* Based on the findings of the 2004 Heritage Health Index, Heritage Preservation recommended that:  Institutions must give priority to providing safe conditions for the collections they hold in trust.  Every collecting institution must develop an emergency plan to protect its collections and train staff to carry it out.  Every institution must assign responsibility for caring for collections to members of its staff.  Individuals at all levels of government and in the private sector must assume responsibility for providing the support that will allow these collections to survive. ____________ *A full report with graphs and tables is available at www.heritagehealthindex.org. A Public Trust at Risk and the Web site feature case studies that describe the conservation challenges and successes of institutions throughout the U.S.

Executive Summary

5

6 Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development The development of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index has at its foundation and core the nationwide 2004 Heritage Health Index goals, methodology and research. With its emphasis on scientific and professional data gathering techniques, the Heritage Preservation template was a model for the Virgin Islands that could be relied on a priori for validity of format, statistical integrity and survey best practices.

When the U.S. survey was conducted in 2004, only four Virgin Islands entities participated: the Elaine Ione Sprauve Public Library and Museum (St. John); the Ralph M. Paiewonsky Library on the St. Thomas Campus of the University of the Virgin Islands; the Library on the St. Croix Campus of the University of the Virgin Islands; and the Virgin Islands National Park. Data from these institutions were aggregated in the Mid-Atlantic region totals reported in A Public Trust at Risk. (See, Executive Summary, at p. 6) The 2009 Statewide Planning Grant opportunity offered by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) presented the perfect opportunity to conduct a local version of the Heritage Health Index survey capturing results from as many Virgin Islands collections caregivers as possible to better inform a preservation way forward for all Virgin Islands collecting institutions. To do this, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index utilized the entire Heritage Preservation survey instrument with only a few modifications to incorporate territorial anomalies (e.g., the substitution of “territory” for “state”) and updated references to computer technology, digital asset management principles, and Internet capabilities. A copy of the survey adapted for use in the U.S. Virgin Islands is attached in Appendix C.

A decision was also made to include an additional section (Section G) of questions targeting issues that were not addressed in the U.S. version of the survey but which represented particular challenges and concerns for Virgin Islands collection caregivers in 2009-2010. Among these issues were the use of donor agreements, exhibition frequency, fees for collection access, insurance coverage, reliability of electrical power, educational outreach programs, foreign language collections, pre- and post-colonial collections, geographic emphasis and digital collecting formats.

History of the Nationwide Survey An important impetus for the U.S. Heritage Health Index project was Creative America: A Report to the President by the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.

Issued in 1997, the report looked at conditions affecting the arts and humanities and made recommendations for sustaining their future health.

One of its six major recommendations was: The President’s Committee calls upon public agencies and the private sector to support a national assessment of the nation’s preservation needs and a plan to protect our cultural legacy.

This recommendation affirmed a need that Heritage Preservation and professional organizations representing collecting institutions have also recognized.

Every profession, whether in the educational, medical, technical, or industrial fields, tracks indicators, measures growth, benchmarks challenges, and predicts future trends—but no such information existed at that time about

Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development

7

the preservation of U.S. collections. Funding programs and initiatives had been launched in the preceding two and a half decades, and progress had been made on numerous fronts, but no single instrument existed for monitoring the status of the nation’s cultural, historical, and scientific collections.

[A]necdotal evidence, which, though powerful, had reached the limits of its effectiveness.

When dealing with inquiries from the media, government officials, private donors, or the public, collecting institutions and allied organizations had typically explained preservation issues using anecdotal evidence, which, though powerful, had reached the limits of its effectiveness. Reliable statistics and evidence on current conditions and preservation needs were important to document the work that U.S. collecting institutions were doing to care for the nation’s collections and to illuminate where additional efforts were required.

These data were also needed to guide future preservation planning and programs, facilitate cooperative approaches to address challenges, and inform the wise allocation of limited resources. Heritage Preservation’s members—libraries, archives, museums, historical societies, and preservation organizations—rely on data for conservation information and advocacy.

Because the care of collections is central to Heritage Preservation’s mission, it was the ideal organization to conduct a survey on the condition and preservation needs of U.S. collections. In its then more than 30 years of experience, Heritage Preservation had built all its preservation efforts on a foundation of assessment and data gathering. Its numerous reports produced results: refined professional practices, reordered institutional priorities, and increased funding for preservation.

To address the immense task of measuring the condition and needs of all U.S. collections, Heritage Preservation also drew on its extensive experience in building

partnerships and alliances. Heritage Preservation initiated a discussion about a national collections needs assessment at its 1999 annual meeting, “Charting a New Agenda for a New Century.” The meeting’s presentations discussed the major issues facing the preservation field in the twentyfirst century, and asserted the need for better data.

Heritage Preservation staff and board members began to develop a plan to conduct such an assessment— the Heritage Health Index—that would include all collections held in the public trust by archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, archaeological repositories, and scientific research organizations. To maintain a tight focus on an already ambitious project, the survey did not include historic structures or living heritage, such as performing arts, or living collections in institutions such as zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens.

The Heritage Health Index was conceived to be a periodic national survey, conducted every four years, so that sets of data could measure trends and benchmark progress.

In the summer of 2001, IMLS proposed a partnership with Heritage Preservation to develop and conduct the Heritage Health Index. IMLS participation in this project helped to fulfill the agency’s mandate “to undertake projects designed to strengthen museum services.”6 Additional funding by the Getty Foundation granted in June 2001 made it possible to begin developing the survey. Over time, project funding also came from the Henry Luce Foundation, the Bay and Paul Foundations, the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, the Peck Stacpoole Foundation, and the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation.

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

6

8 Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development

Literature Review: U.S. and U.S. Virgin Islands Heritage Preservation’s first task in developing the Heritage Health Index was to gather previous and ongoing conservation, preservation, museum, and library surveys to examine the data they collected and the approach, terminology, and methodologies they used. Heritage Preservation discovered that there were more surveys related to preservation in libraries than in museums or historical societies. Surveys in the archival field were found to be instructive, as they usually dealt with a variety of media and formats and involved several different institutional types.

The U.S. literature review established that the national Heritage Health Index would not duplicate any existing survey and revealed ways in which the Heritage Health Index could be designed to complement other preservation surveys. It also reinforced that no studies had addressed the breadth of U.S. collecting institutions and all the materials they held.

Previous studies had been limited to a small range of institutions, selected types of collections or media, or certain aspects of preservation. The review of existing questionnaire and survey formats also informed the eventual design of the U.S. Heritage Health Index survey instrument In a Consultant’s Report on the Virgin Islands Historical Records Needs Assessment (April 1991) by Nicholas C. Burckel, Ph.D., then Associate Dean for Collections & Services at Washington University Libraries,7 Dr. Burckel prepared an executive summary, further elaborated with detailed findings and recommendations, identifying issues which must be addressed in order to establish an effective historical records program for the Virgin Islands (the “Burckel Report”).

The Burckel Report was then paired with A Report from the Virgin Islands Historical Records Advisory Board to the People of the Virgin Islands (1992) and published as a

combined treatise under the title Virgin Islands Historical Records: A Needs Assessment8 (the “1992 VIHRAB Assessment”) before being submitted to the Governor of the Virgin Islands and Virgin Islands citizens for consideration and action in 1992.

In 2009, the 1992 VIHRAB Assessment stood as the lone sentinel of published authority on Virgin Islands collections and the only professional collection assessment known to have been conducted in the Territory. The Burckel Report findings in the 1992 VIHRAB Assessment were culled from survey results as well as extensive interviews, and recommendations for action and goals were thoughtfully articulated in the final joint report. Yet, over a decade and a half later, the report’s conclusions and exhortations to action had faded from institutional memory, losing both currency and relevancy in an increasingly computerized age.

[T]he [1992 VIHRAB Assessment] report’s conclusions and exhortations to action had faded from institutional memory, losing both currency and relevancy in an increasingly computerized age.

It was clearly time to update and build on the 1992 VIHRAB Assessment, and to incorporate safeguards and partnerships that would ensure action and follow-through.

Advisors and Partners: U.S. and U.S. Virgin Islands Heritage Preservation established an Institutional Advisory Committee of 35 professional associations and federal agencies that represented collecting institutions to advise on the development and implementation of its 2004 Heritage Health Index. Heritage Preservation convened the committee in October 2001 to discuss the

7

Dr. Burckel later served as the 52nd President of the Society of American Archivists from 1996-1997.

8

See, Appendix A.

Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development

9

goals for the nationwide survey, the universe of institutions the study intended to cover, the process for developing the survey instrument, and the audiences for the survey results.

Heritage Preservation also solicited feedback on what preservation topics were of interest to the Institutional Advisory Committee’s constituencies.

For the Virgin Islands Planning Grant, a distinguishing organizational feature was the requirement to establish grant partnerships with local collecting institutions and caregivers. These collecting entities were as varied as the representation of collections types sought for the survey participation and each partner brought a strength and perspective that complemented the group’s efforts and enhanced the survey results.

The Virgin Islands 2009-2010 Statewide Planning Grant Partners (the “Partners”) are: Office of the Lieutenant Governor of the Virgin Islands University of the Virgin Islands, Department of Information and Technology Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Virgin Islands National Park District Court of the Virgin Islands Community Foundation of the Virgin Islands, Inc. Economic Development Authority, Enterprise Zone Commission Friends of the Elaine I. Sprauve Public Library St. Croix Landmarks Society, Inc. Virgin Islands Social History Associates, Inc. Virgin Islands Source Virgin Islands Bar Association St. Thomas-St. John Library Association, Inc. St. Croix Library Association, Inc. Caribbean Genealogy Library, Inc. St. John Historical Society, Inc. St. Thomas Historical Trust, Inc.

On October 3, 2008, the Partners met for an initial briefing on the grant parameters, submitted letters of commitment to the grant project for inclusion with the grantee’s application, and then met virtually online using iLinc Webinar technology over the course of the next 18 months on eight separate occasions.

The Partners also participated in a Trial Survey (See, Appendix F) which was used to

evaluate the effectiveness of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey before its formal territory-wide launch. Each Partner will receive a full copy of this report as well as the Strategic Plan developed under the Planning Grant. DLAM also intends to make the report and plan available online to the public through its website9 as soon as server capacity and network functionality permits.

Survey Research, Development and Testing: U.S. and U.S. Virgin Islands Heritage Preservation obtained professional expertise to develop a survey methodology and implementation plan that would gather statistically valid results. In early 2002, Heritage Preservation hired the survey research firm Aeffect, Inc., of Deerfield, Illinois, to advise on survey methodology and questionnaire protocol and layout and to conduct a test of the survey instrument.

In addition, Heritage Preservation worked with statistical consultant Lee-Ann Hayek, Chief Mathematical Statistician at the National Museum for Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, on statistical sampling and analysis.

In February 2002, Heritage Preservation began convening Working Groups, each made up of about seven collections professionals.

Each of the nine groups had representatives from each type, size, and geographical region of the institutions to be surveyed and comprised a diversity of collections professionals, including conservators, preservation administrators, archivists, librarians, curators, and registrars.

The Working Groups addressed each of the following collections areas: • Archaeological and ethnographic objects • Books, manuscripts, records, maps, newspapers • 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 9

www.virginislandspubliclibraries.com

10 Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development

Working Group members carefully reviewed the survey questionnaire to ensure that the questions reflected the specific issues relevant to the collections under discussion. The Working Group meetings served as focus groups about how different staff within an institution might answer the survey questions.

Working Group members also provided feedback on how institutions might use the survey results.

The Working Groups noted that such surveys tend to capture the largest and most wellknown institutions and recommended that Heritage Preservation make a special effort to include small institutions in the survey universe. Especially in the areas of moving images, recorded sound, and digital materials, there was a desire to learn about collections and preservation conditions at small institutions.

Because Working Group members represented archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, and scientific research organizations, Heritage Preservation was able to build a consensus on neutral terminology that all types of institutions would understand.

The survey avoided technical language and jargon to ensure that survey participants of any professional level would understand the questions. To minimize the respondents’ effort, the survey used close-ended questions whenever possible. Each question had the option “don’t know” to prevent institutions from leaving a question blank. The result of this deliberate collaboration with the Working Groups was a comprehensive, yet focused, survey questionnaire.

Working Group members urged Heritage Preservation to distribute the survey online to appeal to larger institutions and those in the academic and scientific fields, but to also distribute the questionnaire on paper so that it would be accessible to institutions that might not be comfortable with a Web-based survey.

In the process of developing the questionnaire, Heritage Preservation and consultants with Aeffect, Inc., determined that, since such a wide variety of institutions and professionals would be asked to complete the survey, it would be prudent to conduct two tests with two different groups. The first test gauged institutions’ reactions to the questionnaire and

evaluated their experience filling it out. The test confirmed that no one type of institution was more or less likely to respond to the survey.

Respondents gauged that it took between one and three hours to fill out the questionnaire, and many felt that the benefits of the Heritage Health Index made it worth the time it took.

Most respondents noted that it required the involvement of more than one staff person to complete the survey.

Several [nationwide] respondents specifically mentioned that the survey served as a self-study exercise that helped them think through funding requests, ways of presenting preservation needs to institutional leadership, and long-range planning.

Almost all institutions remarked that the questionnaire thoroughly covered all aspects of collections care. Several respondents specifically mentioned that the survey served as a self-study exercise that helped them think through funding requests, ways of presenting preservation needs to institutional leadership, and long-range planning. They also noted which questions were the most challenging to complete, and based on this feedback, Heritage Preservation made modifications to several questions.

To increase its sample size, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index survey team targeted a wider array of collecting institutions than used

by Heritage Preservation. There was little or no history of survey participation by the targeted institutions, thus low response rates were anticipated. Collections presumed to exist were often managed and cared for by agencies, organizations or institutions that historically had not considered or appreciated their role as collections stewards. This was especially true of public agencies such as public schools, government departments with collections of government documents, surveys and engineering drawings, and private record collections held by religious institutions and nonprofits.

Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development

11

In this first-ever comprehensive survey of Virgin Islands collecting institutions an anticipated low response rate, though undesirable, was not necessarily without its uses. Among other things, the failure of identified collections custodians to respond could reasonably be viewed as an articulation of the need for greater understanding of what a collection is and what it means to be a collections caregiver.

Planning Survey Implementation: U.S. and U.S. Virgin Islands Heritage Preservation, in consultation with its advisors, determined that the survey would collect the most reliable results if it were distributed using two different sampling methods: selective sampling and random sampling.

For its selective sampling, Heritage Preservation identified approximately 500 of the largest collecting institutions and some smaller institutions with highly significant collections to ensure that the Heritage Health Index data would include a large portion of U.S. collections. The 500 targeted institutions were balanced by type and state of institution and included all state libraries, museums, archives, and historical societies as well as major federal collecting institutions such as the Library of Congress, all units of the National Archives and Records Administration, and the Smithsonian Institution. Heritage Preservation also identified another 900 institutions, such as mid-sized academic libraries and museums, that were important.

To accurately represent the remaining 34,000 institutions for each type of institution and location across the country, a stratified random sample was drawn to yield approximately 14,000 institutions.

In the U.S. Virgin Islands, the universe of collecting institutions and entities is significantly smaller over all categories and particularly within certain categories. As a result, the Heritage Preservation sampling techniques were less appropriate to employ for the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index.

In any event, the sampling parameters were incapable of being replicated since in the prospective survey population there was neither a sufficient variety nor a balanced range of institutional size, type or quantity. It should be emphasized here that, since its conception, one of the principal purposes of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index survey was to identify unknown or hidden collections, and to expand the known universe of collection caregivers, no matter how small the demographic. Given the lack of

[O]ne of the principal purposes of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index survey was to identify unknown or hidden collections, and to expand the known universe of collection caregivers, no matter how small the demographic.

information available on Virgin Islands collections, it would have been impossible by definition to design a survey implementation sample that could be fully representative even while it was very important to be inclusive of collection holder types.

During the development phase of the Heritage Health Index, Heritage Preservation considered how the survey should physically be distributed. Based on input from the Working Group members, as well as test survey respondents, Heritage Preservation decided to distribute the survey in hard copy to all participants and offer a Web survey as an alternative way to respond.

By 2009-2010, however, the Virgin Islands institutions and entities participating in the survey were much more dependent on computer technology and many expected accessibility and execution via the Web for any survey materials. Thus, for the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey, a Web-based form was developed, and a paper alternative was offered.

Initially, the Virgin Islands grant project team used Adobe Acrobat Pro v9.0 software installations funded by the Planning Grant to create an interactive PDF form for collecting survey responses for analysis. However,

12 Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development

before the PDF survey form could be fully implemented and distributed online, the more robust Adobe Acrobat LiveCycle upgraded software format became available. The initial PDF form version was scrapped and a new survey form with increased back-end functionality was created.

The Adobe LiveCycle survey form was eventually structured to generate the datasets required to adequately and meaningfully analyze the survey data presented in this report. Initial data collection was monitored and completed using Adobe.com and Adobe Tracker utilities. Paper copies of surveys were keyed manually into the database and verified for accuracy by the Project Manager. The aggregated data was then exported in commaseparate values (.csv) format to Microsoft Excel 2007 where it was further manipulated, reviewed and analyzed.

Excel data analysis tables, pivot tables and charts were created to visualize results and many have been incorporated in this report.

Data anomalies and obvious errors and omissions were treated on a case-by-case basis with individualized follow-up and interviews as necessary. In a few specialized instances missing data could be imputed by the Project Manager based on direct knowledge of and experience with the collections. In some cases, such responses were allowed to remain as submitted if the net effect would not be overly egregious.

Another aspect of the survey implementation that Heritage Preservation carefully considered was the confidentiality of individual responses. The Institutional Advisory Committee and Working Group members warned that some institutions could be reluctant to participate or reply honestly that their collection conditions were less than ideal.

To combat the perception that the survey could expose negligence and to adhere to survey ethics, the national Heritage Health Index questionnaire included a confidentiality statement. Even though response reluctance was not expected to be an issue, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey utilized the same approach when it included the following wording in Section H of the survey:

The following information will be used only if the Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums (DLAM) needs to clarify a response.

DLAM will keep this information, like all the information you provided in this survey, completely confidential. Only aggregate data will be reported. Your individual responses will never be published or identified by DPNR, DLAM, Heritage Preservation, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, or any other organization cooperating in this project.

Publicizing the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index To gear up for the distribution date of the survey and to promote participation and response, press releases were issued in the local media and through the Partners about the IMLS Statewide Planning Grant.

For both a trial survey run among the Partners in June-August 2009, and the final survey conducted territory-wide from October 2009October 2010, the Territorial Archives provided survey instructional material via email including a Frequently Asked Questions compendium, a cover letter and survey introduction from the Grant Project Director, links to the online survey and the 2005 U.S. Heritage Health Index report and a downloadable interactive PDF survey form (See, Appendices D, E and F).

The Planning Grant was also a featured topic in October 2009, when 50 site visits for initial collection assessments throughout the Territory were conducted by the Grant Consultant and the Grant Project Manager.

The site visit interview process included a briefing on the background and objectives of the upcoming Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey. In February 2010 the Grant Consultant and Grant Project Manager collaborated on written assessments for nine (9) institutional collections, as further followup to the site visits.

Information on the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index survey was featured during two workshops conducted under the Planning Grant. Full-day sessions were held on St. Thomas and St. Croix in February 2010 for preservation management training for 81 participants representing cultural heritage and historical collections throughout the Territory.

Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development

13

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index was also one of the key reference resources of a Wet Disaster Recovery workshop funded under the Planning Grant and conducted in February 2011 in St. Thomas and St. Croix by a Preservation Consultant from the Northeast Document Conservation Center. Over 48 persons attended the one-day workshops on each island.

Identifying the Study Population for the Virgin Islands Survey The institutional population for the national Heritage Health Index included archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, archaeological repositories, and scientific research organizations that held their collections in the public trust. Within that group, Heritage Preservation identified a “study population” that was most appropriate for its survey.

Heritage Preservation quickly realized though that obtaining a list of all the institutions in the study population would be a considerable challenge because no single source directory for that information existed. Using a variety of publicly available and private licensed mailing lists and professional association directories, Heritage Preservation invested significant time in the creation of the Heritage Health Index sampling frame, which grew to about 35,000 entries. Ultimately, after further attrition due to incomplete or outdated entries, the nationwide Heritage Health Index data was based on a total population of 30,827 institutions.

Similar challenges faced the Virgin Islands survey project team in deciding how narrowly or inclusively to define its territorial survey population.

Both the nationwide and Virgin Islands surveys instructed participants to “complete the questionnaire for collections that are a permanent part of your holdings or for which you have accepted preservation responsibility,” which would apply to collections at most archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, archaeological repositories, and scientific research organizations. With a significantly more

finite population of such traditional collections, however, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey could easily be expanded to broaden the defined collecting community in the Territory, and still be manageable.

For example, Heritage Preservation chose not to include elementary and secondary school and some college libraries in the national survey, since they did not hold rare, special, or archival collections. Likewise, branch public libraries, hospital libraries, and prison libraries generally were not included. Record centers, such as county clerk offices, were not included in the national survey population because their collections had not been through a decision-making process to determine longterm archival record retention.

For-profit organization libraries, such as those maintained at law firms, newspapers, corporations, and architectural/engineering firms, also were excluded from the U.S. Heritage Health Index survey population.10 The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey, on the other hand, chose to target as potential survey participants some of the institutional types eliminated under the national survey. The overarching strategy was to use the occasion of the survey itself as a public relations tool to sensitize collection managers and custodians in the Territory about the importance of their preservation and collection caretaking roles.

The tactic utilized was to involve as many types of collections in the survey as necessary to accomplish this objective, and to provide much-needed recognition of the efforts and challenges of the Territory’s collections managers.

In retrospect, the survey’s outreach goal was probably too ambitiously broad too early in the process and did not serve to create a perceived sense of a collections community to the degree the grant project team hoped to

10

Although the Heritage Preservation questionnaire did not include questions about living collections, arboretums, aquariums, botanical gardens, nature centers, and zoos were included in the study population because they often have non-living collections. This protocol was adopted for the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey as well.

14 Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development

foster. Yet, the expanded survey population typology was a significant beginning and created a viable baseline of identifiable collections counterparts (even if not yet a community) from which to proceed. If nothing else, the preservation role of records and collections custodians in the Territory enjoyed increased visibility and awareness through the initial contact to potential participants and the active rounds of follow-up undertaken to stimulate more survey responses.

While statistical validity was an important consideration, the decision to adopt an inclusive survey population for the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index was primarily motivated by the grant project’s goals of improved education, awareness and advocacy.

Still, it is hoped that when this Territorial survey is periodically repeated in years to come, the initial effort to identify the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index survey population will serve as a benchmark that will stand up to further scientific scrutiny and statistical legitimacy.

Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development

15

16 Chapter 1: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Development

Chapter 2: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology Recognizing, however, that examples of this caliber and scale of institution exist few and far between in the Territory, the Virgin Islands survey audience purposefully included several categories of less-traditional institutional groups without exceptions for governance.

Sampling Frame and Sample Selection A pool of over 250 collecting institutions was identified as the sampling frame for the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey. Due to the limited universe of perceived collections, a deliberate decision was made to forgo or deemphasize some of the limitations of the target and random sampling set strategies used by Heritage Preservation.

Examples of such groups included: school libraries, some of which were known to contain historical documents relating to the founding of the schools, yearbook collections and the like; individual territorial government office creators/custodians of both legacybased and digital government records; art galleries; libraries at law firms and courts of law; religious institutions; private collectors; and individual divisions of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor relating to the Recorder of Deeds, real property tax assessments, commercial lien filings, cadastral records, geospatial information systems, and banking and insurance regulation. Whenever circumstances warranted or permitted, institutions were selected proportionately by type and size within the islands of St. Thomas, St. Croix and St. John.

Each Virgin Islands institution was categorized into one of 10 types:  Archives  Libraries  Historical Societies  Museums  Scientific Research/Archaeological  Private Enterprise  Religious Institutions  Nonprofit Organizations  Professional Organizations  Other Government Agencies Among the entities identified were the largest and most significant collecting institutions of all types in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

n=2 Fig. 2.1 St. John, the least populated of the three islands, had two survey respondents: an historical society (1) and a public library (1).

Chapter 2: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology

17

n = 14

Fig. 2.2 The variety of responding institutions in St. Croix was broader in scope though less in number than St. Thomas: agency or university with specimens/artifacts (1); archives (2); botanical garden (1); historic house or site (1); historical society (1); independent research library (1); public library (2); special library (2); and other institutions (3) for a total of 14.

n = 18

Fig. 2.3 A total of 18 collecting institutions based in St. Thomas responded to the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey: academic libraries (6), archives (5), independent research library (1), public library (1) and others (5).

18 Chapter 2: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology

Interaction and Follow-up with Survey Target Population During the trial and initial launch phase of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey, the Project Manager found that direct contact with institutions to verify specific information, especially contact names, and to alert institutions about receiving the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index survey, improved the likelihood of the survey getting to the right person in the institution and avoided delayed response rates.

