| funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services | |
 |
Why do we need it?
Georgia needs a comprehensive view of collections care in the state. Only 54 collecting institutions in Georgia completed the Heritage Health Index survey. Data from these repositories—estimated to represent only 22% of Georgia’s repositories—cannot be considered comprehensive and may not be representative (a preponderance of the respondents represent major or large institutions).
This project will extract a limited number of questions from the HHI survey, add additional questions, and provide a more comprehensive look at collections care among the state’s ALMHs. The partners represent all major ALMH associations and agencies in the state and, as a result, anticipate a much higher percentage of participation in this survey than in the HHI.
Georgia needs improved disaster planning throughout the state. The HHI found that 80 percent of collecting institutions do not have a disaster plan or staff trained to carry it out. This statistic is of particular concern in Georgia, a state vulnerable to a host of potential disasters. Although Georgia has not suffered a direct hit from a major hurricane in the 20th century, it was hit by six major hurricanes in the 19th century including a Category 4 in 1898. Georgia is subject to damage from tropical storms and depressions that can impact the entire state and produce tornados and flooding. Georgia ranks in the top 15 states in relation to the number of tornados reported each year. The most destructive natural disaster this century was inland flooding from Tropical Storm Alberto in 1994.
Institutional data provided by the various partners will be entered into the Historical Organizations and Resources Directory , an online resource housed on the Georgia Archives web server. Once entered in the Directory, a repository has password-protected access to their Directory entry and may update its information at will. In addition, the Directory entry includes two vital elements related to emergency planning: (1) participants may enter private contact information, such as personal cell phone numbers and email addresses that Archives staff can access in the event of an emergency. If, for instance, the historical records repositories in Savannah are evacuated under a hurricane threat, the Directory provides information needed to contact staff. This information is hidden and is not available to the general public. And (2) the address information in the Directory is being used to map repositories in a GIS system that is provided to the state’s Emergency Management Agency. This information allows GEMA personnel to pinpoint historical repositories in the event of an emergency.
Georgia needs a way to measure its movement toward improved collections care. One goal of the survey is to create several (perhaps four or five) self-assessment steps on which each institution can gauge its position as regards collections care (see “The Planning Process,” below). By means of this self-assessment the state’s ALMH leaders can ‘grade’ the state’s progress toward better collections care, plan the training and assistance to intentionally move repositories from one step to the next, and provide incentives for repositories to move from one step to another.
Georgia needs to raise the visibility of collecting repositories. Finally, Georgia’s ALMHs are an underutilized resource in a state where tourism is a major industry. The same mapping capabilities described above (under disaster planning) can be used to encourage visits to ALMHs by Georgia residents and tourists. Higher visibility will improve collections care by increasing income to some repositories and by raising the awareness—and, thereby, the support—of state and local officials of the value of ALMHs to Georgia communities.