Mississippi Connecting
to Collections
Final Project Report
By: Tom Clareson, Digital and Preservation Services
Consultant, LYRASIS
February 15, 2012
Table of Contents
Project Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Survey Project Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Onsite Preservation Survey Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Statewide Preservation Conference Results.............................................................................................................................. 5
Final Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
APPENDIX A: List of Advisory Committee Members ................................................................................................................. 7
APPENDIX B: Mississippi Online Connecting to Collections Preservation Needs Assessment Survey Instrument...... 10
APPENDIX C: Mississippi Statewide Preservation Conference Agenda ............................................................................. 37
APPENDIX D: Mississippi Statewide Preservation Conference Discussion Group Report................................................ 40
APPENDIX E: Mississippi Statewide Preservation Conference Evaluations and Comments ........................................... 45
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
i
February 15, 2012
Project Background
Mississippi’s 2011-2012 Connecting to Collections Project included an online statewide preservation needs
assessment survey, a series of nearly twenty brief onsite preservation surveys at selected institutions, a presentation at
the Mississippi Library Association Conference in October, 2011, and a Statewide Preservation Conference, which
included presentations and discussion sessions on the future of preservation activity in the State. The project was
administered through the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, and an Advisory Committee of leaders from
the library, archives, museum, and historical society communities contributed to the success of the project through
constant communications with their constituent groups. A list of the Advisory Committee members is included as
Appendix A to this report.
Survey Project Background
Mississippi’s online Connecting to Collections Survey project provides a holistic view of the preservation and
conservation needs within the state. In the field between October 11 and November 18, 2011, the online survey
attracted 115 responses out of a universe of 450 cultural institutions in the state for a response rate of 25.5%.
However, when that number is adjusted for regional public library systems answering for all of their branches, the
responses cover 230 institutions and the response rate rises to 51%, one of the best Connecting to Collections survey
results in the country. A PDF Copy of the Survey Instrument is included as Appendix B.
The largest groups of survey respondents came from the public library, academic library/archives, general museum,
and historical house/site communities. Organizations from 50 of Mississippi’s 82 counties responded, providing good
geographic representation in the survey. Staff and budget sizes followed a bell curve, ranging from very small staff and
annual operating budgets at many responding institutions, to a number of organizations with annual budgets over $5
million.
Key findings from the survey project included:


In general background information for this survey, organizations were asked what professional associations or
organizations they were members of. By far the highest number of responses (64 or 66%) was members of the
Mississippi Library Association, 16 or 16% were Mississippi Museum Association members, and 13 or 13%
were members of the Society of Mississippi Archivists. A number of respondents listed other organizations of
which they were a member; nine organizations listed the national American Library Association. This
information can be used to select organizations at which future preservation training or presentations can be
scheduled.
Respondents were asked to discuss the types of materials held in their collections. These are collections for
which the institution has accepted preservation responsibility, and which are permanent parts of their
holdings. Libraries were asked to limit their answers to materials in their historic, special, or Mississippian
collections. The majority of institutions answering these questions were from public and academic libraries,
and from historical societies or homes/sites.
In addition to large collections of books and bound volumes, unbound/archival materials, and photograph,
moving image, recorded sound, and digital materials, a wide variety of historic artifacts are held in
Mississippi’s cultural heritage institutions. As expected, the general museums hold almost all of these types of
materials. Even institutions with the lowest annual budget levels reported holding this type of materials. Major
collection types held included textiles, furniture, and ceramic and glass.
Art objects were another collection type where there was a wide range of material types held across many
kinds of institutions with budgets ranging from the smallest to largest sizes, including paintings, art on paper,
and sculpture.
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
1 of 49
February 15, 2012
This information can be used to determine material types on which educational, information, and actual repair
or conservation work should be concentrated in the future.

Development of policies, procedures, and trusted information resources for preservation are key aspects of
building a preservation program on both an individual institutions and statewide level. When asked if their
institutional mission statement supported the preservation of their collections, 60 organizations (54%) said
yes, and 30 institutions (27%) said no. This is one of the most positive responses to this question in the
seventeen statewide surveys this consultant has completed, and is a strong foundation upon which
preservation programs can be built. Another very positive finding is that institutions across all types and
budget sizes have mission statements including preservation, especially in the academic library and historic
house/site communities.
Just as positive were the results when institutions were asked if they had a written institutional
collection/acquisitions policy. Again, 60 (54%) of the respondents from all budget levels had this type of plan,
and, just as importantly, a vast majority of those institutions had updated it in the past three years. Fifteen
more organizations were currently developing this type of policy; seventeen (15%) responded that they didn’t
have this type of plan. These findings were reflected across many institution types
When the questions turned to the presence of a written, long-range preservation/conservation plan for the
maintenance, care, repair, and protection of its collections, the results were not quite as positive. Eighteen
organizations (16%) had such a plan, including institutions at the smallest and largest budget levels; 17 more
(15%) were developing a plan, and 8 (7%) did not have a plan, but preservation was addressed in the
institution’s overall long-range plan. However, 50 organizations, or 45% of the respondents, did not have this
type of plan, showing a need for education and assistance in development of this type of keystone document.
Only historical homes/sites and general museums had a good response rate for this question.

Another important piece of preservation planning and infrastructure was also shown to be a need. When
asked if a formal preservation or conservation survey of collection condition had been completed at their
organization, 75 institutions (67%) said no, 20 (18%) did not know, and only 17 had done this type of activity.
The institution types most often completing these studies were historical houses/sites and art museums, and
the budget sizes represented some of the smallest and largest categories. There is a strong need for
preservation surveys to be performed for the cultural institutions of Mississippi.

When asked where preservation funding came from, a vast majority (68 institutions or 61%, across all sizes of
annual operating budgets) said it came from their institution’s own budget. This can be a double-edged sword,
because preservation funds are often reduced or eliminated if an institution’s overall budget is cut, and some
institutions do not keep ongoing, documented accounts for preservation, so funds can be mixed or diverted
when times are difficult. Another large preservation funding source named in the survey results was donor
funding, especially for general museums and academic libraries/archives; this was used at organizations with
varying budget sizes. Generally, there was a very low utilization of national/federal grant resources; these low
levels of utilization of external granting sources highlights opportunities for future grants, if information and
education on grant writing and fundraising for preservation projects is made available.
Whether through grants or other types of funding, if institutions were able to gain new funding specifically for
conservation or preservation over the next three years, there were a number of areas where they would spend
it. Chief among these were digitization; cataloging/inventory; storage supplies and materials; professional
conservation treatment of collection materials; and staff training: 25 (23%)
Inside their locations/buildings, organizations need to control environmental factors to keep their collections
safe. Fifty-two institutions (47%, across many types) control temperature levels in all areas of their buildings,
and 37 (34%) control it in some, but not all areas, so this is a collections threat which most Mississippi
institutions have under at least some control. Light levels were the next best-controlled, with 53 (49%)
controlling this factor in some, but not all areas, and 31 (29%) controlling light in all areas. As might be
expected, institutions with larger annual operating budgets were better able to control these environmental
factors. Unfortunately, humidity is most often not controlled in any areas (37 or 35%); control of air quality in
collecting institutions’ buildings is even worse, with 43 institutions (41%) not controlled in any areas.
Responding organizations were also asked what types of equipment they used to monitor their collections
storage environment. Top types of equipment were thermometers (29 or 27%), pest traps (25 or 23%), and


MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
2 of 49
February 15, 2012








hygrometers (12 or 11%). Unfortunately, the highest number of responses was from 42 organizations (39%,
across almost all budget size categories) not using any type of preservation environmental monitoring
equipment. Education on types of equipment to use, and potential funding for institutions to acquire that
equipment, is a large need in the state of Mississippi.
An emergency/disaster plan is an important cornerstone in an institutional preservation program. Some
Mississippi institutions have plans, but much work is needed to improve the coverage in this area. Twenty
institutions have current disaster plans, updated in the past three years in most cases. Another 15 (13%) said
they have plans which are not up-to-date. At 21 institutions, (19%), there is not a plan, but one is being
developed. The need to update or fully develop these plans is important so that these organizations can
implement their plans, if necessary, on a moment’s notice, should disaster strike. Results of strong concern
here are that 43 institutions (38%) do not have a plan at all, and 13 (12%) do not know if they have a plan.
Disaster planning education and sharing of model plans between institutions should be a priority action within
the state. Another concern in this area is that, at the institutions which do have plans, less than half have staff
ready to carry it out. Staff would be able to implement the disaster plan at 22 institutions (39%), but would not
at 18 (32%), and did not know at 16 (29%) of the organizations surveyed, so practice of disaster plans is
another important future step for Mississippi cultural heritage organizations.
In an open-ended question which was one of the most important in the survey, responding organizations were
asked to list their three most serious preservation problems. Through content analysis of the responses, these
were the concerns most often mentioned: lack of funding./money for preservation; lack of staff for
preservation activities; problems with environment and heating/ventilation/air conditioning; lack of or
improper storage space; lack of general space within facility; and lack of staff time for work on preservation
activities.
While born digital materials are being accepted into collections, and some digitization activities are being done,
the preservation of these digital materials is an area where work is needed. Over three-quarters of
respondents (86 or 78%, across all types and budget sizes of institutions) do not have a written plan for longterm digital preservation in place. A majority (46 or 45%) do not know how often back up files are created,
especially in public libraries and historical societies, and 39 (41%) do not know where backup files are stored
(public libraries, general museums, and academic libraries/archives had the largest response rate to this
question). On this second question, though, some positive results were seen as 20 institutions (21%) stored
backup files offsite, and the same number stored them in multiple places.
Responding organizations were asked to indicate their institution’s level of need in a number of important
areas of preservation program development. In almost all of the program components, a need was expressed.
Top among the areas of interest, with over 50% of respondents expressing need, were: staff training in
preservation; conservation treatment; emergency preparedness/disaster planning; collection policy and
procedure creation or updating; condition assessments/surveys of collections; and preservation of digital
collections: 55 (53%)
When asked to discuss the preservation topics on which their institution needed training, the majority of topics
received “need” votes and many also received a high number of “urgent need” tallies, especially among
general museums, academic libraries/archives, and public libraries and at all budget levels. The top class
topics, needed by a majority of survey participants, were collections conservation; preservation management:
care and handling of collections; digitization/reformatting; advocacy/fundraising/grant writing; disaster
preparedness and recovery; and preservation reformatting (photocopying, microfilming).
When asked the collection types on which their institutions most needed preservation training, need was
expressed by a majority of respondents on the following formats: books and bound volumes; unbound
sheets/archival records; photographic collections; and art objects.
There were questions that dealt with interest in preservation services. If a statewide approach was available,
preservation services a majority of responding cultural heritage institutions would use include: state-sponsored
preservation workshops; ongoing state support for preservation grants to individual institutions; assistance
with disaster planning and recovery; on-site visits by a preservation professional; preservation/disaster
response supplies; and a place to contact for preservation information.
Finally, institutions were asked about their level of interest in a number of collaborative preservation projects.
Those attracting the most interest were: mentoring (in mentor, protégé, or both roles); collaborative exhibitions;
mutual assistance agreements for disaster response; setting up a regional special interest group on
preservation; collaborative grant proposals; and collaborative digital collections building.
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
3 of 49
February 15, 2012
Onsite Preservation Survey Findings
In October and November, 2011, project consultants Tom Clareson and Linda Overman made site survey visits to
almost twenty institutions. The institutions were selected upon recommendations of members of the Mississippi
Connecting to Collections Project Advisory Committee. Prior to these visits to a variety of libraries, museums, and
historical societies, the consultants sent out a “pre-visit questionnaire” to determine some information about each
institution’s building, and current preservation activities and policies. When onsite, the consultants spent 2-3 hours
touring the institution, monitoring environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and visible and ultraviolet light,
looking at collection condition, and discussing the preservation policies and practices at each organization. They
provided each institution they visited with a 2-3 page report on the key findings of the site survey visit.
From the pre-visit questionnaires, the consultants saw trends including a general lack of preservation planning
documents at the institutions, especially disaster plans; many institutions that did not have regular Fire Department
inspections or fire drills; concern among institutional staff about lack of environmental controls and water leakage
problems; and a lack of cataloging or inventory control of some of their institutional collections.
These concerns were amplified once the consultants arrived onsite. During their visits, they noted a need to develop
basic institutional policies documenting activities such as collection development and collection de-accession, which
are both basic to preservation of the collections. At a majority of the institutions visited, high visible and ultraviolet light
readings were taken, and water leaks were noted. The staffs at the institutions were very interested in establishing
environmental control programs to monitor temperature, relative humidity, light, and water leaks. While there had not
been a great deal of concern expressed in the online survey about security needs of institutions, when the consultants
were onsite, these needs were more evident and discussed more fully. There was a focus by many of the surveyed
institutions on the need to improve the care of their photographic collections, and a desire to perform photographic
digitization to provide further access to those collections.
Additional policy development work was needed for disaster planning, and the institutions visited expressed interest in
training for disaster preparedness and recovery. The institutions surveyed expressed the need for assistance in
preservation and conservation funding development, and there was a specific interest in exploring preservation-related
grants such as the Institute of Museum & Library Services/Bank of America “American Heritage Preservation Grants”
and National Endowment for the Humanities “Preservation Assistance Grants.” One other interesting need expressed
was that some institutions hoped to recruit student interns or student workers who could assist in preservation
activities.
At almost all of the institutions, staff expressed a need to raise awareness of preservation among other staff members,
management/administration, volunteers, Boards of Trustees, allied organizations, and regional groups. Many of them
planned to use the brief site survey reports to begin to point out specific preservation needs at their institutions to
these varied audiences. Beyond raising awareness among their peers, managers, constituents, and allies, staff
expressed interest in gaining further training and knowledge in areas of preservation including disaster
preparedness/mitigation/recovery; basic archival practices/archival holdings maintenance; grant development for
preservation; environmental controls and monitoring; inventorying and cataloging of collections; best practices in
security for cultural organizations; photographic preservation and digitization; and, as mentioned at many points during
this report, development of preservation policies.
The institutional representatives felt that inventory and processing was important for space planning, storage planning,
collection valuation, insurance purposes, and for prioritizing collections for disaster preparedness and recovery.
The findings from the site survey visit provided points of emphasis to the online survey findings, and foreshadowed
many of the key discussion topics at the January 2012 statewide preservation conference. From all of these methods
of information-gathering, the basics of a preservation program for the State of Mississippi began to emerge.
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
4 of 49
February 15, 2012
Statewide Preservation Conference Results
On January 25, 2012, a Statewide Connecting to Collections Preservation Conference was held at the Mississippi
Library Commission Auditorium in Jackson, MS. More than 60 representatives of all types of cultural heritage
institutions attended the conference session. The Conference Agenda (attached as Appendix C) included a report on
the online and onsite survey results; concurrent sessions on high-demand educational topics such as digitization,
collections conservation, disaster preparedness and recovery, and preservation funding, which were presented by instate experts and the project consultant; and most importantly, facilitated discussion on the next steps for preservation
activity in Mississippi. A report on the key points from the discussion groups is included as Appendix D to this report,
and an analysis of the conference evaluations is included as Appendix E.
Final Recommendations
In both the Mississippi Connecting to Collections statewide preservation needs assessment survey, in the nearly 20
onsite preservation survey visits made in the autumn of 2011, and at the Mississippi Library Association Conference
and the Statewide Preservation Conference, the consultants and Advisory Committee for the project noted an important
result which bodes well for further preservation action within the state: Institutions recognize areas in which they need
to develop their preservation programs, and are willing to do so.
For example, in the online survey, it was found that many preservation activities are already being carried out at some
level in the responding institutions. However, there were strong expressions of need for further education on many
preservation topics, and interest in the continued development of many preservation program elements.
The “negatives” found in the survey, such as a lack of disaster response or continuity of operations (CoOp) plans--to get
cultural collections organizations back up and running, ready to perform their vital business functions--were balanced
by “positives,” such as the majority of responding institutions reported having good relationships with local emergency
responders such as police, fire, and county emergency management officials. Providing education on disaster
preparedness and recovery, with a focus on disaster plan development, is a primary recommendation for the state.
During the onsite visit phase of the project, interest was expressed in developing some loanable disaster kits or even
“caches” of shared disaster supplies in quadrants or sections of the state. To battle the leaks which many institutions
were complaining about, centralized or discounted purchasing of water detectors and other preservation supplies was
suggested at the statewide conference.
Environmental factors such as heat, humidity, light, and poor air quality, can have long-term detrimental effects on all
types of collection materials. When spikes to high levels of any of these factors happen at an institution, they can
quickly cause disastrous damage such as mold or warping of pages. In Mississippi, factors such as humidity and air
quality are not controlled at a majority of the responding institutions. For that reason, education on environmental
factors for cultural heritage institutions, and ways to monitor and improve environmental conditions, should be another
area of emphasis for Mississippi’s statewide preservation efforts. Activities suggested during the onsite visits and at
the statewide preservation conference included development of environmental monitoring “loaner kits” where
institutions, particularly those that could not afford to buy their own equipment, could borrow the kit for a 2-3 month
period to check their environment. Institutions also expressed interest in having a centralized resource for
environmental monitor readings and analysis, so there would be a trusted source on a statewide or regional level that
could help to read and interpret the environmental findings.
Strong need was expressed for scanning or digitizing material to provide improved access for users and staff.
Education on this topic is an important component in increasing the number of institutions doing this activity, and
building a statewide corpus of digital material. A closely-related finding is that very few Mississippi cultural
organizations have a plan to preserve the materials which they are digitizing, which is necessary to “insure your digital
assets.” A strong need for education in digital preservation, and digital preservation policy development, was found in
the survey results. A better grasp on logistical aspects of digital preservation, such as knowledge of an institution’s
digital backup schedule, is important. One positive finding here is the number of organizations which store their digital
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
5 of 49
February 15, 2012
or electronic collections offsite or in multiple locations (both of which are considered good digital preservation
practices).
Development of digital preservation plans is just one area of preservation policy development which is needed in the
state. Writing disaster plans, and overall long-term institutional preservation policies, is also needed. Having a
preservation consultant perform an onsite preservation needs assessment survey, or conducting a self-assessment, will
often point out specific preservation needs to be addressed in these policies. Making onsite surveys more widely
available in Mississippi is highly recommended, and providing access to model preservation policies from Mississippi
institutions, for other organizations to model new policy development upon, is an important part of preservation
program development in the state. During the onsite surveys, several institutions expressed strong interest in being
able to access a centralized project website which would have model preservation policies and best practices mounted.
In addition, offering organizations that have not inventoried, processed, or cataloged their special collections and
archival materials some training and assistance in these activities provides another block upon which to build a strong
institutional preservation program and overall statewide preservation capacity.
Preservation-related policy development, onsite preservation surveys, and educational offerings in preservation often
come with a price tag attached. Identification and stronger utilization of state, federal, donor, and foundation grants
and funding is central in moving preservation forward in Mississippi. In an open-ended question in the online survey,
respondents were asked to list the three most serious preservation problems within their institutions. The concerns
with the largest number of responses were lacking of funding/money for preservation; lack of staff (and also staff time)
for preservation; lack of or improper overall and specific storage space within cultural heritage facilities; and problems
with environmental equipment and factors. Developing preservation policies and budgets to deal with these concerns
are methods to help improve the condition of, and conditions for, the preservation of Mississippi’s prized cultural
collections. Finally, during the onsite visits, and at both conferences, the need was expressed for help in recruiting or
placing student interns or student workers at cultural heritage collection-holding institutions to assist on preservation
projects.
As illustrated by the online and onsite survey findings, a statewide preservation program offering inexpensive
information, education, and policy examples can assist the state in moving preservation activity forward across all types
of cultural collections institutions. Focusing this program on disaster preparedness, environmental control, collection
storage space planning, and digitization/digital preservation will answer many of the needs expressed in the online and
onsite survey reports, and by cultural heritage institution staff and administration at both the Mississippi Library
Association and Mississippi Statewide Connecting to Collections Preservation Conferences.
In February, 2012, Mississippi and Louisiana developed and submitted a joint, two-state Connecting to Collections
Implementation Grant Proposal. The reasoning behind this joint proposal was because some similar preservation
program needs had been noted in both states, and because these states have a long history of working together on
preservation and collections-related projects such as the Archival Training Collaborative project. While there is strong
hope that the Implementation Grant proposal will be successful, there is also an interest from the project Advisory
Committee and the leading institutions in the state to continue to move forward on preservation program development
in Mississippi, no matter what sources of funding need to be utilized. In fact, some of the ideas from the findings from
this report (such as a project website with model preservation policies) can be carried out with little or no additional
funding, and some other key needs can be covered by already-scheduled programs, such as the proposed Spring 2012
Regional Emergency Response Network training series.
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
6 of 49
February 15, 2012
APPENDIX A:
List of Advisory Committee Members
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
7 of 49
February 15, 2012
Mississippi’s Connecting to Collections Planning Grant Advisory Committee
Tom Clareson
Senior Consultant,
LYRASIS
1438 West Peachtree Street NW,
Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30309
1.800.999.8558
Julia Marks Young
Project Director
Archives & Records Services, MDAH
P.O. Box 571
Jackson, MS 39205
1.601.576.6991
jyoung@mdah.state.ms.us
Missisippi Library
Commission
Barbara Price
Mississippi Library Commission
3881 Eastwood Drive
Jackson, MS 39211
1.601.432.4111
desk: 432.4498
bprice@mlc.lib.ms.us>
Mississippi Library
Association
Stephen Cunetto (President, 20112012)
MSU Libraries
P.O. Box 5408
Mississippi State, MS 39762
662-325-8542
scunetto@library.msstate.edu
Jennifer Smith (President, 20102011)
Warren County-Vicksburg Public
Library
700 Veto Street
Vicksburg, MS 39180
601-630-4103
jensmith@warren.lib.ms.us
Mississippi Museums
Association
Bo Miller (President)
Amory Regional Museum
801 3rd Street South,
Amory, MS 38821
1.662.256.2761
director@midsouth.com
Museums
Robin Person (past president, MMA)
Historic Jefferson College, MDAH
P.O. Box 700
Washington, MS 39190
601.442.2901
rperson@mdah.state.ms.us
Beth Batton
Mississippi Museum of Art 380 S.
Lamar St.
Jackson MS 39201
1.601.965.9936
bbatton@msmuseumart.org
Cindy Gardner
Museum Division, MDAH
P.O. Box 571
Jackson, MS 39205
1.601.576.6901
cgardner@mdah.state.ms.us
Gerald Chaudron (vice president)
Special Collections, Mitchell
Memorial Library
P.O. Box 5408
Mississippi State, MS 39762
662.325.3071
gchaudron@library.msstate.edu
Diane Ross
601-266-5592
Society of Mississippi
Archivists
Mississippi Digital
MS C2C Final Report
© 614.439.1796
© 901.568.4803
 LYRASIS 
8 of 49
tom.Clareson@lyrasis.org
diane.ross@usm.edu
February 15, 2012
Library
McCain Library & Archives, USM
118 College Drive #5148
Hattiesburg, MS 39406
Southern Preservation
& Consulting, LLC
Linda Overman
4007 Redwing Avenue
Jackson, MS 39216
334.201.6802
lindaoverman43@gmail.com
W:\C2C\advisory committee.10.13.2011.doc
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
9 of 49
February 15, 2012
APPENDIX B:
Mississippi Online
Connecting to Collections
Preservation Needs Assessment Survey Instrument
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
10 of 49
February 15, 2012
Connecting to Collections - Mississippi (1)
Created: October 10 2011, 10:29 AM
Connecting to Collections - Mississippi
Page 1 - Question 1 - Name and Address (General) [Mandatory]
What is the name and address of your institution?









