Status of Technology and Digitization

in the Nation’s Museums and Libraries

January 2006
Table of Contents 

Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1

Resources ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Conferences.............................................................................................................................................. 4

Key Findings.............................................................................................................................................. 5

Technology Use......................................................................................................................................... 5

Digitization Activities................................................................................................................................. 6

Background and Methodology................................................................................................................. 9

Background to the Study.......................................................................................................................... 9

Purpose of the Survey and Survey Development.................................................................................... 9

Sampling Methods..................................................................................................................................10

Conducting the Survey............................................................................................................................11

Response Rate and Validity ...................................................................................................................12

Definitions ...............................................................................................................................................12

Museums ................................................................................................................................................. 14

1. Museum Overview..............................................................................................................................14

1.1 Technology overview ...................................................................................................................14

1.2 Digitization overview ...................................................................................................................15

2. Museum Size Analyses......................................................................................................................16

2.1 Demographics .............................................................................................................................17

2.2 Technology...................................................................................................................................18

2.3 Digitization ...................................................................................................................................23

3. Comparisons of the 2001 and the 2004 Survey Findings..............................................................32

3.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................32

3.2 Top Technologies Used ...............................................................................................................33

3.3 Funding for Technology and Digitization....................................................................................34

3.4 Sources of Funding for Technology ............................................................................................35

3.5 Sources of Funding for Digitization Activities ............................................................................35

3.6 Digitization Policies .....................................................................................................................36

3.7 Top Goals for Digitization Projects .............................................................................................37

Chapter 1. Public Libraries.................................................................................................................... 38

1. Public Library Overview .....................................................................................................................38

1.1 Technology Overview...................................................................................................................38

1.2 Digitization Overview...................................................................................................................39

2. Public Library size analyses ..............................................................................................................41

2.1 Demographics .............................................................................................................................41

2.2 Technology...................................................................................................................................43

2.3 Digitization ...................................................................................................................................47

3. Comparisons of the 2001 and the 2004 survey findings...............................................................55

3.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................55

3.2 Top Technologies Used ...............................................................................................................56

3.3 Funding for Technology and Digitization....................................................................................56

3.4 Sources of Funding for Technology ............................................................................................57

3.5 Sources of Funding for Digitization Activities ............................................................................57

3.6 Digitization Policies .....................................................................................................................58

3.7 Top Goals for Digitization Projects .............................................................................................59
Academic Libraries ................................................................................................................................. 61

1. Academic library Overview................................................................................................................61

1.1 Technology Overview...................................................................................................................61

1.2 Digitization Overview...................................................................................................................62

2. Academic library size analyses.........................................................................................................64

2.1 Demographics .............................................................................................................................64

2.2 Technology...................................................................................................................................66

2.3 Digitization ...................................................................................................................................69

3. Comparisons of the 2001 and the 2004 survey findings...............................................................78

3.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................78

3.2 Top Technologies Used ...............................................................................................................78

3.3 Funding for Technology and Digitization....................................................................................79

3.4 Sources of Funding for Technology ............................................................................................80

3.5 Sources of Funding for Digitization Activities ............................................................................80

3.6 Digitization Policies .....................................................................................................................81

3.7 Top Goals for Digitization Projects .............................................................................................82

Archives ................................................................................................................................................... 83

1. Archives Overview..............................................................................................................................83

1.1 Technology Overview...................................................................................................................83

1.2 Digitization ...................................................................................................................................83

2. Archives size analyses .......................................................................................................................86

1.1 Demographics .............................................................................................................................86

2.2 Technology...................................................................................................................................88

2.3 Digitization ...................................................................................................................................92

State Library Administrative Agencies................................................................................................101

1. SLAA Overview ................................................................................................................................ 101

1.1 Technology Overview................................................................................................................ 101

1.2 Digitization Overview................................................................................................................ 101

2. SLAA analyses................................................................................................................................. 104

2.1 Demographics .......................................................................................................................... 104

2.2 Technology................................................................................................................................ 105

2.3 Digitization ................................................................................................................................ 108

3. Comparisons of the 2001 AND the 2004 survey findings........................................................... 118

3.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................... 118

3.2 Top Technologies Used ............................................................................................................ 119

3.3 Funding for Technology and Digitization................................................................................. 119

3.4 Sources of Funding for Technology ......................................................................................... 120

3.5 Sources of Funding for Digitization Activities ......................................................................... 121

3.6 Digitization Policies .................................................................................................................. 121

3.7 Top Goals for Digitization Projects .......................................................................................... 122

Afterword: Post-Survey Discussions with the Constituent Communities.........................................124

Summary of the Participants’ Comments and Suggestions............................................................ 124

Appendix: Survey Instruments .............................................................................................................126
Introduction 

The Institute of Museum and Library Services is committed to helping libraries and museums 

take full advantage of the power of technology. Through grantmaking, research, conferences, 

and publications the Institute helps to create and share best practices and provide important 

data for administrators, policy makers, and the public. 

As part of its mandate to analyze needs and trends of museum and library services, the 

Institute is pleased to present the 2004 survey on the use of technology and digitization in the 

nation’s libraries and museums. 

The use of technology and particularly digital technology has affected nearly every aspect of 

library and museum services, from the automation of internal cataloging and management 

systems to the digitization of physical collections, and from the acquisition of new “borndigital” works of art and library publications to the use of technology to present collections 

and engage audiences. 

Digital technology enables the full range of holdings in our museums, libraries, and 

archives—audio, video, print, photographs, artworks, artifacts, and other resources—to be 

cataloged, organized, combined, and made accessible to audiences in new ways. It provides 

the public with new pathways to access museum and library collections and brings them 

“face-to-face” electronically with librarians, curators, scientists, artists, and scholars. By using 

technology, rich scientific, historical, aesthetic, and cultural resources can be presented with 

contextual information that enhances educational value. 

In 2001, the Institute conducted the first-ever study of the status of new technology adoption 

and digitization in the nation’s museums and libraries (see 

http://www.imls.gov/publications/TechDig02). The baseline study identified pockets of 

digitization activity and planning that were making library and museum collections widely 

available. While gaps existed between large and small institutions, basic technologies had 

found their way into a majority of libraries and museums. 

This second study seeks to dig deeper and find out more about how and why our cultural 

institutions use technology and digitize their collections. It explores barriers as well as 

capacity and planning issues. 

The 2004 survey was conducted among five groups: museums, public libraries, academic 

libraries, archives, and state library administrative agencies. This survey report tells us 

statistically about the kinds of technology in use, the extent of digitization activities, and the 

adoption, maintenance, funding of, and staffing for technology and digitization activities at 

museums and libraries. 

After the survey data was analyzed and the draft report prepared, the Institute held facilitated 

telephone discussions among individuals who represent the five survey groups. They used the 

survey to explore what’s next and identify some high-priority issues that can help the cultural 

1
community continue to move forward. The summary or participants’ comments and 

suggestions can be found in the Afterword. 

The Institute of Museum and Library Services will use the survey results to inform staff, 

shape programs, and raise awareness of stakeholders. We encourage you to read, discuss, and 

share this survey report. It provides important insights about technology and digitization 

trends and developments, and the needs of the nation’s libraries, museums, archives, and state 

library administrative agencies. 

2
The Institute of Museum and Library Services Support for 

Technology and Digitization 

Resources

Resources related to digitization activities are also listed in the Digital Corner 

(http://www.imls.gov/digitalcorner). Essential resources from the Digital Corner include the 

following: 

IMLS Digital Collections Registry: http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/collections

A registry of all digital collections developed with IMLS support. 

Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections: 

http://www.niso.org/framework/Framework2.html

The framework identifies principles of good practice and current standards in four areas: 

collections, digital objects, metadata, and digital projects. The framework was developed with 

IMLS support and is maintained by the National Information Standards Organization. 

Report of the IMLS Digital Library Forum: 

http://www.imls.gov/publications/2001heritage.shtm

In the spring of 2001, IMLS supported a Digital Library Forum to discuss the implementation 

and management of networked digital libraries, including issues of infrastructure, metadata, 

thesauri and other vocabularies, and content enrichment such as curriculum materials and 

teacher guides. 

Assessment of End-User Needs in IMLS-Funded Digitization Projects: 

http://www.imls.gov/pdf/userneedsassessment.pdf 

IMLS commissioned a study of the needs-assessment practices used in digitization projects. 

Report of the Workshop on Opportunities for Research on the Creation, Management, 

Preservation and Use of Digital Content: http://www.imls.gov/pdf/digitalopp.pdf 

The University of Florida, Florida Center for Library Automation, convened a workshop in 

March 2003 to assess research needs related to digital cultural content. This report 

summarizes the results of the workshop and suggests useful areas for research. 