That being the case, however, the inordinate amount of time devoted to interacting with the survey participants to ensure that the surveys were completed and responses transmitted may have exceeded planning estimates by as much as a factor of ten. In many cases, the Project Manager was required to travel to the survey respondent’s place of business to guide an institution’s representative through the survey questions, step by step, to address any concerns or confusion in interpreting the survey in the context of the institution’s collections.

For most respondents this was the very first time they had been engaged in a survey of this type over their collection holdings. The collection survey process, though much appreciated and valued by the participants, was completely foreign to their experience.

Web-Based Survey Design It was the Project Manager’s intent to make participation in the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index study as easy and accessible as possible. A paper survey modeled on the U.S. Heritage Health Index Survey was used with the permission of Heritage Preservation and facilitated easier comparison of data results.

However, since Heritage Preservation was unable to share the electronic file of its survey, the questionnaire form was built from scratch first in Microsoft Word 2007.

Since most institutions and collections caregivers were experienced with electronic files, it was decided to create a digital complement to the print version of the survey using Adobe Acrobat Professional v9.0. The

software was purchased under the terms of the grant and distributed to key personnel on the DPNR/DLAM Grant Management Team.

Later, and before distribution of the final survey to participants, the electronic PDF version was upgraded and completely reconstructed using Adobe LiveCycle Professional.

In the end, while most participants were able to view the survey form electronically, on the whole they were less familiar and/or comfortable with using online forms to transmit data and demonstrated a preference for using the paper-based form. Only 35% of the institutions surveyed submitted their surveys online using the upgraded Adobe LiveCycle interactive PDF form. Most simply scanned in the form and emailed it to the Project Manager as an attachment or, in a few cases, sent a hand-completed or typed-in form by facsimile transmission.

Survey Delivery and Administration A trial survey was conducted during the period of July, August and September 2009 among the 16 Partners under the IMLS Statewide Planning Grant. The original deadline for response was August 16, 2009, but was extended first to September 2009 and then October 2009 in order to obtain enough responses on which to fairly evaluate the effectiveness of the administration, distribution and compilation of the trial version of the survey. (See, Appendix F) Based on feedback and input from the Partners that participated in the Trial Survey, few changes were incorporated. However, about this time a modified version of the Adobe software used to prepare the interactive online version of the survey was utilized, requiring a complete rebuild of the survey form from that used for the Trial Survey.

The Trial Survey online form was created using Adobe Professional v9.0, and utilized Adobe.com for results reporting and compilation. Software changes to Adobe LiveCycle Designer necessitated a full restructuring and creation of the interactive Survey Form. Designer forms are structured documents with a hierarchical structure that can be converted into XML. This structure can

Chapter 2: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology

19

include structure from XML schema and example XML files. Designer forms can be saved as PDF files or XDP files. XDP files are used by the Adobe LiveCycle Form Server to render files to PDF or HTML as needed. PDF forms made in Designer can be designed to be dynamic (changing layout in response to data propagated from other sources), interactive (capable of accepting user input) or both. As of Designer 7.0, dynamic features of these PDF forms can be manipulated by the Adobe Form Server during the rendering process, or by the Adobe Acrobat/Acrobat Reader client during viewing.

Since the Adobe LiveCycle Designer format offered more functionality and ease of use on the back-end data aggregation systems, all survey forms received to the point of software integration were re-keyed in so that data could be saved and analyzed with all future submissions.

During this time period, and beginning as early as late September 2009, targeted institutions were contacted by email and by phone to determine their interest in participating in the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey. Over a period of several months, favorable indications were received in discussions and email communications with 76 institutions (including the 16 partners) and subsidiary offices. Other collections holders contacted were either non-responsive, appropriate contact persons could not be established or discerned in time, collecting functions responsibilities were not recognized by the institution, or there were administrative impediments to participation.

In October 2009, the first email was sent with accompanying PDF attachments to prospective survey participants. Attachments included the following: a PDF version of the survey form for printing and completion by hand, an accompanying transmittal letter from Project Director Ingrid A. Bough, J.D., Territorial Director of the Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums of the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources, an instruction sheet labeled “About the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey” and a five-page “More Info” sheet detailing term definitions used in the survey and frequently asked questions. In addition, a

separate survey invitation generated by the Adobe LiveCycle Server was sent via email with a link to an interactive Adobe LiveCycle PDF survey form offering the option of survey completion online and automated submission.

(See, Appendix E) The distribution of surveys was executed in this fashion through March 2010 in order to garner as many participants as possible.

Communication with survey participants was frequent but intermittent over this period due to other grant activities, and this necessitated a protracted period of survey distribution and follow-up. As the survey information gathering was being concluded in the fall of 2010, several last-ditch attempts to coax responses from targeted survey institutions resulted in a final count of 34 surveys being completed and submitted for data entry and analysis.

In the end, only slightly more than a third of LiveCycle Designer-based survey forms (35%) were submitted by respondents online. In subsequent follow-up interviews and discussions with the respondents, the main reason for this lower than expected usage of the interactive and automated form was exposed: reliable Internet connectivity and bandwidth at Virgin Islands institutional repositories was generally of such inferior quality that in the end it was much easier to simply print out the PDF form and complete it by hand.

It should also be noted that during the active survey period of late 2009-2010 many of the collecting institutions, as well as the wider business and cultural community, in the Virgin Islands were affected by a series of technical difficulties and deficiencies being experienced by a major local Internet service and wireless service provider in the Territory.

While these communications failures were finally remediated, the net effect was to dampen enthusiasm and willingness to cooperate in an automated online survey process or to treat doing so as a priority.

The primary functions of those institutions most likely to respond via Adobe LiveCycle Designer interactive online survey forms were archives (100%), independent library (100%), public library (75%), academic library (33%) and “Other” (25%).

20 Chapter 2: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology

n=8 Fig. 2.4 Primary functions of institutions self-described as “Other” are shown in further detail above by island.

STT = St. Thomas. STX = St. Croix.

No respondents from St. John selected “Other” as a primary function.

n=8 Fig. 2.5 Primary functions of all Territorial institutions self-described as “Other” in Question B1v are shown in further detail above.

Chapter 2: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology

21

Final Dispositions and Response Rates In many cases, one institution would be responsible for the preservation of collections at more than one location, or in several administrative subunits at the same location.

The U.S. Heritage Health Index allowed each institution to define its collection entity which resulted in redefining the sample unit.

Ultimately, however, sample groups were reduced for these subunit counts in keeping with the parameters established under the survey design and data collection.

For the 2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index, institutional reporting for discrete subunits and divisions were tolerated and utilized in order to reflect statistical data from the greatest number of collecting organizations possible.

Data Analysis The Project Manager reviewed the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index data and made all decisions regarding data tabulation. In December 2011 the findings will be shared with and evaluated by the Grant Consultant.

Thereafter, the results will be presented for further review by and comments from all grant project partners.

Assignment of Institution Type and Self-Reported Institution Type The Project Manager initially viewed the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index data by institutional type as defined by the list of 21 types of institutions in question B1, which asked participants to select their primary function or service. However, viewing the data by these many categories was cumbersome.

Just as experienced by Heritage Preservation in the 2005 Heritage Health Index report, in the case of some groups (e.g., museums, arboretums, and aquariums) the effort was also insignificant because the data were based on too few responses.

For sampling purposes, the Project Manager categorized all institutions into one of ten

types. For the most part, these assignments were made based on the Project Manager’s knowledge and/or familiarity with each institution and by utilizing the self-identified institution type from the questionnaire. The ten category types identified were: Academic library Agency or university with scientific specimens Archives Botanic garden Historic house Historical society Independent research library Other Public library Special library

Subsidiary Functions: Archives and Libraries In the U.S. survey, Heritage Preservation had grappled with how to capture data on archives, as archives are often subsidiaries of other institutions. Nationwide survey participants were instructed to complete the survey for all collections at the institutions, and the example of a subsidiary archives or library was used.

The national questionnaire asked institutions to identify one primary function or service and to select as many secondary functions or services as applicable. Therefore, the 2005 Heritage Health Index report data may be viewed by institutions that selected archives as a primary function (i.e., stand-alone archives) and by institutions that indicated archives as a primary or additional function.

Institutions that indicated in the 2005 report “archives” as a secondary function totaled 44%, the most frequent secondary function.

The second most common secondary function claimed was “library” at 22%. These subgroups were referenced in the 2005 U.S. Heritage Health Index report when doing so further illuminated the U.S. Heritage Health Index findings.

For the Virgin Islands, the subsidiary function was handled differently, as warranted by the smaller sample set and the desirability of a larger data set on which to run the analyses.

Subsidiaries were treated as discrete institutions as mentioned above.

22 Chapter 2: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology

Subgroup—By Island The survey sample was stratified by island to ensure accurate geographical representation.

However, the relatively few number of institutions in the Territory would have required sampling at 100% and response rates of close to 100% to produce reliable data by island. This simply was not feasible given the limited grant personnel and other resources at hand.

Subgroup—Governance The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey question B5 asked institutions to indicate the governance under which they operate.

Methods for Weighting or Imputing Data As with most surveys, both unit (institution) and item (question) non-response is unavoidable. Weighting adjustments for unit non-response was eschewed in all cases. It was more appropriate to impute missing information based on direct evidence, followup interviews or personal knowledge but this was done only with notice to or with the knowledge of the survey participant.

Annual Operating Budgets It was noted that the reporting of institutional financial data had a higher level of nonresponse than other questions. This is generally attributed to the high degree of government division or agency entity representation in the respondent pool. Many

Virgin Islands government divisions and educational institutions are not direct participants in the annual budgetary process that customarily takes place at the departmental level, or their direct participation may be limited to supplying focused portions of divisional financial information. In some cases, only departmental or clustered divisional budgets are made public so discretely aggregated information is not always readily available to staff or the public or expressed by cultural or collecting function.

Quantity and Condition of Collections Institutions were asked to report on the number of collection items they held and the condition of the items for more than 50 different types of collections. Many institutions reported holding specific types of collections but were unable to report on the quantity or did not respond to the conditions.

Since one of the main objectives of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index was to report on the condition of as many collection items and item types in the U.S. Virgin Islands, missing data were imputed when necessary and appropriate with values from similar institutions, whenever available, or from direct experience and knowledge.

Rounding Data were reported in the nearest whole number. For results less than 0.5%, the number is displayed as zero (0). Data will not add to 100% in questions where multiple responses were allowed.

Chapter 2: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology

23

24 Chapter 2: Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology

Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index survey had 34 respondents from a modest range of collecting institutions. (See, Figs. 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) All three islands—St. Thomas, St. Croix and St. John—were represented. The estimated population of institutions that hold U.S. Virgin Islands collections in public and private trust is 25o.

Responding institutions were asked to select their primary function or service for the purpose of classifying them with their peers.

Figure 3.1 shows the list of 21 options and the percentage of respondents in each category.

For ease in comparison, the percentage of respondents in the 2004 nationwide Heritage Health Index is also shown.

As explained previously (Chapter 2, Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Methodology) the lack of diversity for some institutional types and the relatively small population size of the representative sample made responses unsuitable for weighting. However, for those 34 Virgin Islands institutions that did respond, this report will document revealing collecting institution characteristics and practices and thereby help to inform subsequent territorial profiles and studies with increased statistical accuracy.

Following the Heritage Preservation model, similar institution types that had comparable survey findings were combined to create a list of 10 types of institutions. Figure 3.2 shows these.

Throughout this report, data will be presented for territorial totals and by ten specific types of institutions, often further defined by governance. Since the survey population includes so few respondents and a smaller

Primary Function Categories in qB1

VI (2009-2010)

US (2004)

(does not include “Other”)

n = 34 21% 12% 18% 6% 6% 6% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

n = 3,370 4% 23% 9% 1% 7% 11% 9% 11% 6% .04% 2% 1% 5% 5% 1% 3% 1% .02% 1% 0% 1%

Archives Public library Academic library Independent research library Special library Historical society Historic house/site History museum Art museum Children’s/youth museum Natural history museum Science/technology museum General museum Specialized museum Archaeological repository Scientific research (university) collection Arboretum/Botanical garden Aquarium Nature center Planetarium Zoo

Fig. 3.1 Primary function categories declared in qB1

Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI

25

n = 34

Fig. 3.2 Combined responses (n = 34) for the Territory demonstrate that public library, academic library and archives collection holders have a distinct influence on the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Survey results. Unlike the national Heritage Health Index survey, public school and private school libraries were also included in the academic library category. range of institution types and sizes, it should be noted that territorial averages and totals will be influenced accordingly by the characteristics described herein.

The U.S. Heritage Health Index had 3,370 respondents representing the full range of U.S. collecting institutions, large and small, from every state and territory. The nationwide responses were weighted to the estimated population of 30,827 archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, archaeological repositories, and scientific research organizations that held collections in public trust. Over 80% of the collecting institutions were museums or libraries, but within those categories the non-art and non-science museums and public (not academic) libraries were the most prevalent.

Collecting institutions responding to the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index, on the other hand, had a noticeable population claiming “library” as their principal function— academic, public and special independent.

With very few museums operating in the Territory the library primary function was controlling. Some of the primary function libraries also claimed a secondary function as a specialized library and, overall, “library” was the secondary function category most likely to be chosen regardless of the declarant’s primary function. (See, Fig. 3.3) In the U.S. Heritage Health Index results, it was also noted that annual institutional budgets were a key determinant of size and nearly three-quarters of institutions surveyed had annual operating budgets of less than

26 Chapter 3:Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI

Primary Function (qB1) Institution Type

Additional Function Quantity

Academic Library Agency or university with Scientific Specimens Archives Botanic Garden Historic House Historical Society Independent Research Library Other Public Library Special Library Grand Total

6 1

Archives (qB2a) 1 0

Library (qB2b) 5 0

Historic Site (qB2d) 0 0

7 1 1 2 2 8 4 2 34

1 1 0 2 2 2 2 0 11

1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 10

0 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 6

Fig. 3.3 Primary function categories declared in qB1 with additional functions of archives, library and/or historic site [qB2a, qB2b, qB2d] $500,000. The estimated study population consisted of 74% small institutions, 17% medium-sized institutions, and 9% large institutions. Therefore, any overall national findings were significantly influenced by the fact that the majority of collecting institutions were considered small. For the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index data, a slightly different approach was taken.

In the U.S. Virgin Islands, most institutional budget information, when it was available, placed collecting entities at the low end of the small institution size range reference established under the U.S. survey, but more often than not participants surveyed stated

they either had no budget or no institutional budget information was revealed. In follow up interviews, generally one of two reasons was given for this result.

A majority of collecting institutions responding to the survey declared the territorial government as their governing body. (See, Fig. 3.4) In the territorial government the annual budgetary process typically is highly stratified and centralized in each government department and agency.

Many divisions and subdivisions within agencies and departments participate only peripherally in financial planning and most do so only to the extent that they may be required

n = 34 Fig. 3.4 Governance of institutions [qB5]

Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI

27

n =5 Fig. 3.5 Details of “Other� governance responses [qB5, qB5g] to provide data, service counts and input for aggregated reporting out on a departmental level. Thus, most respondents were unable to reveal the portion of the published departmental or agency budget specific to their primary function that was the particular focus of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey. (See, Fig. 3.8) Another reason offered for the absence of this information from most of the completed surveys is that many cultural heritage and collecting institutions in the Territory have failed to demonstrate a sufficient command and knowledge of the costs associated with the custody and care of their collections at the management level. In fact, in more than a few cases, the function of caring for the collections has never been treated as a recognizable expense or budgeted need because no custodial and caregiving position of responsibility is sufficiently described, assigned or incorporated in the planning, operations and goals of the institutional unit.

It is in precisely such cases that the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey has served as a wake-up call to increase awareness about how to properly and professionally

anticipate and plan for staffing and other operational costs when carrying out an institutional mandate for preserving and managing collections.

Figure 3.6 indicates the average staff sizes by reporting type of Virgin Islands institution, showing that academic libraries and special libraries are more likely to have larger, fulltime paid staffs than historical societies, historic houses, or archival collections. This information is useful in keeping preservation staffing and activities in context.

For example, historical societies and historic homes may not have as many conservation/ preservation staff or may not have addressed certain preservation issues, and they may have no full-time paid staff but, on average, historical societies have one (1) part-time paid staff member, and three (3) part-time unpaid staff members or volunteers.

The same staffing trend was also exhibited in the earlier national Heritage Health Index Survey results. This indication of the preservation value of a volunteer, i.e., unpaid, workforce may have even greater pertinence during the foreseeable economic uncertainties.

28 Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI

Full-time paid staff 4

Part-time paid staff 1

Full-time unpaid staff 0

Part-time unpaid staff 0

Agency or university with scientific specimens Archives

2

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

Botanical Garden

5

5

0

0

Historic House

2

0

0

2

Historical Society

0

1

0

3

Independent Research Library

0

1

0

0

Other

1

2

0

0

Public Library

2

0

0

1

Special Library

3

0

0

1

Institution (n = 34) Academic Library

Fig. 3.6 Average staff size by type of Virgin Islands collecting institution is shown above. [qH1a-qH1d]

Fig.3.7 Additional functions (by type and number of respondents) [qB2a-qB2i]

Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI

29

Fig. 3.8 Annual operating budget (institutional) [qE2]

The U.S. Heritage Health Index survey asked institutions to indicate any additional functions or services they provide. About onethird did not have any additional functions, but another third had at least one, and the remaining third had more than one. Less than 1% of the nationwide respondents had more than five additional functions. The U.S. results reported the most frequently declared secondary functions to be archives (44%), libraries (22%) and historic houses/sites (17%). A similar profile emerges when these findings are compared to the Virgin Islands.

Archives was also the most frequent secondary function (23%), followed by libraries (21%), and historic house/sites (13%). It is helpful to remember these additional functions and the correlation between the U.S. and the Virgin Islands results when evaluating data by type of institution.

Across the U.S., historical societies, followed by museums, were the most likely to have more than three additional functions (47% and 25% respectively). The only reporting entity in the Virgin Islands claiming more than three

additional functions was one of the two responding historical societies, but 63% of all respondents reported responsibility for at least one additional function, another 6% claimed two secondary functions, and 12% claimed three functions. The primary institutional function category most often reporting multiple additional functions was “library.�

Only 11% of Virgin Islands collecting institutions reported no secondary functions whatsoever.

In the national survey, responses to the question on governance of collecting institutions came from non-profit institutions (42%), county/municipal governed institutions (28%), academic entities (17%), state institutions (6%), and federal institutions (4%). In A Public Trust at Risk, Heritage Preservation reported that when U.S. academic institutions’ specific governance was incorporated with non-academic governance, the percentage of non-profit organizations increased to 50% and state-run institutions to 15%.

30 Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI

Fig. 3.9 Additional functions by type (percentage and count) [qB2a-qB2i]

Fig. 3.10 Details of “Other” additional functions [qB2i-qB2j]

Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI

31

In the Virgin Islands results, the national percentages are almost inverted: collecting institutions whose governance fell under the Government of the Virgin Islands comprised 56% of the responding entities—59% if one includes the single university/higher education institution in the Territory, since it,

too, is principally funded by legislated appropriations. Only 26% of the collecting institutions in the Virgin Islands fall into the category of non-profit, NGO or foundation, with “Other” religious institutions making up another 12%. Only 3% of the Virgin Islands respondents were privately-owned enterprises.

n = 34 Fig. 3.11 Number of collection holders (by collection type) [qF4a-qF4j]

32 Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI

n = 34

Fig. 3.12 Percentage of collection holders (by collection type) [qF4a-qF4j]

Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI

33

34 Chapter 3: Characteristics of Collecting Institutions in the USVI

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items The central purpose of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index is to determine the condition of collections and the needs of collections caregivers in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The survey participants—among them archives, libraries, historical societies, historic houses and sites, archaeological repositories, private foundations, public and private schools, churches, newspapers, and government agencies—were asked to estimate the quantity of collections for which they take preservation responsibility.

The 11 general and 58 specific collection type categories identified and used in the 2005 national survey report were adapted for use in the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index.

Respondents provided answers by specific collection type, and data were aggregated into the following general categories, following the order in the original 2004 survey questionnaire:              

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 participants were instructed to indicate the percentage of

their collections in “unknown condition,”11 “no need,”12 “need,”13 or “urgent need”14 of preservation/conservation. The categories of need were intentionally designed to be broad so that every institution, even those that had not done an assessment of their collections, could easily determine the condition of collection items.

The responses to this line of questioning highlight what types of collections are in greatest need of immediate attention; however, significant percentages of each type of collection are in unknown condition, so the amount of collections in need is likely to be much higher. The subsequent chapters in this report elucidate specific needs facing collections and what institutions are doing to care for them.15 11

Unknown condition: Material has not been recently accessed by staff for visual inspection and/or condition is unknown.

12

No need: Material is stable enough for use and is housed in a stable environment that protects it from longterm damage and deterioration.

13

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.

14

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

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

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

35

Quantity of Collections Items in the U.S. Virgin Islands Based on the quantified results of the survey respondents, archives, libraries, historical societies, historical houses/sites, archaeological repositories, private foundations, public and private schools, churches, newspapers, and government agencies in the Virgin Islands care for an estimated 550,000 collection items, and over 1.4 miles of unbound material. (See, Fig. 4.1) Online files account for the greatest portion of collections at almost 340,000 items, followed by books and bound volumes in excess of 105,000 items. Art objects are the lowest count in objects at 428 which may be reflective of the lack of art museums or public art collections in the Territory. Owners of large private collections (of all types) in the Territory did not participate in this survey, thus their collections are also unaccounted for in the totals shown.

Totals for archaeological collections bulk cataloged also appear to be small but they are expressed in cubic feet and thus represent a significant quantity of material. Other uncounted archaeological collections are also known to exist in the Territory and were unreported, either through an oversight or non-participation in the survey.

Not surprisingly, the reported quantity of collection items expressed as a percentage by institutional type reveals that most items are held by the Territory’s libraries or archives.

(See, Fig. 4.3) This is also true of the 1.4 miles of unbound material, most of which is held by archives. The bulk cataloged archaeological materials for the most part are the responsibility of an agency or university specimen or artifact collection.

Institutions were instructed to complete the survey for the collections for which they take preservation responsibility. In the frequently asked questions that accompanied the survey (See, Appendix D), examples of collections for which an institution may not take a preservation responsibility include nonaccessioned collections such as teaching collections or replicas, or collections that

could be disposed of or replaced should they become lost or damaged, such as current books, magazines, video tapes, or sound recordings.

Institutions such as public libraries, some academic libraries, and nonprofit organizations, with a small amount of or secondary collections for which they take preservation responsibility, were encouraged to complete the questionnaire for these items as well so that the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index could truly capture the needs of all U.S. Virgin Islands collections held in the public trust. Survey participants were instructed to include documentary evidence relating to object or scientific collections in appropriate categories, such as archival records, photographic materials, and recorded sound materials. The questionnaire did not include any living collections or historic structures, even if they were accessioned collections.

Survey participants were to include all subsidiary collections, such as an institution’s library, archives or records collection, in their collections counts; however, several institutions reported out divisions or discrete locations separately and these were treated as independent and autonomous operating units.

Each type of collection was to be recorded by item except for archival documents and archaeological artifacts, both of which asked for quantities in unit measurements. Since archival documents are frequently measured in linear feet, institutions were asked to record archival records/manuscripts and maps/oversized items in this unit. Ephemera, broadsides, philatelic and numismatic artifacts, and other paper artifacts were to be recorded by item. It is not possible to aggregate the two units of measurement, so data on unbound sheets is reported by linear feet or by item, but not both.

Some archaeological artifacts are cataloged in bulk in cubic feet, so institutions had the option of recording archaeological artifacts by item or by volume. Again, it is not possible to aggregate these responses, so they are reported individually.

36 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Respondent USVI Institutions (n=34) Must Preserve 550,000 Collection Items* and 1.4 Miles of Unbound Collections* Books/Bound Volumes Unbound Sheets (lf) Unbound Sheets (#) Microfilm/Microfiche Photographs Moving Images Recorded Sound Digital Material Online Files Art Objects Historic/Ethnographic Objects Archaeological Collections (Individually Cataloged) Archaeological Collections (Bulk Cataloged) (cf) Natural Science Specimens

105,574 7,151 1,115 14,525 60,548 4,741 4,820 11,299 338,161 428 1,149 900 1,100 5,000

* These figures do not include collection items for which Respondents answered “Quantity Unknown,� which are believed to be significant, or items from collections known to exist for which no survey data or response was submitted.