Name of person(s) responding to survey
Institution
Address 1
Address 2
City/Town
State/Province
Zip/Postal Code
Respondent Telephone Number
Respondent Email Address
Page 1 - Question 2 - Open Ended - Comments Box
Name of the institutional unit for which you are filling out this survey. (An institutional "unit" in this survey could be
the branch library, herbarium, museum or archive at a University.)
Page 1 - Question 3 - Open Ended - One Line
Please enter your web address:
Page 1 - Question 4 - Open Ended - Comments Box
Name of parent institution, if applicable (Parent institution can be a public library, college, university, community or
state organization to which your organization reports)
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
11 of 49
February 15, 2012
Page 1 - Question 5 - Choice - One Answer (Drop Down)
In what county is your institution located? (Select one answer only for the location of the main facility or main
branch of your institution)













































Adams
Alcorn
Amite
Attala
Benton
Bolivar
Calhoun
Carroll
Chickasaw
Choctaw
Claiborne
Clarke
Clay
Coahama
Copiah
Covington
DeSoto
Forrest
Franklin
George
Greene
Grenada
Hancock
Harrison
Hinds
Holmes
Humphreys
Issaquena
Itawamba
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jefferson Davis
Jones
Kemper
Lafayette
Lamar
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Leake
Lee
Leflore
Lincoln
Lowndes
Madison
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
12 of 49
February 15, 2012





































Marion
Marshall
Monroe
Montgomery
Neshoba
Newton
Noxubee
Oktibbeha
Panola
Pearl River
Perry
Pike
Pontotoc
Prentiss
Quitman
Rankin
Scott
Sharkey
Simpson
Smith
Stone
Sunflower
Tallahatchie
Tate
Tippah
Tishomingo
Tunica
Union
Walthall
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Wilkinson
Winston
Yalobusha
Yazoo
Page 2 - Question 6 - Rating Scale - Matrix
How many staff are currently employed in your institutional unit? Please answer in FTEs (Full-Time Equivalents),
where one FTE equals 40 hours of work per week for one year. (Select one answer only for each category)
0
1
2
-
5
6 - 1 0
11-20
21-50
51 and above
Don't Know
Paid
s taf f
(f ull - tim e )








Paid
staff
(part-time)








Unpaid/volunteer staff (full -tim e)








MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
13 of 49
February 15, 2012
Unpaid/volunteer staff (part-time)







Page 2 - Question 7 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Does your institution have public hours? (Select one) Number of hours open per week:







1-10 hours
11-20 hours
21-30 hours
31-40 hours
41 hours or more
No public hours
Other (please specify)
Page 3 - Question 8 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Which one category best describes your institution? (Please select one)
















Government archives
Independent non-profit archives
Public library
Special library
Academic library/archives
Historical Society
Historical house/site
Art museum
Children's museum
Natural history museum
Science technology museum
General museum (2 or more disciplines)
Archaeological repository or research collection
Arboretum, botanical garden, nature center, zoo, or aquarium
Cultural center
Other (please specify)
Page 3 - Question 9 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Which one category best describes your organization type or affiliation? (Please select one)








Private non-profit (non-government)
Local, municipal, or county government
College, university, or other academic entity
Library system
State government
Federal government
Tribal
Other (please specify)
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
14 of 49
February 15, 2012

Page 3 - Question 10 - Rating Scale - Matrix
What was your institution's total annual operating budget for the most recently completed fiscal year? If exact
amount is unknown, please provide an estimate. Most recently completed fiscal year (please select one)
F
$
0
-
$
$ 5 0 , 0 0 1
5
-
Y
2
0
0
9
F
Y
2
0
0


$ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0


0
,
0
0
$ 1 0 0 , 0 0 1
-
$ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0


$ 2 5 0 , 0 0 1
-
$ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0


$ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0


$5,000,000


a n d


$ 5 0 0 , 0 0 1
-
$1,000,001
$ 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 1
-
a b o v e
1
0
Page 3 - Question 11 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
In what professional associations or organizations is your institution a member? (Select all that apply)




Mississippi Library Association
Mississippi Museum Association
Society of Mississippi Archivists
Other (please specify)
Page 4 - Heading
COLLECTIONS HOLDINGS For this survey's purposes, conservation is defined as keeping the original item and
its related hardware (and software, if needed) so it can be heard and/or seen as it was originally
created. Preservation is defined as retaining the content of the original item, possibly on a different recording
medium or using a technology, so the content is safeguarded and is accessible for future study and use. In this
section, please select all answers indicating what types of materials, not content, are held in your collections by
checking each box that applies. Include collections for which you have accepted preservation responsibility and
which are permanent parts of your holdings. Libraries, please limit these answers to materials in your historic,
special, or Mississippiana collections.
Description
Page 4 - Question 12 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Books and Bound Volumes (Special Collections Only)




Books/Monographs
Newspapers
Serials/periodicals
Bound manuscript materials (ledger books, minute books, scrapbooks)
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
15 of 49
February 15, 2012
 Maps
 N/A
 Other volumes (please specify)
Page 4 - Question 13 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Unbound Sheets (Special Collections Only)









Archival records and manuscripts
Oral history transcripts
Maps
Ephemera and broadsides
Philatelic (stamp) collections
County filed documents
Architectural drawings/Blueprints
N/A
Other unbound materials (please specify)
Page 4 - Question 14 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Photographic Collections











Black and white prints (all processes)
Black and white film negatives prior to 1950 (cellulose nitrate)
Black and white film negatives prior to 1950 (cellulose acetate)
Black and white film negatives 1950 and later (cellulose acetate, polyester)
Cased objects (ambrotypes, daguerreotypes, tintypes)
Color prints, negatives, positives (including transparencies and slides)
Glass-plate negatives
Lantern slides (glass lantern slides, sometimes hand-tinted)
Microfilm and microfiche
N/A
Other photographic collections including inkjet and digital prints; others (please specify)
Page 5 - Question 15 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Moving Image Collections





Motion picture film (reels or cans)
Magnetic tape (Beta, VHS, digital)
Disc (laser, CD, DVD, minidisk)
N/A
Other moving image collections (please specify)
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
16 of 49
February 15, 2012
Page 5 - Question 16 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Recorded Sound Collections







Wire recordings
Grooved media (cylinder, phonodisc)
Magnetic media (cassette, open-reel tapes, DAT)
Optical media (CD, DVD)
Digital media (MP3s, etc.)
N/A
Other recorded sound collections (please specify)
Page 5 - Question 17 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Digital Collections







Floppy discs
Other discs
CDs/DVDs
Data tapes
Online collections
N/A
Other digital collections (please specify)
Page 5 - Question 18 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Historic Artifacts








Textiles (costumes, flags, rugs, quilts, etc.)
Ceramic and glass (includes stained glass)
Metalwork (arms, armor, coins)
Furniture
Domestic items (dolls/toys, frames, household machines and tools, musical instruments)
Science, technology, and medical artifacts
N/A
Other historical artifacts (please specify)
Page 5 - Question 19 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Transportation Vehicles





Non-agricultural animal-drawn vehicles
Automobiles
Rail vehicles (locomotives, passenger and freight cars, cabooses, hand and mining carts)
N/A
Other transportation vehicles (please specify)
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
17 of 49
February 15, 2012
Page 6 - Question 20 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Agricultural Objects






Animal-drawn implements and vehicles
Animal husbandry items (branding irons, collars, horseshoes, tack, yokes)
Hand tools (rakes, scythes, etc.)
Motorized agricultural implements
N/A
Other agricultural objects (please specify)
Page 6 - Question 21 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Art Objects










Paintings (on canvas, panels, plaster)
Art on paper (drawings, prints, watercolors)
Sculpture (indoor, outdoor, carvings)
Decorative arts (fine metalwork, enamels, ivories, jewelry, lacquer, timepieces)
Posters
Pottery
Ceramic and glass art objects
Quilts
N/A
Other art objects (please specify)
Page 6 - Question 22 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Ethnographic Objects




Stone, bone, or shell collections
Organic collections (leather, skin, feather, quills, hair, fur, wood, bark)
N/A
Other ethnographic objects (please specify)
Page 6 - Question 23 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Archaeological Collections






Bulk organic material (textile fiber, wood, bone, shell, feather)
Bulk inorganic material (ceramic, glass, metal, plastics)
Individually-cataloged organic material (textile fiber, wood, bone, shell, feather)
Individually-cataloged inorganic material (ceramic, glass, metal, plastics)
N/A
Other archaeological material (please specify)
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
18 of 49
February 15, 2012
Page 6 - Question 24 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Natural Science Specimens










Zoological specimens (dry, glass slide, frozen)
Zoological specimens (wet preparations)
Botanical specimens (dry, glass slide, frozen, culture, modern palynology materials)
Botanical specimens (wet preparations)
Geological specimens (gems, rocks, minerals, meteorites)
Vertebrate paleontological specimens
Invertebrate paleontological specimens (microfossils, nanofossils)
Paleobotany specimens (microfossils, fossil palynology materials)
N/A
Other natural science specimens (please specify)
Page 6 - Question 25 - Open Ended - Comments Box
Other, please list:
Page 6 - Question 26 - Open Ended - Comments Box
Which of your holdings do you consider to be the most significant, and why? (You may list individual objects
and/or broader subsets of your collections here)
Page 7 – Heading [Up To 7 Answers]
PRESERVATION POLICIES AND RESOURCES
Description
Page 7 - Question 27 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Does your institutional mission statement support the preservation of your collections?




Yes
No
Don't know
Do not have an institutional mission statement
Page 7 - Question 28 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Does your institution have a written institutional collecting/acquisitions policy?
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
19 of 49
February 15, 2012





No, but one is being developed
No, but preservation is addressed in the institution's overall long-range plan
No
Don't know
Yes, please list year last updated.
Page 7 - Question 29 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Does your institution have a written, long-range preservation/conservation plan for the maintenance, care, repair,
and protection of its collections?





No, but one is being developed
No, but preservation is addressed in the institution's overall long-range plan
No
Don't know
Yes, please list year last updated.
Page 7 - Question 30 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Has a formal preservation/conservation survey of the condition of your collection been done?
 No
 Don't know
 Yes, please list year completed.
Page 7 - Question 31 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
In FTEs (Full-Time Equivalents, where one FTE equals 40 hours of work per week for one year) per year, how
much staff time is spent by paid or volunteer staff on collections care activities (repair, rebinding, or rehousing)?





0 FTE
Up to 1 FTE
1-2 FTE
2-5 FTE
More than 5 FTE
Page 8 - Heading
32. What was your institution’s annual budget for conservation/preservation for the most recently completed fiscal
year? (round off or provide an estimate) · If you have no specific line-item in the budget, but use other
budgeted funds for conservation/preservation, estimate the amount of budgeted funds used for
conservation/preservation. · Include: budgeted funds for staff, supplies and equipment, surveys, treatment,
preservation reformatting, 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.
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
20 of 49
February 15, 2012
Description
Page 8 - Question 32 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Most recently completed fiscal year (please select one)
F
$
$
0
5
0
1
$
-
$
5
1
,
0
0
0
Y
2
0
0
9
F
Y
2
0
0


0


$ 1 , 0 0 1
-
$ 2 , 5 0 0


$ 2 , 5 0 1
-
$ 5 , 0 0 0


a b o v e


$ 5 , 0 0 1
a n d
1
Page 8 - Question 33 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
What are the sources of conservation/preservation funding at your institution? (please select all that apply)









Institution's own budget
Federal grants
State grants
Foundation or corporate grants
Donor funding
Institution use or license fee
None
Don't know
Other (please specify)
Page 8 - Question 34 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Has your institution made a grant application, whether successful or unsuccessful, for conservation/preservation
funding from any public or private source in the past 5 years? (please select one)
 Yes (Skip to question 36)
 No
 Don't know (Skip to quesion 36)
Page 8 - Question 35 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets) [Up To 7 Answers]
(If “No” in question 34) Which of the following factors influenced the decision not to apply for a grant? (please
select all that apply)





Need more information about funding sources
Lack the staff time to complete application
Lack of expertise to complete application
Need additional project planning or preparation before applying for grant
Conservation/preservation is not an institutional priority
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
21 of 49
February 15, 2012
0




Have sufficient funding
Unsuccessful applying for grant(s) in the past
Don't know
Other (please specify)
Page 9 - Question 36 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
From which of the following sources, if any, has your institution received money to implement
conservation/preservation projects in the past 5 years? (please select all that apply)
















Institute of Museum and Library Services (direct grant to recipient)
Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant funding
Heritage Preservation ‘Conservation Assessment Program’ (CAP) funding
National Endowment for the ‘Humanities Preservation Assistance Grants for Smaller Institutions’
National Endowment for the Humanities (larger grants)
National Endowment for the Arts (Museum: Access to Artistic Excellence category)
Save America’s Treasures grant for collections
National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) grant
Other federal funding programs
Private foundations
Corporate or business contributions dedicated to conservation/preservation projects
Individual contributions dedicated to conservation/preservation projects
Interest from in-house endowment
Line item in your institution’s operating budget
Other funding program
None
Page 9 - Heading
PRESERVATION ENVIRONMENT, SECURITY, AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
Description
Page 9 - Question 37 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Does your institution have historically-significant buildings under your responsibility which are used to house your
library, archive, museum, or historical society; or used to store collections materials; or which are a part of your
collection?
 No
 Yes
 If yes, how many buildings?
Page 9 - Question 38 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets) [Up To 6 Answers]
In what locations are your collections stored? (select all that apply)
 Building or space owned by your institution
 Building or space rented or leased by your institution
 Donated space
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
22 of 49
February 15, 2012




Facility shared (owned or leased) with other organization
Private home
Outdoors
Other (please specify)
Page 10 - Question 39 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Which of these environmental factors are you able to control? (Select all that apply)
Yes, in all areas
L
i
A i r
g
h
t
l
q u a l i t y
No, in no areas
Don’t know
O t h e r
N/ A
l e v e l s






l e v e l s






s






l e v e l s






T e m p e r a t u r e
H u m i d i t y
In some, but not all areas
e
v
e
l
Page 10 - Question 40 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Excluding environmental concerns, what percentage of your collection is stored in areas that you consider to be
adequate? (For example, safe access to collections, on appropriate storage furniture, large enough space to
accommodate current collections). (Select one)






None
1-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
Page 10 - Question 41 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
How much additional space would you need (at your present rate of growth) over the next 10 years to adequately
store your collections? (Select one)







Currently have enough space for collections
25% more
50% more
75% more
100% more
More than 100% more
Don’t know
Page 11 - Question 42 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
What types of equipment do you use to monitor your collections storage environment? (Select all that apply)
 Hygrometer
 Thermometer
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
23 of 49
February 15, 2012











Hygrothermograph
Preservation Environment Monitor (PEM)
Dataloggers
Light meter (visible light)
Light meter (ultraviolet light)
Pest traps
Arten readers
Blue wool cards
None
Don't know
Other (please specify)
Page 11 - Question 43 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Please indicate which security systems your institution uses.
Y e s, i n al l ar ea s
In some, but not all areas
No, in no areas
Don't know
g u a r d




o b s e r v a t i o n








s




Written policies and procedures




Control of ac c es s to the c ollec ti on s




Control of items brought into the collections




Exhibits behind glass or otherwise secured




S e c u r i t y




l oc k s




d e t e c t i o n




S e c u r i t y
S t a f f
Employee and volunteer screenin g
A
l
a
r
Sec ur e
m
s
y
t
e
m
c a m e r a s
door s
I n t r u s i o n
s
and
Page 11 - Question 44 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
What types of fire safety systems do you use? (Select all that apply)







Smoke detectors
Fire alarms
Wet-pipe sprinklers
Dry-pipe sprinklers
Non-aqueous fire-suppression systems (e.g., Halon; FM-200)
Fire extinguishers
Other (please specify)
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
24 of 49
February 15, 2012
Page 11 - Question 45 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
If you have fire extinguishers, have you been trained on their use?
 No
 Yes
 If yes, how recently were you trained on their use (year)?
Page 11 - Question 46 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Are the fire extinguishers inspected regularly?
 Yes
 No
Page 12 - Question 47 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Does your institution have a written emergency or disaster plan that includes collection materials?