2002 Status of Technology and Digitization in the Nation's Museums and Libraries: 

http://www.imls.gov/publications/TechDig02 

This is a study of the use of technology and digitization activities in libraries and museums 

nationwide. 

Digital Resources for Cultural Heritage: A Strategic Assessment Workshop on Current 

Status and Future Needs: http://www.imls.gov/pdf/LibraryBrochure.pdf 

This report and recommendations stem from an Institute-sponsored workshop of 63 specialists 

from 26 states representing libraries, museums, archives, higher education institutions, public 

broadcasting, research consortia, public and private funding organizations, and service 

3
providers. The report assesses progress and plans for the development and use of digital 

cultural resources. 

Conferences 

WebWise is a signature initiative of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Each year 

it brings together representatives and thought leaders from museums, libraries, archives, 

systems science, and other fields interested in the future of high-quality online content for 

inquiry and education. The focus of each annual conference is on sharing the latest research 

and innovations in digital technology, exploring their potential impacts on library and 

museum services, and promoting effective museum and library collaborations in the digital 

environment. The conference also provides IMLS grant recipients the opportunity to 

showcase exemplary projects. 

• WebWise 2006 - Inspiring Discover, Unlocking Collections. February 2006 

• WebWise 2005 - Teaching and Learning with Digital Resources. February 2005 

• WebWise 2004 - Sharing Digital Resources. March 2004 

• WebWise 2003 - Sustaining Digital Resources. February 2003 

• WebWise 2002 - Building Digital Communities. March 2002 

• WebWise 2001 - The Digital Divide: A Conference on Libraries and Museums in the 

Digital World. February 2001 

• WebWise 2000 - A conference on libraries and museums in the digital world. 

February 2000 

IMLS grant programs that fund technology and digitization projects 

• National Leadership Grants 

• Museums for America 

• Native American Library Services: Enhancement Grants 

• Native Hawaiian Library Services 

• Native American/Native Hawaiian Museum Services Program 

• Grants to State Library Administrative Agencies 

For complete information on all of IMLS’s grant programs, visit the Applicants section of the 

IMLS Web site. 

To read about some successful IMLS-funded projects that involve technology or digitization 

activities, visit the Project Profiles section of the IMLS Web site. 

In order to properly merge and articulate these core assets, an acquisition statement outlining 

the information architecture, leading to a racheting up of convergence across the organic 

platform is an opportunity without precedent in current applicability transactional modeling. 

Implementing these goals requires a careful examination to encompass an increasing complex 

out sourcing disbursement to ensure the extant parameters are not exceeded while focusing on 

infrastructure cohesion. 

4
Key Findings 

Technology Use

Small museums and public libraries have made dramatic progress, although they still 

lag behind their larger counterparts.

The extent of implementation and use of technologies in museums, public libraries, academic 

libraries, and all state library administrative agencies increased from the 2001 survey to the 

one conducted in 2004. The most dramatic increases are in small museums and public 

libraries, more of which have implemented basic office technologies and Web sites. Archives, 

which were not surveyed in 2001, report high percentages of basic and some advanced 

technologies in use. 

• The use of essential office technologies (e-mail, office productivity software, and 

desktop computers) is pervasive among state library administrative agencies, large 

archives, museums, public libraries, and academic libraries. Small museums and 

public libraries have expanded their use of basic technologies since the 2001 survey, 

but still lag behind the larger institutions. 

• Internet connectivity is pervasive among all groups, with broadband connections 

predominant over modem connections, except among smaller institutions. Institutional 

Web sites are prevalent among institutions in all groups. Use of institutional Web sites 

has increased in small museums and public libraries since the 2001 survey, but these 

institutions still lag behind medium and large institutions. 

Libraries and museums are putting services and activities online to manage their 

institutions and provide enhanced public service.

Newer technologies that use Internet-based and other kinds of online services and activities 

are being widely implemented among all groups. 

• New technologies include broadband Internet connections, which are easing out 

modem Internet connections; online catalogs of collections and holdings; local area 

networks (LANs); intranets; wireless networks; meta- or federated searching in online 

collections and catalogs; and software to manage public access computers and 

printing. 

Insufficient funding and staff time are barriers to implementing technology.

Lack of sufficient funding and staff time limit the ability of institutions in all groups to 

implement technologies that will enable them to fully meet their missions. 

• Technology funds were available to at least a majority of the members of each group 

over the last 12 months. When asked about the percentage of technology needs that are 

met by current technology funding, at least a majority of archives, academic libraries, 

5
public libraries, and state library administrative agencies report that they have 

adequate funding. However, almost two-thirds of museums, 31 percent of archives, 50 

percent of large academic libraries, and the majority of small public libraries say their 

technology is less than adequately funded. 

• Institutions among all groups report that they can maintain technologies currently in 

use, but they have less confidence in their ability to add new technologies to meet 

evolving needs. 

• Technology capacity (equipment, software, connectivity, skills and expertise) to meet 

institutional missions is more prevalent among state library administrative agencies, 

public libraries, and academic libraries. The majority of museums and archives report 

that they have the technology capacity to meet or almost meet their mission. However, 

more than two-thirds of institutions among all the groups reported that they do not 

have enough skilled staff to accomplish their technology objectives. 

Assessment of user and visitor needs is strongest among academic libraries and state 

library administrative agencies and weak among other groups.

• Almost half of academic libraries and state library administrative agencies conduct 

assessments of user and visitor needs. 

• The percentage of public libraries, archives, and museums that conduct them is 25 

percent or less. 

Digitization Activities 

Digitization activities have increased for all groups, with state library administrative 

agencies and archives leading the way.

Between 2001 and 2004, digitization activities increased in museums, academic libraries, 

state library administrative agencies, and public libraries. State library administrative agencies 

and archives reported more digitization activity in 2004 than other groups. 

• Institutions in all of the groups are digitizing materials and objects, though some 

groups are more active than others. When asked about materials and images digitized 

over the past 12 months, archives were the most active in terms of the percentage that 

digitized. Large numbers of museums and state library administrative agencies also 

digitized materials during that period. Nearly half of academic libraries were engaged 

in digitization, as were about one-third of large public libraries. No digitization 

activities took place in one-fifth of state library administrative agencies and museums, 

more than one-third of academic libraries, and more than three-quarters of small and 

medium public libraries. 

While more institutions have digitization policies in place than was the case in 2001, 

many institutions that are digitizing do not have digitization policies.

6
The extent of digitization policies in place has increased since the first survey. However, 

while many institutions are digitizing items and materials, most do not have policies in place 

for digitization activities. 

• More that three-quarters of state library administrative agencies and archives, the 

majority of museums and large academic libraries, and one-third of large public 

libraries make their digital images available to the public. Lower percentages of small 

and medium academic and public libraries make their images public. Access to digital 

images via the Web is the predominant method, though many institutions also provide 

on-site access via LANs. 

• The extent of digitization policies in place or in development among museums, state 

library administrative agencies, public libraries, and academic libraries has increased 

since the 2001 survey. However, the 2004 survey shows that digitization policies are 

in place in fewer than half of archives and state library administrative agencies, with 

the other groups reporting lower numbers of policies in place. The survey showed that 

digitization activities have increased among all groups, but the use of policies on all 

aspects of digitization is not strong. 

With a substantial number of materials left to digitize, institutions are held back by lack 

of funding, lack of staff time, and other pressing priorities.

More than half of the archives and state library administrative agencies said they have 25,000 

or more items still to be digitized, as do some museums, academic libraries, and large public 

libraries. At the other end of the digitization spectrum, there are institutions among every 

group that have no items to digitize, including almost half of public libraries and a fourth of 

academic libraries. 

Key digitization findings: 

• Almost three-quarters of state library administrative agencies and more than half of 

archives had funds for digitization over the past 12 months. The majority of large 

museums had funds, as did more than one-fourth of academic libraries. However, the 

majority of museums, academic libraries, and public libraries did not have funds for 

digitization during that period. 

• To undertake digitization activities, all groups reported that training current staff to 

perform digitization activities is the predominant solution. Volunteers are also heavily 

used, particularly in museums and archives. Some institutions use outsourcing 

solutions, including contractual staff, off-site vendors, and digitization centers at other 

institutions. 

• When asked about their capability for digitization activities, larger institutions rated 

themselves more strongly than small ones. All groups rated themselves most capable 

in the areas of staff skills and expertise, and equipment and software. Across 

institutions, funding was the weakest capability area. 

