IMLS Connecting to Collections Grant Advisory Committee Meeting

Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2009

Opening:

The meeting of the IMLS Connecting to Collections Grant Advisory Committee Meeting
was called to order at 10:15 AM on September 18, 2009 at the Massachusetts Board of
Library Commissioners by Gregor Trinkaus-Randall.

Present: Angelina Altobellis, Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC); Mark

Vassar, Harvard University Schlesinger Library and Cambridge Historical Society;
Jennifer Fauxsmith, Massachusetts Archives; David Blackburn, Lowell National
Historical Park, National Park Service; Mary Berhle, Northeast Massachusetts Regional
Library System (NMRLS); Joanne Riley, Joseph P. Healey Library at UMass Boston;
Pamela Hatchfield, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Kate Viens, New England Museum
Association (NEMA); Michael Comeau, Massachusetts Archives; Martha Clark,
Massachusetts Archives; B.J. Larson, New England Museum Association (NEMA);
Jessica Steytler, Congregational Library; Michael Schuetz, Historic New England; Lee
Wright, Marlborough Historical Society; Diane Smith, Massachusetts Commonwealth
Consortium of Libraries in Public Higher Education Institutions (MCCPHEI), Sharon
Sharry, Greenfield Public Library; Gregor Trinkaus-Randall, MBLC; Rachel Masse,
MBLC; Rebecca Meyer, MBLC.

General Description of the Grant and Its Objectives: Gregor explained the source of
the grant and the goals of the preservation survey. In 1990 MBLC conducted the
Preservation Needs Assessment Survey of approximately 1,100 libraries, archives,
historical societies, and town halls. In 2005 Heritage Preservation conducted the
Heritage Health Index (HHI), which surveys approximately 144 institutions in
Massachusetts. The Connecting to Collections grant survey aims to build upon these
surveys and expand the survey base to include as many cultural institutions in
Massachusetts as possible: libraries, archives, museums, historical societies, town halls,
church communities, etc.

Summary of Meeting:

Angelina Altobellis described the project as having two phases:

Phase 1: Building contact base and development of survey.

Phase 2: Statistical analysis.

The date for the survey to be launched is January 4, 2010. She is drafting the survey
based on previously conducted surveys. She mentioned that the HHI survey included two
levels of respondents, Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 institutions were deemed essential to the
survey and therefore had a high level of follow-up, resulting in about a 90% response
rate. Tier 2 institutions were not given the same kind of follow-up and the response rate
was about 30%.

Kate Viens emphasized that small museums were underrepresented in the HHI and that
care should be taken to include them in this survey.

Pamela Hatchfield stated that a determination of the scope of the survey contents is
necessary (see #4 in the next section). Several members noted that certain questions are
inappropriate for smaller institutions, i.e., they do not have a basis for answering
questions about what percentages of the collection are in what conditions.

Several members of the committee expressed that the development of the contact
database and the survey content should be transparent. Lee Wright suggested that a blog
would help in this aim.

Concerns and Considerations about the Survey:

1. How can we maximize the response rate when the motivations and resources for
completing the survey vary greatly? How can we present the benefits of
responding to the survey? How many institutions will need hard copies of the
surveys?
2. How can we make sure that underrepresented institutions (classified as “Tier 2”
institutions in the HHI survey) respond?
3. How can we design the survey so that it is relevant to every type and size of
institution? Is a single survey appropriate or should there be different versions
depending on the size and type of institution?
4. What level of information do we want to capture? Do we focus on building-wide
issues as opposed to object-specific issues? Should the emphasis be on facilities?
Conditions? Intellectual control? Access to training/trained professionals?

Next Steps:

1. Creation of a blog.
2. Creation of a wiki.
3. Drafting of the survey. The survey draft will be posted on the wiki for review,
contributions, and suggestions.
4. Development of institutional database.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. The next meeting will be on
Wednesday, November 18th, 2009, at 10 a.m. Location to be announced.

Minutes submitted by: Rebecca Meyer

Approved by: