For more information, please contact:
Christine Di Bella
Archivist and Project Director
PACSCL Consortial Survey Initiative
The Historical Society of Pennsylvania
1300 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
phone: 215-732-6200, ext. 201
email: cdibella@hsp.org
Collaborative Backlog Assessment:
The PACSCL Consortial Survey Initiative
Project overview
The Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special Collections Libraries (PACSCL) Consortial Survey Initiative
is a 30-month project, funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, to assess backlogged archival
collections in 22 Philadelphia area institutions. Using a survey instrument adapted from The Historical
Society of Pennsylvania’s model, the three-person project team and staff from participating institutions are
assessing unprocessed, underprocessed and underdescribed collections in a range of physical formats.
This project represents the first time the assessment model has been applied broadly across a range of
types of archives, libraries, and museums.
The project is part of PACSCL's Greater Philadelphia Research Collections Network, a set of initiatives
that will allow researchers, students, and lifelong learners to explore and engage with the rich
documentary resources of the Philadelphia region, fostering scholarship and education, community
awareness, heritage tourism development, and regional economic growth.
Purpose
To assist with planning and prioritization of collections-related work within individual institutions and
across the consortium.
To improve intellectual access to unprocessed and underprocessed collections by making collection-level
records available to the public through a variety of means.
Preliminary results and “unexpected” benefits
Survey method
Done in teams of two or more people. The project staff includes two full-time surveyors and staff from
participating institutions are encouraged to be involved. Project staff hold regular group training sessions for
participants to familiarize them with the method and allow them to do some hands-on surveying before the
surveyors begin onsite.
Look through boxes, volumes and other collection materials to determine physical arrangement and condition;
look through enough to get a good sense of the content of the collection, including subject matter, themes,
depth of coverage, and document genres.
Review and assess existing intellectual access tools, such as donor/control folders, inventories, catalog
records/cards, and finding aids, in terms of how well they provide access to the collection.
Verify and revise titles, dates, extents and other components of archival description as needed.
Discuss and achieve consensus to assign ratings (scale of 1-5) to different physical and intellectual
characteristics: condition of material, quality of housing, physical access, intellectual access, interest and
documentation quality. Interest and documentation quality are combined to form Research Value Rating (RVR)
(scale of 2-10). Document rationale for ratings in note field.
Write or flesh out bio/historical notes, scope and content notes, and apply subject headings.
Record all information in survey database. (Surveyors usually work on laptops so they can survey in the same
physical location as the collections.)
Background research and discussions with staff at participating institutions inform the process.
Pennsylvania Horticultural Society
Philadelphia Museum of Art
Presbyterian Historical Society
Rosenbach Museum & Library
Swarthmore College
Free Library of Philadelphia
The Historical Society of Pennsylvania
Library Company of Philadelphia
Union League of Philadelphia
University of Pennsylvania
Wagner Free Institute of Science
Collections surveyors
John Armstrong and Jenny Barr
at work at the
Academy of Natural Sciences,
August 2007
Selected predecessors and professional context
Historical Society of Pennsylvania (2000-2002) – Surveyed entire archival holdings; basis for a
complete revitalization of Archives department and multiple large processing grants. Direct parent to
this project (Assistant Project Director Rachel Onuf serves on steering committee, as does president
emeritus David Moltke-Hansen, who developed the original methodology.)
Columbia University (2003-2004) – Three campus libraries participated. Adapted HSP methodology
with a preservation focus and added the concept of institutional value.
ARL’s “Hidden Collections” initiative (2001-2006) – Backlogs are pervasive in research libraries.
Detrimental to our reputation with donors, funders, researchers, and other stakeholders. Consider new
approaches to cataloging and processing.
Greene and Meissner’s “More Product, Less Process” (published in American Archivist in 2005) –
Heavy emphasis on doing the minimum physical and descriptive work necessary in order for
collections to be available to researchers more quickly.