• Among museums, academic libraries, state library administrative agencies, and 

archives, the three top hindrances to their digitization activities are lack of staff time, 

lack of funds, and other projects that have higher priorities. Public libraries also 

7
included lack of staff skills and expertise, lack of sufficient equipment and/or 

software, and lack of an established digitization plan as top hindrances. One hindrance 

that was rated low among all groups was “not having collections worth digitizing.” 

While collaborative digitization efforts are underway, they are not yet widespread.

• All of the groups reported collaboration in digitization projects with other institutions, 

although the overall percentages of those collaborate is not high. 

• The majority of state library administrative agencies provide funding or services to 

other institutions, including supporting cooperative digitization projects and 

supporting statewide digitization projects. 

Only a small portion of museums and libraries assess user and visitor needs for digitized 

collections and services. 

• Three-quarters or more of institutions in all groups do not conduct assessments of user 

or visitor needs for digitized materials and images in their institutions. Almost onefourth of state library administrative agencies do assessments, which is the highest 

level among all the groups. 

8
Background and Methodology 

Background to the Study 

In 2001, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) undertook a survey of the use 

and practice of technology and digitization in museums and libraries across the country. The 

report was published as Status of Technology and Digitization in the Nation’s Museums and 

Libraries 2002 Report (http://www.imls.gov/publications/TechDig02). The purpose of the 

report was to gather information to support technology adoption in libraries and museums. In 

addition to key findings about technology use and digitization activities among museums and 

libraries, the report included a number of action recommendations, one of which was that the 

survey be repeated in 2004. The survey was conducted a second time with some modifications 

in 2004. This is the report of that survey. 

IMLS was created in 1996 when Congress passed the Museum and Library Services Act. 

When it was reauthorized in 2003, the act gave IMLS the additional authority to undertake 

analyses identifying needs and trends of museum and library services and to report on the 

impact and effectiveness of programs conducted with IMLS funds. This additional authority 

reaffirms the Institute’s commitment to better understand, and respond to, technology needs 

and trends in the nation’s museums and libraries. 

Subtitles of the 1996 and 2003 legislation support funding for museums, libraries, and state 

library administrative agencies (SLAAs). Funding from these grant programs supports a wide 

range of technology and digitization services. The results of the 2001 and 2004 surveys are of 

interest to the following groups: 

• Museums and libraries, who can plan their technology development by looking at the 

status and experience of their peers; 

• IMLS, who will use the data to inform grant administration, focus research and related 

activities, and strengthen service to our communities; 

• The public, who makes use of technology and digitization services at museums and 

libraries; and 

• Policy makers, researchers, and funders, who can examine trends in technology and 

digitization activities, content, needs, and services at museums and libraries. 

Purpose of the Survey and Survey Development 

The purpose of this survey was to gather information on the nature and extent of technology 

and digitization use and related plans and policies in the nation’s museums and libraries and 

to compare these data with the data collected in 2001. The current survey was developed 

using the 2001 survey as a foundation, updating the initial baseline, and expanding the scope 

both in terms of context and the level of detail collected about digitization and technology in 

museums and libraries. Determining the status of digitization and technology in libraries and 

museums is an important step toward ensuring continued development of these institutions. 

9
To develop the 2004 survey, IMLS staff representing libraries, museums, archives, and 

SLAAs were consulted concerning their goals for the 2004 survey. The 2001 survey was also 

reviewed for potential changes. The 2004 survey appears in Appendix A. 

The 2001 survey contained four sections: 

1. Demographics (type, size, location) 

2. Technology (current and planned use, funding sources, use of technology in 

programming) 

3. Digitization (plans, practices, policies, hindrances, goals) 

4. IMLS’s role 

While the general outline remained the same for the 2004 survey, the following changes were 

made: 

1. The 2001 survey collected data for four institution types: museums, public libraries, 

academic libraries, and SLAAs. The 2004 survey added archives as an institution type 

because this is an important constituent group about which IMLS has insufficient data. 

2. The technology section from the 2001 survey contained 8 questions; the 2004 survey 

kept 5 of those and added 10 new questions, for a total of 15. 

3. The digitization section of the 2001 survey contained 21 questions. The 2004 survey 

repeated 13 questions from the 2001 survey and added 13 new ones, for a total of 26 

questions. 

4. The section on IMLS’s role retained two questions from the 2001 survey. 

Sampling Methods 

The potential respondent universe was composed of five groups: museums, public libraries, 

academic libraries, archives, and SLAAs. 

The museum population was identified by using the IMLS museums database (total number, 

18,142), from which a random sample, stratified by region of the country and staff size, was 

drawn.1

 The public and academic library population was identified by using the American 

Library Directory (ALD).2

 For SLAAs, all 51 agencies (50 states plus the District of 

Columbia) were included. 

The archives population was identified by compiling a list of all known archives that both 

served the public interest and were stand-alone institutions (i.e., not subunits of larger 

libraries or museums). To avoid duplication of data collected from other institution types 

 

1

 The IMLS in-house museums database represents approximately the entire museum universe in the United 

States. 

2

 ALD includes all known libraries in the United States, including public, academic, government, special 

libraries, etc. The total population of 23,030 in the directory was reduced to 13,247 once public and academic 

libraries were identified. While the electronic version of the ALD did not initially allow sorting of the sample by 

library type (i.e., public or academic), it was possible to distinguish library type by population once a revised 

database was received. 

10
(such as museums and academic libraries), the archives sample did not include university 

archives (since those data would be included in the academic library sample), historic sites 

and national monuments (since those data would be included in the museum sample), or 

archives of for-profit institutions (since these institutions are not part of the IMLS 

constituency). The total number of archives that satisfied these criteria was 395, the entire 

population of which was surveyed. 

As an institution type, archives were a challenge to define. A historical society, for instance, 

may be both a museum and archives, and some institutions have “library” in their name yet 

consider themselves to be archives. The problem of how to define each institutional category 

was resolved for the purpose of this survey by allowing each participating institution to 

choose the category to which it primarily belonged. However, the issues of how to define 

archives and how to identify the institutions that belong in an archives sample still remain to 

be addressed. 

Using the parameters described above produced a total initial sample size of 6,089 

organizations. Figure 1 shows the population size and initial sample size for this survey. 

Figure 1 

SURVEY POPULATION AND INITIAL SAMPLE SIZE

Population Population Size Total Sample Size 

Museums 18,142 2,510 

Libraries 13,247 3,133 

Archives 395 395 (total population) 

SLAAs 51 51 (total population) 

Total 31,835 6,089 

Conducting the Survey 

A pretest was conducted in April 2004 that allowed the survey team to determine if there were 

any questions that respondents were unable to answer and to review any unusual response 

patterns. Based on the pilot test results, minor modifications were made to the survey. The 

survey was conducted in both a paper-based and a Web-based format during July, August, 

and September 2004. To improve the response rate, several follow-up notices were sent to 

participants, reiterating the importance of the survey and requesting that the survey be 

completed within two weeks. 

11
Response Rate and Validity 

A total of 3,931 surveys were sent to 2,124 museums, 1,361 public and academic libraries, 

395 archives, and 51 SLAAs.3

 A total of 947 survey responses were received. The overall 

response rate to the survey was 24 percent. 

Figure 2 

POPULATIONS, SAMPLE SIZE, AND RETURN RATES

Population 

Population 

Size 

Sample 

Size 

Total 

Respondents 

Response 

Rate 

Confidence 

Interval (95% 

confidence level) 

Museum 18,142 2,124 479 23% ±4.4 

Library 13,247 1,361 309 23% ±5.5 

 Public library 9,744 1,089 239 22% ±6.3 

 Academic library 3,503 272 70 26% ±11.6 

Archives 395 395 117 30% ±7.6 

SLAA 51 51 42 82% ±6.4 

Total 31,835 3,931 947 24% ±3.1 

The findings of the survey are statistically representative at the following levels: 

• Museums at the 95 percent (+/-4.4 percent) level 

• Public libraries at the 95 percent (+/-6.3 percent) level 

• Academic libraries at the 95 percent (+/-11.6 percent) level 

• SLAAs at the 95 percent (+/-6.4 percent) level 

At these confidence levels, the findings for SLAAs are definitive. The specific results for 

museums, public libraries, and academic libraries can be discussed in terms of trends for each. 

Trend results are also discussed when breaking down the data by demographic information, 

such as size of population served (public libraries) and size of budget (museums). 

Definitions 

The following definitions are provided for key terms used in the survey: 

Technology: refers to the use of computers (hardware and software) to use and manage 

information in digital format; automated systems to support services; Internet and other 

network connections; Web sites and Web-based services; office productivity applications like 

word processing and e-mail; staff to support these activities; and the range of technologies 

that help staff and users search, access, and experience collections on-site and virtually. 