Don’t know
No (Skip to question 49)
No, but one is being developed (Skip to question 49)
Yes, but it is not up-to-date
Yes, please list year last updated.
Page 12 - Question 48 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
If your institution does have an emergency or disaster plan, is your staff trained to carry it out?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t know
Page 12 - Question 49 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
If you do not have an emergency or disaster plan, please list reasons why one has NOT been created for your
institution. (Select all that apply)





Not an institutional priority
Do not have the expertise to write a disaster plan
Do not have the time to write a disaster plan
Unaware of the need for a disaster plan
Other, please list:
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
25 of 49
February 15, 2012
Page 12 - Question 50 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Does your institution have a continuity of operations plan to allow you to quickly resume your regular business?
(please select one)





Don't know
No
No, but plan is being prepared
Yes
If yes, what year was it prepared and what year was it last updated?
Page 12 - Question 51 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Does your institution have a working relationship with your local emergency responders (e.g., fire, police)?
(please select one)
 Yes
 No
 Don't know
Page 12 - Question 52 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Are copies of important records related to your institution, such as your catalog, insurance policies, and other
important documents, stored offsite? (Select one)






Yes
Some, but not all stored offsite
No
Do not have copies
Don’t know
Do not have collections records
Page 13 - Question 53 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Has your collection experienced damage or loss after it was acquired by your institution, due to any of these
causes? (Select all that apply)
No damage/loss
Some damage/loss
Significant damage/loss
Don't know
Handling (by staff, users, in shipment)




Water or moisture (stains, warping, mold)




Light (fading or discoloration)




Airborne particulates or pollutants (dust, soot)




F
e




Poor storage or enclosure




P




i
e
MS C2C Final Report
r
s
t
s
 LYRASIS 
26 of 49
February 15, 2012
m




d




e




o




e




Physical or chemical deterioration (brittle paper, cracked leather, flaking paint, electronic media degradation)




Obsolescence of playback equipment, hardware, or software




T




V
a
n
F
E
a
l
a
T
H
d
r
u
i
o
t
o
l
h
r
r
h
o
q
u
n
r
s
i
a
a
c
e
k
d
a
n
f
t
Page 13 - Question 54 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets) [Up To 5 Answers]
Who took care of cleaning up or repairing damaged materials? (please select all that apply)






Internal staff ONLY
External consultant
Commercial disaster recovery vendor
Local/community resource
Don't know
Other (please specify)
Page 13 - Question 55 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
If you answered anything besides “Internal staff ONLY” in Question 54: Why did you use an external source
(consultant; recovery vendor; local/community resource)?






Lack of training
Lack of expertise
Lack of facilities
Scope of disaster
Don't know
Other (please specify)
Page 14 - Heading
COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION
Description
Page 14 - Question 56 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
What is the estimated percentage of your institution’s historical collection that has been processed (arrangement
and/or description of archival collections) or accessioned (museums)?
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
27 of 49
February 15, 2012








None
1-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
Don't know
N/A
Page 14 - Question 57 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
What is the estimated percentage of your collection which is cataloged or indexed either on paper or in a
computer system? (Select one)






None
1-24%
24-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
Page 14 - Question 58 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets) [Up To 8 Answers]
In what formats do you maintain your catalog or index? (select all that apply)









Paper/hard copy
Online system (Integrated Library System/ILS such as SirsiDynix, Endeavor, Follett, Koha, Evergreen)
Cataloging software specific for museum/archives (PastPerfect, Willoughby, Re:discovery/Proficio)
Archival System (ArchiveGrid/Archon)
State/County/Municipal software
Off-the-shelf software (Access, Excel)
No catalog
Don't know
Other (please specify)
Page 14 - Question 59 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
What is the estimated percentage of your catalog or index that is accessible online? (select one)







None
1-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
Don't know
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
28 of 49
February 15, 2012
Page 15 - Heading
Again, for this survey's purposes, conservation is defined as keeping the original item and its related hardware
(software, if needed) so it can be heard and/or seen as it was originally created. Preservation is defined as
retaining the content of the original item, possibly on a different recording medium or using a technology, so the
content is safeguarded and is accessible for future study and use. Select all that apply and whether the tasks are
performed by paid or unpaid staff.
Description
Page 15 - Question 60 - Rating Scale - Matrix
What preservation and conservation activities does your institution currently perform?
Paid Staff
Unpaid Staff/Volunteers
External Provider
Not completed, but planned
Not completed
N/A
Rehousing (e.g., refoldering, reboxing)






M o v i n g
c o l l e c t i o n s






Disaster preparedness and recover y






Care and handling of collections






Preservation reformatting (e.g., preservation photocopying, microfilming)






Preservation management (e.g., administration, planning, assessment)






Collections conservation (e.g., physical treatment)






Contracting for conservation/preservation services






Environmental monitoring






Advocacy / fundraising / grant writin g






Building design / construction / renovation






D i g i t i z a t i o n
i m a g i n g






Preservation of digital files (e.g., databases, web sites, image files)






E
s






mold






Uses preservation-standard storage furniture (e.g., shelving, cabinetry)






x
Pest
h
i
/
b
management
i
t
/
Page 15 - Question 61 - Open Ended - One or More Lines with Prompt
What are the three most serious conservation/preservation problems at your institution?
1. __________________________________________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________________________________________
3. __________________________________________________________________________________
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
29 of 49
February 15, 2012
Page 16 - Heading
DIGITAL COLLECTIONS AND PRACTICES
Description
Page 16 - Question 62 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets) [Up To 7 Answers]
What born digital formats do you collect?








Books
Documents
Newspapers
Photographs
Sound recordings
Video / audio
None
Other (please specify)
Page 16 - Question 63 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets) [Up To 8 Answers]
What type of materials have you converted to digital format?









Books
Documents
Newspapers
Photographs
Sound recordings
Video / audio
2-D and 3-D art
None
Other (please specify)
Page 16 - Question 64 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Do you have a written plan in place for managing these assets for 10 years or more?
 Yes
 No
 Don't know
Page 16 - Question 65 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
How often are backup files created?





Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Don't know
Other (please specify)
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
30 of 49
February 15, 2012
Page 16 - Question 66 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Where are these backup files stored?




Onsite
Offsite
Multiple places
Don't know
Page 16 - Question 67 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Do you provide online access to the content of any of your collections via digital library/archive, online exhibitions,
interactive resources, or finding aids? (select one)
Y
D i g i t a l
n
No, but will have access within next year
N
o
Don't know




E x h i b i t i o n s












I n t e r a c t i v e
i
s
l i b r a r y / a r c h i v e
O n l i n e
F
e
d
i
n
R e s o u r c e s
g
A
i
d
s
Page 17 - Heading
NEEDS AND FUTURE INITIATIVES
Description
Page 17 - Question 68 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Please indicate your institution’s level of need in each of the following areas related to preservation.
N o
n e e d
N
e
e
d
Urgent need
Don't know
N / A
Cataloging or finding aids for collections





Condition assessments/surveys of collections





Staff training in preservation





Patron training in preservatio n















Environmental controls (temperature/humidity)





Preventing
damage





Preservation of digital collection s





S
e
c
u
r
Conservation
MS C2C Final Report
i
t
y
treatment
light
 LYRASIS 
31 of 49
February 15, 2012
Integrated pest management





Emergency preparedness/disaster planning





Collection policy and procedure creation or updating





Page 17 - Question 69 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets) [Up To 3 Answers]
If your institution was able to gain new funding specifically for conservation or preservation over the next three
years, in what areas would you spend it? (select three choices)














Permanent staff
Professional consultant
Staff training
Storage space
Storage supplies and materials
Capital building improvements
Cataloging/inventory
Professional conservation treatment of collection materials
Technology (including hardware and software)
Digitization
Environmental monitoring/control equipment
Fire safety equipment
Don't know
Other (please specify)
Page 18 - Question 70 - Rating Scale - Matrix
On which of the following collection types, if any, does your institution need preservation training?
N o
n e e d
N
e
e
d
Urgent need
Don't know
N / A
Books and Bound Volumes --monographs, serials, newspapers, scrapbooks, albums, pamphlets





Unbound Sheets - archival records, manuscripts, maps, oversized items, ephemera, broadsides, philatelic and numismatic artifacts, other paper artifacts





Photographic Collections--microfilm, microfiche, photographic prints, negatives, slides, transparencies, Daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, tintypes, glass plate negatives, lantern slides





Moving Image Collections --motion picture film, video tape, laser disc, CD, DVD, minidisk





Recorded Sound Collections --cylinder, phonodisc, cassette, open reel tape, DAT, CD, DVD, MP3





Digital Material and Electronic Records Collections --floppy discs, DC-R, DVD-R, data tape, online collections





Art Objects - paintings, prints, drawings, sculpture, decorative arts (including fine metalwork, jewelry, timepieces enamels, ivories, lacquer)





T e x t i l e s / C o n s t u m e s





e





General Objects-metal, glass, toys, etc.