Fig.4.1 Respondent USVI institutions (n=34) must preserve 550,000 collection items and 1.4 miles of unbound collections

n = 34

Fig. 4.2 Collection holders with written, long-range preservation plan [qD2]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

37

Fig. 4.3 Percentage of reported collection quantities held by institution types [qF5, qB1]

Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items Institutions were asked to estimate the percentage of collections items in “unknown condition,” “no need,” “need,” or “urgent need.” When viewing the results it is important to note the startling results to survey question D2 that none of the U.S. Virgin Islands collecting institutions has a dedicated long-range preservation plan in place for the care of collections. (See, Fig. 4.2) Only 6% reported including collections in other institutional long-range plans, and another 9% indicated that a long-range plan is in development. Even viewed from a best-case perspective, this means that 85% of Virgin Islands collecting institutions are operating without the benefit and guidance of a longrange preservation plan. Developing a

designated plan can be a critical first step for an institution making a commitment to changing the condition of its collections.

Of the 550,000, 1.4 miles and 1,100 cubic feet of collection items reported in the U.S. Virgin Islands, more than 20% of these are in need or urgent need. More disturbingly, about 70% are in unknown condition.

Of the 550,000, 1.4 miles and 1,100 cubic feet of collection items reported in the U.S. Virgin Islands, more than 20% of these are in need or urgent need. More disturbingly, about 70% are in unknown condition. Some 35,000 books and bound volumes, 315,000 online

38 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Fig. 4.4 Collection items in unknown condition [qF5] files, 1.15 miles of unbound material and 900 cu. ft. of collection items are some of the quantities reported in unknown condition.

As seen in Figure 4.4, one-third of two numerically significant categories of collections (books/bound volumes and photographs) are in unknown condition.

However, the alarming fact is that between 75% and 93% of collection items in nine other categories, whether quantified or not, are in unknown condition.

Natural science specimens (0%), digital material (9%), and individually cataloged archaeological collections items (22%) have the lowest rates of unknown condition; unbound sheets (lf) (93%), microfilm/ microfiche (93%) and online files (93%) have the highest. These categories are followed closely by moving images (91%), recorded sound (86%), historic/ethnographic objects (84%) and bulk-cataloged archaeological collections (82%). The high number of

collection items in unknown condition is significant because items that have not been inspected are more likely to have suffered from neglect. At the very least their needs are not being taken into consideration in any preservation or conservation plans.

Collections items in no need vary from 89% for digital material to 3% of microfilm/ microfiche. (See, Fig. 4.7) The types of collections with the greatest percentage in no need are also some of the types that have the lowest percentage in unknown condition, which reinforces the accuracy of the “no need� statistic for these types of collections.

Natural science specimens are in the greatest need at 34%, followed by books and bound volumes at 16%. No urgent needs (0%) were reported in the following collection types: recorded sound, online files, and archaeological collections of all types. (See, Fig. 4.5)

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

39

Urgent need is claimed for 9% of historic/ethnographic objects as well as 9% of photograph collections surveyed. Five percent of art objects are also in urgent need.

Although only 1% of unbound sheets and 1% of moving images are in urgent need, it is worthwhile to combine the data for need and urgent need to appreciate the full scope of collections items in need. (See, Fig. 4.6) Viewed this way, almost a third of books/bound volumes are in need, as are almost one-fifth of photograph holdings in collections. The amount in need for each of these types of holdings is likely to be compounded by the one-third of all items reported in unknown condition.

When data for collections items in urgent need, need, and unknown condition are added

together, it is clear that the condition of all types of items will require attention and resources in the decades ahead. (See, e.g., Fig. 4.8) Overall, response rates for the condition of collections items are lower than most questions in the Heritage Health Index, but significantly higher than the response rates for quantity of collections. More discussion on unknown conditions may be found in Chapter 10 on intellectual control and condition assessments. To compensate for missing data, the condition of collections was imputed whenever practical or warranted.

In determining the total number of collections being cared for in the U.S. Virgin Islands, one linear foot of archival records/manuscripts or maps/oversized items and one cubic foot of

Fig. 4.5 Collection items in urgent need [qF5]

40 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Fig. 4.6 Collection items in need [qF5]

Fig. 4.7 Collection items in no need [qF5]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

41

Fig. 4.8 Condition of collections in the U.S. Virgin Islands (by type) 2009-2010 [qF5]

42 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

bulk cataloged archaeological material are each treated as one item unit. The statistic that U.S. Virgin Islands collecting institutions hold 550,000 artifacts would be dramatically higher if every individual item were included.

intended to be a precise census of U.S. Virgin Islands collections; however, it was important to begin to gather data on the number of collections to put the condition of collections data in context.

The statistic that U.S. Virgin Islands collecting institutions hold 550,000 artifacts would be dramatically higher if every individual item were included.

Books and Bound Volumes

The completed survey response rates to the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index questions are estimated between 60% and 80%, with the notable exceptions of preservation expenditures and funding, and the quantity and condition of collections.

Chapter 10 discusses the lack of intellectual control and collections assessments, and helps to explain why these kinds of information were so challenging for institutions to report in the survey.

Like its nationwide counterpart, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index was not

The books and bound volumes category includes books/monographs, serials/newspapers, and scrapbooks/albums/pamphlets. Books and monographs make up the majority of this collections category. The survey specified including only serials/newspapers on paper in this category; serials/newspapers on microfilm/ microfiche were to be recorded under photographic collections.

U.S. Virgin Islands collecting institutions have preservation responsibility for about 105,000 books and bound volumes. Libraries hold 62% of these items, while historical societies hold 12%, archives hold 23% and other repositories/scientific research collections hold 3%. (See, Fig. 4.10)

Fig. 4.9 Condition of books and bound volumes [qF5]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

43

Fig. 4.10 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 105,574 books and bound volumes [qF5]

Fig. 4.11 Condition of unbound sheets (lf) [qF5]

44 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Books are among the most commonly held collections items in the Virgin Islands, with 100% of libraries, historical societies, botanical gardens, historic houses/sites and agencies or universities with specimen collections having books and bound volumes for which they take preservation responsibility.

One-third (34%) of books and bound volumes are in unknown condition, 35% are in no need, 15% are in need, and 16% are in urgent need.

(See, Fig. 4.9) Significantly, the number of books in urgent need is four times the national result. The national results were similar for the 1.7 billion books and bound volumes held

by U.S. collecting institutions (96% of them in libraries) in 2004: 33% were in unknown condition, 51% were in no need, 12% were in need, and 4% were in urgent need.

Unbound Sheets Cataloged in Linear Feet Unbound sheets are recorded by two measurements, linear feet and item, and each group of collections is considered separately.

Archival records/manuscripts and maps/ oversized items are recorded in linear feet or cubic feet. For purposes of analysis, one cubic foot is converted to one linear foot.

According to the U.S. Heritage Health Index, collecting institutions cared for 44 million feet of archival records/ manuscripts and maps/ oversized items (more than 8,300 miles). U.S. libraries held 43% of these collections (about 19 million feet), archives 24%, historical societies 18%, museums 15%, and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections less than 1%.

Fig 4.12 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 7,151 linear feet of unbound sheet collections [qF5]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

45

Unbound sheets—whether measured in linear feet or by items—were prevalent in all types of collections nationwide in 2004: 98% of archives, 91% of historical societies, 83% of museums, 70% of libraries, and 63% of archaeological repositories/scientific research collections held these types of materials.

Unbound Sheets Cataloged in Items

The Virgin Islands collections custodians reported 7,151 linear feet of unbound sheets, principally in archives (51%), historical societies (21%) and academic libraries (10%).

(See, Fig. 4.12)

Figure 4.14 shows that 48% of unbound sheets recorded by item count are held in archives, 41% are held in libraries (independent research libraries 27%, special libraries 7%, public libraries 5%, and academic libraries 2%), 6% in “Other” institutions, and 5% in historical societies. (See, Fig. 4.14)

Figure 4.11 illustrates that 69% of U.S. Virgin Islands unbound sheets reported in linear feet are in unknown condition, 15% are in no need, 7% are in need, and 9% are in urgent need for treatment or improved conditions.

These numbers indicate significant accession and assessment issues, particularly when compared to the U.S. survey figures of 32% in unknown condition, 43% in no need, 16% in need and 8% in urgent need. In the Virgin Islands, archives hold most of these collections and have the greatest amount in unknown condition (51%).

The remaining unbound sheets are counted in items. These include ephemera/broadsides, philatelic/numismatic artifacts (made of paper), and other paper artifacts—1,115 items in all.

Differences in the distribution of holdings between unbound sheets cataloged by linear feet and by item may be accounted for by the cataloging practices of institutions (e.g., it is a more common practice in archives to catalog in linear feet, while museums are more likely to catalog by item).

An astounding 77% of unbound sheets cataloged by items in the Virgin Islands are in unknown condition, 13% are in no need, 6% are in need, and 4% are in urgent need. (See, Fig. 4.13)

Fig. 4.13 Condition of unbound sheets [qF5]

46 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Fig. 4.14 Percentage of institutions caring for 1,115 items in unbound sheet collections [qF5] Archives account for a large part of this percentage, because they hold 64% of total collections and have 25% in need and 35% in urgent need. Libraries, which hold 32% of total Virgin Islands holdings of unbound sheets cataloged by item, have 6% in urgent need and 4% in need.

Microfilm/Microfiche Since microfilm/microfiche accounts for 24% of all photographic collections items in the Virgin Islands and differs in condition, it is considered separately from other photographic collections. U.S. collecting institutions cared for 1 billion items of microfilm/microfiche constituting 58% of all U.S. photographic collections, while the U.S. Virgin Islands survey enumerated only 14,525 items.

Microfilming is a method for preserving the content of paper, born-digital and digitized artifacts, so despite the significantly smaller size of collections held in the Virgin Islands,

these items constitute an important collection for indicating preservation methodology. In survey question D10d, one-quarter (25%) of Virgin Islands institutions with microfilm/ microfiche collections report their staff are involved in preservation reformatting which includes microfilming, either in practice or being planned, and 4% of these institutions contract with external providers for preservation reformatting.

In the Virgin Islands, most microfilm/ microfiche is held by archives (60%), whereas in the nationwide results 99% was held by libraries. Virgin Islands libraries do hold a significant amount of items, nevertheless, at 37%, and historical societies hold another 3%.

(See, Fig. 4.15) Figure 4.16 shows the condition of Virgin Islands holdings of microfilm/ microfiche: 93% in unknown condition, 3% in no need, 2% in need, 2% in urgent need. Archives, libraries, and historical societies all have about 35% in unknown condition and between 7% and 13% in need and urgent need.

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

47

Fig. 4.15 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 14,525 microfilm reels/microfiche [qF5]

Fig. 4.16 Condition of microfilm and microfiche [qF5]

48 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Photographic Collections Photograph formats are organized by media that have similar preservation needs. Black and white negatives are further divided into “pre- 1950” and “post-1950” because cellulose nitrate and cellulose acetate—highly unstable photographic mediums—were more commonly used in the late nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth century, while the comparatively more stable films such as polyester have been more common since 1950.

Formats include: black and white prints; black and white film negatives, pre-1950; black and white film negatives, post-1950; color prints/negatives/positives; cased objects (such as daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, tintypes); glass plate negatives/ lantern slides; and other photographic collections. Institutions were instructed to include digital and inkjet prints in the “other” category, and these items account for a portion of collections in this category. Some institutions in the U.S. and the Virgin Islands reported digital photographs in this category and, since they

did not indicate what media the digital photographs are stored on, it is not possible to move their responses to the digital material category where they should have been recorded. Therefore, these have been included in “other photographic collections” as well.

According to the 2004 national survey, there were 727 million photographic items being cared for by U.S. collecting institutions.

Archives cared for 41% or almost 300 million photographic items; libraries held 29%, museums held 21%, historical societies held 7%, and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections held 2%.

Photographic collections, including microfilm/microfiche, were common in all U.S. collecting institutions: 96% of archives, 93% of historical societies, 90% of museums, 71% of libraries, and 62% of archaeological repositories/scientific research collections had photographic items in their collections.

Smaller collecting institutions in the U.S. cared for about 11% of the total photographic collections.

Fig. 4.17 Condition of photographic items [qF5]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

49

Fig. 4.18 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 60,548 photographic items [qF5] Collecting institutions in the U.S. Virgin Islands hold 60,548 items (adjusted for microfilm/microfiche holdings) and, unlike the U.S. institutions, 77% of these are held by historical societies. Archives hold the bulk of the remaining items (20%) with public libraries, academic libraries and other institutions holding 1% each. (See, Fig. 4.18) Territory-wide these holdings register their conditions more favorably than most categories when compared to the U.S. Only 29% of photographic holdings in the Virgin Islands are in unknown condition, versus 40% of U.S. collections, and those in need and urgent need were only 9% each as opposed to U.S. figures of 15% and 6%, respectively.

Remarkably, Virgin Islands collecting institutions indicate that 53% of their collections are in no need whereas only 37% of the national respondents’ collections have no need. (See, Fig. 4.17)

Moving Image Collections Moving image collections include motion picture film, magnetic tape (e.g., Beta video, VHS video, digital), disk (e.g., laser, CD, DVD, minidisk), and other moving image collections. Other moving image collections

include film loops, filmstrips, film slides, and unspecified collections.

The quantity of moving image collections can be recorded in various ways—for example, in feet of film. Moving Images and Recorded Sound Working Group members discussed the best way to quantify these media for the 2004 survey and decided that for the ease of the majority of respondents, most types of collections should be counted by item, such as reels or tapes.

There were 40 million moving image items being cared for in the U.S. in 2004: 88% were in the care of libraries, 6% were in archives, 4% were in museums, 2% were in historical societies, and less than 1% were in archaeological repositories/ scientific research collections.

Moving image collections were in 86% of archives, 78% of libraries, 63% of historical societies, 52% of museums, and 30% of archaeological repositories/scientific research collections. Twenty-one percent (21%) of the nation’s moving image collections at that time were held by small institutions.

The condition of U.S. moving image collections in 2004 included 43% in unknown

50 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Fig. 4.19 Condition of moving image collections [qF5]

Fig. 4.20 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 4,741 moving image items [qF5]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

51

condition, 46% in no need, 9% in need, and 3% in urgent need.

The Virgin Islands findings are a call to action for this friable medium: 91% of collections in the Territory are in unknown condition. With Virgin Islands institutions indicating only 5% in no need, 3% in need and 1% in urgent need, the lack of collections assessment is glaringly apparent. (See, Fig. 4.19) Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index survey question D10 asked what is included in institutions’ preservation programs.

Respondents also had the option of selecting “not applicable”; 29% did so. Of those remaining institutions, only 21% indicated they are involved in the preservation of audio-visual media and play-back equipment, including those who have planned but are not yet implementing these measures. (See, Fig. 8.4) This would include making preservation copies of materials and maintaining equipment without which older formats of moving image and recorded sound collections could not be accessed. At only 4% of Virgin Islands institutions, preservation of audio-visual media is done by an external provider (whether on-island or off-island is not specified). Most significantly, at 75% of institutions, no such preservation activities are taking place at all.

Unlike many other collecting categories, holdings are distributed throughout many types of institutions in the Territory and fairly evenly as well: public libraries (28%), archives (25%), special libraries (22%), academic libraries (14%), historical societies (6%), other institutions (4%) and botanical gardens (1%). (See, Fig. 4.20)

Recorded Sound Collections Recorded 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), and other recorded sound collections. All collections are counted by item.

Institutions may include wire, dictabelts, music box disks and player piano rolls in the “other recorded sound collections” answer option.

In 2004, U.S. collecting institutions had responsibility to preserve 46 million recorded sound collections items. The distribution of these collections was similar to that of U.S. moving image collections. Most recorded sound items were held throughout the United States by libraries (89%), with the remaining held by archives (6%), museums (4%), historical societies (1%), and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections (less than 1%).

Fig. 4.21 Condition of recorded sound collections [qF5]

52 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Fig. 4.22 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 4,820 recorded sound items [qF5] Recorded sound collections were in 84% of U.S. archives, 76% of libraries, 64% of historical collections, 50% of museums and 26% of archaeological repositories/scientific research collections, with smaller institutions accounting for 17%.

The condition was not known for 44% of the nation’s recorded sound items—which affected more than 20 million items in 2004. Fortytwo percent were in no need, 11% were in need, and 3% were in urgent need.

When viewed by institutional type, libraries and historical societies both had about 46% in unknown condition, while archives and museums had about 30%. Nationally, archives had the greatest percentage in need at 43%, followed by museums and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections, both at 24%. In the U.S. results, small institutions did not know the condition of 41% of their recorded sound collections and cited the greatest needs for recorded sound.

Once again, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index found totals for unknown condition that almost double the U.S. results: 86% of the Territory’s recorded sound collections are in unknown condition. (See, Fig. 4.21) Although 10% of collections are in urgent need, the high

percentage of unprocessed collections or unassessed items makes it very likely these ratios will not stand for long.

The Territory’s 4,820 recorded sound items, like its moving images, are held widely by 38% of academic libraries, 16% of special libraries, 13% at historical societies and public libraries, and 10% at both archives and institutions whose primary purpose falls into the category of “Other.” (See, Fig. 4.22)

Digital Materials The Heritage Health Index is the first survey to document the condition of digital collections at institutions that hold them; this is particularly significant in the case of digital materials, because digital materials represent increasingly larger portions of collecting institutions’ holdings and pose new, unique preservation challenges. Digital materials include floppy disks, other disks, CD-R/DVDR, data tape, online collections (to be recorded in files), and other digital collections.

Online files accounted for the largest number of U.S. digital materials, but of the physical formats, CD-R/DVD-R were the most prevalent in 2004. Other U.S. digital

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

53

collections included databases, e-books, and files specified by content rather than the media on which that content is held.

The 2004 survey’s Frequently Asked Questions asked survey respondents to carefully consider what digital or digitized materials are items they take a preservation responsibility to maintain. For example, it was recommended that most electronic material made available at an institution through a subscription service or vendor not be recorded in the survey, unless the institution maintains the master digital files for the resource.

While digital materials could have been quantified in bytes of information, the Heritage Preservation Working Group members concluded it would be easiest for most institutions to count digital materials by item. Counts of physical items, such as floppy disks or CDs, are easily understood, whereas counts of online files are more complex. An online file could have one piece of information or thousands of bytes of information in it. To get a better understanding of the condition of physical items that hold digital information, online files were considered separately from digital material held on physical formats.

According to the U.S. Heritage Health Index, U.S. institutions had preservation responsibility for 9 million physical items that store digital materials. Two-thirds resided in libraries, 13% in historical societies, 10% in museums, 8% in archaeological repositories/scientific research collections, and 3% in archives.

Including online files, U.S. digital materials were in 73% of archives, 58% of libraries, 55% of archaeological repositories/scientific research collections, 44% of historical societies, and 43% of museums.

Small U.S. institutions cared for 20% of the nation’s items and 26% of those digital materials were in unknown condition, 69% were in no need, 5% were in need and less than 1% were in urgent need. The overall condition of all U.S. institutions whose digital material items were surveyed was: 39% were in unknown condition, 46% were in no need, 15% were in need, and less than 1% was in urgent need.

The condition of digital materials in the Virgin Islands, like the condition of U.S. collections, is expressed separately by digital formats held on physical media and numbers of online files.

Fig. 4.23 Condition of digital material collections [qF5]

54 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Fig. 4.24 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 11,299 digital materials collection items [qF5] According to the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey results, 11,299 physical digital files are held almost exclusively by historical societies (92%), with the remaining digital materials in the custody of archives (5%), public libraries (2%), special libraries (1%), and less than 1% each held by agencies or universities with specimen or artifact collections, academic libraries, botanical gardens, independent research libraries, and “Other” institutions. (See, Fig. 4.24) These Virgin Islands collections categories claim that 89% of their collections are in no need, 9% are in unknown condition, 2% are in urgent need and none (0%) are in need. (See, Fig. 4.23) Because at the time of the Heritage Preservation national survey, digital was a relatively new format for collections materials, the Heritage Preservation Electronic Records and Digital Collections Working Group did not

expect to find many institutions engaged in the preservation of digital materials.

However, they recommended that the Heritage Health Index gauge how many institutions have recognized that digital materials should be part of their preservation programs.

For example, U.S. Heritage Health Index survey question D11 asked, “Does your institution’s preservation/conservation mission or program include the responsibility to preserve digital collections?”16 In 2004, 31% of U.S. collecting institutions responded they did, 52% did not, and 7% did not know; 11% stated it was not applicable for their institution. U.S. archives (52%) and 16

Digital collections were defined as computer-based representations of text, numbers, images, and/or sound, e.g., optical disks, web site, electronic books.

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

55

Fig. 4.25 Institutions that include responsibility to preserve digital collections in preservation/conservation missions or programs [qD11]

Fig. 4.26 Perceived need for preservation of digital collections [qD12h]

archaeological repositories/ scientific research collections (49%) were more likely to include digital materials in their preservation programs or missions than U.S. libraries (23%), historical societies (33%), and museums (36%). Digital materials were included in 28% of small U.S. institutions’ preservation programs or missions.

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey also asked institutions to state whether

the responsibility to preserve digital collections was included in their preservation/ conservation missions or programs.

While only a very modest level of need is recognized in the condition of their digital collections (See, Fig. 4.23 and Fig. 4.36), most institutions (59%) in the Territory indicate their missions or programs, in fact, do not include such responsibility so it may be presumed that the lack of need is not due to

56 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

purposeful, dedicated preservation activities.

Other respondents indicate they do not know (21%) or that the question is not applicable (9%). Only 12% confirm responsibility is included. (See, Fig. 4.25) And, yet, when asked if institutions perceive a need to preserve digital collections, Virgin Islands collections custodians answer strongly in the affirmative at 59% that they perceive a need (38%) or urgent need (21%) for such preservation measures. Another 9% do not express a need, 15% do not believe this question is applicable to their circumstances, and 18% do not know. (See, Fig. 4.26) The 59% that do not include a mandate to preserve digital collections in their preservation/conservation programs are not the same 59% that indicate a need for preservation of digital collections. Only 21% of those whose preservation/conservation programs do not include a responsibility to preserve digital collections recognize a need for such preservation and 15% realize the need is urgent. Another 9% either do not know or feel there is no need, and another 6% feel the issue is inapplicable altogether.

Virgin Islands responses to these two questions suggest a theoretical disconnect between the need for preservation/ conservation of such collections and the value

of committing to such activities in an institutional mission or program statement.

In 2009-2010, some five years after the 2004 survey by Heritage Preservation, the Virgin Islands survey team understood full well the pervasive presence in and influence of digital formats on every aspect of collection preservation/conservation care. Thus, they determined a need to probe further into this category of inquiry, not only to report the state of digital collections but to illuminate possibilities for digital solutions for connecting to better collections care protocols for the Territory.

Carefully targeted questions were added to the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey to elicit this information and the responses received may very well point the way to possible strategies for accomplishing these goals.

For example, in question G11 the Virgin Islands team sought to collect data on digital formats actively under collection. (See, Fig. 4.27) Almost half (47%) of all institutions responded that question G11 was not applicable. For those collecting digital formats, the most prevalent collection categories were documents and photographs at 26% each, video/film at 24% and books at 15%. These data indicate that some new solutions for preserving these collections are already in play in the Territory, with academic

Fig. 4.27 Digital formats actively under collection [qG11]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

57

Fig. 4.28 Digital formats actively under collection (by institution type) [qG11]

58 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

libraries, archives, historical societies and “Other” institutions reporting that they are currently and actively collecting digital formats in four or more categories of collections materials. (See, Fig. 4.28) Question G14 pursues the query by asking collections managers in the Territory: “What types of material has your institution converted to digital format?” and survey participants were permitted to choose any answers that applied. The strategy underlying this question was to determine if Virgin Islands institutions are considering digitization as a means of preservation of information.

The results are shown in Figures 4.29, 4.30 and 4.31. Most types of Virgin Islands institutions report they are converting collection items to digital format in one or more collecting categories, except public

libraries and agency/universities with specimens, and historic houses/sites, which are not performing digital conversions for any of their collections. (See, Fig. 4.29). In the Virgin Islands, the greatest number of institutions converting materials to digital format in any particular collection category is seven. (See, Fig. 4.30) Books are only being digitized at present in the Virgin Islands by special libraries, and sound recordings and audio formats by historical societies, but every other type of material surveyed (i.e., documents, newspapers, photographs, video/film, collection records, and funeral booklets) are being digitized in some quantity by two or more types of Virgin Islands collecting institutions. (See, Fig. 4.31) These figures look promising until one considers that 56% of all respondents stated that question G14 does not apply to their institution.

Fig. 4.29 Institutions converting materials to digital formats (by type) [qG14]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

59

Fig. 4.30 Institutions converting materials to digital formats (number of institutions reported) [qG14]

Fig. 4.31 Materials converted to digital formats (by institution type) [qG14]

60 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

The digitization of collection materials creates institutional digital assets and these assets, like the collections materials themselves, constitute a collection that must be managed, preserved and conserved. The issues of digital format obsolescence and data migration imperatives are critical considerations for today’s collections caregivers. The Virgin Islands survey team realized this was an opportunity to explore whether institutions are anticipating these issues in their management plans and strategies for collections of digital assets.

oriented and to find out more about these the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index included question G15 “How often are digital asset backup files created?” and question G16 “Where are your institution’s digital asset backup files stored?”

Overwhelmingly, Virgin Islands institutions’ responses to these questions demonstrated a complete lack of information or appreciation for the importance of the preservation aspects of the practices being surveyed.

In question G12, Virgin Islands institutions were asked “Do you have a plan in place for managing digital assets for ten years or more?”

The answers exhibit a rough correlation to observations made about answers to question D11 concerning a perceived need for preservation of digital collections: 65% of Virgin Islands collections managers state they have no such plan, 29% do not know and 6% do not have a plan but confirm one is being developed. (See, Fig. 4.32)

Standard best practices suggest digital asset back-ups be scheduled weekly or more often and the proliferation of inexpensive electronic storage devices makes this increasingly easier to accomplish. In spite of this, 65% of Virgin Islands collecting institutions do not know the frequency of their digital asset back-ups, 23% state they have no set schedule for back-ups, and 3% back up once or twice a month. Only 9% of Virgin Islands collecting institutions back up their digital assets once a week or more often. (See, Fig. 4.33)

There are other types of preservation/ conservation strategies for digital collections that are more procedural and practice-

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index question about back-up file storage location directly targets the need for accessibility to

Fig. 4.32 Institutions with plan for managing digital assets for ten or more years [qG12]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

61

information in the event of widespread collection damage or an emergency. In these cases, back-up files must be stored offpremises in order to ensure a greater degree of safety and accessibility. Once again, however, only a few Virgin Islands collecting institutions are following recommended practices.

Digital asset back-ups are being kept on-site at 12% of institutions holding Virgin Islands collections, and another 67% do not know where they are being kept. Only 6% confirm digital asset back-ups are stored off-site and

another 15% are storing back-ups in multiple locations as an additional precaution. (See, Fig. 4.34) Last, but not least, and with a prescient eye, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index also inquired whether institutions were operating a digital repository. A digital repository in this case simply implies a means of managing, storing and providing access to digital content.

In the context of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index, it also implies a conscious policy

Fig. 4.33 Frequency of digital asset backup file creation by institutions [qG15]

Fig. 4.34 Institutions’ digital asset backup files storage locations [qG16]

62 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Fig. 4.35 Institutions operating a digital repository [qG13]

Fig. 4.36 Condition of online files [qF5]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

63

decision by the institution to support key institutional aims and objectives with digital content.

Content can include research output such as theses, journal articles, teaching and learning aids, and administrative data, and can be as specialized or broad in scope as needed for each institution. Another characteristic of digital repositories is the use of open standards to ensure that content can be accessed, searched and retrieved for use.

Survey question G13 asks “Does your institution operate a digital repository?”

While few affirmative responses were expected, the responses tallied create a valuable baseline for future surveys and comparisons. (See, Fig. 4-35) Almost three-fourths (71%) of Virgin Islands collecting institutions state they do not operate a digital repository and 18% do not know if they do. Another 6%, however, state they do and the remaining 6% state they do not presently but one is being developed.

As for online collections, U.S. institutions responded that they held preservation responsibility for 55 million files across the country. Across the country, archives held 47%, libraries 31%, museums 18%, archaeological repositories/scientific research collections 3%, and historical societies 1%, with 19% found in the custody of small institutions.

In the Virgin Islands, there is much less variety in those institutions holding online files, signaling that many collections caregivers are not making maximum use of the Web to showcase the contents of their collections, finding aids or administrative materials. Independent research libraries in the Virgin Islands account for 89% of the institutions caring for collections of online files, with 1% cared for by academic libraries and less than 1% by agencies or universities with specimen/artifact collections, historical societies, public libraries and special libraries.

The remaining 10% are cared for by institutions in the “Other” category (See, Fig. 4.37)

Fig. 4.37 Percentage of institutions caring for 338,161 online files [qF5]

64 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

The condition of U.S. online files in 2004 included 59% in unknown condition, 36% in no need, 5% in need and less than 1% in urgent need. U.S. archives held the greatest number of online files (almost 26 million) and reported 84% of their collections in unknown condition.

Like physical digital materials, there was a demonstrable range in condition of online files in U.S. collections: archaeological repositories/scientific research collections had the lowest percentage in unknown condition (3%) and the greatest percentage in need (64%), while archives had the highest percentage in unknown condition (84%) and one of the lowest percentages in need (2%).

Virgin Islands online collections were decidedly less diverse in their reported states of condition in 2009-2010: 93% of online files maintained by collecting entities in the Territory are in unknown condition, a finding which virtually leaves the question unanswered altogether. The remaining 7% were judged to be in no need by the responding institutions. (See, Fig. 4.36)

Digital preservation was a topic in question D13, which asked institutions to identify all the causes of damage or loss of access to collections currently in need of treatment.

Question D13j specifically asked if access to collections has been lost due to obsolescence of play-back equipment, hardware, or software. The results apply to all machinereadable formats, including motion pictures, recorded sound, and digital materials. While 46% of U.S. institutions had experienced no loss, 28% had some damage, 4% had significant damage, and 22% of institutions did not know—one of the highest “don’t know” figures for this question in the 2004 U.S. results.

In the Virgin Islands, 29% of collections have experienced some damage or loss, and 12% have experienced significant damage or loss due to obsolescence of play-back equipment, hardware or software, with 12% stating they do not know. Only 18% report no damage or loss to their collections due to this reason. (See, Fig. 4.38)

Fig. 4.38 Institutions with collections currently in need of treatment due to obsolescence of play-back equipment, hardware or software [qD13j]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

65

Fig. 4.39 Condition of art objects [qF5]

Art Objects Art objects include paintings (e.g., on canvas, panel, plaster), art on paper (e.g., prints, drawings, watercolors), sculptures (including carvings, indoor and outdoor sculptures in all media), decorative arts (e.g., fine metalwork, jewelry, timepieces, enamels, ivories, lacquer), and other art objects. Other art objects include artists’ materials, such as woodblocks or other print plates, and mixed media such as collage or folk art.

In 2004, U.S. collecting institutions cared for 21 million art objects. Most were held by museums (75%), while libraries held 17%, historical societies 6%, archives 2%, and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections less than 1%. Eighty-six percent of museums had art objects in their collections, as did 83% of historical societies, 74% of archives, 44% of libraries, and 33% of archaeological repositories/scientific research collections.

The national survey results revealed that 29% of art objects were in unknown condition, 49% were in no need, 18% were in need and 4% were in urgent need. Compare these findings

to the conditions for art objects held in the Virgin Islands as shown in Figure 4.39: 75% of these art objects are in unknown condition, 12% are in no need, 8% are in need, and 5% are in urgent need With only 428 items reported in the Virgin Islands and few of its institutions declaring their primary function as a museum, it is not surprising that the Virgin Islands results vary so greatly from the U.S. (See, Fig. 4.40) With larger institutional respondents and many museums included in the sample pool, the U.S. figures reflect the condition assessments that typically are a function of art and professional museum curation.

Most reported art in the Territory is held incidentally, i.e., not by reason of purposeful collecting policies or goals. Thus, most Virgin Islands art items held by collecting institutions have not been formally appraised and examined for condition. The profiles of smaller institutions surveyed nationwide in 2004 were a bit closer to the Virgin Islands findings but still well below the reported levels of condition reported in the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index. Small U.S. institutions surveyed in 2004 did not know the condition of 36% of art

66 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Fig. 4.40 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 428 art objects in collections [qF5]

Fig. 4.41 Condition of historic and ethnographic objects [qF5]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

67

objects (more than at institutions of other sizes across the country), and also had the most in need at 20% and 7% in urgent need.

as wooden objects or metal objects. The Heritage Preservation Working Group on Furniture, Textiles, and Historic Objects settled on a mixed approach of media and subject matter.

Historic and Ethnographic Objects

The specific types for historic and ethnographic objects thus include textiles (including flags, rugs, costumes, and accessories); ceramics and glass artifacts (including stained glass); ethnographic and organic collections (e.g., leather, skin, baskets, bark); metalwork (e.g., arms and armor, medals, coins); furniture; domestic artifacts (including frames, household tools/machines,

Creating a list of artifacts to include in this category was one of Heritage Preservation’s greatest challenges. In other categories, collections of like media are grouped together.

However, Heritage Preservation recognized many historic collections are arranged thematically, making it difficult for institutions to separate out specific types such

[qF5]

Fig. 4.42 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 1,149 historic and ethnographic objects in collections [qF5]

68 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

dolls/toys, and musical instruments); science, technology, agricultural, and medical artifacts (including transportation artifacts); and other historic and ethnographic objects. Other historic and ethnographic objects include architectural elements or models and mixed collections identified by subject matter, such as advertising or promotional items or war artifacts.

The national survey revealed that U.S. collecting institutions cared for 48 million historic and ethnographic objects, with 71% at museums, 14% at historical societies, 11% at archaeological repositories/scientific research collections, and 2% at both archives and libraries.

Historic and ethnographic objects were in 95% of historical societies, 90% of museums, 73% of archives, 35% of archaeological repositories/scientific research collections, and 33% of libraries. For comparison purposes, it is interesting to note that small institutions held 42% of historic and ethnographic objects (20 million items).

Twenty-eight percent of historic and ethnographic objects in the U.S. were in unknown condition, 44% were in no need, 23% in need, and 5% in urgent need. Compare these findings with the Virgin Islands: only

7% of the Territory’s historic and ethnographic objects are in no need, none (0%) are in need and only 9% in urgent need. Even more sobering is the fact that 84% of such objects are in unknown condition. (See, Fig. 4.41) Historic and ethnographic objects are third, behind natural science specimens and books/bound volumes, as the Virgin Islands collections in the greatest need. (See, Fig. 4.5) Small institutions across the U.S. had 35% of historic and ethnographic objects in unknown condition, 36% in no need, 24% in need, and 6% in urgent need which still does not begin to approach the critical levels reported by Virgin Islands collection holders.

In the U.S. Virgin Islands, historic and ethnographic collection items, though few, are held by a wide variety of institutions: historical societies 35%, institutions selfdefined as “Other� 26%, historic houses/sites 15%, botanical gardens 8%, archives 7%, agencies or universities with specimen collections 7% and public libraries 2%. (See, Fig. 4.42) In evaluating how to effectively address the needs of such collections, it will be important to seek and define solutions that cater to the diverse needs and missions of the organizations that hold them, as well as the variety of formats and materials.

Fig. 4.43 Condition of archaeological collections, individually cataloged [qF5]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

69

Archaeological Collections, Individually Cataloged Archaeological collections recorded in individual items and cubic feet are considered separately in both the 2004 U.S. and the 2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index results. 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).

In the nationwide results, U.S. collecting institutions cared for 198 million archaeological collection items. Museums held 59% of these collections, archaeological repositories/scientific research collections 37%, historical societies 3%, and libraries and archives less than 1%.

Combining individually and bulk cataloged archaeological collections, half of U.S. museums had such holdings, as did 45% of historical societies, 36% of archaeological repositories/scientific research collections, 22% of archives, and 8% of libraries.

The majority of Virgin Islands holdings of 900 collection items are in the custody and care of

agencies or universities with specimens/ artifacts (56%), with historical societies and historic houses/sites each holding 22% of the remaining items. (See, Fig. 4.44) The condition of U.S. archaeological collections items included 15% in unknown condition, 66% in no need, 17% in need, and 2% in urgent need. The condition of archaeological collections items held by small U.S. institutions told a slightly better story: 11% were in unknown condition, 4% were in need, less than 1% were in urgent need and 85% were in no need at all. In either frame of reference, national survey numbers far outdistanced the performance recorded by Virgin Islands institutions.

Virgin Islands respondents declared that 22% of their collections, or twice the results for small U.S. institutions, are in unknown condition, and 22% of their collections are in no need. (See, Fig. 4.43) While no reported collections are in urgent need, 56% of Virgin Islands collecting institutions stated their individually cataloged archaeological collections are in need. Taken together with that portion of their collections in unknown condition, the results are almost the inverse of the national responses for small institutions.

Fig. 4.44 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 900 archaeological collection items individually cataloged [qF5]

70 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Archaeological Collections, Bulk Cataloged Virgin Islands archaeological collections cataloged in bulk, such as potsherds or other small items, total 1,100 cubic feet, as opposed to U.S. holdings of 2.6 million cubic feet in 2004. Virgin Islands agencies or universities with scientific specimens/artifacts hold 73%, and botanical gardens, historic houses/sites and historical societies each hold 9%. (See, Fig. 4.46) Archaeological collections cataloged in bulk and held by collecting institutions in the Territory are almost entirely in unknown condition (82%), with 9% in no need, 9% in need, and none (0%) in urgent need. (See, Fig. 4.45) These figures are troubling, and indicate a need for improved training in collections management and care.

Nationally, nonprofit institutions, which held most of the archaeological collections cataloged in bulk, had similarly critical needs with 61% of their collections in unknown condition, 24% in no need, 13% in need, and 3% in urgent need.

Natural Science Specimens Natural science specimens include zoological specimens (dry, glass slide, and frozen); zoological specimens (wet preparations); botanical specimens (dry, glass slide, frozen, culture, palynology); botanical specimens (wet preparations); geological specimens; vertebrate paleontological specimens; invertebrate paleontological specimens; paleobotany specimens; and other natural science specimens.

The Natural Science Working Group assembled by Heritage Preservation advised that wet preparations be separated from other preparations because of the specific preservation needs of these items. Institutions were instructed to record all collections in items, not in lots.

U.S. museums held 64% and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections held 35%, with archives, libraries, and historical societies holding less than 1% each, according to the 2005 Heritage Health Index report. Those collections were divided among 86% of archaeological repositories/scientific

Fig. 4.45 Condition of archaeological collections, bulk cataloged [qF5]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

71

Fig. 4.46 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 1,100 cubic feet of archaeological collections (bulk cataloged) [qF5]

Fig. 4.47 Condition of natural science specimens [qF5]

72 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

research collections, 38% of museums, 27% of historical societies, 9% of archives, and 7% of libraries.

Of all Virgin Islands collections, natural science specimens have the smallest number in unknown condition (0%) in the Territory.

(See, Fig. 4.47) Most natural science collections are in no need (66%); and, while none (0%) are in need, 34% are in urgent need signalling a dichotomy 0f collections care and management practices. Only botanical gardens reported holding such specimens according to the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index, although other types of institutions in the Territory are known to have such collections as well (e.g., marine biology

labs). (See, Fig. 4.48) Future iterations of the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index will seek to capture these missing institutional holdings in Territorial datasets.  In the following chapters, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index will explore at length the reasons for existing “in need” or “urgent need” conditions of Virgin Islands collections.

Particular emphasis will be placed on the high percentage of items in the Territory reported in unknown condition and the extent to which that finding detrimentally impacts the state of collections in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Fig. 4.48 Percentage of institutions (by type) caring for 5,000 natural science specimens [qF5]

Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

73

74 Chapter 4: Condition of U.S. Virgin Islands Collections Items

Chapter 5: Collections Environment The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index asked institutions to report on environmental controls in areas where the collections are held. While exact specifications may vary depending on the collections media or the fragility of collection items. protection from extremes and harmful fluctuations in temperature and relative humidity, as well as from exposure to light, are fundamental to the care of all collections.

But what are the fundamental costs of such care? The U.S. Virgin Islands has a kilowatt per hour rate for energy consumption that at nearly $.45 per kwh exceeds any other state or territory in the nation.

Energy costs may be dear, but energy is neither reliable nor consistent. Power outages and failures are chronic and energy

redundancy is expensive and inherently dependent upon rising fuel costs.

With a year-round tropical climate, high temperatures, excessive humidity and strong natural lighting must be regulated for almost all collection types 365 days a year to avoid risks of damage to the state of collection items.

Survey findings demonstrate the inability of Virgin Islands institutions to provide strictly controlled collections spaces and, according to most, this is an unrealistic expectation for Virgin Islands institutions, especially given the operating, energy and maintenance costs associated with air conditioning, dehumidification and light-level control systems. Furthermore, even the most sophisticated climate control system may become ineffective if it is not carefully

Fig, 5.1: Institutions (by type) using no environmental controls for the preservation of collections [qC1-qC3] Fig. 5.1 Institutions (by type) using no environmental controls for the preservation of collections [qC1=qC3]

Chapter 5: Collections Environment

75

Fig. 5.2 Use of environmental controls for the preservation of collections (by percentage of institutions) [qC1-qC3]

Fig. 5.3 Governance of institutions using no environmental controls for the preservation of collections [qB5]

76 Chapter 5: Collections Environment

Fig. 5.4 Use of temperature controls for the preservation of collections (by institution type) [qC1] monitored and maintained A requirement for vigilance infers a reliance on management and staff training, and competencies to oversee such systems and/or to advise on appropriate change-outs or new installations.

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey also yields data on whether the collections environment is even a priority for institutions, given the hindrances of excessive operational costs and unsustainable maintenance capabilities. To garner this information within the length limitations of the survey, the Project Manager used the strategy of the 2004 U.S. survey format by retaining broadly stated questions accommodating all types of collections and institutions. Questions were framed

nevertheless to effectively elicit data on whether institutions may be considering the environmental conditions of collections.

Survey respondents were asked whether they used environmental controls to meet (1) temperature, (2) relative humidity, and (3) light level specifications for the preservation of their collections. The phrase “specifications for preservation” was intentionally left undefined in the survey in order to allow institutions with all levels of preservation expertise and facilities to select the response most accurate for them. As throughout the survey, response options included a mid-range between “yes” and “no”—“in some but not all areas.”

Chapter 5: Collections Environment

77

Of the institutions in Figure 5.2 that do not control temperature, relative humidity, or light levels in any areas, 44% do not have control for all three factors; Figure 5.1 shows these results by type of institution. Of those 44%, 64% are governed by the Territorial Government. Another 7% are nonprofit organizations, and 29% are institutions declaring their primary function as “Other.�

(See, Fig. 5.3) When considering each environmental factor individually (See, Figs. 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6), historical societies lead in providing the greatest percentage of environmental controls

in all areas where collections are held, followed by academic libraries and botanical gardens. Temperature, humidity and lighting controls are found in all collection areas by 50% of historical societies, and another 50% of historical societies use such controls in at least some areas of their collection holdings.

No agencies or universities with specimens or artifacts use any temperature, humidity or light controls whatsoever in any areas of their institutional collections. but such institutions only account for 7% of all collections in the Territory. Similar findings implicated academic libraries, over 80% of which

Fig. 5.5 Use of humidity controls for the preservation of collections (by institution type) [qC2]

78 Chapter 5: Collections Environment

have no humidity or lighting controls, and 67% reported no temperature controls.

building envelopes and mechanical systems to modify the outdoor climate.

Current collection management theory holds that comprehensive environmental management is a process which requires the detailed knowledge of a team or staff representing the interests of preservation, collections and facilities management, who work together and cooperate to consider all relevant factors and negotiate the most favorable climate possible. In practice, the optimal storage environment-must be a balance between preservation quality, energy efficiency, staff comfort, and the ability of

The implementation of environmental changes designed to improve preservation quality requires a process by which balanced and informed decisions can be made, with active participation from collections care and facility management staff. A willingness to understand the mechanical systems already in place, the ability to gather environmental data, compute the metrics, and interpret the results is the ideal approach, but this presumes the creation of a working atmosphere where collections, preservation, and facilities staff all

Fig. 5.6 Control of lighting levels for the preservation of collections (by institution type) [qC3]

Chapter 5: Collections Environment

79

move cooperatively toward defined goals and in direct communication with each other.

To test this concept, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index questionnaire asked institutions to rate various preservation/ conservation activities by level of need using “no need,” “need,” “urgent need,” “don’t know, and “not applicable.” Question D12 included environmental controls (defined with examples of heating, air conditioning, dehumidifying, and humidifying) and improvements to reduce collections’ exposure to light.

[E]nvironmental controls are cited as the most urgent preservation/conservation need at 38% of institutions; the urgent need to reduce exposure to light is 24% across the Territory.

As shown in Figure 5.7, environmental controls are cited by 38% of Virgin Islands institutions as the most urgent preservation/ conservation need; the urgent need to reduce

exposure to light was the response of 24% of institutions across the Territory. When combining “need” and “urgent need” for environmental controls and reduced exposure to light, the results are significantly higher at 68% and 62%, respectively, yet still other preservation/conservation needs such as staff training, surveys/assessments, finding aids/catalogs, and security are even higher.

These institutional needs are all-important components of an effective preservation/ conservation program, and the fact that Virgin Islands responding institutions recognize them as such is encouraging. This hopeful conclusion is further borne out in the answers given by institutions having no environmental controls in place: each one submitted an “urgent need” or “in need” response to question D12 reporting on overall preservation/conservation needs of Virgin Islands collecting institutions.

Conversely, among U.S. institutions in 2004, 17% of those with no environmental controls in place stated in question D12 that they had no need at all for environmental controls for preservation/conservation of collections, and

Fig. 5.7 Urgent preservation/conservation needs reported by institutions (%) [qD12a-qD12i]

80 Chapter 5: Collections Environment

Fig. 5.8 Institutions’ preservation/conservation program includes preventive conservation [qD10a] another 9% stated they did not know if there even was a need for such controls.

According to the Virgin Islands results, the survey data supports the proposition that there appears to be at least some appreciation for the connection between environmental conditions and long-term preservation of collections. The key is how Virgin Islands collecting institutions propose to act on that knowledge.

Environmental controls were included in survey questions about preservation programs and causes of damage. These questions also brought in other environmental factors, such as control of airborne particulates and pests.

In survey question D10 about what is included in institutions’ preservation programs, the definition for preventive conservation incorporated environmental monitoring. (See, Fig. 5.8) In keeping with the findings of no environmental monitoring at many institutions, the Virgin Islands results indicate that preventive conservation is not done at 41% of collecting institutions, or is thought to be not applicable by another 21% of collections holders.

For those reporting preventive preservation in their preservation/conservation programs, 26% state that these tasks are done by institution staff. Only 6% are done by external providers and this small percentage reflects, in part, the lack of external resources for such care in the Virgin Islands. Another 6% admitted that such measures were not done currently but are planned.

In the U.S. survey, activities for preventive maintenance were likely to be done by institutional staff (66%) or not at all. Only 18% of U.S. collection institutions do no preventive conservation, and only 9% stated that it was not applicable. The nationwide results also correlated to institutional size, with larger institutions more likely to be involved in preventive conservation activities.

While the Virgin Islands results pool was deemed too small to submit to further analysis on the basis of size, it is well to keep in mind the national findings when considering the potential for program changes.

Environmental controls were also part of survey question D13, which asked institutions to identify the causes of damage or loss of access to collections currently in need of

Chapter 5: Collections Environment

81

Fig. 5.9 Percentage of institutions reporting causes of damage to collections from environmental factors [qD13b-qD13d and qD13g]

treatment. Respondents indicated whether “no damage or loss,” “some damage or loss,”17 or “significant damage or loss”18 has occurred.

Contributing factors included water or moisture (with examples of mold, stains, or warping), light (with examples of fading, discoloration), airborne particulates or pollutants (with examples of dust, soot), and pests. (See, Fig. 5.9) Figure 5.10 shows that physical/chemical deterioration and pests are each reported in the top four causes of significant damage by 9% of responding institutions. Significant damage from light is reported by another 6% Some damage or loss was defined as change(s) in an item’s physical or chemical state requiring minor treatment.

17

Significant damage or loss was defined as change(s) in an item’s physical or chemical state necessitating major treatment or reformatting or resulting in total loss of access.

18

82 Chapter 5: Collections Environment

of those surveyed, with 3% experiencing damage from airborne particulates.

The numbers are especially revealing when the categories of “significant damage” and “some damage” are combined: water/moisture (68%), light (62%), pests (53%) and airborne particulates (50%). The results data from question D13 underscore how prone collections can be to environmental damage.

At least 15% of all institutions noted that they do not know if causes of damage to their collections are from any or all of these environmental factors. To be sure, some collections might have sustained damage before coming within an institution’s care but the “don’t know” answer points once again to the lack of proper assessments for collections.

The level of need for integrated pest control (defined as approaches to prevent and solve pest problems in an efficient and ecologically sound manner) is among the lowest ranking

urgent needs at 18% and also one of the lowest ranking needs when combining urgent and some need (17%). Nationally, only about 8% of institutions reported urgent needs for pest control , but when combined with the “some need� result category this figure shot up to 46%.

When asked to report causes of significant damage to collections, however, a clear preponderance of physical/chemical deterioration is evident with such damage claimed by 26% of Virgin Islands institutions.

Improper storage was the reason for damage to collections held by 18% of custodians in the Territory, and another 15% was caused by handling.

Across the U.S., 7% of institutions topped out the list reporting significant damage to their

collections from improper storage, followed by water or moisture (6%), light (5%) and obsolescence of playback equipment, hardware or software (4%). Indisputably, significant damage to collections in the Virgin Islands resulting from environmental conditions exceeds the national results in many cases by a factor of three.

It should also be noted that physical/chemical deterioration, the number one reason for significant damage to Virgin Islands collections, may have been caused by other environmental factors such as the effect of ultraviolet rays from fluorescent lighting or exposure to direct sunlight, chemical deterioration brought on by excessive humidity or water catastrophes, and physical breakdowns and chemical damage wrought by excessive or improper handling of materials.