 

3 The initial museum sample was reduced from 2,510 to 2,124, and the initial library sample was reduced from 

3,133 to 1,361 after institutions with bad e-mail and mailing addresses and institutions initially placed in the 

wrong group were excluded. 

12
Digitization: refers to the process of converting, creating, and maintaining books, art works, 

historical documents, photos, journals, etc., in electronic representation so they can be viewed 

via computer and other devices. 

13
Museums 

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the museum data, a detailed description of certain 

survey question responses by museum size, and a summary of comparisons with data from the 

2001 survey. 

1. Museum Overview 

 

1.1 Technology overview 

• Availability of funding: Sixty-three percent of all museums reported having funding 

for technology in the past 12 months. In the next 12 months, 62.3 percent of all 

museums plan to receive technology funding. 

• Adequacy of technology funding: A total of 60.4 percent of museums reported that the 

majority of their technology needs are not met by current funding. 

• Maintaining and adding technologies: All museums, regardless of size, agree that 

their institutions are able to maintain their current levels of technology, but they are 

neutral on their institutions’ ability to add new uses of technology to meet evolving 

needs. 

• Technology capacity: This includes equipment, software, connectivity, skills and 

expertise, and staffing. More than half of the museums (54.8%) reported that they 

have the technology capacity to meet or almost meet their missions. 

• Technologies in use: 

o Basic computer technologies (e-mail, desktop computers, and office 

productivity software) are pervasive, used by at least 91.6 percent of museums. 

o 88 percent of museums have a Web site. 

o Broadband Internet connections are more prevalent in large museums (84.9%) 

than small ones (39%). Of the large museums, 31.5 percent use modems (dialup) for Internet access, while 50 percent of small museums use modems. 

o Large and small museums significantly differ in their use of local area 

networks (LANs): 90.3 percent of large museums have LANs, but only 29.6 

percent of small museums have them. 

o Three-fourths (75.3%) of museums used between 6 and 15 technologies in the 

past 12 months. 

• Staff for technology activities: Across all museums, 23.4 percent have ”the right 

amount” of staff to accomplish their technology activities, while 65.9 percent of 

museums reported that they do not have enough skilled staff for these activities. Of the 

large museums, only 17.4 percent have sufficient staff for technology activities, while 

the majority (76.1%) do not have enough staff for these activities. 

14
• Needs assessment: Only 12 percent of museums conduct assessments of user or visitor 

needs for technology-supported services or experiences. 

1.2 Digitization overview 

 

• Digitization policies: In general, more large museums have digitization policies than 

small and medium museums. However, even among large museums, only 34 percent 

or less have policies in place related to specific topic areas. For all museums, the 

topics that were most likely to have associated policies were access (23.4% of 

museums have policies related to access), digital format (21.5%), materials to be 

digitized (21.4%), preservation (19.4%), and security (19.3%). The topics least likely 

to have associated policies were metadata (7.3% of museums), conversion of digital 

files to next-generation formats (7.6%), and evaluation (8.6%). 

• Funding for digitization activities: More large museums (52.2%) had funding to 

support their digitization activities in the past 12 months than did medium and small 

museums (38.3 and 28.5%, respectively). In general, the majority of museums (54.2%) 

did not have digitization funds. Looking toward the next 12 months, 40.3 percent of all 

museums planned to obtain funding to support their digitization activities. 

• Digitization priorities: Digitizing photographs was a top priority for 56.2 percent of 

all museums; digitizing images of items in their collections was important to 53 

percent; and digitizing historical documents/archives was a top priority for 45.1 

percent of all museums. 

• Materials and images digitized: Despite what the museums reported about digitization 

funding, 74.4 percent of them reported that they digitized from 1 to 5,000 images in 

the past 12 months; however, nearly half of all museums (46.4%) digitized only 1 to 

500 images . 

• Materials or images still to be digitized: Only 9.2 percent of museums reported they 

have no more images to digitize. Fifteen percent of all museums had between 1 and 

500 items to digitize, and 16.5 percent had more than 25,000 items still to digitize. 

• Undertaking digitization activities: Among all museums, 55.9 percent rely on training 

current staff to conduct digitization activities; 35.4 percent use volunteers; 14 percent 

reassign current staff to digitization tasks; 14.1 percent use contractual staff; 8.8 

percent use commercial vendors off-site; and 4.5 percent conduct their digitization 

activities at other institutions’ digitization centers. 

• Making digital images available: Overall, 55.7 percent of museums make some or all 

of their digital images available to the public. Access is available via the Web at 56.2 

percent of museums and on-site at 38.8 percent of museums. Over half of museums 

(54.5%) report that the general public (i.e., those with Internet access) is the target 

audience for whom they provide access to digital images; 53.4 percent report that the 

target audience for their digital images is museum staff; and 44.2 percent report that 

the target audience is outside researchers and scholars. 

15
• Needs assessment: Only 10.6 percent of museums conduct assessments of user or 

visitor needs for digitized materials and images. 

• Collaboration: When museums collaborate to digitize materials, 39.2 percent turn to 

historical societies; 38 percent collaborate with other museums; 32.9 percent 

collaborate with universities and colleges; and 30.4 percent collaborate with academic 

libraries. 

• Capability for digitization activities: On a scale of 1 (deficient) to 5 (fully capable), 

museums rated themselves highest on staff skills (3.0) and equipment and software 

(2.6); the category that ranked lowest was funding (1.8). Smaller museums rated their 

digitization capability lower in almost every category than did medium and large 

museums. 

• Hindrances to digitization: On a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), 

museums rated a variety of hindrances to digitization capabilities. Among these, 

having too little staff time (1.6), having too little funding (1.6), and having other 

projects with higher priorities (1.7) were rated as the greatest hindrances to digitization 

activities. Not having collections worth digitizing (4.1) and having a management that 

is unaware of the benefits of digitization (3.6) were least likely to be regarded as 

hindrances. 

2. Museum Size Analyses 

This section highlights the difference between small, medium, and large museums based on 

their budget size and discusses issues related to technology and digitization, comparing how 

these issues differ among the three size categories. To determine the small, medium, and large 

categories, we used the museum survey question B on museum annual budget size. 

FIGURE 1 

MUSEUM SIZE ANALYSES

Size of Museums’ Annual 

Budgets (2004) 

Budget 

Categories 

Less than $250,000 Small 

$250,001–$500,000 

$500,001–$750,000 

$750,001–$1,000,000 

Medium 

$1,000,001–$5,000,000 

$5,000,001–$10,000,000 

$10,000,001–$25,000,000 

More than $25,000,000 

Large 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question B; 

respondents were asked to select only one option.

16
2.1 Demographics 

A total of 479 museums participated in the survey. However, not all participants responded to 

every question, so the numbers in the tables below might be slightly lower than 479. In 

addition, some tables are broken down by size of museum while others are presented on the 

whole, which may result in different sample sizes for different tables. 

Type of Museum 

Figure 2 shows the types of museums participating in the survey. The largest participating 

group was history museums (30.9%), followed by historic houses/sites (19.6%), and art 

museums (15.8%).

FIGURE 2

PERCENTAGE OF EACH TYPE OF MUSEUM

Budget 

Museum Type Small 

(n=212) 

Medium

(n=127) 

 Large 

(n=104) 

Total 

(n=443) 

Aquarium 0.0% 1.8% 2.7% 0.9% 

Arboretum or botanical garden 0.0% 0.9% 4.1% 0.9% 

Art museum 8.2% 23.9% 29.7% 15.8% 

Children’s museum 1.9% 4.4% 1.4% 2.5% 

General museum 2.7% 3.5% 2.7% 2.9% 

Historic house/site 25.3% 15.0% 6.8% 19.6% 

History museum 37.7% 23.0% 18.9% 30.9% 

Natural history/anthropology museum 5.4% 3.5% 6.8% 5.2% 

Nature center 3.1% 8.8% 0.0% 4.1% 

Science or technology center 1.9% 0.9% 6.8% 2.5% 

Zoological park 0.0% 1.8% 8.1% 1.8% 

Other* 13.6% 12.4% 12.2% 13.1% 

* “Other” encompasses the following types of museums: archaeological museum, architectural 

museum, art and history museum, culturally specific museum, historical society, military museum, 

tribal museum, and university gallery. 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question A; respondents were asked to select only one 

option. 

Budget

Figure 3 shows the annual budget for museums. Almost half of all museums reported a budget 

of less than $250,000, while nearly one-fifth reported a budget of $1 million to $5 million. 