F
u
r
MS C2C Final Report
n
i
t
u
r
 LYRASIS 
32 of 49
February 15, 2012
Archaeological Collections





Natural Science Specimens --zoological, botanical, geological, paleontological, paleobotany specimens





Page 19 - Question 71 - Rating Scale - Matrix
On which of the following preservation topics, if any, does your institution need training?
N o
n e e d
N
e
e
d
Urgent need
Don't know
N / A
Rehousing (e.g., refoldering, reboxing)





Storage furniture (e.g., shelving, cabinetry)





M o v i n g
c o l l e c t i o n s





Disaster preparedness and recover y





Care and handling of collections





Preservation reformatting (e.g., preservation photocopying, microfilming)





Preservation management (e.g., administration, planning, assessment)





Collections conservation (e.g., physical treatment)





Contracting for conservation/preservation services





Environmental monitoring





Advocacy / fundraising / grant writing





Building design / construction / renovation





Digitization (reformatting)





Preservation of born digital files (e.g., databases, web sites, image files)





E
s





mold





x
Pest
h
i
b
management
i
t
/
Page 19 - Question 72 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
What types of preservation training programs, services, and self-studies has your institution participated in over
the past three (3) years? Select all that apply.







Workshops
Online training including Webinars
Assessments/Surveys
Self-paced training workbooks/print tutorials including CD- or DVD-based resources
Mentoring/Site Visits
Conferences/Meetings
DVDs or Television programs
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
33 of 49
February 15, 2012




Peer Advice
None
Other
Don’t know
Page 20 - Question 73 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
What is your institution’s preference for the length of conservation/preservation sessions?






Half a day
One day
Two days
Full week
Don’t know
Other (please specify)
Page 20 - Question 74 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
What barriers, if any, might prevent your institution from sending a staff member to a preservation/conservation
workshop or training course? (Select all that apply)








Training not available in my area
Travel costs
Registration costs
Cannot spare the staff time
Training not necessary at this time
Lack of management support
None
Other (please specify)
Page 21 - Question 75 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
What is the maximum amount you or your employer would be willing to pay to attend a training event on
conservation/preservation (please combine travel costs and tuition)? (please select one)






$0
$1-24
$25-49
$50-99
$100-199
$200-299
Page 21 - Question 76 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets) [Up To 2 Answers]
Which of the following cities would be the most convenient for you in terms of travel to attend a training seminar?
(please choose two)
 Oxford
 Cleveland
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
34 of 49
February 15, 2012







Columbus/Starkville
Jackson
Natchez
Hattiesburg
Gulfport/Biloxi
Tupelo
Southaven
Page 21 - Question 77 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
If a statewide approach was available, what preservation services would your institution use? (please check all
that apply)














Help with general conservation/preservation surveys
Ongoing state support for preservation grants to individual institutions
Assistance with disaster planning and recovery
Loan of environmental monitoring equipment
Place to contact for preservation information
On-site visits by a preservation professional
State sponsored preservation workshops
Disaster recovery (vacuum freeze drying and on-site clean-up)
Preservation / disaster response supplies
Collection storage—including print materials, photographic collections, moving image collections,
recorded sound collections, art objects, historic and ethnographic objects, archaeological collections,
natural science specimens
Collection transportation
Microfilm reformatting
Electronic data storage
Don’t know
Page 22 - Question 78 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Please rate your institution’s level of interest in the following:
Great deal of interest
Some interest
N o i n te r e s t
D o n ' t kn o w
Institute already participates in
Mutual assistance agreements (e.g., disaster response)





Mentoring >>(mentor, protege, both )





Collaborative exhibitions





Collaborative digital collections building





Collaborative grant projects





Setting up a regional special interest group





Shared storage facilities





Shared technical equipment “Train-the-trainer” program





MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
35 of 49
February 15, 2012
Page 22 - Question 79 - Open Ended - Comments Box
Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your conservation / preservation needs? Any comments you
have to help us to improve preservation in Mississippi will be appreciated, either here or in a separate letter.
(optional)
Thank You Page
On behalf of the people and communities of Mississippi, we thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey.
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
36 of 49
February 15, 2012
APPENDIX C:
Mississippi Statewide
Preservation Conference
Agenda
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
37 of 49
February 15, 2012
Mississippi’s
Connecting to Collections
Preservation Conference
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
10:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Mississippi Library Commission
AGENDA
Welcome
 Julia Marks Young, Project Director; Director, Archives & Records Services Division, Mississippi Department
of Archives and History
 Sharman Smith, Executive Director, Mississippi Library Commission
 Barbara Price, Library Consultant, Mississippi Library Commission
Web and Onsite Survey Results
 Tom Clareson, Project Consultant; Senior Consultant for Digital & Preservation Services LYRASIS Mid-Atlantic
 Linda Overman, Project Consultant; Southern Preservation Services
Break
Facilitated Discussion on Next Steps
Lunch – approximately 12:15-1:15
Concurrent Sessions #1
 Connecting to Collections Through the Mississippi Digital Library
Diane de Caesare Ross, University of Southern Mississippi
 Preservation on a Shoestring Budget
Robin Person, Historic Jefferson College, MDAH
Break
Concurrent Sessions #2
 Another One? Preparing and Reacting to Disasters
Jennifer Brannock, University of Southern Mississippi
Jennifer Rose, Sunflower County Public Library
 Preservation Grant Writing Tips and Resources
Tom Clareson, LYRASIS
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
38 of 49
February 15, 2012
Conference Wrap-up & Action Items
Funding for this project is provided by the Institute of Museum and Library Services
and the Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
39 of 49
February 15, 2012
APPENDIX D:
Mississippi Statewide
Preservation Conference
Discussion Group Report
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
40 of 49
February 15, 2012
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 27, 2012
TO:
Julia Marks Young, Mississippi Department of Archives and History
FROM:
Tom Clareson, Senior Consultant, Digital & Preservation Services, LYRASIS
SUBJECT:
Mississippi Connecting to Collections Conference Discussion Group Summary
I am including below two sets of results from the Facilitated Discussion Sessions at the Mississippi Connecting to
Collections Statewide Preservation Conference held in Jackson on January 25, 2012. The first section of the document
represents the discussion group ideas that received six or more “votes” from participants as preservation initiatives
that should be advanced in Mississippi in the future. The second section lists the complete sets of ideas from each of
the six discussion groups. Please let me know if you need further information on any aspect of the results reported in
this document. The discussion groups came up with a wide variety of excellent ideas!
Top Ideas from Conference (received six or more votes)






Environmental Control
o Target those who run the systems
o Monitoring and Partnering for Environmental Control
Collections Storage
o Educate higher-ups on storage needs
Collection Inventory
o Help with collection development policies
o Help choosing inventory software(s)
o Help establishing an inventory process
Preservation Education
o Identify experts/Speakers’ Bureau
o Webinars/distance training
Digitization
o Shared information on outsourcing/vendors
o Grants
o Education
o Standards/Policies
o Maintenance
Grant Needs for:
o Inventory
o Assessment
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
41 of 49
February 15, 2012


o Consulting by experts
o Grant training
o Supplies
Preservation Policies and Information
Disaster Planning and Preparedness
DISCUSSION GROUP NOTES
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

Education
o Good temps/humidity for what collections
o Work with those who run the systems “in the know”
o Learn about good tools for monitoring

Mentoring and Partnering, with organizations including IMLS, Society of Mississippi Archivists, Mississippi
department of Archives and History, LYRASIS, the Archival Training Collaborative, NEH

Strong support from Administration – make sure they understand why to keep HVAC running

Regional Consortiums focused on environmental control to support mentoring/partnering

Learn about ways to offset costs to purchase environmental systems. Doing an energy survey/audit can save
money, and that makes sense to administration.