Fig. 5.10 Percentage of institutions reporting causes of significant damage to collections [qD13a-qD13k]

Chapter 5: Collections Environment

83

Recommendation Based on these findings, collecting institutions in the Virgin Islands must give priority to defining and implementing solutions that will place as many of their collections in proper environmental conditions as possible.

84 Chapter 5: Collections Environment

Chapter 6: Collections Storage Storage is a critical component of preventive collections care because, with few exceptions in the Virgin Islands as well as the U.S., it is the environment in which collections are held much of the time. At archives, libraries, archaeological repositories, and scientific research collections, most collections are in held in storage areas until accessed by researchers. On rare occasion, items are placed on exhibit. While archaeological and historical society collections are more likely to be exhibited, display and public accessibility

are often only temporary, after which collection items are returned to storage.

Across the U.S., most libraries, archives, museums and historical societies hold many more collections items than could ever be exhibited at one time. This also holds true for the U.S. Virgin Islands except that no local institutions with “museum� as their primary function responded to the territorial survey, so such U.S. Virgin Islands museum collections are not represented here.

Fig, 5.1: Institutions (by type) using no environmental controls for the preservation of collections [qC1-qC3]

Fig. 6.1 Percentage of institutions’ collections stored in areas large enough to accommodate them safely and appropriately [qC4]

Chapter 6: Collections Storage

85

Fig. 6.2 Collections stored in areas large enough to accommodate them safely and appropriately (by % institution type) [qC4] Like its nationwide counterpart, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index asked institutions surveyed to report the percentage of collections held in adequate storage, which was defined as large enough to accommodate current collections with safe access to them and appropriate storage furniture.

Respondents were given a range of percentages from which to select. Given the fundamental importance of proper storage to collection maintenance and preservation, it is troubling that only 6% of institutions have adequate storage facilities for all their collections.(See, Fig. 6.1). An additional 15% have less than ideal storage—80% to 99% of collections stored in adequate areas—but even

86 Chapter 6: Collections Storage

on the low end of this range, this could be considered acceptable if institutions are consistently working to improve storage conditions.

The remaining Virgin Islands institutions surveyed (79%), have decidedly more significant and pressing storage concerns: 21% of Virgin Islands collecting institutions have no collections in adequate storage; 15% of institutions have only 1-19% of their collection stored properly; 9% of institutions have 2039% in adequate storage; 18% have about half of their collection stored appropriately (4059%); and 9% have 60-79% stored in adequate storage. Nine percent don’t even know the adequacy of their storage facilities.

Analyzed by type of institution, agencies or universities with specimen/artifact collections have the most arresting statistic: 0% of their collections are stored in areas large enough to accommodate them safely and appropriately.

(See, Fig. 6.2) Other institutions whose collections are not stored in safe or appropriate areas are 29% of Virgin Islands archives, 25% of public libraries, 25% of institutions characterized as “Other,” and 17% of academic libraries.

Another 38% of “Other” institutions (religious institutions, foundations, online newspapers) report that a bare 1-19% of their collections may be considered in safe and appropriate storage conditions, followed closely by 25% of public libraries, and 17% of academic libraries.

It is disconcerting that 29% of archives (the largest holder of all collections of unbound

sheets in the Virgin Islands) and all (100%) botanical garden collections holder respondents indicate that a mere 20 to 39% of their entire collections are in adequate storage, Only slightly better results of 40-59% of collections in adequate storage were noted by 50% of historical societies, 50% of independent libraries, 33% of academic libraries and 17% of archives.

Just half of the responding public libraries and independent libraries claim that as much as 60-79% of their holdings are in adequate storage conditions. At the more favorable end of the scale, 17% of academic libraries state that 100% of their collections are adequately stored, and all (100%) historic house collections, 50% of special libraries, 29% of archives and 13% of “Other” institutions hold approximately 80-99% of their collections in appropriate storage conditions.

Fig. 6.3 Institutions’ need for storage improvements [qC5a-qC5d]

Chapter 6: Collections Storage

87

According to the 2004 nationwide survey, museums (6%) and historical societies (3%) were least likely to have 100% of their collections stored appropriately, and they were least likely to have 80%-99% stored correctly (21% for museums,16% for historical societies). On the other hand, U.S. archives (42%), libraries (47%), and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections (44%) were more likely to have more than 80% of their collections stored in adequate areas. These findings are in stark contrast to the Virgin Islands.

Survey respondents were asked to indicate where improvements were needed for storage that is not adequate. They were given four categories of improvement: additional on-site storage, additional offsite storage, renovated storage space (either on-site or off-site), and

new or improved storage furniture/accessories (such as shelves, cabinets, racks). Figure 6.3 illustrates the need and urgent need for storage improvements.

About 30-40% of Virgin Islands institutions indicated need in all categories except new/additional off-site storage for which only 18% indicated a current necessity. There is an urgent need for additional on-site storage at 29% of institutions, storage renovations at 32% of institutions, new/improved storage furniture at 41% of institutions, and off-site storage at 26% of institutions.

These figures closely parallel those from the 2004 U.S. survey which reported that about two-thirds of U.S. institutions expressed a need in each of the four categories. There was an urgent need for additional on-site storage

Fig. 6.4 Institutions reporting causes of damage to collections from storage conditions [qD13a, qD13f]

88 Chapter 6: Collections Storage

at 32% of U.S. institutions, storage renovations at another 31%, new/improved storage furniture at 29% of U.S. institutions, and off-site storage at 23% of those surveyed in 2004.

Among Virgin Islands institutions that selected urgent need in more than one category, 12% selected urgent need for all four compared to only 3% in the U.S.; 21% for three versus 7% in the U.S.; and for two areas of improvement to storage the Virgin Islands 6% was less than the U.S. levels of 11%.

Results are fairly equal across institution types, but 50% of public libraries and 44% of archives in the Virgin Islands have an urgent need for new/additional storage, compared with 25% of public libraries, 30% of archives and 100% of botanical gardens having an urgent need for storage renovations. New/ improved storage furniture is a pressing need in several institutional categories in the Virgin Islands: 100% of botanical gardens and independent libraries surveyed reported an urgent need for such changes, as well as 67% of institutions falling in the “Other” category, and 44% of archives.

Improper storage or enclosure, which could cause collections to be crushed, bent, creased, adhered together, broken, or otherwise damaged, ranks as one of the greatest threats to [the Territory’s] collections . . . .

Improper storage or enclosure, which could cause collections to be crushed, bent, creased, adhered together, broken, or otherwise damaged, ranks as one of the greatest threats to collections documented by both the U.S. and Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Surveys. As seen in Figure 6.4, 18% of Virgin Islands institutions have incurred significant damage to collections due to improper storage or enclosures, and 59% have incurred some damage. The U.S. results are comparably alarming: 7% with significant damage and 58% with some damage directly attributable to improper collections storage or enclosures.

Damage from handling can also be related to improper storage because cramped conditions

make item retrieval by staff or researchers risky. Significant damage due to handling has occurred at 15% of Virgin Islands institutions (versus 3% in the U.S. 2004 results), and some damage from handling has been identified at 50% of local institutions (compared to 51% nationwide in 2004).

Not surprisingly, adequacy of storage and damage due to improper storage are a direct correlation. While no Virgin Islands institutions reported 100% of their collections in proper storage, those with higher percentages (80% -99%) generally report lower levels of damage due to storage conditions. As the number of collections stored in adequate areas decreases, the amount of damage due to improper storage or enclosures increases. The percentage of Virgin Islands institutions that do not know about damage due to improper storage also increases as the percentage of collections stored in adequate areas decreases.

Storage can be a challenging preservation issue to address if collections have outgrown available space and new facilities are necessary. Relocating to or constructing larger purpose-built storage facilities represents a considerable investment and expense in economic times challenging to governments and cultural institutions alike.

The remote location and geography of the Virgin Islands present few options for costefficient storage construction, especially given the region’s extreme tropical weather conditions. With the local resort economy based heavily on tourism, land—especially level commercial sites, whether or not already developed—is at a premium. In the often mountainous and seaside 148 sq. miles of occupied geography of the U.S. Virgin Islands, centrally located historic structures from the Danish West Indian era (1672-1917) dominate accessible areas, but such aging structures offer fewer risk-free options and alternatives for storage and space availability.

Moreover, current usable storage might be in areas known to have imperfect and hazardous environmental conditions, such as basements or below-grade structures, attics, ceiling crawlspaces or commercial storage warehouses. To remediate these storage problems would demand a significant capital investment.

Chapter 6: Collections Storage

89

Improving storage conditions by re-housing items in proper enclosures or suitable storage furniture requires considerable expenditure for materials and equipment as well as extensive human resources. Since collections

storage is often out of the public eye, many institutions may be tempted to defer “dear dollar� solutions to storage issues, but doing so only puts collections at further risk.

Recommendation Virgin Islands collecting institutions must give priority to safe storage conditions for the collections they hold in trust.

90 Chapter 6: Collections Storage

Chapter 7: Emergency Planning and Security In the Fall of 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita brought renewed attention in the U.S. to the critical need for emergency planning at all levels of community life. For collecting institutions, the damage sustained by historic sites, libraries, archives, and museums on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Louisiana was a reminder of the importance of protecting collections from natural disasters.

In this context, it was particularly alarming that the 2004 national Heritage Health Index found that 80% of U.S. collecting institutions did not have a written emergency/ disaster plan that included collections with staff trained to carry it out.

In the U.S. Virgin Islands and the wider Caribbean, this alarm is intensified by the prevalence of windstorms and the uncertainties of tropical weather and geologic catastrophes in the area, especially those of recent history causing widespread devastation: Hurricane Hugo (1989) and Hurricane Marilyn (1995) in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the eruption of the Soufrière Hills volcano in Montserrat (1997), and the disastrous earthquake in Haiti (2010).

[T]he lack of emergency/disaster planning by institutional type . . . tells a frightening tale: 86% of Virgin Islands collections are at risk.

Figure 7.1 illustrates the lack of emergency/ disaster planning by institutional type and tells a frightening tale: 86% of Virgin Islands collections are at risk. Institutions with neither an emergency plan nor staff trained to carry it out hold an astounding 346,201 collection items constituting 63% of the Territory’s entire holdings. In 85% of other

collections measured in linear feet, 6,093 linear feet of holdings are also held without an emergency plan or staff in place. An additional 95% of holdings measured in cubic feet (1,050 cubic feet of bulk collections) are also subject to the same risks.

Figure 7.2 illustrates that Virgin Islands libraries without emergency plans hold most of these items, followed by archives, other institutions, historical societies, botanical gardens, agencies/universities with specimen collections, and historic houses/sites.

Half (50%) of the responding Virgin Islands historical societies and independent research libraries report having no emergency or disaster plan in place with appropriately trained staff for implementation, nor do 75% of the public libraries, or 83% of the academic libraries. Even more troubling is the revelation that within the Territory not one (0%) agency or university with specimen or artifact collections, archives, botanical garden, historic house or site, special library or any collecting institution categorizing its primary function as “Other” has an emergency plan or staff trained to carry it out.

As a whole, 88% of the U.S. collecting institutions also had a poor showing for emergency preparedness, though they fared slightly better than the U.S. Virgin Islands. In the 2004 survey, 80% of U.S. collections reported having neither a plan nor the implementation staff needed but unlike the Virgin Islands historical societies were least likely to have a plan with trained staff (92%), and archives were more likely to have these preventive measures in place (70%). With 80% of the nation’s collecting institutions not having proper planning to protect their collections from emergencies or disasters, a whopping 2.6 billion items were at risk.

Chapter7: Emergency Planning and Security

91

Fig. 7.1 Percentage of institutions (by type) with neither an emergency plan nor staff trained to carry it out [qD4-qD5] Across the nation historical societies without emergency plans held most of these items (64%) followed by museums (60%), archaeological repositories/scientific research collections (59%), libraries (52%) and archives (41%). Viewed by type of collections, the lack of disaster preparedness puts about half of each type of collection item at risk for damage or loss nationwide.

The finding that 80% of U.S. collecting institutions and 86% of U.S. Virgin Islands collecting institutions do not have a written emergency/disaster plan that includes collections and staff trained to carry it out was determined from the analysis of responses to two particular survey questions: D4 and D5.

Question D4 “Does your institution have a written emergency/disaster plan that includes the collection?” was very deliberately worded for this purpose by the Heritage Preservation survey planners. In their judgment, qualifying

that the plan was “written” demonstrated that it had been carefully considered and codified as institutional policy.

The wording “that includes the collection” was also deemed significant. Some institutions do have emergency plans in place for the safety of staff and visitors, and while personal safety is paramount in the event of an emergency, planning for the protection of the collection is distinguishable and an essential component of responsible collections care stewardship.

Answer choices to D4 included “yes,” “yes, but it is not up-to-date,” “no, but one is being developed,” “no,” and “don’t know.” In analyzing the responses to this question, Heritage Preservation considered “yes,” and “yes, but it is not up-to-date” as affirmative responses. They recognized that while an upto-date plan is important in an emergency, an old plan is better than no plan at all.

92 Chapter 7: Emergency Planning and Security

Likewise, the response “no, but one is being developed” was included with the “no” responses, because a plan in development is not adequate protection should disaster strike.

“Don’t know” was also included with “no” because best practices dictate that all staff should be aware of the existence of a plan.

For the Virgin Islands survey, the same analytical reasoning was used to compile and report results. The Virgin Islands results to question D4, “Does your institution have a written emergency/disaster plan that includes the collection?” are: Yes 6% Yes, but it is not up-to-date 9% No, but one is being developed 6% No 68% Don’t know 12%

According to the analysis parameters, 86% do not have an emergency/disaster plan that includes collections. (Cf., Fig. 4.2) The U.S. Heritage Health Index survey asked four questions to gauge the risk to collections of swift and catastrophic loss but an essential aspect of emergency/disaster preparedness is that staff be trained to carry out the plan.

Follow-up question D5 for respondents with written emergency/disaster plans that include collections asked, “Is your staff trained to carry it out?” A number of institutions (44%) indicated they had no plan at all, i.e., there was no trained staff requirement. For those that did respond, the answers are: Yes No Don’t know

12% 32% 12%

Fig. 7.2 Collection items at risk because institutions do not have emergency plans (total at risk = 346,201 items [not including collections measured in linear or cubic feet]) [qD4, qF5]

Chapter7: Emergency Planning and Security

93

Fig. 7.3 Institutions with copies of vital collection records stored off-site [qD6]

Fig. 7.4 Institutions with no copies of vital collections records stored off-site (by governance) [qD6, qB5]

94 Chapter 7: Emergency Planning and Security

Heritage Preservation considered the high percentage of “don’t know” responses in the nationwide survey (12%) to indicate that staff was not trained. Because a written plan without staff trained to carry it out is likely to be ineffective, Heritage Preservation staff and the advisers who reviewed the U.S. survey data concluded that understanding the actual level of preparedness by U.S. collecting institutions required cross-tabulating the responses to the two questions.

The cross-tabulated result for the U.S. was that 80% of institutions did not have an emergency plan with staff trained to carry it out. The cross-tabulated result for the U.S. Virgin Islands is 86% but, in context of institutional size, this is within the range of the national results.

The 2004 national Heritage Health Index examined findings for any patterned results in its large sample pool that could be discerned by institutional size. Although patterns did emerge, few meaningful comparisons can be made with the Virgin Islands data since the latter’s institutional pool serves a much smaller population metric.

However, the observation can be made with some pertinence that in the U.S. results for smaller institutions, historical societies were least likely to have a plan with staff trained (94%), followed by archaeological repositories/scientific research collections at 88%. U.S. archives, libraries, and museums were at about the 85% average for small institutions which is the size category within which Virgin Islands institutions would be expected to fall.

Findings from the Heritage Preservation report Cataclysm and Challenge: Impact of September 11, 2001, on Our Nation’s Cultural Heritage underscored the importance of having collections records stored off-site. The report states, “Of significant concern, the survey found more than half (53 percent) of the respondents kept no off-site record of their inventory. Had the destruction of September 11 spread more widely, many collecting institutions would have been left with no complete record of what had been lost.”

Based on this finding from Cataclysm and Challenge, the Heritage Health Index survey included a question to determine how many institutions would be similarly at risk should disaster strike. Question D6 asked, “Are copies of vital collections records stored off-site?” and gave examples of “inventory, catalog, insurance policies,” but otherwise allowed institutions to define what “vital” meant.

[O]nly 12% of institutions in the Virgin Islands are sufficiently prepared for catastrophic events with copies of all vital records stored off-site . . . .

Figure 7.3 shows that only 12% of institutions in the Virgin Islands are sufficiently prepared for catastrophic events with copies of all vital records stored off-site; another 12% have some records off-site, and 77% are unprepared (the 21% with no vital collections records at all and 12% that responded “don’t know” can logically be added to the 44% “no” responses).

When considering responses to “no collections records stored off-site” by governance (See, Fig. 7.4), territorial government institutions have the lowest percentage at 25%, compared to the national average of 38%, and all (100%) of the Virgin Islands academic library respondents state they have no copies of vital collections records stored off-site.

Another catastrophic risk to collections is theft or vandalism. Heritage Health Index survey question D7 asked, “Do you have adequate security systems to help prevent theft or vandalism of collections?”

Since the level and sophistication of security systems can vary depending on the size and type of institutions and the collections, “adequate” was left to the judgment of the responding institution. The type of examples given to demonstrate the range of types of security included security guard, staff observation, and intrusion detection.

The 2004 Heritage Health Index found that 44% of U.S. collecting institutions deemed their security systems to be adequate, leaving 56% without sufficient protection. The national data by type of institution showed

Chapter7: Emergency Planning and Security

95

Fig. 7.5 Adequacy of security systems [qD7] that libraries (34%) and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections (33%) were most likely to have inadequate or no security systems. Art museums were most likely to have adequate security in all areas (59%), followed by history museums/historic sites/other museums (50%).

National data gathered from this question had naturally occurring correlations to size, with 29% of small institutions having inadequate or

no security systems, compared with only 12% of large institutions and 21% of medium-sized institutions.

The Virgin Islands institutions responding to question D7 once again fall below the nationally reported percentages. (See, Fig. 7.5) Only 29% of local collections custodians feel their systems are adequate to prevent theft or vandalism of collections. Another 12% stated that adequate systems exist in some,

Fig. 7.6 Need for security improvements [qD12d]

96 Chapter 7: Emergency Planning and Security

but not all, areas of their collections. By far, the overwhelming response was by 59% of the Territory’s collections that declared their security systems are inadequate or do not exist at all.

In question D12, which asked institutions the urgency of preservation/conservation needs, only 12% of collections custodians confirmed their collections have no need for security improvements, although 6% answered they did not know what their institution’s needs might be. Most (68%) cited a need (50%) or urgent need (18%) for security improvements.

(See, Fig. 7.6) Troubling are the 15% answering that security improvements were not applicable—does this imply those institutions have no need or no understanding of the need for security? Virgin Islands institutions ranked the urgency of security as the lowest preservation/ conservation need among nine options, tied only with pest management—a possible indicator for more collection management emphasis on the importance of security to collections care. (See, Fig. 5.7) In the 2004 Heritage Health Index, 9% of U.S. institutions responding cited an urgent need for security, ranking security below five other factors . Combining “some need” and “urgent need,” 45% of institutions nationwide needed security improvements; this was the lowest

ranking need, just below preservation of digital collections and integrated pest management, both at 46%. In national results, vandalism was cited as the cause of significant damage at 1% of institutions and of some damage at 22% of institutions. It was the least frequent cause of significant and some damage, after fire at 0.4% and 3% respectively.

However, of all causes of damage listed, fire was most likely to result in an immediate and a total loss to the object. This knowledge, and a familiarity with the particular conditions of the Territory’s holdings, led the Virgin Islands team to consider the advisability of adding several focused questions to the Heritage Preservation survey template that would address issues such as catastrophic loss or systems redundancy for emergency planning and security.

For example, question G5 asked institutions, “Does your institution insure the contents of its collections against loss, damage or theft?”

(See, Fig. 7.7) Affirmative responses came from 15% of the responding institutions, and 3% indicated insurance coverage, though not in place, was under consideration. Almost half (47%) of the collections custodians in the Virgin Islands do not insure their collections contents, however, and 35% of collections care managers stated they do not know if they have such coverage.

Fig. 7.7 Institutions insuring the contents of collections against loss, damage or theft [qG5]

Chapter7: Emergency Planning and Security

97

Fig. 7.8 Institutions with an electrical power backup system [qG6] The cost for insurance against loss, damage or theft in the Territory pales by comparison to the cost of insurance for weather-related events (e.g., windstorm, floods) and acts of God (e.g., volcano eruption or tsunami) or terrorism. Future Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index surveys may wish to ask other questions of collections holders in the Territory to establish their level of risk (and thus the need for insurance protection) from such events, such as whether the collections are located in a flood plain or are exposed to the elements.

In another example of a Territory-specific need, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey queried, “In case an electrical outage occurs where your collections are held, is there a backup system to provide electrical power?”

(See, Fig. 7.8) This question recognized the critical need for sources of energy to maintain environmental controls for the Territory’s collections during excessive or prolonged power interruptions, and to support security procedures, fire retardant systems, and emergency communications equipment.

Only 15% of Virgin Islands institutions stated that they have electrical power backup systems in place for the protection of their collections.

Another 3% stated they did, but that the backup capacity is insufficient to support air conditioning for the collection in the event of a power outage—a critical need in the tropical temperatures and high humidity of the Virgin

Islands. A clear majority (71%) of institutions do not have electrical power backup, and another 12% do not know if they do.

Since most of the collections in the Virgin Islands have not been fully accessioned or described (See, Chapter 10, Assessments and Intellectual Control) the survey team also wanted to establish the frequency of institutional use of documentation to establish the ownership of collections. Examples of such documentation include donor agreements, lending agreements, exhibition rights agreements and copyright terms.

Over one-quarter (27%) of Virgin Islands institutions responded that they do (24%) or at least sometimes do (3%) use documents such as donor agreements to document their institutional ownership rights in collections materials. Fifteen percent (15%) were unaware of the use of such agreements and responded “don’t know” but another 56% admitted that they do not use documentation to establish ownership of their collection holdings. (See, Fig. 7.9) Failure to properly document the rights of the collection holder to the ownership, use, access and care of the materials housed in collections may put the institution at undue liability and risk. Especially in the case of emergency events, uncertainty of ownership may create perceived obligation to third parties for the restitution or valuation of items held in trust.

98 Chapter 7: Emergency Planning and Security

Fig. 7.9 Institutions using documentation (e.g., donor agreements) to establish ownership of collections [qG1]

Recommendation Every Virgin Islands collecting institution must develop an emergency plan to protect its collections and train staff to carry it out.

Chapter7: Emergency Planning and Security

99

100 Chapter 7: Emergency Planning and Security

Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index found that 85% of the Territory’s collecting institutions care for three or more types of collections, including 41% caring for three to five collection types, 26% caring for six to nine types, and 18% caring for nine to twelve categories of collections. (See, Fig. 8.1) Given the diversity of needs for such collections, it is particularly important to have on staff personnel who can and are able to devote time to appropriate collections care.

Survey question D8 asked Virgin Islands institutions about their level of preservation/conservation staffing.

Institutions could select as many options as applicable. Only 7% of institutions have paid staff dedicated to preservation/conservation, whether full-time or part-time. (See, Fig. 8.2) Instead, most institutions depend on assigning collections care duties to other staff as needed (37%) and surprisingly few are using

Fig. 8.1 Most (85%) institutions care for three or more collection types [qF5]

Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

101

Fig. 8.2 Institutions’ staffing for preservation/conservation [qD8] volunteers (13%) (compared to 44% of national institutions surveyed in 2004).

No Virgin Islands institutions stated they were using external providers for preservation/ conservation staffing and, upon further reflection, this is in keeping with the paucity of external provider options in the region.

What is startling, however, is that 57% of collecting institutions in the Territory report that no designated staff person has preservation/conservation responsibilities for collections materials in their care.

What is startling, however, is that 57% of collecting institutions in the Territory report that no designated staff person has preservation/conservation responsibilities for collections materials in their care. The 2004 Heritage Health Index national returns in this category were less than half (22%) the number of Virgin Islands respondents but even at that constituted a serious staff shortfall for effective

preservation management activities in the U.S. The U.S. survey findings also demonstrated that smaller institutions were more likely to use volunteers or have had no staff assigned to preservation/conservation duties, and this is borne out as well in the Virgin Islands institutional results.

Viewed by type of institution, about one-third of U.S. archives and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections had paid preservation/conservation staff.

However, only 12% of U.S. libraries and 15% of U.S. historical societies had paid preservation/conservation staff.

Across the nation, archives and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections were also least likely to have no designated staff with collections care responsibilities at 5% and 8% respectively, while libraries were the most likely not to have such staff (38%).