17
FIGURE 3 

PERCENTAGE OF MUSEUMS WITH EACH SIZE 

ANNUAL BUDGET 

Annual Budget Percent 

(n=444) 

Less than $250,000 48.0% 

$250,001–$500,000 14.6% 

$500,001–$750,000 6.5% 

$750,001–$1,000,000 7.4% 

$1,000,001–$5,000,000 17.8% 

$5,000,001–$10,000,000 3.2% 

$10,000,001–$25,000,000 2.0% 

Over $25,000,000 0.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question B; 

respondents were asked to select only one option. 

Staff Size 

Figure 4 shows museum staff size. More than half of the museums participating in the survey 

had fewer than five full-time staff. 

FIGURE 4 

PERCENTAGE OF MUSEUMS 

WITH EACH SIZE CURRENT PAID,

FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT STAFF 

Staff Size Percent 

(n=444) 

Less than 5 57.9% 

6–10 13.7% 

11–25 11.7% 

26–75 12.2% 

76–150 2.7% 

151–250 1.1% 

251–500 0.7% 

501–1,000 0.0% 

1,001–1,500 0.0% 

More than 1,500 0.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question C; 

respondents were asked to select only one option. 

2.2 Technology 

 

Technology Funding 

Sixty-three percent of all museums reported having funding for technology in the past 12 

months. In the next 12 months, 62.6% of all museums plan to receive technology funding.

18
EXHIBIT 5 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY

Response Option Small 

(n=212) 

Medium 

(n=126) 

Large 

(n=100) 

Total 

(n=438) 

In the past 12 months, did your institution have funding for technology? 

Yes 50.2% 73.2% 78.0% 63.2% 

No 46.9% 25.2% 19.0% 34.3% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 2.8% 1.6% 3.0% 2.5% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to have funding for your technology? 

Yes 44.3% 74.6% 86.0% 62.6% 

No 36.3% 11.9% 5.0% 22.1% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 19.3% 13.5% 9.0% 15.3% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 1 and 2; 

respondents were asked to select only one option.

Adequate Funding of Technology Needs 

Nearly 40 percent of all museums say that current funding meets 51 percent or more of their 

technology needs. However, 60.4 percent of museums report that current funding meets only 

50 percent or less of their technology needs. Of the small museums, 20.2 percent report that 

none (0%) of their technology needs is met.

FIGURE 6 

PERCENTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY NEEDS 

THAT ARE MET BY CURRENT FUNDING 

Budget Percentage of 

Needs Met Small 

(n=203) 

 Medium 

(n=124) 

 Large 

(n=93) 

Total 

(n=420) 

0% 20.2% 4.8% 3.2% 11.9% 

1–25% 37.4% 28.2% 34.4% 34.0% 

26–50% 10.3% 17.7% 19.4% 14.5% 

51–75% 6.4% 29.0% 23.7% 16.9% 

76–99% 11.3% 12.9% 14.0% 12.4% 

100% 14.3% 7.3% 5.4% 10.2% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 3; 

respondents were asked to select only one option.

Maintaining and Adding Technology 

Overall, museums are positive about their institutions’ ability to maintain their current levels 

of technology, but they are more negative about their institutions’ ability to add new uses of 

technology to meet evolving needs. Figure 7 shows the mean ratings of an institution’s ability 

to maintain or add technology based on a 5-point scale, with “1” meaning strongly agree and 

“5” meaning strongly disagree. Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 tend to indicate agreement, 

and ratings greater than 2.5 tend to indicate disagreement.

19
FIGURE 7 

ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND ADD TECHNOLOGY

Budget 

My institution is able to: Small 

(n=177) 

Medium

(n=123) 

Large 

(n=94) 

Total 

(n=394) 

Maintain its current level of technology 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 

Add new uses of technology to meet 

evolving needs 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.1 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 4. The scale for this 

question was 1, meaning strongly agree, to 5, meaning strongly disagree.

Extent of Technology Capacity 

One-fourth of museums with small budgets have the technology capacity necessary to meet 

their missions, while more than 40 percent of museums with large budgets cannot completely 

fulfill their missions with their current technology capacity.

FIGURE 8 

TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY TO MEET MISSION 

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=204) 

Medium

(n=124) 

 Large 

(n=99) 

Total 

(n=427) 

Currently meets our mission 25.0% 22.6% 22.2% 23.7% 

Almost meets our mission 27.9% 35.5% 32.3% 31.1% 

Is short of meeting our mission 27.5% 35.5% 40.4% 32.8% 

Does not meet our mission 10.3% 5.6% 4.0% 7.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 9.3% 0.8% 1.0% 4.9% 

Note: Data are based on survey question 5; respondents were asked to select only one option. 

Technologies Used in Past 12 Months 

Almost all museums, regardless of size, are using desktop computers (93.7%), e-mail 

(92.3%), office productivity software (91.6%), and Web sites for their institutions (88.0%).

Small and medium museums were more likely to use modems (dial-up access) to connect to 

the Internet than large museums: 50 percent of small and 50.4 percent of medium museums 

used modems, compared with only 31.5 percent of large museums. Conversely, large 

museums were much more likely to use broadband Internet connection than small museums 

and considerably more likely than medium museums: 84.9 percent of large museums used 

broadband, compared with 39.0 percent of small museums and 72.7 percent of medium 

museums. 

Large museums were also much more likely to use a LAN (local area network) than small 

museums: 90.3 percent of large museums used LANs, compared with 29.6 percent of small 

museums. 

20
FIGURE 9 

MUSEUMS THAT USED THE FOLLOWING TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Budget 

Technology Small 

(n=200) 

Medium 

(n=124) 

Large 

(n=97) 

Total 

(n=421) 

Accounting/payroll /human resources software 54.1% 81.0% 91.3% 70.9% 

Broadband Internet connection 39.0% 72.7% 84.9% 60.1% 

Computerized catalog of library or other collections 46.3% 55.0% 66.3% 53.5% 

Computerized collections management system 39.9% 67.8% 75.3% 56.6% 

Database software or system for membership development 48.4% 67.5% 81.1% 61.9% 

Desktop computers 87.4% 99.2% 99.0% 93.7% 

E-mail 84.5% 100.0% 97.9% 92.3% 

GIS (geographic information systems) applications 6.8% 14.5% 24.4% 13.2% 

Integrated library system (ILS) 12.1% 8.0% 21.2% 12.9% 

Intranet 26.3% 44.2% 55.1% 38.4% 

LAN (local area network) 29.6% 68.6% 90.3% 55.9% 

Marketing and promotion software and systems 6.6% 14.0% 26.7% 13.5% 

Meta- or federated searching in online collections and 

catalogs 11.2% 11.5% 24.4% 14.3% 

Modem (dial access) Internet connection 50.0% 50.4% 31.5% 45.8% 

Multimedia services or collections 22.3% 21.4% 43.0% 26.7% 

Notebook or tablet computers 18.2% 47.9% 67.7% 39.2% 

Office productivity software, including word processing, 

desktop publishing, and spreadsheets 85.7% 96.6% 96.9% 91.6% 

PDAs (personal digital assistant handheld devices) 6.6% 19.0% 36.6% 17.4% 

Personal information management (PIM) software 3.4% 13.3% 19.8% 10.1% 

Point-of-sale software and systems 5.6% 24.6% 58.1% 23.8% 

RFID (radio frequency identification) in services or 

collections 0.6% 1.8% 5.9% 2.1% 

Software to manage public-access computers and printing 11.5% 9.8% 21.3% 13.3% 

Video tours 11.6% 13.2% 12.4% 12.2% 

Virtual reality tours 7.7% 7.1% 12.5% 8.6% 

Web portal or gateway for services or collections 12.8% 22.1% 37.9% 21.4% 

Web site for your institution 78.0% 96.7% 96.9% 88.0% 

Wireless network, including WiFi 14.0% 18.4% 23.6% 17.5% 

Other 7.1% 16.7% 12.5% 9.2% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

21
Three-fourths (75.3%) of museums used between 6 and 15 technologies in the past 12 

months. 

FIGURE 10 

PERCENTAGE OF MUSEUMS THAT USED THE 

FOLLOWING NUMBER OF TECHNOLOGIES 

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Budget 

Small 

(n=200) 

Medium 

(n=124) 

Large 

(n=97) 

Total 

(n=421) 

0 6.5% 0.0% 1.0% 3.3%

1–5 21.5% 3.2% 3.1% 11.9%

6–10 51.0% 41.9% 16.6% 40.4%

11–15 17.0% 48.4% 54.6% 34.9%

16–20 4.0% 6.5% 21.6% 8.8%

21 or more 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.7%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6. 

Staff Capabilities 

More medium museums (28.8%) have the right number of skilled staff to accomplish their 

technology activities than both small (22.9%) and large (17.4%) museums.