NHPRC changes in guidelines for processing grants (2007) – The survey work gives institutions a
framework for conducting the work for Basic Processing projects and, once performed, to meet the
control and access criteria needed to apply for Detailed Processing projects.
Distribution of
Intellectual Access Ratings
(as of August 24, 2007)
(as of August 24, 2007)
9%
2%
12%
0%
Distribution of
Research Value Ratings
(as of August 24, 2007)
1%
2%
8%
11%
5%
16%
5
4
3
29%
2
10%
5
4
7
6
16%
2
1
1
3
27%
17%
Physical access ratings indicate that 77% of the collections surveyed to this point have either established
series or rough arrangement by type or subject, while the bulk of the collections (79%) were
characterized as having poor or no intellectual access. This indicates that many of these collections are
good candidates for preliminary public collection records which will improve intellectual access and
simultaneously minimize the impact on staff who prepare collections for use by researchers.
In addition to the typical benefits associated with surveying, one institution has essentially “processed”
over 100 small collections by using the survey data to retrospectively accession them and using the
survey description as the archival description that will be made available to researchers in finding aids.
Two institutions have already used the data to plan intern and volunteer projects, including projects for
archives graduate students from Temple University program.
Eight institutions have gained better intellectual control over their own institutional records.
Highlights from the backlogs of Philadelphia archives
and special collections
Correspondence, reports, newsletters, and writings of a World War II conscientious objector.
Records of a pioneering mail order nursery and rose hybridization company.
Over forty-five years’ worth of detailed daily diaries from a Bryn Mawr faculty wife.
Comprehensive records of one of Philadelphia’s most historic cemeteries.
Papers of two Nobel prize-winning chemists and one Nobel prize-winning virologist.
Family papers for one of Philadelphia’s most prominent Jewish families.
Extensive photographic documentation of the country’s oldest and largest flower show.
Future plans
Complete surveying at the remaining 10 institutions.
Analyze data in order to develop priorities for institutional and consortial grant projects.
Migrate data to more robust application – possible multi-institution implementation of Archivists’ Toolkit.
Disseminate information about the project and tools more widely, including project-end conference
in Fall 2008
Find out more
Project website: http://www.pacsclsurvey.org
Project blog: http://pacsclsurvey.blogspot.com
Public interface for survey database: http://www.pacsclsurvey.org/search.html
5
4
21%
Many institutions have found collections related to their own in others’ backlogs, paving the way for future
collaboration and researcher referrals.
•Developed in FileMaker Pro and
accessible to participants via FileMaker
client or web browser. Project participants
have access to assessment data about
each other’s collections.
•Separate web interface allows researchers
to view archival descriptions for selected
collections.
•Collection-level description fields have
been designed to map to MARC and we
use DACS as the content standard.
•Crosswalks from MARC to other metadata
standards facilitate use of information
towards the creation of other metadata
outputs.
•Capabilities for exporting collection-level
MARC, EAD, HTML and PDF, to assist
institutions in integrating into access
strategies for processed collections.
•More information on descriptive
components of the project available in SAA
Description Expo.
9
8
14%
3
52%
48%
10
Several institutions have achieved better physical control of their records, including updated location lists.
Survey database
The Sites of the PACSCL Consortial Survey Initiative
Distribution of
Physical Access Ratings
Research value ratings have been distributed throughout the scale, with the highest proportion occurring
at the mid-level of the scale (4, 5 and 6). Highly rated collections may be singled out for immediate
attention or form the centerpieces of institutional or collaborative projects, while lower rated collections
may be most appropriate for grouping into projects by theme or format.
Participants
Academy of Natural Sciences
American Philosophical Society
Athenaeum of Philadelphia
Bryn Mawr College
Chemical Heritage Foundation
College of Physicians of Philadelphia
Haverford College
Independence Seaport Museum
Temple University
University of Delaware
Villanova University
As of August 24, 2007, we have surveyed 885 collections totaling over 6,200 linear feet in 12 institutions.
(12 months of surveying; 14 months remain)
2