About half of U.S. archives, libraries, museums, and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections also use various staff to handle collections care duties.

102 Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

Heritage Preservation found that museums in the U.S. are most likely to use external providers for preservation/conservation services (26%), historical societies were most likely to use volunteers (64%) as part of their personnel for preservation/conservation, and 30% of historical societies used only volunteers to cover preservation/conservation duties. Of all the variables, including type and size, academic institutions were the most likely to use various staff as needed for preservation/ conservation.

The second survey question about preservation staffing (question D9) asked institutions to indicate the number of internal staff and volunteers who perform preservation/conservation activities.

Institutions were to record human resources devoted to collections care using the expression “full-time equivalent (FTE)” which is equal to a worker who works year-round for an average of 40 hours a week. Institutions were to include all workers and volunteers including temporary, part-time, seasonal, work study, and intern help.

Staffing was divided into three categories: professional preservation/conservation staff, support preservation/conservation staff, and

volunteers. Respondents were given the option of six answer choices that included ranges of numbers.

The survey term “professional staff” was not defined intentionally in order to allow institutions to define it most appropriately for themselves. Instead, examples of professional staff, including preservation administrators, conservators, and research scientists, were given. Heritage Preservation cites the following illustrative example in its 2005 report: At a natural science museum, a collections manager could be considered professional preservation/conservation staff, but at an art museum, this position could be considered support staff.

U.S. institution responses revealed that 65% had no professional preservation/conservation staff and only slightly more than a quarter (27%) had up to one full-time equivalent staff person. In 2004, only 5% of U.S. collecting institutions had 2-5 FTEs; 1% had 6-10 FTEs; and less than 1% had more than 11 full-time equivalent internal professional preservation/ conservation staff.

For both the U.S. and Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Surveys, support preservation/

Fig. 8.3 Average number of internal staff who perform preservation/conservation activities [qD9]

Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

103

conservation staff included collections care assistants, technical assistants, and collections handlers; again the term was not rigidly defined so institutions could define it for themselves. According to Heritage Preservation’s findings, fewer than half of U.S. institutions (47%) had no FTE support staff in 2004; 39% had up to one FTE; 10% had 2-5 FTEs; 1% had 6- 10 FTEs; and fewer than 1% had more than 11 full-time equivalent internal support preservation/conservation staff.

In the third staffing category, there were no volunteers involved with preservation and conservation activities at 58% of U.S. collecting institutions. One-quarter used up to one FTE volunteer: only 10% used 2-5 FTEs; 2% used 6- 10 FTEs; 1% used 11-20 FTEs; and 1% used more than 20 full-time equivalent volunteers. In all three staffing categories, 3% of U.S. institutions replied “don’t know.”

Averaging all three U.S. staffing responses together, using midpoints for the ranges 2-5, 6-10, and 11-20 and 30 for “more than 20,” 30% of institutions did not have any internal staff who performed preservation/ conservation activities; 25% had one full-time equivalent; and 18% had two full-time equivalent staff members, whether they be preservation/conservation professionals, support staff, volunteers, or some combination of the three.

Seventeen percent had 3-5 FTEs; 7% had more than 5 but less than 10 FTEs; and only 4% had more than 10 FTEs. Overall, almost threequarters of collecting institutions nationwide had fewer than two full-time equivalent staff members with conservation/ preservation responsibilities. At U.S. institutions that had internal conservation/preservation staff (professional, support, or volunteers), 36% had one FTE; 25% had two FTEs; 24% had 3-5 FTEs; 11% had more than 5 but less than 10; and only 4% had more than 10 FTEs. These combined number averages were quite a bit lower for the survey pool of smaller Virgin Islands institutions. Only slightly more than a quarter of collections in the Territory (27%) have up to one full-time equivalent staff person whose activities are preservation/ conservation, whether they be considered professional, internal or volunteer staff.

Reports of Virgin Island responses are

adjusted for the limited survey pool’s institutional sizes and are expressed in gradations from 2.0 FTEs (0%), and 3.0 FTEs (7%) to 3.5 FTEs (3%), the highest number of FTEs submitted in any response. (See, Fig. 8.3)

According to the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index, 65% of the Territory’s collection holders have no staff whatsoever—professional, internal or volunteer—performing preservation/ conservation activities for their institutions.

According to the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index, 65% of the Territory’s collection holders have no staff whatsoever— professional, internal or volunteer— performing preservation/conservation activities for their institutions.

Collecting institutions were also asked to report whether their conservation/ preservation program included any or all of six types of specified activities: •

• • • •

•

preventive conservation (e.g., housekeeping, holdings maintenance, re-housing, environmental monitoring) preservation management (e.g., administration, planning, assessment) conservation treatment (e.g., repair, mass deacidification, specimen preparation) preservation reformatting (e.g., preservation photocopying, microfilming) preservation of audio-visual media and playback equipment (e.g., preservation copies of media, maintaining equipment) preservation of digital materials and electronic records collections (e.g., migrating data to current software).

Respondents could indicate that the activity was done by institution staff; done by external providers; not done currently, but planned; not done; or not applicable.

104 Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

Fig. 8.4 What institutions’ preservation/conservation program includes and who performs the tasks [qD10a-qD10f] In the national survey, U.S. respondents stated that preventive conservation is mostly likely to be done by institutional staff at 66%, followed by preservation management at 55%, conservation treatment at 37%, preservation reformatting at 33%, preservation of digital materials at 27%, and preservation of audiovisual materials at 23%.

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey results found that 26% of institutions have preventive conservation performed by institution staff. Virgin Islands preservation management accounts for another 24%, preservation of digital material 18%, preservation reformatting 9% and conservation treatment and preservation of audio/visual media and playback equipment each at 6%. (See, Fig. 8.4) As for external providers, conservation treatment was performed by these professionals at 21% of U.S. institutions.

External providers were next most likely to be used for preservation reformatting (16%) and

preservation of audio-visual media (8%) by U.S. collections caregivers. Preservation of digital material had the highest percentage of “not done currently, but planned” at 12%, but between 9% and 11% of the remaining activities were also planned, with the exception of preventive conservation (5%).

Between one-quarter and one-third of U.S. institutions were not involved in these preservation activities, again with the exception of preventive conservation, which was not done at 18% of institutions.

The U.S. Virgin Islands is challenged by its geographic location in working with and engaging external providers, however a few of the Territory’s institutions responded in this category as well. Preservation reformatting is done by external providers according to 12% of Virgin Islands respondents, with 6% being provided for preventive conservation, conservation treatment and preservation of digital materials, and 3% for preservation management and preservation of audio/visual media.

Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

105

Fig. 8.5 Institutions’ need for staff training [qD12c] The 2004 survey found that staff training for conservation and preservation was needed at 59% of U.S. institutions and urgently needed at another 11% of the nation’s institutions, resulting in a combined need figure for the U.S. of 70%, more than any other need cited by the country’s collecting institutions. This need was fairly balanced across types of the nation’s institutions, with archives and museums having the most need responses (63%) and archives, historical societies, and museums having the highest urgent need responses at 14% each. Slightly more small U.S. institutions cited an urgent need (12%) than other institutional size categories.

The Territory’s staffing needs were also polled and the results are a clarion call for changes in the way Virgin Islands collecting institutions are responding to preservation/conservation imperatives: 76% of respondents state a need (50%) or an urgent need (26%) for staff training in preservation/conservation.

The Territory’s staffing needs were also polled and the results are a clarion call for changes in

the way Virgin Islands collecting institutions are responding to preservation/conservation imperatives: 76% of respondents state a need (50%) or urgent need (26%) for staff training in preservation/conservation. (See, Fig. 8.5) Only 3%--all of them historic houses/sites— state they have no need and 9%—comprised of archives, public libraries and independent research libraries—do not know; 12% (some academic institutions and most “Other” institutions) respond that the question is not applicable.

Those 26% of Virgin Islands institutions in urgent need for staff training include archives (9%), public libraries (6%) and academic libraries, botanical gardens, independent research libraries, and special libraries (each at 3%). The 50% of institutions in need are “Other” institutions (15%), academic libraries (12%), archives (9%), historical societies (6%) and agencies or universities with specimen/artifact collections, public libraries and special libraries (each 3%). (See, Fig. 8.6) Nationally, urgent need for staff training correlated with average size of internal staff for preservation/conservation, with more U.S. institutions citing an urgent need for training if they had fewer staff. For example, 29% of U.S. institutions with an urgent need for staff

106 Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

Fig. 8.6 Institutions’ need for staff training (by type and indicating percentage of respondent pool) [qD12c]

Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

107

Fig. 8.7 Institutions’ need for conservation treatment [qD12g]

Fig. 8.8 Employee and volunteer staff of reporting institutions (by type) [qH1]

108 Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

training had no internal staff; 24% of institutions surveyed in 2004 with an urgent need for staff training had 1 full-time equivalent staff; 19% with an urgent need had 2 FTEs; 17% with an urgent need had 3-5 FTEs; 8% with an urgent need had less than five but more than 10 FTEs; and 4% with an urgent need for staff training had more than 10 FTEs. The trend is the same when considering only U.S. institutions that had internal staff. Onethird of U.S. institutions reported some (31%) or significant (2%) damage to collections due to prior treatment or restoration. While this damage may have occurred before an item entered the institution that currently held it, it underscored the importance of using trained conservators to undertake treatment projects.

It also indicated that a percentage of collections in need may require specialized treatment to ameliorate previous repairs.

In 2004, half of all U.S. institutions had a need and 12% had an urgent need for conservation treatment. The Virgin Islands survey results confirm that 38% of all Virgin Islands collecting institutions have a need, while 21% have an urgent need, and another 15% did not know what their needs were for conservation.

Those institutions in the Territory citing no need (12%) or the inapplicability of the question (15%) may have answered differently had the evaluations been completed by professionals trained in conservation. (See Fig. 8.7) The services of a professional conservator would be required to address the problems of items described here and elsewhere in this report as being in urgent need. No Virgin Islands institution has the resources to have a professional conservator on staff but, in these cases, institutions in the Territory at minimum should have access to information resources to contact qualified conservators in private practice or through regional conservation centers for assistance.

For more routine preventive conservation activities, institutions can take advantage of in-house, online and off-site staff training opportunities. Such training is necessary to ensure that staff know the fundamental principles of collections handling, storage,

environmental monitoring, and other basic preservation activities.

Most problems identified by Heritage Health Index data could be reversed if every institution had adequate staff for preservation. At a minimum, every collecting institution should have a dedicated staff person who addresses collections care issues.

Most problems identified by Heritage Health Index data could be reversed if every institution had adequate staff for preservation.

At a minimum, every collecting institution should have a dedicated staff person who addresses collections care issues.

This statement presumes, however, sufficient staffing to meet other basic needs of collecting institutions. The number of employee and volunteer staff of Virgin Islands reporting institutions shown in Figure 8.8 illustrate the current staff levels by institutional type. It may be noted that most full-time paid staff in the Territory’s collecting institutions are employed by academic libraries (21), archives (11), public libraries (8), “Other” institutions and special libraries (6 each) botanical gardens (5), and agencies or universities with specimen collections and historic houses/sites (2 each). Part-time paid staff levels are noticeably lower with “Other” institutions (14), academic libraries and botanical gardens (5 each), historical societies (1) and independent research libraries (1).

Together, these 61 full-time and 26 part-time paid employees, with just over 21 volunteers, manage 550,000 collection items, 1.4 miles of unbound collections materials, and 1,100 cubic feet of bulk cataloged material in the Virgin Islands. If staff were specifically designated for preservation/conservation care responsibilities for those collections, the operating staffing numbers would be need to be much higher. (See, also, Fig. 3.6) The duty for providing preservation/ conservation care should be included as well in a collecting institution’s preservation and

Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

109

collection maintenance plans. One factor to consider in preparing such plans is the anticipated amount of collection usage. User and visitor statistics assist in framing preservation/conservation activities and responsibilities and should be recorded routinely to support and substantiate budgeting and funding needs for collections care. According to the Heritage Preservation survey results, the 4.8 billion U.S. articles cared for in collections are visited or used 2.5 billion times a year.

In the Virgin Islands, these numbers are reported out from two perspectives. First, survey participants stated whether such visitations to Virgin Islands collections were performed onsite, off-site or online. Collecting institutions in the Virgin Islands reported 68% had visitors in 12 months preceding the survey onsite, 85% had visitors off-site, and 79% of institutions’ collections were visited or used online. (See, Fig. 8.9) Quantities of visitors for all institutions were also aggregated for the 12 months preceding the survey, with a reported 62,850 visitors onsite, and 1,805 visitors off-site (i.e., traveling exhibitions, bookmobiles, and educational programs). (See, Fig. 8.10)

Perhaps most revealing, and certainly indicative of recent advances in technology and refocused efforts to preserve and provide greater accessibility to information, is the finding that Virgin Islands institutions had tallied 186,495 electronic visits (i.e., visits to Web sites, electronic distribution lists, and electronic discussion groups) during the same time period. These findings point to a growing need for staff training in digital preservation to enable collections to continue to serve an increasing pool of electronic users and remote visitors.

Last, but not least, staffing for preservation/ conservation activities must also take into account staff’s understanding and appreciation for the content and nature of the collections. For example, the U.S. Virgin Islands have a unique history as a U.S. Territory. Formerly known as the Danish West Indies, the islands were settled by the Danes as early as 1672 and were purchased by the U.S. from Denmark in 1917.

But, it is also true that at one time or another between 1672 and 1917, St. Croix, St. John and/or St. Thomas, and many of their nearby Caribbean island neighbors, were also settled by, occupied by or served as residences for the

Fig. 8.9 Institutions reporting visitors during last 12 months (by location type) [qH2]

110 Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

Fig. 8.10 Institutions’ visitors or users served during last 12 months [qH2]

Fig. 8.11 Number of institutions holding collections (by language) [qG8]

Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

111

Fig. 8.12 Institutions (by type) holding collections (by language) [qG8]

Dutch, Spanish, French, English, Swedish, Portuguese, East Indians, Chinese, Germans Africans and Filipinos. Records, correspondence, documentation and ephemera survives to this day in these languages and oral traditions and many are held in the collections of the Virgin Islands.

Creole and patois, blended languages which developed in the region principally in Dutch, French and English forms, are also prevalent,

and many texts, especially those early ones held by religious institutions, may be found in Latin.

To meet the needs of users for materials held in all languages, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index asked respondents to indicate their collection holdings by language. (See, Fig. 8.11 and Fig. 8.12) Together with age, condition, format and subject matter content, staff must be trained to recognize the value of

112 Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

collection holdings for users/visitors in order to set preservation/conservation priorities for their collecting institutions. Proper planning can only be undertaken if the collection content can be contextualized and collections rendered in a foreign language can sometimes be a preservation barrier.

While the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index results predictably confirm that all institutions held collections that are in English, over half indicate they also have collection materials in Spanish (56%) and Danish (53%), with a significant number of institutions holding items in French (29%), Dutch (24%), German (24%), and Creole (18%). Another 9% reportedly hold collections in still other languages (e.g., Latin).

Public libraries held the greatest variety of languages (nine), with the Territory’s archives, and independent research libraries each reporting seven, “Other� institutions reporting six, historical societies five, academic libraries four, special libraries three, agencies and universities with specimen collections and botanical gardens each two, and historic houses/sites one (which, of course, was English only).

For Virgin Islands institutions with five or more languages present in their collections, the most likely languages to be present in all types of institutions are English, Danish, French and Spanish; in 80% of institutional types Dutch; and in 60% of institutional types, Creole and German.

Recommendation Every Virgin Islands collecting institution must assign responsibility for preservation/ conservation care for collections to members of its staff and ensure that they are properly trained to care for collections materials.

Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

113

114 Chapter 8: Preservation Staffing and Activities

Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding The section of the national Heritage Health Index survey devoted to preservation expenditures and funding revealed that few U.S. collecting institutions regularly designated funds to preservation/conservation and that most institutions’ budgets for preservation/conservation were surprisingly low.

Only 13% of U.S. institutions had access to preservation funding from permanent funds, such as endowments. Moreover, many institutions were not seeking external funds to support preservation of their collections and were not engaged in activities to raise awareness from potential preservation funders.

Noting that preservation was not a core activity that was budgeted for regularly, Heritage Preservation concluded that lack of financial support was at the root of all the issues identified in the Heritage Health Index.

Noting that preservation was not a core activity that was budgeted for regularly, Heritage Preservation concluded that lack of financial support was at the root of all the issues identified in the Heritage Health Index.

Heritage Preservation advocated making funds for preservation a consistent and stable part of annual operating budgets to begin to address these issues.

Only 23% of U.S. collecting institutions, which include archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, and archaeological repositories/ scientific research collections, had funding specifically allocated for preservation/ conservation activities in their annual budgets.

In some cases, collecting institutions in the

national survey stated their reliance on other budget lines for preservation/conservation— for example, a museum might include preservation in a curatorial budget or a library might include preservation in a technical services budget. However, only 36% allocated funds through other budget categories and 40% of U.S. collecting institutions allocated no funds at all for the care of their collections.

By institutional type, U.S. libraries were least likely to allocate for preservation at 54%. This figure was influenced by 60% of public libraries and special libraries not specifically allocating for preservation in their institutional budgets (including 42% of large public libraries and 55% of large special libraries). The nation’s art museums were most likely to have funds specifically allocated for preservation (45%), followed by independent research libraries (40%).

Although smaller U.S. institutions in particular were more likely to not have any budgeted funds, more than one-third of U.S. institutions (36%), regardless of size, confirmed they used funds from other budget lines for preservation. This, however, is not the case in the Virgin Islands.

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index reveals that only 9% of the Territory’s collections have funding specifically allocated for preservation/conservation activities in their annual budgets. Another 3% cannot identify a specific line item in their budgets but could identify other budgeted funds available for that purpose. Those institutions with no allocated funds for preservation/ conservation constitute 70% of collections in the Territory. Together with those Virgin Islands collecting institutions responding “don’t know” (18%), a lack of allocated funding is a chief concern of 88% of Virgin Islands collections. (See, Fig. 9.1)

Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

115

Fig 9.1 Institutions with funds allocated for preservation/conservation in annual budget [qE1]

Fig. 9.2 Annual budget for fiscal year 2009 for preservation/conservation expenses [qE3]

116 Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

In question E3, survey participants were asked to record the amount of their institutions’ preservation/conservation budget for the most recently completed fiscal year. The question explained that if no specific line-item for preservation budget existed, respondents should include an estimate of other budgeted funds used in the most recent fiscal year. This estimate was to include funds for staffing, supplies, equipment, surveys, treatment, preservation reformatting, commercial binding, consultants, contractors, and other preservation costs.

The instructions referred institutions to what they recorded in the preservation staffing questions (questions D8 and D9; see, also, Chapter 8, Preservation Staffing and Activities) to ensure that all personnel costs were included in the preservation budget response. Funds for utilities, security, capital projects, or overhead were not to be included in the preservation budget, although in some cases these expenses could be related to preservation. Institutions were instructed to include all funds from the most recently completed fiscal year, even if that figure was higher than usual due to a special project or grant.

Nationally, question E3 received an 86% response rate—lower than most of the U.S. survey questions, which generally had response rates close to 100%. Completed responses to question E3 are also among the lowest in the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index, but because of the smaller survey pool, the national data inferences used by Heritage Preservation may be considerably less reliable.

Nevertheless, if question E3 was left blank by Virgin Islands institutions, data was considered to be missing rather than assumed to be zero, just as it was in the U.S. data compilation. However, it also bears mentioning that follow-up interviews with Virgin Islands survey respondents indicated that no data reported was a stronger indicator of a lack of budget provisions for preservation/ conservation than simply unknown or unobtainable financial information.

It is clear that further data gathering and analysis are warranted in order to better understand the role of budgeted allocations for preservation/conservation of Virgin Islands

collections, but a few important conclusions may be drawn nevertheless from the data gathered by—or missing from—the 2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index.

In 2004, and even with such a broad definition of preservation expenses, U.S. preservation budgets were surprisingly low. Almost a third (30%) had no funds budgeted, and 38% had less than $3,000 budgeted in the most recently completed fiscal year. U.S. libraries at 44% were most likely to have a preservation budget of zero (50% of public libraries, 44% of special libraries, 43% of independent research libraries, and 25% of academic libraries).

In the preservation funding category of less than $3,000, 78% of libraries and 78% of historical societies across the U.S. listed their preservation budgets in this category.

When considering all U.S. institutions that reported having archives among their functions, 59% had less than $3,000 budgeted for preservation in the most recently completed fiscal year For the few survey responses (50%) submitted by participating Virgin Islands institutions, information was given in reference to fiscal years 2008 and 2009, or inferred for those years if no year was specified. However, since information was inconsistently provided for FY 2008, or stated as $0, either through oversight or lack of data, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index analysis will only treat figures given for FY 2009, and, unfortunately, the information yield is small. (See, Fig. 9.2) Virgin Islands preservation/conservation budgetary data for FY 2009 is blatantly indicative of the funding crisis facing the Territory in so many other areas besides collections care. Of those collecting institutions responding to question E3, 71% stated they have $0 budgeted for preservation/conservation activities for their collections. Another 18% have annual preservation/ conservation budgets ranging from $1 up to $3,000.

This means 89% of Virgin Islands institutions report they have $3,000 or less budgeted for preservation/ conservation in the most recently completed fiscal year—a third again as many as U.S. institutions in the same budget

Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

117

category. Those with yearly budgets of over $3,000 up to $5,000 represent only 12% of the Territory’s collection holders. To fully appreciate the impact of lack of funding for the care of the Territory’s collections, it is well to keep in mind that these budgeted figures were to incorporate preservation/conservation staffing costs as well as preservation training, materials, treatments and program costs.

As a percentage of the entire polling population, respondents to question E3 are 100% of botanical gardens, agencies or universities with specimen/artifact collections, and historic houses/sites, 50% of independent research libraries, 25% of public libraries, 17% of academic libraries and 13% of “Other” institutions. Of those Virgin Islands collection entities with budgets of $500 or more, no one institutional type is prevalent in the results.

To get a more complete understanding of preservation/conservation expenditures, it is useful to consider the proportion of total spending to total preservation spending. The U.S. Heritage Health Index questionnaire asked institutions to record their total annual operating budget for the most recently completed fiscal year so that it would be possible to put preservation budgets across the country in some context. To consider the average percentage of total budgets devoted to preservation, the percentage was figured for each U.S. collecting institution and weighted for institutions with missing data; then, an average was taken across all or similar institutions.

The national response rate for the question about annual operating budgets was 87%; for the question about annual preservation/ conservation budget, 84%; and on both questions, 81%. Nationwide data needed to be weighted to compensate for missing data in about 20% of the cases for U.S. institutions.

In the 2004 results, the total annual operating budgets of U.S. collecting institutions in the then most recently completed fiscal year was $32,831,262,572, while the spending on preservation/conservation nationwide was $720,708,717—a budget proportion of 2%.

After weighting, The resulting range went from an average of only 3% of library budgets allocated for preservation to 34% of

archaeological repositories/ scientific research collections’ operating budgets spent on preservation. For the nation’s archives, 7% of the total budgets was directed to preservation.

At small U.S. institutions the average was 9% and, according to Heritage Preservation, the proportion did not change in relation to the size of the institution.

The U.S. analysis also puts into perspective and contextually frames the answers from respondents in the 2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey. The same definitions, instructions and parameters were used for the Virgin Islands survey as the 2004 U.S. survey, but no weighting was deemed necessary to express results due to the smaller survey pool and very low response rate.

The Virgin Islands response rate for question E2 querying total operating budget amounts is very low at 50%--the same rate as for the question E3 on the institutional budget for preservation/conservation. Respondents include 100% of botanical gardens, agencies or universities with specimen/artifact collections, and historic houses/sites; 50% of historical societies and independent research libraries; 33% of academic institutions; and 13% of “Other” institutions.

In post-survey follow-up interviews with survey participants, most non-respondents indicated they either have no formal budgeting process in place, they are not privy to such information within their organization, or, if they are a subsidiary function, they simply do not know how to distinguish discrete budget information for their collections care from a broader at-large budget for their institution.

Based solely on those 50% of Virgin Islands institutions reporting for FY 2009, 26% of respondents report having no budget at all for their institution’s total annual expenditures.

Another 12% of those responding (or 6% of the entire survey pool) have total operating budgets for 2009 of $5,000 or less; 12% (or 6% of survey respondents) have total annual budgets greater than $5,000 up to $50,000; 0% are greater than $50,000 up to and including $250,000; 12% (or 6% of all Virgin Islands institutions) are greater than $250,000 up to and including$500,000; and 18% (or 9%) are greater than $500,000. (See, Fig. 9.3)

118 Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

In the 2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index results confined to FY 2009, the total annual operating budgets of responsive collecting institutions was $2,627,899, while spending on preservation/conservation across the Territory by the same respondents was a mere $14,047. If the limited FY 2009 Virgin Islands data is used, the proportion of total spending to total preservation spending, without weighting, yields a figure of one-half of one percent (.5%), well below the already disheartening 2004 U.S. mark of 2%.