Overall, the majority of museums (65.9%) do not have enough skilled staff to accomplish 

their technology activities. 

FIGURE 11 

EXTENT TO WHICH MUSEUMS HAVE SUFFICIENT SKILLED STAFF 

TO ACCOMPLISH TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=192) 

Medium

(n=118) 

 Large 

(n=92) 

Total 

(n=402) 

We do not have enough skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 60.4% 66.9% 76.1% 65.9% 

We have the right amount of skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 22.9% 28.8% 17.4% 23.4% 

We have more than enough skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 1.6% 0.0% 1.1% 1.0% 

Other (please list) 4.7% 1.7% 3.3% 3.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 10.4% 2.5% 2.2% 6.2% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 10; respondents were asked to select 

only one option. 

Needs Assessments 

A higher number of large and medium museums (16.8 and 13.6%, respectively) conduct 

assessments of user or visitor needs for technology-supported services or experiences at their 

institutions than small museums (8.5%).

Overall, however, the majority of museums (80.3%) do not conduct assessments of user or 

visitor needs for technology-supported services or experiences at their institutions. 

22
FIGURE 12 

CONDUCT NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

FOR TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED SERVICES

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=188)

 Medium

(n=118) 

 Large

(n=95)

Total 

(n=401) 

Yes 8.5% 13.6% 16.8% 12.0% 

No 83.0% 79.7% 75.8% 80.3% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 8.5% 6.8% 7.4% 7.7% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 12; 

respondents were asked to select only one option. 

2.3 Digitization 

Digitization Policies 

Overall, a higher number of large museums have digitization policies in place than medium or 

small museums. The most prevalent digitization policies are those for access (23.4% of 

museums have access policies), digital format (21.5%), and materials to be digitized (21.4%). 

The least prevalent policies include those for metadata (7.3%) and conversion of digital files 

to next-generation formats (7.6%). Overall, however, the data show that even the most 

prevalent policies are in place in less than 25 percent of all museums. 

FIGURE 13 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES IN PLACE

Budget 

Digitization Policies Small 

(n=182) 

Medium

(n=115) 

Large 

(n=92) 

Total 

(n=389) 

Access 17.7% 25.4% 32.2% 23.4%

Best practices 5.2% 8.0% 17.0% 8.8%

Conversion of digital files to next-generation formats 5.6% 8.7% 10.1% 7.6%

Digital format (e.g., TIFF, GIF, PAL) 18.0% 17.0% 34.1% 21.5%

Evaluation 6.9% 8.3% 12.4% 8.6%

Institutional repository 16.9% 16.8% 20.2% 17.7%

Intellectual property issues 9.1% 20.5% 21.1% 15.3%

Materials to be digitized 18.8% 20.5% 27.5% 21.4%

Priorities for digitization 15.1% 18.6% 25.3% 18.5%

Preservation 16.9% 21.1% 22.0% 19.4%

Quality control 12.0% 14.4% 21.3% 14.9%

Standards 13.1% 14.4% 24.7% 16.2%

Metadata 6.4% 3.7% 13.5% 7.3%

Security 15.0% 20.7% 25.8% 19.3%

Other 0.0% 4.2% 17.6% 3.9%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

Digitization Funding 

A higher number of large museums (52.2%) had funding to support their digitization activities 

23
in the past 12 months than did medium and small museums (38.3 and 28.5%, respectively). In 

general, the majority (54.2%) of museums did not have digitization funds. 

FIGURE 14 

FUNDING TO SUPPORT DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=186) 

 Medium 

(n=115) 

 Large 

(n=92) 

Total 

(n=393) 

Yes 28.5% 38.3% 52.2% 36.9% 

No 61.3% 52.2% 42.4% 54.2% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 10.2% 9.6% 5.4% 8.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 18; respondents were 

asked to select only one option. 

Materials for Digitization 

Overall, 10.9 percent of museums have been digitizing photographs, 9.1 percent have been 

digitizing images of items in their collections, 8.4 percent have been digitizing education and 

training materials about their collections, and 8.4 percent have been digitizing historical 

documents/archives. 

FIGURE 15 

MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN DIGITIZED 

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OR ARE CURRENTLY BEING DIGITIZED

Budget 

Material Small 

(n=179) 

Medium 

(n=114) 

Large 

(n=94) 

Total 

(n=387) 

Correspondence, diaries, and other personal records 3.0% 3.6% 3.4% 3.3% 

Course material 3.7% 5.5% 4.4% 4.4% 

Education and training material about the collections 7.5% 8.3% 9.9% 8.4% 

Films, videotapes 3.0% 6.4% 5.6% 4.6% 

Government publications 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 

Historical documents/archives 8.8% 9.3% 6.7% 8.4% 

Images of items in the collections (e.g., art work, 

artifacts, furniture, plants, animals) 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 9.1% 

Information on the institution 6.7% 1.8% 8.0% 5.5% 

Journals and other serials 1.9% 1.9% 2.3% 2.0% 

Manuscripts 1.2% 2.8% 5.6% 2.8% 

Maps 1.9% 7.3% 6.7% 4.7% 

Music and other recorded sound 0.6% 0.9% 6.9% 2.3% 

Newspapers 0.6% 0.0% 4.5% 1.4% 

Photographs 11.0% 14.4% 6.5% 10.9% 

Rare books 1.8% 3.8% 3.4% 2.8% 

Records about the collection 9.8% 4.6% 5.6% 7.2% 

Sheet music 0.0% 1.9% 1.1% 0.8% 

Special exhibits 4.3% 10.2% 4.4% 6.1% 

Theses and dissertations 0.7% 1.0% 1.1% 0.9% 

Other (please list) 2.2% 6.3% 12.5% 5.1% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 20; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

24
Primary Digitization Priorities 

Of the museums surveyed, the three highest digitization priorities were as follows: 

• Photographs: 56.2 percent of all museums considered this a digitization priority. 

• Images of items in the collections: 53.0 percent identified this category as a 

digitization priority. 

• Historical documents/archives: 45.1 percent of all museums considered this a priority. 

FIGURE 16 

DIGITIZATION PRIORITIES

Budget 

Priority Small 

(n=179) 

Medium 

(n=112) 

Large 

(n=94) 

Total 

(n=385) 

Correspondence, diaries, and other personal records 13.9% 19.4% 13.4% 15.2% 

Course material 3.2% 8.2% 4.5% 4.7% 

Education and training material about the collections 14.8% 15.3% 16.4% 15.2% 

Films, videotapes 6.5% 5.1% 9.0% 6.6% 

Government publications 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 

Historical documents/archives 47.7% 48.0% 32.8% 45.1% 

Images of items in the collections (e.g., art work, artifacts, 

furniture, plants, animals) 49.1% 53.1% 65.7% 53.0% 

Information on the institution 13.0% 10.2% 20.9% 13.6% 

Journals and other serials 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 

Manuscripts 3.2% 9.2% 3.0% 4.7% 

Maps 10.2% 11.2% 7.5% 10.0% 

Music and other recorded sound 3.2% 5.1% 0.0% 3.1% 

Newspapers 5.1% 2.0% 1.5% 3.7% 

Photographs 54.2% 57.1% 61.2% 56.2% 

Rare books 1.9% 1.0% 9.0% 2.9% 

Records about the collection 13.0% 15.3% 10.4% 13.1% 

Sheet music 0.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% 

Special exhibits 7.4% 10.2% 10.4% 8.7% 

Theses and dissertations 0.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% 

Other (please list) 2.3% 3.1% 4.5% 2.9% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 12.0% 5.1% 3.0% 8.7% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 22; respondents were asked to select their institution’s top 

three priorities.

25
Number of Digital Materials Created in the Past 12 Months 

Almost three-quarters (74.4%) of museums digitized between 1 and 5,000 images in the past 

12 months.

FIGURE 17 

NUMBER OF DIGITAL MATERIALS OR IMAGES 

CREATED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Budget 

Number Small 

(n=180) 

 Medium

(n=112) 

 Large 

(n=94) 

Total 

(n=386) 

0 33.9% 10.7% 14.9% 22.5% 

1–500 45.6% 54.5% 38.3% 46.4% 

501–1,000 13.3% 17.9% 14.9% 15.0% 

1,001–5,000 6.1% 15.2% 23.4% 13.0% 

5,001–10,000 1.1% 0.9% 4.3% 1.8% 

10,001–25,000 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 

More than 25,000 0.0% 0.9% 3.2% 1.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 23; respondents 

were asked to select only one option. 

Number of Additional Images Remaining to Be Digitized 

Overall, 66.9 percent of all museums have 1,001 to 25,000 or more digital materials or images 

left to be digitized. Only 9.2 percent of museums overall report that they have no materials or 

images left to digitize.