Work with Consultants on environmental control issues

The success of working together and documenting environmental conditions will lead us to be able to create a
trending document to help us prepare for seasonal changes.

Understanding environmental factors will help us lay out storage better.

A concern -- If we can’t do this through a grant, will it happen? Consider offering Professional Development
Credits or CEU Credits.
COLLECTION STORAGE
CONCERNS AND SOLUTIONS
CONCERNS:
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
42 of 49
February 15, 2012


Not enough:
o $$$$$$
o Staff
o Design not suitable
o Materials housed in Acidic boxes
o Location
o Security
o Environmental conditions (light, humidity, pests, etc.)
o Lack of proper training
o Lack of weeding or de-selection policies (depending on institute type)
o Specialized storage for specific formats
o Access
o Off-site storage
Need for a different building?
SOLUTIONS:















Educate higher-ups on storage needs and standards
Grants and other outside funding
New facility, expansion, renovation
Collaborative storage space and/or supplies
Interns, volunteers, student workers
Regulate your institution’s environment – monitor & evaluate
Take advantage of training opportunities
Carefully examine your Collection Policy
Needs assessment (specific supplies, boxes, etc.) (could use for fundraising)
Digitization to help with access and security
Consultants to survey space design
Preservation
o workshops
o collaborative
o statewide network
o Use policies to address security
o Access to secure storage areas
o Educate staff and administrators
o Security system (cameras, alarms)
Inventory (know what you have and where it is)
Labels to help know what is there
More shelving
DIGITIZATION
o
o
o
o
o
o
Develop selection criteria for digitization
Shared information on outsourcing/vendor
Grants
Education
Standards/policies
Maintenance of digital materials
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
43 of 49
February 15, 2012
o
Backup strategies
GRANTS & FUNDRAISING
GRANTS NEEDS:
o
o
o
o
o
Inventory
Assessment
Consulting by expert
Grant-writing training
Supplies
o
Need networking system
o
Work with:
o Society of Mississippi Archivists
o MLC
o MDAH
COLLECTION INVENTORY
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
It’s the 1st step in the preservation process
Is there a one stop single source resource? (eg., listserv, etc)
Need simplified guides for training
Need help setting priorities
Improvements in these areas helps with collection development policies
Institutions need help choosing inventory software
Need helps establishing an inventory process
PRESERVATION EDUCATION
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Identify “experts” to be speakers, consultants to local grants
Speakers bureau grants
Look to webinars, distance training on needs (Issues?) (but still a lot of need for hands on training)
A concern: the historical lack of attendance for “asked for” training
Training program for training our replacements
Provide internships
Arrange certifications for training
Friends groups may be able to supply speakers or sponsor/pay for programs
MDAH available to consult on preservation issues
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
44 of 49
February 15, 2012
APPENDIX E:
Mississippi Statewide
Preservation Conference
Evaluations and Comments
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
45 of 49
February 15, 2012
Mississippi’s Connecting to Collections Preservation Conference
January 25, 2012
EVALUATION
Circle the appropriate number consistent with the rating of each question. 5 is the highest value.
1. The content of the conference:
Low
High
was valuable
1
2
3
4 (6)
5 (25)
was current and relevant
1
2
3
4 (6)
5 (26)
Comments:
1. Great for all of us from different “worlds” to get in one room. Very beneficial!
2. Really good information
3. Exactly what I hoped to learn
4. The preservation on a budget session really made me re-evaluate how I can substitute resources and save money.
Very helpful.
2. The instructor(s):
Low
High
was/were knowledgeable
1
2
3
4 (2)
5 (29)
had good presentation skills
1
2
3
4 (4)
5 (28)
encouraged participation
1
2
3 (1)
4 (6)
5 (25)
Comments:
1. It would have been nice to have copies of the power point presentation (on digitization).
2. All were knowledgeable and very helpful.
3. Too much too fast – needed all handouts from powerpoint would be helpful
4. Well-prepared
3. The resources and handouts:
Low
High
followed course content
1
2
3 (1)
4 (6)
5 (24)
are valuable for future reference
1
2
3 (1)
4 (7)
5 (23)
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
46 of 49
February 15, 2012
are helpful to me
1
2
3 (1)
4 (6)
5 (24)
Comments:
1. Jennifer Brannock gave us a list of supplies to have in case of disasters.
4. The facility:
Low
High
was comfortable
1
2
3
4 (6)
5 (26)
was well arranged
1
2
3
4 (3)
5 (29)
had appropriate equipment
1
2
3
4 (3)
5 (29)
Comments:
1. Wonderful facility
2. Lovely & comfortable environment
3. Slightly cold, chairs hard
4. COLD! Cold
5. Nice facility
5. Overall, the workshop:
Low
High
was excellent
1
2
3
4 (3)
5 (29)
addressed my level and needs
1
2
3
4 (6)
5 (26)
Comments:
1. Extremely informative
2. Learned a lot of good sources to pursue.
3, Really enjoyed it!
How will you benefit from this conference when you return to your workplace?
1. Review info that will provide the assistance of developing a digitization system.
2. I’ll share the digitization info with colleagues and might be able to save money by contacting Jeane Ross’ for advise
on digitizing rather than going through distance learning.
3. Will help me in developing a disaster plan and putting together a disaster kit. Also session on digitization will help me
in beginning this process.
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
47 of 49
February 15, 2012
4. More prepared for emergency situations. Good suggestions on preparing to digitize.
5. Feel better equipped to tackle grant writing endeavors.
6. This workshop has helped me to take the information learned and apply it to my everyday routine.
7. Good, practical advice and learned a lot about upcoming opportunities
8. Grant info, inexpensive shortcuts, etc. Preservation techniques.
9. Will definitely be able to save money when it comes to buying supplies for our collection preservation.
10. Hopefully we’ll be able to get a grant application put together by May 1.
11. Grants, collaborating – excited about what I can do!
12. Be more knowledgeable and capable of applying for grants and start preservation, conservation, and/or digitization
efforts.
13. I will be more informed.
14. Will use info to continue to develop archives, special collections, and digital collection for a small community
college.
15. Assist in planning for funding and looking for collaborators
16. Plan a disaster and restoration plan.
17. Begin grant writing.
18. Greatly needed in our system and throughout state.
19. Do an inventory; write a grant.
20. Will be able to implement several concepts introduced today.
21. Some ideas for possible grant proposals.
22. Better resources.
23. Grants, consultants available
24. Gave me lots of ideas towards grants and saving money at my institution.
General comments and suggestions to improve this training experience:
1. Great training! Good to connect/network with folks from other MS museums and libraries.
2. More handouts! like the power point presentation
3. It was Great!
4. Additional concurrent sessions in lieu of small discussion period. Found concurrent sessions very informative.
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
48 of 49
February 15, 2012
5. Should be held more than one day because there were so many elements to discuss. Maybe have training a little
longer. It was 10 til 3; maybe 9-4.
6. Please send grant writing power point by email to brgen@cmrls.lib.ms.us
7. Great lunch, too!
8. Annual
9. Thank you!
10. Excellent day – well spent.
What topics would you suggest for future events?
1. The beginning steps in starting digitalization.
2. Digitization education.
3. IP rights and ownership
4. More digitization
5. Standards/policies for digitization; preservation education
6. Liked idea presented of a “hands on” (how to) type workshop for preserving materials.
7. I would love to have a workshop that not only talks about grants but gives you time to write one or flush out the idea!
8. Sample grants
9. Want MS to be part of webjunction – can set up list serves through that and have online collaboration
10. Success stories
11. Advocacy of historical institutions to funders such as city & state government, board of trustees & private.
MS C2C Final Report
 LYRASIS 
49 of 49
February 15, 2012