To ascertain the consistency of preservation funding at institutions, the 2004 Heritage Health Index asked, “In the last three years, have any of your conservation/preservation expenditures been met by drawing on income from endowed funds?� Only 13% of U.S. respondents used such income; 80% did not or

their institution did not have endowed funds; and 7% did not know.

U.S. libraries were least likely to use income from endowed funds for preservation, though viewing the data by specific type of institution showed there was a range among U.S. library responses; 32% of independent research libraries used income from endowed funds (more than any other type of institution); and only 6% of public libraries and 6% of special libraries did so. At 25% and 21% respectively, U.S. art museums and science museums/ zoos/botanical gardens were among those institutions with the highest likelihood of using endowment income for preservation.

Small U.S. institutions using income from endowed funds only accounted for 11% of the national respondents. Since academic institutions are more likely to have

Fig. 9.3 Annual budget for fiscal year 2009 total operating expenses [qE2]

Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

119

Fig. 9.4 Institutions that used income from endowed funds for preservation/conservation (last three years) [qE4]

Fig. 9.5 Source of support for institutions that have received external preservation/conservation funding (last three years) [qE5]

120 Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

endowments, their collecting entities are more likely to have this potential source for preservation funding.

Very few (3%) of Virgin Islands institutions used income from endowed funds for preservation/conservation during the three years prior to the 2009-2010 survey. Those answering “don’t know” were 18% of the collecting institution population, and the remaining 80% stated they have neither used nor do their institutions have endowment income for the period in question. (See, Fig. 9.4) The national Heritage Health Index survey included three questions about where collecting institutions were obtaining support for preservation/conservation activities. U.S. institutions were asked if in the last three years they had received funding from various sources outside their institution.

At 27%, individual donors were the most likely source for external preservation funds received by U.S. collections; this category included funds from membership or friends groups. Most noteworthy was that 40% of the nation’s collecting institutions had applied for

no additional, external funding for preservation and 8% did not know if they had.

Small U.S. institutions followed this pattern: 41% had sought no additional external funding according to the 2004 survey.

U.S. libraries were the most likely not to have received external funds in the last three years at 58%. Almost two-thirds of special libraries across the nation received no external funding for preservation; neither did more than half of U.S. public libraries and academic libraries.

The next most likely not to have received any external preservation funding in the last three years were U.S. archaeological repositories/ scientific research collections at 40%, followed by 30% of archives, 26% of museums, and 24% of historical societies.

Half (50%) of Virgin Islands institutions receive no external preservation/conservation funding support, and another 30% state they do not know the source of such support if they do. With multiple responses permitted, Virgin Islands respondents answer that 7% receive external federal support, 13% from individuals and 20% from the Territorial government.

(See, Fig. 9.5)

Fig. 9.6 Whether institutions have applied for preservation/conservation funding (last three years) [qE6]

Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

121

Fig. 9.7 Reasons why institutions have not applied for preservation/conservation funding (last three years) [qE7] Many external funding sources require a formal application process, and 62% of U.S. institutions and 65% of Virgin Islands institutions indicated that they had not applied for funding from any public or private source in the three years prior to their respective Heritage Health Index surveys.

Another 17% of Virgin Islands institutions responded they did not even know if they had applied. (See, Fig. 9.6) Targeting those Virgin Islands institutions that had not made grant applications, question E7 queried what factors influenced the decision not to apply. Over a third of Virgin Islands respondents (35%) recognize that additional planning is needed and another 32% cite a lack of staff time or expertise in applying for grants as an excuse for not seeking outside funding.

(See, Fig. 9.7) Almost a quarter (24%) of Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index respondents answered they did not know why they had not applied for preservation/conservation funding, indicating there may be a separation of authority between those who care for collections and those who control spending/ revenue-seeking decision-making. Optimally, these responsibilities would be collaboratively

shared or in reciprocal communication within institutions in order to maximize opportunities for collection funding and care.

Institutions in the Virgin Islands may have recognized a need for more planning and cited a lack of time/expertise as a reason for the failure to apply for preservation/ conservation funding during the three years prior to the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey, but a another 21% answered that conservation was not a priority and 21% stated they were not aware of funding sources. Almost one quarter of respondents indicated they did not know why applications for funding had not been made.

According to results reported for the U.S. survey, 36% were “not aware of appropriate funding sources� and, like the Virgin Islands, a third of U.S. institutions cited a need for additional time to plan projects before requesting grant funds. A full 30% of U.S. institutions responded that preservation/ conservation was not an institutional priority and so additional funding had not been sought in the previous three years.

Promoting awareness of what institutions do to care for collections is an additional way to

122 Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

attract outside funding for preservation and conservation. Responses to question D14 illustrate that more institutions could employ promotional strategies to attract funding.

More than 40% of U.S. institutions served as a source for preservation information for the public in 2004, and a little more than a third educated donors and/or trustees about preservation through such activities as tours or demonstrations. Only 8% featured preservation topics on their Web site, and few (6%) used preservation for earned income— e.g., selling preservation-quality materials in their gift shops or providing conservation services on a fee-for-service basis.

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index results are even less encouraging. Like the national survey, respondents were given six categories of promotional activities by which to register their level of participation in activities to promote awareness of the need for preservation/conservation in collections.

None of the Virgin Islands respondents use their Web sites for such information although 3% indicate that this use is being planned.

The other results are not much better: feature in exhibitions (10% currently, 10% planned); serving as a source for information (13% currently, 7% planned) and part of the institution’s strategy for earned income (3% currently, 0% planned). (See, Fig. 9.8) The two remaining categories, though active, still reveal lackluster results: educating donors/trustees (13% currently, 10% planned) and presentations to members/friends groups (13% currently, 10% planned). The latter two promotional activities appear targeted at soliciting monetary support for collections through direct donations or grants. Given the current challenges facing the Territory’s economy, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey team was also interested in identifying what income strategies are being investigated by Virgin Islands collections caregivers and managers.

Fig. 9.8 Institutional promotion for awareness of preservation/conservation performed using the following activities [qD14a-qD14f]

Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

123

For example, could public exhibits of institutions’ collections (a) increase awareness of preservation/conservation needs while (b) providing revenue to the exhibiting institutions, and, if so, (c) what might be the targeted audiences for this information? To this end, the Virgin Islands survey team added question G2 to the Heritage Health Index form in an effort to determine the frequency of use of institutions’ collections in public exhibits.

Significantly, the survey found 53% of Virgin Islands institutions never use their collections in public exhibitions, 15% exhibit collections

for less than 30 days annually, and only 32% use materials in exhibits between six and twelve months during the year. (See, Fig. 9.9) The survey team was also curious to learn if Virgin Islands institutions, in an effort to generate revenue, customarily charge for the use of, access to or viewing of their collections.

Only 3% of collecting institutions in the Territory assess some type of fee for access to their collections, 3% are considering doing so and 12% do sometimes. The remaining 82% answered they do not charge such fees. (See, Fig. 9.10)

Fig. 9.9 Annual frequency of institutions’ collections used in public exhibits [qG2]

Fig. 9.10 Institutions charging for use or viewing of collections [qG4]

124 Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

Institutions charging for use or access to their collections vary by type: Half of independent research libraries (50%) in the Territory are currently charging, and the other half (50%) are considering charging, for use of their collections. Half of Virgin Islands historical societies (50%) answered they sometimes charge; the other half (50%) do not. All (100%) institutions whose primary functions are historical houses/sites or botanical gardens stated they charge. Most archives in the Virgin Islands (86%) do not charge but 14% of archives sometimes do assess a fee. All (100%) of the Territory’s academic libraries, agencies or universities with specimen or artifact collections, public libraries, special libraries and “Other” institutions, answered “no.” (See, Fig. 9.11) Institutions most likely to charge are nonprofit organizations, NGOs or foundations: 11%

charge all the time, 22% charge sometimes, and another 11% are considering doing so.

Other types of institutional governance categories that sometimes charge include 22% of collection institutions of the Territorial government. On the other side, all (100%) institutions governed by a college, university or academic entity, organizations with “Other” types of governance such as religious institutions or private enterprise, and the remaining 78% of collections under the aegis of the Government of the Virgin Islands do not levy such charges. (See, Fig. 9.12) To capture information on collecting institutions’ promotional strategies, the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index asked respondents to indicate what, if any, Web 2.0 tools they are using to promote their collections. Multiple answers were possible but the responses were negligible: 74% of

Fig. 9.11 Percentage of institutions (by type) charging for use or viewing of collections [qG4]

Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

125

Fig. 9.12 Percentage of institutions (by governance) charging for use or viewing of collections [qG4]

Fig. 9.13 Institutional use of Web 2.0 tools to promote collections [qG13] Virgin Islands respondents affirm they do not use such tools for their institutions’ promotional strategies. A few document their use of Facebook (18%), Shutterfly (9%) and blogs (6%) but, according to the survey results, no institutions indicate they are using YouTube, MySpace, Twitter or Flickr. (See, Fig. 9.13)

To stay competitive for funding opportunities, collecting institutions in the Virgin Islands must recognize the importance of engaging today’s millenials by sharing both collection content and information about their collections via the Internet or specialty databases. (See, e.g., Chapter 4, Digital Materials section, especially pp. 62-64).

126 Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

Fig. 9.14 Institutions with events, programs and resources targeting students [qG7]

Fig. 9.15 Institutions (by type) with events, programs and resources targeting students [qG7]

Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

127

Another strategy for increasing awareness of Virgin Islands collections through promotional efforts is for collection institutions to actively include events, programs and resources targeting the Territory’s students. Over half (59%) of Virgin Islands institutions appear to be pursuing these goals, with 47% indicating they currently includes such events, programs and resources and another 12% are considering doing so. The remaining 41% do not specifically target students in promoting their collections. (See, Fig. 9.14) All types of Virgin Islands collecting institutions are included among those currently targeting Virgin Islands students,

principally among them libraries (100% of public libraries, 67% of academic libraries and 50% of special libraries), and 38% of institutions characterizing their primary functions as “Other” (religious institutions, foundations, professional associations and online publications). Though fewer in number, all (100%) botanical gardens and historic houses/sites, 50% of historical societies and 14% of archives also participate in and support student-related activities.

Those institutions that do not but are considering engaging students include all (100%) Virgin Islands independent research libraries, 14% of archives and 13% of “Other” institutions. (See, Fig. 9.15)

Recommendation Institutions’ budgets should reflect that preservation of collections is among their top priorities. Designated giving for the care of collections can help ensure this. Individuals at all levels of government and in the private sector must assume responsibility for providing support that will allow collections to survive.

128 Chapter 9: Preservation Expenditures and Funding

Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

Fig. 10.1 Percentage of institutions’ collections accessible through a catalog [qF1] The preservation needs documented by both the U.S. and Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index surveys are infinitely harder to address if archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, archaeological repositories, and scientific research organizations do not have recent assessments of their collections’ conditions. Institutions will also find it challenging to manage all aspects of the care of collections if they do not have sufficient intellectual control over what they hold.

Heritage Preservation asked U.S. institutions to estimate the percentage of their collections accessible through a catalog.19 To allow institutions the broadest possible interpretation to this question, the definition of “catalog” did not specify what descriptive detail it must contain. Only 12% of U.S. respondents said that all their collections were accessible through a catalog, but 34% had a large portion (80-99%) of their collection cataloged.

Although knowing the quantity and condition of collections is a fundamental component of collections stewardship, too many institutions do not have this information. Results from the survey questions that asked institutions to report on the percentage of collections that are cataloged and the availability of current assessments reveal this need. In addition, the percentage of missing information and “don’t know” responses throughout the U.S. and Virgin Islands surveys is telling about the lack of intellectual control over collections.

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index results show that only 3% of the Territory’s collections—in this case, those held by special libraries—are completely accessible through a catalog. (See, Fig. 10.1) Another 15% of collecting institutions have a large portion (80-99%) of their collection cataloged. Most 19

Catalog is defined as a research tool or finding aid that provides intellectual control over collection items through entries that may contain descriptive detail, including physical description, provenance, history, accession information, etc.

Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

129

(41%) Virgin Islands institutions state that none of their collections are accessible through a catalog and 21% have less than 60% of their collections cataloged.

Of those institutions with 80-99% of their collections cataloged, 40% are academic libraries, 40% are archives and 20% are public libraries. Those entities with 60-79% of their collections cataloged include academic libraries (33%), public libraries (33%), independent research libraries (17%) and “Other” types (17%). Half (50%) of those with 40-59% of their collections cataloged are botanical gardens and half (50%) are historical societies. Academic libraries (which include school libraries) are the only type of institution with 1-19% of their collections cataloged but those with 20-39% are archives, independent research libraries, public libraries and special libraries (25% each). (See, Fig. 10.2) That so

many Virgin Islands institutions reported lacking cataloged information about their collections may also explain the lower response rates on survey questions that ask for the quantity of collections.

A little over 10% of U.S. institutions had a backlog in cataloging in 2004, with only 6079% of collections cataloged. Almost 40% of the nation’s institutions had a significant backlog in cataloging, with 59% or less of their collection not having basic information recorded about it— including 18% of institutions with no cataloging records on any of their collections.

Looking at cataloging levels by institution, U.S. libraries were significantly more likely to have collections cataloged, with 69% of libraries having more than 80% of their collections cataloged. U.S. archives were least

Fig. 10.2 Percentage of collections accessible through a catalog (by institution type) [qF1]

130 Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

likely to be cataloged, with only 30% having a catalog that included more than 80% of their collections. Only one-third of U.S. museums and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections had more than 80% of their collections cataloged.

The nation’s institutions with no cataloging records included 31% of historical societies, 28% of museums, and 20% of archaeological repositories/ scientific research collections.

Only 7% of U.S. libraries and 8% of archives in the U.S. did not have anything cataloged.

In the 2004 survey results, the percentage of U.S. collections cataloged was discovered to be directly related to the size of an institution, with smaller institutions more likely to have little or no collections data. Small U.S. institutions with the highest percentage of having no collections cataloged included science museums/ zoos/botanical gardens (43%), art museums and historical societies (33%), history museums/historic sites/other museums (31%), and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections (26%).

Ranked as the second greatest urgent need expressed by the country’s institutions after environmental controls, 17% of U.S. institutions cited an urgent need for finding aids or cataloging of collections. Combining need and urgent need figures, 65% of U.S.

institutions needed cataloging— the third most frequent need in the 2004 national survey after staff training and condition assessments.

U.S. institutional types reporting an urgent need were historical societies (29%), archives (23%), and history museums/historic sites/other museums (23%).

As might be expected, Virgin Islands institutional needs for finding aids or cataloging of collections are even more critical: 44% confirm a need and 29% have an urgent need, for a combined need in the Virgin Islands of 73%. Another 6% do not know if they needed finding aids or cataloging for collections materials, and 15% feel these access aids are not applicable to their institution.

However, only 6% of the Territory’s collections caregivers affirmatively state they have no need. (See, Fig. 10.3) To get a sense of accessibility to collections information, the U.S. Heritage Health Index included a question on the estimated percentage of the collection’s catalog available online, whether for institutional or public use.

Only 31% of the nation’s collection stewards had such information available for more than 80% of their catalog, and half of all U.S. collecting institutions had no cataloging information whatsoever available online.

At 64%, U.S. libraries were most likely to have online catalog access to their holdings in 2004,

Fig. 10.3 Need for finding aids or cataloging of collections [qD12a]

Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

131

Fig. 10.4 Institutions’ percentage of collections catalog available online [qF2]

Fig. 10.5 Percentage of collections catalog available online (by institution type) [qF2]

132 Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

while historical societies, museums, and archaeological repositories/scientific research collections were least likely to have any collections data available online. Only 26% of U.S. small institutions had 80% or more of their catalogs available online.

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index results reveal an even more challenging picture.

Almost half (47%) of the collecting institutions in the Territory have no part of their collections catalog online. Surprisingly, 12% stated they did not know what % of or even if their catalog was accessible online. A mere 6% have 100% of their collections catalog online and another 15% have 80% or more of their catalogs online. Those Virgin Islands entities having less than 80% but 40% or greater comprise 12% of the Territory’s institutions.

The remaining 9% have online catalogs for less than 40% of their collections. (See, Fig. 10.4) The types of Virgin Islands institutions most likely to have all collections catalogs available online are special libraries and independent research libraries. Half (50%) of those answering “don’t know” were “Other” institutional types, 25% were botanical

gardens and 25% were agencies or universities with specimen or artifact collections.

Those most likely to have none of their collections catalog available online include “Other” institutional types such as religious institutions, foundations and newspapers (31%), archives (31%), academic libraries (13%), public libraries (13%), historic houses/sites (6%) and historical societies (6%). (See, Fig. 10.5) In addition to gathering information about the availability of online access to collections catalogs, the 2004 Heritage Health Index found that only a quarter of U.S. institutions provided online access to the content of their collections or holdings through such things as online exhibitions, interactive resources, digital art, or digital copies of photographs, documents, or books.

Eight percent of U.S. collection holders who did not provide online access to the content of their collections predicted that they would begin to provide such content within a year.

In 2004, U.S. archives (41%), libraries (29%), and museums (23%) were the most likely

Fig. 10.6 Institutions that provide online access to the content of any of their collections or holdings [qF3]

Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

133

Fig. 10.7 Institutions (by type) that provide online access to the content of any of their collections or holdings [qF3] institutional types to make collections content available online.

Only 20% of U.S. small institutions were likely to provide access to content online—less than half the probability of large U.S. institutions to do so. Even in 2004, the availability of such online resources indicated not only an additional level of information about collections but also the existence of digital materials that potentially should be part of an institution’s preservation program.

Even though 59% of collecting institutions in the Virgin Islands do not provide online access to the content of any of their collections or holdings, about one-quarter (26%) do and

another 9% stated that access will be provided within twelve months of the survey. Only 6% of the collections custodians do not know if access to collections content is or will be provided online. (See, Fig. 10.6) Half (50%) of those Virgin Islands institutions that were not sure about whether they provide online content to their collections are public libraries, and the other half (50%) are institutions whose primary purpose falls into the “Other” category. (See, Fig. 10.7) Of those institutional types providing content online, 33% are academic libraries, 22% are archives, 22% are historical societies, 11% are independent research libraries and 11% are “Other” institutions.

134 Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

The Territory’s leading innovators in providing content online will welcome other institutional collections online within 12 months of participating in the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey. Of those coming online during that period, 67% belong to “Other” institutions and 33% are additional collections held by academic libraries.

The Virgin Islands collections managers responding that their organizations do not provide online content include almost all categories of institutional types to some degree: archives (25%), “Other” (20%), public libraries (15%), academic libraries and special libraries (10% each), and agencies or universities with specimen/artifact collections, botanical gardens, historic houses/sites, and independent research libraries (5% each).

A core principle of collections management best practice is to begin with a general survey of the collection. General surveys are used to establish intellectual control, to plan and provide for appropriate preservation care for collection materials, to determine the scope of conservation needs, and to prepare management for providing access to and use of the collections materials.

Without a general survey, collections may be subject to risks from the environment, storage and handling, and emergency events. Without a general survey to determine collection needs and uses, staffing requirements and training cannot be properly anticipated or provided.

The lack of a general survey can jeopardize funding opportunities that may depend upon accurate descriptions about the contents and condition of the collection. A general survey also assists digital preservation efforts— regardless of whether the material is borndigital or captured from its original format and stored digitally.

In these and many other ways, general surveys are focused on providing basic collections care information for planning, protection and access. The information general surveys provide builds essential connections to collections and contributes to the healthy state and cultural heritage value of collections everywhere.

In 2004, the U.S. Heritage Health Index asked collecting institutions across the nation

whether a survey of the general condition19 of their collections had been done. Respondents were able to select from the following choices: “yes,” “yes, but only of a portion of the collection,” “yes, but it is not up-to-date,” “yes, but only a portion of the collection, and it is not up-to-date,” “no,” and “don’t know.”

Results revealed that (30%) of U.S. institutions had done a survey of the condition of their collections, but 35% had not done one.

The remaining one-third of institutions had surveys for only a portion of their collections or their surveys were out-of-date.

U.S. museums had a slightly higher percentage of experience with conducting surveys than other types of U.S. institutions (37%), and historical societies had the lowest percentage (22%). Libraries were the most likely not to have done any surveys at all at 46%, including 47% of U.S. public libraries, 40% of academic libraries, and 50% of special libraries. Across institutional size and governance, there was very little distinction among U.S. institutions.

In the Virgin Islands, the enormous challenges facing collecting institutions are exposed first and foremost by the lack of surveys of general conditions of collections. The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index confirms that only 18% of the Territory’s collections caregivers have a general survey of the condition of their collections that is both complete and up-todate. That means the remaining 82% of Virgin Islands collections cannot be properly managed, cared for, protected or accessed, creating a situation that puts Virgin Islands cultural heritage, history and documentation at extreme risk. (See, Fig. 10.8) A total of 18% of Virgin Islands institutions have done a general survey but only for a portion of their collections (9%), or, have a complete general survey but it is not current (9%). Three percent (3%) do not know if they have done a general survey, and the remaining 21% of Virgin Islands collections have a general survey that is both out-of-date and only covers a portion of their collection holdings.

19

Survey of general condition is defined as an assessment based on visual inspection of the collections and the areas where they are exhibited or held.

Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

135

Fig. 10.8 Institutions that have done a survey of the general condition of their collections [qD3] Forty-three percent (43%) of the types of institutions in the Territory that have not done a general survey are those whose primary function is self-classified as “Other”; 36% of the respondents are academic libraries, 14% are public libraries and 7% are archives. (See, Fig. 10.9) Only “Other” institutions responded that they did not know if a general survey exists.

Respondents stating they have a general survey but only of a portion of their collections were evenly divided (33%) between Virgin Islands archives, independent research libraries and “Other” institutions. Survey participants who state they have a general survey but it is not up-to-date fall into two institutional categories: historical societies 67% and botanical gardens 33%.

Institutions that have a general survey that is neither complete nor up-to-date include more category types: archives 57%, and historic houses/sites, public libraries and special libraries fill the answer pool at 14% each.

Surprisingly, the broadest variety of Virgin

Islands institutions is represented in one of the smallest response results: those 18% surveyed that stated they have a general condition survey for their collections that is both complete and current. Academic libraries, agencies or universities with specimen/artifact collections, archives, independent research libraries, public libraries and special libraries each comprise 17% of the total survey participants who answered in this manner.

If general condition surveys are such a fundamental part of assessing the needs of collections, this begs the question why so few of Virgin Islands, and U.S., institutions have current assessments of all their collections materials. Heritage Preservation targeted this issue when it asked nationwide respondents to indicate their institutions’ level of need for condition surveys or assessments of collections.

Across the nation, institutions had a combined “need” (54%) and “urgent need” (14%) figure of 68% in the U.S. Heritage Health Index

136 Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

Fig. 10.9 Institutions (by type) that have done a survey of the general conditions of their collections [qD3] results, the second most commonly cited need

by U.S. institutions, after staff training. Only 22% of U.S. institutions claimed they had no need, and presumably most of those have current and complete general surveys in-hand.

Those answering “don’t know� (15%) continue to be troubling for data analysts. Their answer indicates they have much to learn about the

fundamental importance of conducting collection assessments and gaining intellectual control over collected materials.

Heritage Preservation observed in its 2005 survey report that assessments were such a common need in the national survey and the fact that only one-third of collecting

Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

137

institutions indicated they had a current assessment of their entire collection was consistent with the fact that many U.S. institutions indicated “condition unknown” time and again in the questions about condition of collections items. This also explained why some survey questions, such as the one that asked U.S. institutions to indicate the causes of damage to items, had higher percentages of “don’t know” responses.

These same effects appear to be at work in the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey results some five years or more later. Figure 10.10 clearly demonstrates that there is a combined need expressed by over threefourths (76%) of Virgin Islands respondents for condition surveys or assessments of collections. Of the total, 47% of Virgin Islands respondents feel their collections are in need and 29%--over twice the 2004 U.S. results— believe their collections are in urgent need of a general condition survey. Another 6% of the

Territory’s collections custodians do not know if they need a survey, and 15% do not believe one is applicable to their situation. That leaves a mere 3% of Virgin Islands institutions citing no need for condition surveys, a great deal less than the 18% of U.S. respondents that stated they had a current and complete survey on-hand in 2004.

It is clear there are many anomalies in the Virgin Islands results that require further analysis and tighter scrutiny to better appreciate their meaning for collections.

However, one thing is very clear: As more Virgin Islands institutions conduct surveys on the condition of their collections materials, and reduce the frequency of reports of “unknown condition,” percentages of Virgin Islands collections items in all stages of need have the potential to increase and thereby amplify the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index call to action for connecting to the Territory’s collections.

Fig. 10.10: Need for condition surveys or assessments of collections [qD12b]

Recommendation Every Virgin Islands collecting institution must regularly conduct condition surveys, assessments of collection, and exercise intellectual control in order to protect their collections and make collection materials more accessible to others.