FIGURE 18 

NUMBER OF DIGITAL MATERIALS OR IMAGES 

LEFT TO BE CREATED

Budget 

Number Small 

(n=176) 

 Medium 

(n=112) 

 Large 

(n=93) 

Total 

(n=381) 

0 14.2% 5.4% 4.3% 9.2% 

1–500 19.9% 12.5% 8.6% 15.0% 

501–1,000 9.1% 10.7% 6.5% 8.9% 

1,001–5,000 26.7% 24.1% 17.2% 23.6% 

5,001–10,000 13.1% 14.3% 15.1% 13.9% 

10,001–25,000 8.5% 17.0% 16.1% 12.9% 

More than 25,000 8.5% 16.1% 32.3% 16.5% 

Note: Data are based on survey question 24; respondents were asked to 

select only one option. 

Undertaking Digitization Activities 

Overall, museums undertake their digitization activities by the following:

• Training current staff to perform these activities: 55.9 percent use this means. 

• Having volunteers perform these activities: 35.4 percent use this means. 

• Reassigning current staff to perform these activities: 14.9 percent use this means. 

• Hiring contractual staff to perform these activities in-house: 14.1 percent use this 

means. 

26
FIGURE 19 

MEANS OF UNDERTAKING DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=175) 

Medium 

(n=110) 

 Large 

(n=91) 

Total 

(n=376) 

Contractual staff were hired to perform these 

activities in-house. 4.6% 16.4% 29.7% 14.1% 

New institutional staff were hired to perform 

these activities. 4.6% 3.6% 15.4% 6.9% 

Current staff were trained to perform these 

activities. 39.4% 69.1% 71.4% 55.9% 

Current staff were reassigned to perform these 

activities. 8.0% 15.5% 27.5% 14.9% 

Volunteers perform these activities. 32.6% 41.8% 33.0% 35.4% 

These activities are performed by commercial 

vendors off-site. 4.6% 8.2% 17.6% 8.8% 

Materials are digitized off-site at another 

institution’s digitization center. 2.3% 5.5% 7.7% 4.5% 

Other (please list) 3.4% 6.4% 4.4% 4.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 33.3% 11.0% 8.9% 20.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 26; respondents were asked to select all 

that apply. 

The Availability of Digital Image Collections to the Public 

Overall, 55.7 percent of museums make some or all of their digital image collections available 

to the public. Almost three-fourths (73.6%) of museums with large budgets make their digital 

image collections available to the public, whereas only 58.7 percent of museums with medium 

budgets and 44.6 percent of museums with small budgets make their digital image collections 

available to the public.

FIGURE 20 

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF DIGITAL IMAGE COLLECTIONS

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=175) 

 Medium

(n=109) 

 Large 

(n=91) 

Total 

(n=375) 

Yes, some of our digital image collections are 

available to the public. 33.7% 46.8% 63.7% 44.8%

Yes, all of our digital image collections are 

available to the public. 10.9% 11.9% 9.9% 10.9%

No, our digital image collections are not available 

to the public. 26.9% 27.5% 17.6% 24.8%

Don’t know/Not applicable 28.6% 13.8% 8.8% 19.5%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 27; respondents were asked to select only 

one option. 

How Digital Image Collections Are Made Available 

Of those museums that make their digital image collections available to the public, the 

majority (56.2%) make their collections available via the Web, and more than one-third make 

their collections available on the premises on their computer networks (LANs). 

27
FIGURE 21 

HOW DIGITAL IMAGE COLLECTIONS ARE MADE AVAILABLE

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=127) 

 Medium 

(n=79) 

 Large 

(n=75) 

Total 

(n=281) 

On the premises on our computer network (LAN) 33.9% 45.6% 40.0% 38.8% 

On the Web 41.7% 63.3% 73.3% 56.2% 

Through a third party 6.3% 2.5% 6.7% 5.3% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 36.8% 17.9% 12.0% 24.8% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 28; respondents were asked to select all that 

apply. Table only includes respondents who reported that they make some or all of their digital image 

collections available to the public. 

Target Audience 

Of all museums surveyed, 54.5 percent identified the general public who have Internet access 

as their target audience for access to digital images; 53.4 percent identified museum staff as 

their target audience; and 44.2 percent identified outside researchers and scholars as their 

target audience for access to digital images. 

FIGURE 22 

TARGET AUDIENCE

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=174) 

 Medium 

(n=108) 

 Large 

(n=91) 

Total 

(n=373) 

General public who have Internet access 43.1% 55.6% 74.7% 54.4%

Onsite visitors at our institution 39.7% 25.9% 26.4% 32.4%

Members (e.g., library card holders, museum 

members) 23.0% 11.1% 12.1% 16.9%

Our staff 45.4% 59.3% 62.6% 53.6%

Consortia/partners 4.0% 2.8% 3.3% 3.5%

Researchers/scholars at our institution 19.0% 23.1% 20.9% 20.6%

Faculty at our institution 8.6% 5.6% 3.3% 6.4%

Educators not part of our institution 14.9% 26.9% 27.5% 21.4%

Students at our institution 9.2% 5.6% 3.3% 6.7%

Students at affiliated institutions 5.2% 5.6% 3.3% 4.8%

Alumni 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

Other researchers and scholars 40.2% 46.3% 48.4% 44.0%

Other 1.7% 4.6% 2.2% 2.7%

Don’t know/Not applicable 10.3% 5.6% 0.0% 6.4%

Note: Data are based on survey question 33; respondents were asked to select their institution’s top 

three target audiences. 

Needs Assessments 

A higher percentage of large museums conduct assessments of user or visitor needs for 

digitized materials and images than either medium or small museums. However, most 

museums (84.4%), regardless of size, do not conduct such assessments at all. 

28
FIGURE 23 

CONDUCT NEEDS ASSESSMENTS FOR DIGITIZED MATERIALS

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=178)

 Medium

(n=109) 

 Large 

(n=92) 

Total 

(n=379) 

Yes 6.7% 9.2% 19.6% 10.6%

No 87.1% 85.3% 78.3% 84.4%

Don’t know/Not applicable 6.2% 5.5% 2.2% 5.0%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 35; respondents 

were asked to select only one option. 

Collaboration 

Slightly more than one-fifth (20.9%) of museums collaborate (through specific partnering 

agreements) with other institutions and organizations to digitize materials. 

FIGURE 24 

COLLABORATION TO DIGITIZE MATERIALS

Response Option Small 

(n=179) 

Medium 

(n=108) 

Large 

(n=91) 

Total 

(n=378) 

Yes 14.5% 26.9% 26.4% 20.9% 

No 81.0% 67.6% 70.3% 74.6% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 4.5% 5.6% 3.3% 4.5% 

Note: Data are based on survey question 37; respondents were asked to select 

only one option. 

When museums collaborate to digitize materials, 39.2 percent collaborate with historical 

societies; 38.0 percent collaborate with other museums; 32.9 percent collaborate with 

universities and colleges; and 30.4 percent collaborate with academic libraries. 

FIGURE 25 

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Small 

(n=26) 

Medium 

(n=29) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=79) 

State library agencies 34.6% 10.3% 16.7% 20.3%

Academic libraries 23.1% 20.7% 50.0% 30.4%

Individual public libraries 19.2% 24.1% 16.7% 20.3%

Private libraries 3.8% 3.4% 12.5% 6.3%

Museums 26.9% 31.0% 58.3% 38.0%

Consortia 7.7% 3.4% 29.2% 12.7%

State archives 23.1% 13.8% 12.5% 16.5%

Special libraries 0.0% 6.9% 12.5% 6.3%

Historical societies 42.3% 34.5% 41.7% 39.2%

Federal government agencies or archives 3.8% 17.2% 25.0% 15.2%

Other state government agencies 15.4% 10.3% 29.2% 17.7%

City, municipal, or other local government 

agencies or archives 7.7% 20.7% 12.5% 13.9%

Universities and colleges 19.2% 27.6% 54.2% 32.9%

Community organizations 11.5% 6.9% 8.3% 8.9%

29
FIGURE 25 

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Small 

(n=26) 

Medium 

(n=29) 

Large Total 

(n=24) (n=79) 

Private companies 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 2.5%

Foundations 0.0% 3.4% 4.2% 2.5%

State library associations 11.5% 6.9% 4.2% 7.6%

State museum associations 11.5% 10.3% 4.2% 8.9%

Other professional associations 3.8% 6.9% 8.3% 6.3%

Other 23.1% 10.3% 4.2% 12.7%

Note: Data are based on survey question 37; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

Capabilities in Initiating, Accomplishing, and Sustaining Digitization Activities 

Small museums rate themselves the least capable at initiating, accomplishing, and sustaining 

digitization activities, while medium and large museums rate themselves somewhat more 

capable. 

