Balancing Priorities: Collections vs Community

In a report now 14 years old, the Heritage Health Index (HHI) completed the first survey of the nation’s cultural health. Heritage Preservation, in partnership with the Institute of Museum and Library Services, surveyed hundreds of institutions in the United States and Territories to document the condition of the country’s physical and digital resources. Libraries and historic societies are repeatedly listed as the worst offenders whether it be the lack of paid conservators or the absence of an emergency preparedness plan to protect collections (see graphs for some examples from the report)

Rather than enumerate all the report’s specific findings, I want to talk about why libraries and historic societies are the least prepared or proactive in the health of their collections.

Reason Number One: A Devalued Resource

Consider this quote from the HHI report:

“Individuals at all levels of government and in the private sector must assume responsibility for providing the support that will allow these collections to survive.”

To survive, historic societies are mainly supported by private boards or foundations. City or state libraries obviously operate with government funds, but do not receive enough funding to maintain their collections, staff, and public programs at the same time without the help of a private trust. Additionally, I doubt government officials see historic artifacts and book collections as public intellectual property. Governments do not fund cultural institutions properly since they do not understand their responsibility as officials representing the people of their districts.

Reason Number Two: Different Priorities

This one relates specifically to libraries rather than historic societies: An archive and a library seemingly serve the same function, right? However, which type of institution is more accessible to the community? Typically, a library collaborates with and provides services for a broad audience, while archives generally serve a more exclusive, academic public. Libraries prioritize public engagement over collections, so obviously they do not spend what little funds they have on preservation. In the interest of full disclosure, I think that education and interpretation should be prioritized over preservation, but obviously, when neglecting to maintain longevity of the resources, libraries are explicitly neglecting their commitment to the community. Preservation ensures the life of the collection, but what good is a collection that stays locked away?

This report illuminates the precarious position of the nation’s resources (as of 14 years ago), so what do you suggest? As a board member or curator, how would you balance your insanely small budget to maintain collections while also ensuring that they’d be shared and interpreted for your audience?