138 Chapter 10: Assessments and Intellectual Control

Appendix A: 1992 VIHRAB Assessment

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

Appendix B: 2009-2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey Participants St. John Elaine I. Sprauve Public Library St. John Historical Society

St. Thomas Addelita Cancryn Junior High School All Saints Cathedral Church Caribbean Genealogy Library, Inc. Charlotte Amalie High School Community Foundation of the VI Gladys A. Abraham Elementary School Library Lockhart Elementary School Photo Duplication Lab Recorder of Deeds Division of St. Thomas and St. John St. Thomas Reformed Church Archives St. Thomas Source St. Thomas St. John Library Association Technical Services - Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums Territorial Archives of the Virgin Islands (Baa Library) Territorial Archives Off-Site Storage at The Franklin Building UVI Libraries V.I. Montessori School von Scholten Collection

St. Croix Athalie M. Petersen Public Library Florence Williams Public Library - Caribbean Collection Fort Frederick Museum Recorder of Deeds Division of St. Croix St. Croix Curriculum Center St. Croix Landmarks Society, Inc. Library & Archives St. Croix Library Association St. George Village Botanical Garden St. John's Episcopal Church St. Paul's Episcopal Church State Historic Preservation Office Territorial Archives of the Virgin Islands (Williams Library) Virgin Islands Library for the Visually and Physically Handicapped Virgin Islands Social History Associates

Appendix B: VIHHI Survey Participants

207

208 Appendix B: VIHHI Survey Participants

GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES AND MUSEUMS

IMLS 2009 STATEWIDE PLANNING GRANT Click Here to Email A.

2010 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey *

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:

Instructions

Print Form

Reset Form

Completing the Survey (Online or Other Options) Online: Complete the survey then choose “SUBMIT” to submit your answers. If you need more than one session to finish the survey, click “SAVE” to save the form to your computer and submit it when it is complete. Other Options (Print and Email, Mail or Deliver): Print out the form. Use a blue or black ink pen to complete the survey. Return the completed form via scanned email attachment to SusanLauraLugo@gmail.com, or via mail or hand delivery to: Ms. Susan Laura Lugo, C.A., Territorial Coordinator for Archives, Government of the Virgin Islands, DPNR/Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums, c/o Enid M. Baa Public Library & Archives, 23 Dronningens Gade, St. Thomas, VI 00802. Responses must be received no later than Friday, August 20, 2010.

Confidentiality The Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) and its Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums will keep your individual responses, however and whenever submitted, completely confidential. Only the aggregate data will be reported; your individual responses will never be published or identified by DPNR, the Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums, Heritage Preservation, 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 territory-wide and will guide the efforts of decisionmakers and funders to address those needs. The results of the Heritage Health Index will express your preservation needs in the context of those of your peers both territory-wide and nationwide in a form that can be used as a tool for raising institutional 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 collecting entities in your parent institution. They may receive their own surveys. For example, a library and a museum belonging to the same organization may each receive separate surveys.

• If you are not under a parent institution, include information on all collections at your institution. For example, a museum 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 accepted preservation responsibility.

• Do not include living collections and historic structures in your responses to this questionnaire, even if they are a part of your 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 profile for the Territory, 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. You may attach additional pages as required.

• 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 Information icon, refer to the enclosed yellow sheets, which define terms used throughout the survey and provide answers to “Frequently When you see the Asked Questions” (FAQs). For questions about the survey, contact Project Manager Susan Lugo at 340-774-2362 (Ofc), 340-690-0531 (C), or via email to SusanLauraLugo@gmail.com )RUP DGDSWHG IURP WKH QDWLRQZLGH +HULWDJH +HDOWK ,QGH[ 6XUYH\ è 3HUPLVVLRQ JUDQWHG E\ +HULWDJH 3UHVHUYDWLRQ IRU XVH E\ '315 '/$0 XQGHU WKH ,0/6 6WDWHZLGH 3ODQQLQJ *UDQW .

209

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets

B. B1.

Description of Collecting or Holding Institution 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. g. h.

Historical society Historic house/site History museum

i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. v.

Art museum (including art gallery, art center, or arts organization) Children's/youth museum Natural history museum Science/technology museum General museum (collection represents 2 or more disciplines) Museum with one narrowly defined discipline, please specify: Archaeological repository or research collection Agency or university department with scientific specimen/artifact collections Arboretum or botanical garden Aquarium Nature center Planetarium Zoo 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. j.

B3.

Other, please specify: None

Does your institution have Internet access? a.

Yes b.

No, but it will be available within the next six months c.

No Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 2 of 17

210

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets B4.

Does your institution have a Web site? a. Yes, the URL is: b. Not yet but a Web site is being developed. c. 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 or Territorial f. Local, please specify which island or town: g. Other, please specify:

B6.

If you are controlled by a college, university, or other academic entity, which of the following most closely describes your governance? (select one) a. Private college or university b. Territorial college or university c. Other, please specify: d. Not applicable (not controlled by an academic entity)

C.

Environment

C1.

Do you use environmental controls to meet temperature specifications for the preservation of your 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

C3.

Do you control light levels to meet the specifications for the preservation of your 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 relative humidity specifications for the preservation of your 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

C4.

What estimated percentage of your collection is stored in areas you consider to be adequate (large enough to accommodate current collections with safe access to them and appropriate furniture, 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

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 3 of 17

211

= refer to “More Information” on the enclosed yellow sheets

C5.

For the storage areas that are not adequate, indicate the degree of improvement needed in each of the following 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

D1.

Does the mission of your institution include preservation of your collection? (select one) a. Yes b. No c. Don't know

D2.

Does your institution have a written, long-range preservation plan for the care of the collection (a document that describes a multi-year course of action to meet an institution's overall preservation need for its collection)? (select one) a. Yes, in all areas 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 collection been done (an assessment based on visual inspection of the collection and the areas where it is 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

212

D4.

Does your institution have a written emergency/ disaster plan that includes the collection? (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, is your 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., inventory, catalog, insurance policies) stored off-site? (select one) a. Yes b. Some, but not all c. No d. Do not have copies e. Don't know f. Do not have vital collection records

D7.

Do you have adequate security systems (e.g., security guard, staff observation, intrusion detection) to help prevent theft or vandalism of collections? (select one) a. Yes b. In some, but not all, areas c. No d. Don't know

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 4 of 17

= refer to “More Information” on the enclosed yellow sheets

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 the ranges provided. If the number of FTEs (full-time equivalents) 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 FTEs (e.g., two part-time staff who each work 20 hours a week on conservation/preservation activities would be counted as 1 full-time equivalent staff person) Professional conservation/ preservation staff (e.g., preservation administrators, conservators, research scientists) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

D10.

Support conservation/preservation staff (e.g., collections care assistants, technical assistants, handlers)

0 FTE up to 1 FTE 2-5 FTE 6-10 FTE 11-20 FTE More than 20 FTE Don't know

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Volunteers (e.g., unpaid conservation/preservation workers, unpaid interns)

0 FTE up to 1 FTE 2-5 FTE 6-10 FTE 11-20 FTE More than 20 FTE Don't know

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

0 FTE up to 1 FTE 2-5 FTE 6-10 FTE 11-20 FTE More than 20 FTE Don't know

What does your conservation/preservation program include? (select all that apply) Done by institution staff

Done by external provider

Not done currently, but planned

Not done

Not 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)

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 5 of 17

213

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets D11.

Does your institution's conservation/preservation mission or program include the responsibility to preserve digital collections (computer-based representation of text, numbers, image, and/or sound, e.g., optical discs, 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 Need

Need

Urgent Need

Don't know

Not applicable

a. Finding aids or cataloging of collections b. Condition surveys or assessments of collections 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 loss of access to them.

No damage or loss

Some damage or loss

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, creasted, 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

214

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 6 of 17

Significant damage or loss

Don't know

Not applicable

= refer to “More Information” on the enclosed yellow sheets D14.

Do you promote awareness of conservation/preservation activities using the following?

Yes

No

Not done currently, but planned

Don't know

Not 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? a. Yes b. No specific line-item in budget, but other budget funds are available c. No d. Don't know

E2.

(select one)

What was the total annual operating budget of the entity indicated on page 1, question A1 for the most recently completed fiscal year? If exact amount is unknown, please provide an estimate.

Most recently completed fiscal year (select one) a. FY 2007 b. FY 2008 c. FY 2009

E3.

For the most recently completed fiscal year, what was your institution's annual budget for conservation/preservation? (round off or provide an estimate) · ·

·

If you have not specific line-item in the budget, but use other budgeted funds for conservation/preservation, estimate the amount of budget funds used for conservation/preservation.

Include: budgeted funds for staff (for those staff documented on page 4, question D9), supplies and equipment, surveys, treatment, preservation reformatting, commercial binding, consultants or contractors, and other 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) a. FY 2007 b. FY 2008 c. FY 2009

E4.

Total annual operating budget $

Annual budget for conservation/preservation $

In the last three years, have any of your conservation and preservation expenditures been met by drawing on income from endowed funds? (select one) a. Yes b. No c. Don't know Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 7 of 17

215

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets E5. From which of the following external sources have you received funding that you have used to support conservation or preservation activities during the last 3 years (whether you applied for it or not)? (select all that apply) a. Federal b. State c. Territorial 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, whether successful or unsuccessful, for conservation/ preservation funding from any public or private source in the last 3 years? (select one) a. Yes b. No c. Don't know F.

E7. If your institution did not make a grant application for conservation or preservation funding from any public or private source in the last 3 years, which of the following factors influenced the decision not to apply? (select all that apply) a. Not aware of appropriate funding source b. Lack of staff time or expertise to complete application c. Additional project planning or preparation necessary before requesting grant funds d. Conservation/preservation is 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

Collections and Holdings

F1. What estimated percentage of the collection is accessible through a catalog (research tool or finding aid that provides intellectual control over collection through 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

216

F2. What estimated percentage of the collection's catalog is accessible online (whether for institutional use, or made accessible to the public through your institution or 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 any of your collections or holdings (e.g., online exhibitions, interactive resources, digital art, digitally scanned photographs, documents, books, and other artifacts)? a. Yes b. No, but will have access within the next year c. No d. Don't know

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 8 of 17

= refer to “More Information” on the enclosed yellow sheets F4.

Does your institution hold collections of the following types? (representative examples are suggestive not exclusive) 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, and other paper artifacts c. Photographic Collections - microfilm, microfiche, photographic prints, negatives, slides, transparencies daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, tintypes, glass plate negatives, lantern slides d. Moving Image Collections - motion picture film, video film, 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 charts, 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 not know 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 (indicate # of volumes)

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in urgent need

Books/monographs Serials/newspapers (on paper) Scrapbooks, albums, pamphlets Other books and bound volumes (please specify)

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 9 of 17

217

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets

Unbound Sheets

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

Archival records/manuscripts (specify as linear or cubic feet)

ft.

Maps and oversized items (specify as linear or cubic feet)

ft.

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in urgent need

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in urgent need

Ephemera and broadsides (indicate # of items) Philatelic and numismatic artifacts (indicate # of items) Other paper artifacts (please specify)

Photographic Collections (indicate # of items)

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

Microfilm and microfiche Black and white prints, all processes (e.g. albumen, collodon, 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., daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, tintypes) Glass plate negatives and lantern slides Other photographic collections (e.g., digital and inkjet prints) (please specify)

218

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 10 of 17

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets

Moving Image Collections

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in urgent need

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in urgent need

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in urgent need

Motion picture film (indicate # of 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 (record # of items, e.g., reel, can, cassette)

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 # of items, e.g., reel, can cassette)

Floppy disks (all sizes) Other discs CD-R/DVD-R Data tape (indicate # of cassettes or reels) Online collection (indicate # of files) Other digital collections (please specify)

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 11 of 17

219

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets

Art Objects (indicate # of items)

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in urgent need

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in 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 (indicate # of items)

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)

220

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 12 of 17

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets

Archaeological Collections, Individually Cataloged (indicate # of items)

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in urgent need

Individually cataloged organic based material (e.g., textile, fiber, wood, bone, shell, feather) Individually cataloged inorganic-based material (e.g., ceramic, glass, plastics) Archaeological Collections, Bulk (express in cubic feet)

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

Bulk organic material (e.g., textile, fiber, wood, bone, shell, feather) (indicate # of cubic feet)

ft3

Bulk inorganic material (e.g., ceramic, glass, metal, plastics) (indicate # of cubic feet)

ft3

Natural Science Specimens (indicate # of items)

Have no holdings

Approx # of units

Quantity unknown

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in urgent need

% in unknown condition

% in no need

% in need

% in urgent need

Zoological specimens: dry, glass slide and frozen Zoological specimens: wet preparation Botanical specimens: dry, glass slide, frozen, culture, and modern palynology materials Botanical specimens: wet preparation 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)

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 13 of 17

221

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets G.

General Information for U.S. Virgin Islands Holdings and Collections

G1. Does your institution use donor agreements, deeds of gift or other forms of written documentation to establish ownership for its collections? (select one) a. Yes b. No c. Sometimes, but not always d. I don't know e. Other (explain briefly)

G5. Does your institution insure the contents of its collections against loss, damage or theft? a. Yes b. No, but we are considering doing so. c. No d. Don't know

G2. In any given year, how often would one expect to see items from your collections used in exhibits seen by the public? (select one) a. Never b. Less than 1 month c. Between 1 and 2 months d. Between 2 and 6 months e. Between 6 and 12 months G3. Indicate which of the following Web 2.0 social networking tools, if any, your institution uses to promote its collections? (select all that apply) a. Facebook b. Blogs c. YouTube d. MySpace e. Twitter f. Flickr g. Other (please specify)

h. I don't know i. None G4. Does your institution charge for visitors to use or view your collections? (select one) a. Yes b. No c. No, but this is being considered d. Sometimes, but not always e. I don't know

222

G6. In case an electrical outage occurs where your collections are held, is there a backup system to provide electrical power? a. Yes b. Yes, but not for air conditioning. c. No d. Don't know G7. Does your institution have programs, events or resources specifically targeting school age children? (select one) a. Yes b. Not yet, but is under consideration c. No d. I don't know G8. Indicate which of the following languages, if any, are reflected in your institution's collections. (select all that apply) a. English b. Spanish c. French d. Danish e. German f. Dutch g. Portuguese h. Hebrew i. Russian j. Chinese k. Japanese l. Swedish m. Hindi n. Tagalog o. Creole p. Other (please specify) q Not applicable

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 14 of 17

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets G9. State the approximate percentage of your collections whose items originate from or pertain to each of the following time periods.

Pre-1671

1671-1917

1917-1931

1931-1954

1954-1968

1968-1989

1989 to present

a. 0-10% b. 11-20% c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k.

21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% I don't know

G10. State the approximate percentage of your collections with the following geographical origin or subject matter.

Latin America/ Caribbean (non USVI) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k.

USVI/ Danish West Indies

USA (other than USVI)

Europe

South America

Asia

Africa

Other

0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% I don't know

G11. What digital formats is your institution collecting? (select all that apply) a. Books b. Documents c. Newspapers d. Photographs e. Sound recordings f. Video/film g. Audio h. Other (describe) i. Does not apply

G12. Do you have a plan in place for managing digital assets for 10 years or more? a. Yes b. No, but one is being developed c. No d. Don't know G13. Does your institution operate a digital repository? a. Yes b. No, but one is being developed c. No d. Don't know

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 15 of 17

223

= refer to “More Information” on the enclosed yellow sheets G14. What type of materials has your institution converted to digital format? (select all that apply) a. Books b. Documents c. Newspapers d. Photographs e. Sound recordings f. Video/film g. Audio h. Collection records i. Other (describe) j. Does not apply H.

G15. How often are digital asset backup files created? a. Once a week or more often b. Once or twice a month c. No set schedule d. Don't know G16. Where are your institution's digital asset backup files stored? a. On site b. Off site c. Multiple locations d. Don't know

Respondent Information

H1. How many staff are currently employed in your collecting institution (as identified on page 1, question A1)? Do not express in fulltime 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 H2. 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) d.

Part-time unpaid staff For the lead person completing or coordinating the survey for the institution named on page 1, Question A1.

The following information will be used only if the Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums (DLAM) needs to clarify a response.

DLAM will keep this information, like all the information you provided in this survey, completely confidential. Only aggregate data will be reported. Your individual responses will never be published or identified by DPNR, DLAM, Heritage Preservation, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, or any other organization cooperating in this project.

H3. Name of lead person completing or coordinating this survey (this information will remain confidential) H4. Title H5. Responsibility for preservation activities H6. Phone number

H7. Fax number

H8. Email address

224

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 16 of 17

= refer to “More Information� on the enclosed yellow sheets

H9. Did more than one person complete this survey?

Yes

No

H10. 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 or the name of your institution; results will only be reported in the aggregate. (check one) Yes No Please contact me to discuss this further H11. (optional) Use the space below to explain your most pressing conservation/preservation need.

THANK YOU!

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index - Page 17 of 17

225

226

Appendix D: V.I. Heritage Health Index Survey More Information GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES AND MUSEUMS

IMLS 2009 STATEWIDE PLANNING GRANT

2009 Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index Survey

 More Information Definitions ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

As you complete the survey, you may wish to refer to the definitions and comments below for further clarification 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 environments in which they are placed.

Preservation: The protection of materials through activities that minimize chemical and physical deterioration and 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 volunteer 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 at another 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 or reformatting 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.

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index: More Information - Page 1 of 5

227

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 accessioned 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:  Current books, magazines, video tapes, sound recordings of which multiple copies exist at the institution and/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 responsibility for; should we still complete the questionnaire?

Yes, please complete the questionnaire. We expect that some institutions take preservation responsibility for only a few items. It is important that such institutions are represented in the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index data. If your institution has no collections for which you take preservations responsibility, please return the survey with this noted.

Our collecting institution has various types of collections; should we complete the Virgin Islands Heritage Health 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, complete the questionnaire only for your nonliving collections.

If your institution has historic buildings, complete the questionnaire only for your collections, not your historic buildings (even if those buildings are a part of your institution’s preservation responsibility or are accessioned as collections).

If you are a public library system with branches, you should include collections held at branches for which your system accepts preservations responsibility.

If you are a library with an archives, history room, or other collections, include all collections for which you accept preservation responsibility.

If you are a museum or historical society that has an archives or library as part of your institution, include the archival and/or library materials for which you accept preservation responsibility.

Our collecting institution is part of a university; should we include other campus collections in the survey?

Every college or university is organized differently, but the Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums has attempted to identify the separate entities on campus that should receive the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index. If the entity identified on page 1, question A1, of the questionnaire is distinct from other university collections, complete the questionnaire for all collections that are held by this entity. It is possible that other university collections will receive their own survey.

Some specific examples:  If the entity indentified 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 not include collections not under your care that are instead held by other museums, libraries, or archives within the university.  If the entity identified on page 1, question A1, is “University Main Library,” and this library is only one entity in a system of university libraries, which has centralized many library functions, such as cataloging, gathering statistics, and preservation activities, then the survey should be completed for all the libraries and archives in the university library system. Do not include any departments or schools that are not included in central operations of this library system.  If the entity identified on page 1, question A1, is a scientific research collection that is operated by a specific department, complete the questionnaire just for this collection. Other research collections on campus may receive their own survey.

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index: More Information - Page 2 of 5

228

The environmental and storage conditions in our collecting institution vary greatly from building to building, or even room to room. How should we handle questions that ask for one response 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” or new or improved storage furniture/accessories, but most of 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 issues brought up in the Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index. Should we report what we are currently doing or what we plan to do?

The Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums understands that preservation is an ongoing process. The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index is expected to be repeated every four years, so the Division will be able to track the Territory’s progress in addressing preservation needs.

Some questions allow you to indicate that certain activities are being planned (page 5, question D10, and page 7, question D14).

All other questions should be answered for the current situation and condition of your collections unless the work 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 activities should reflect your current conditions, unless one of those needs is currently being addressed. For example, on page 6, question D12, row “e,” if your institution is undergoing a renovation to install new environmental controls, it may be most accurate to select “No need.”

The estimate of condition should, again, reflect the current state of your collections unless improvement is in progress (e.g., black and white photographs currently being rehoused in appropriate sleeves and boxes).

We often hire paid, part-time student workers to assist with simple preservation tasks; however, 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 student workers, they would likely be considered “support conservation/preservation staff.” For example, if you currently have two paid student workers who each work 10 hours a week for 6 months, then the full-time equivalent of your support conservation/preservation staff is .25 (2 workers x 10 hours = 20 hours or .5 FTE) (.5 FTE x .5 year = .25 FTE). Remember that estimates are acceptable. Note that 1 FTE = a year-round worker who works an average 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 up to the nearest whole number.

Our institution is open April to October only, and we have trained some volunteers to do routine housekeeping. Are they preservation staff?

Yes. Any volunteers who assist with the care of collections should be counted on page 5, question D9. For instance, if two volunteers each work 5 hours a week for 6 months, then the full-time equivalent would be approximately .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 the entity identified on page 1, question A1 is “University Natural History Museum,” just the total annual operating budget for the museum should be reported—not the entire university’s budget. If you have corrected the entity on page 1, question A1, please report on the entity you identified.

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index: More Information - Page 3 of 5

229

Our institution doesn’t have a line item for preservation and conservation, but we do use budgeted funds for staff and supplies. Last year we also received some grant funding for a preservation 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 should complete 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 institution’s supply or equipment budget that was used to purchase items relating to preservation and conservation. Include any expenditure made for preservation and conservation activities, whether done internally or by an external provider. You should include any grant funds or other temporary funding used for preservation and conservation. Do not include utilities, security, capital expenditures, or overhead in your response to question E3.

Our institution has undertaken a major conservation treatment project this year, and our conservation/preservation budget and staffing levels are higher than usual. Should we record this figure even if it is not typical?

The Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index is meant to be a snapshot of current activities, and we expect to capture dips and peaks in staffing and funding levels. While your institution’s project may not be typical, it will give us important information about the current level of preservation activity in the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, note the instructions on page 7, question E3, about what should and should not be included in the preservation budget (e.g., capital expenditures are not included).

Some of the categories on pages 9-13, question F5, do not match the categories our institution uses in cataloging.

How should we answer the question?

Every institution organizes its collection in a way that is meaningful to them. Therefore, the categories listed on pages 9-13, question F5, may not exactly match the system you use. If you have collections that do not fit in the specified categories, please record them in the appropriate “other” category and briefly indicate the type of collection they are.

We have not cataloged some of our collections. How should we go about determining the approximate number of units for question F5 on pages 9-13?

An estimate is fine. The number is important so the Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums can determine the scope of the Territory’s preservation needs. Even figures such as “10,” “100,” “1,000” or “5,000” are useful for the purposes of this questionnaire. If it is not possible to provide an estimate, check “Quantity unknown.” Make sure to check “Have no holdings” if your institution has no collections in a particular category.

Our institution has object collections organized by subject matter and archives identified by subject or person.

Within these collections there are many media and formats, including manuscripts, photographs, ephemera, and art on paper, but we don’t know the exact quantity and condition 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 page 10. If it is feasible to quantify or estimate other specific formats (e.g., photographs, domestic artifacts) by number of items, please record them in the relevant category and exclude them from the estimate of linear footage. If your thematic collections contain various media, provide estimates and record them in the appropriate categories.

We have never done a condition assessment of our collections. How can we determine the percentages of materials in need of preservation?

Even if you have not undertaken a condition assessment of all or part of your collections, provide your best estimate of the need of collections in each category, based on your working knowledge of the materials in your care. Make sure that the percentages indicating condition in each line add up to 100%. If it is not possible to provide an estimate of need for all or part of the collection, indicate that percentage in the “% in unknown condition” column.

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index: More Information - Page 4 of 5

230

Our digital collections include back-up copies and online journal subscriptions. How should these 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 include service 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 subscription service, such as electronic journals or databases, unless you or your parent institution maintains master digital files for these resources. In the case of most online or database subscriptions, the service provider would have the responsibility for preserving these materials, not your institution.

For example, if your institution owns original survey maps, purchased CD-ROMs with digital copies of these maps from a vendor, integrated those scanned maps into your online catalog, and subscribes to a database of survey maps from around the country, you would want to complete question F5 to record the original number of maps, 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 take preservation responsibility. If they are, record the media on which they are stored in the “Digital Materials Collections” section of question F5 on page 11.

The original photographs should also be recorded under “Photographic Collections” in question F5 on page 10.

We are a large museum that has many millions of visitors per year. We also have a library and an archives. Question G2a on page 14 asks for onsite visitors; should we include only those researchers and users who access the collection for research purposes?

The response to question G2a should include all visitors/users who come to the institution identified in question A1.

In your case, record all museum visitors including researchers who use the museum’s library and archives.

There are several questions we cannot answer. Do you still want us to respond to the survey?

The Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums 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 of your 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 Susan Laura Lugo, C.A., Territorial Coordinator for Archives, at 340-774-2362 (Ofc), 340-6900531 (Cellular), or SusanLauraLugo@gmail.com at the Territorial Archives.

Virgin Islands Heritage Health Index: More Information - Page 5 of 5

231

232