Figure 26 shows the average ratings of an institution’s capability to initiate, accomplish, and 

sustain digitization activities based on a 5-point scale, with “1” being deficient and “5” being 

fully capable. Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 tend to indicate deficiency and ratings greater 

than 2.5 tend to indicate capability. 

FIGURE 26 

CAPABILITY TO INITIATE, ACCOMPLISH, AND SUSTAIN 

DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Budget 

Capability Small 

(n=158)

Medium

(n=103)

Large 

(n=88)

Total 

(n=349) 

Staff skills and expertise 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.0 

Equipment and software 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.6 

Funding 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 

Established digitization plan 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.1 

Established digitization policies 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.0 

Established quality standards 1.8 2.3 2.6 2.2 

Established procedures for preparation for 

creating digital images 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.3 

Established procedures for the 

management of images and files 2.1 2.6 2.7 2.4 

Other (please list) 1.0 2.3 5.0 1.9 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 39; respondents were 

asked to select all that apply. The scale for this question was 1, meaning 

deficient, to 5, meaning fully capable. 

Hindrances to Digitization Activities 

Overall, museums (regardless of size) tended to agree that all of the items listed in Figure 27 

are hindrances to their digitization activities, with “lack of staff time,” “lack of funds,” and 

“other projects have higher priority” cited as the strongest ones. “Not having collections 

worth digitizing” and “management is unaware of the benefits of digitization” were the leastcited hindrances. 

30
FIGURE 27 

HINDRANCES TO DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Digitization Activities in Your 

Institution are Hindered by the Following: 

Small 

(n=163) 

Medium 

(n=105) 

Large 

(n=88) 

Total 

(n=356) 

Lack of staff time 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 

Lack of staff skills and expertise 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.4 

Lack of funds 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 

Lack of sufficient equipment and/or software 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 

Lack of an established digitization plan 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.3 

Lack of established digitization policies 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.3 

Lack of established quality standards 2.2 2.5 2.9 2.5 

Lack of established policies and procedures for preparation for 

materials for digitizing 

2.2 2.5 2.9 2.4 

Lack of established policies and procedures for the management 

of images and files 

2.2 2.6 2.8 2.5 

Other projects have higher priorities 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.7 

Concern about intellectual property issues 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.9 

Security concerns 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.0 

Not having collections worth digitizing 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.1 

Concern about costs of preservation and management 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.4 

Management is unaware of the benefits of digitization 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.6 

Other (please list) 2.2 0.0 2.0 2.1 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 40; respondents were asked to rate each potential 

hindrance. The scale for this question was 1, meaning strongly agree, to 5, meaning strongly disagree. 

31
3. Comparisons of the 2001 and the 2004 Survey Findings 

This section highlights the differences in the following categories between the 2001 and the 

2004 survey findings for museums. 

• Top technologies used 

• Funding for technology and digitization 

• Sources of funding for digitization activities 

• Digitization policies 

• Top goals for digitization projects 

Because of some differences between the 2001 and 2004 survey questions, comparisons are 

made only where applicable. 

3.1 Overview 

 

• Adoption and use of technologies: Overall, the adoption and use of technologies in 

museums has increased, particularly among computer technologies like institutional 

Web sites, computerized catalogs of library or other collections, Intranet, e-mail, and 

accounting/payroll/human resources software. Medium and large museums are 

particularly strong in all of these technologies, and there has been substantial growth 

among small museums over the three-year period. For example, the percentage of 

small museums with Web sites grew from 40 to 78 percent. Small museums also 

increased their use of e-mail; only 53.1 percent used e-mail in 2001, compared with 

84.5 percent in 2004. In addition, use of desktop computers went up dramatically 

among small museums; 58.1 percent used desktops in 2001, compared with 87.4 

percent in 2004. 

• Digitization policies: Museums reported across-the-board growth in digitization 

policies in place and in development over the three-year period. For example, in 2004, 

23 percent of museums had policies in place regarding access, whereas only 4.8 

percent had access policies in place in 2001; 21.7 percent had access policies in 

development in 2004, compared with only 7.6 percent in 2001. Still, even in 2004, the 

majority of museums had no digitization policies of any kind in place or in 

development. 

• Digitization goals: The top goals reported in the surveys indicate positive trends in 

increasing access to collections, materials, and files. In 2004, 56 percent of museums 

indicated that increasing access was an important goal, compared with only 6.1 

percent of museums in 2001. Preserving materials of importance or value was 

important for only 31.3 percent of museums in 2001, but by 2004 this figure had 

grown to 48.7 percent. In 2004, 18.1 percent of museums indicated that providing 

greater information about their collections to artists, scholars, students, teachers, and 

the public was an important goal, while in 2001, only 0.9 percent identified this as an 

important goal. 

32
3.2 Top Technologies Used 

Overall, the adoption and use of technologies in museums has increased significantly, 

particularly among basic computer technologies. For each of the following technologies, there 

was an increase from the percentage of museums that reported using them in 2001 to the 

percentage of museums that reported using them in 2004. The top three technologies used in 

2001 were as follows: 

• Office productivity software, including word processing, desktop publishing, and 

spreadsheets: 72.7 percent of museums were using this technology. 

• Desktop computers: 72.7 percent of museums were using this technology. 

• E-mail: 69.6 percent were using this technology. 

In 2004, the top technologies were as follows: 

• Desktop computers: 93.6 percent of museums were using this technology. 

• E-mail: 92.2 percent were using this technology. 

• Office productivity software, including word processing, desktop publishing, and 

spreadsheets: 91.3 percent of museums were using this technology. 

FIGURE 28 

TECHNOLOGIES USED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Survey Year 

Technology 2001 

(n=260) 

2004 

(n=434) 

Accounting/payroll/human resources software 49.2% 71.4% 

Computerized catalog of library or other collections 28.1% 53.4% 

Computerized collections management system 52.7% 56.0% 

Database software or system for membership development 46.2% 61.7% 

Desktop computers 72.7% 93.6% 

E-mail 69.6% 92.2% 

Intranet 14.6% 38.3% 

Marketing and promotion software and systems 2.3% 13.6% 

Notebook or tablet computers 26.5% 39.3% 

Office productivity software, including word processing, 

desktop publishing, and spreadsheets 72.7% 91.3% 

PDAs (personal digital assistant handheld devices, e.g., Palm 

Pilots) 9.2% 17.2% 

Point-of-sale software and systems 11.2% 23.9% 

Video tours 6.9% 12.2% 

Virtual reality tours 3.8% 8.7% 

Web site for your institution 60.8% 88.4% 

Other 1.2% 8.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6; respondents were asked to 

select all that apply. 

33
Since 2001, there has been significant growth in the percentage of small museums that use 

technology. For example, the percentage of small museums that used Web sites in the past 12 

months increased from 40 percent in 2001 to 78 percent in 2004. A similar increase can be 

found for e-mail (53.1% in 2001, compared with 84.5% in 2004) and desktop computers 

(58.1% in 2001, compared with 87.4% in 2004). 

FIGURE 29 

TECHNOLOGIES USED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, BY MUSEUM SIZE

Budget 

2001 2004 Technology Small 

(n=160) 

Medium 

(n=54) 

Large 

(n=37) 

Small 

(n=200) 

Medium 

(n=124) 

Large 

(n=97) 

Accounting/payroll/human resources software 31.9% 70.4% 91.9% 54.1% 81.0% 91.3% 

Computerized catalog of library or other 

collections 23.1% 31.5% 45.9% 46.3% 55.0% 66.3% 

Database software or system for membership 

development 29.4% 68.5% 86.5% 48.4% 67.5% 81.1% 

Desktop computers 58.1% 96.3% 100.0% 87.4% 99.2% 99.0% 

E-mail 53.1% 94.4% 100.0% 84.5% 100.0% 97.9% 

Intranet 3.8% 25.9% 37.8% 26.3% 44.2% 55.1% 

Marketing and promotion software and systems 0.6% 3.7% 2.7% 6.6% 14.0% 26.7% 

Notebook or tablet computers 10.0% 44.4% 70.3% 18.2% 47.9% 67.7% 

Office productivity software, including word 

processing, desktop publishing, and spreadsheets 58.8% 96.3% 100.0% 85.7% 96.6% 96.9% 

PDAs (personal digital assistant handheld 

devices, e.g., Palm Pilots) 3.8% 7.4% 32.4% 6.6% 19.0% 36.6% 

Point-of-sale software and systems 1.9% 11.1% 48.6% 5.6% 24.6% 58.1% 

Video tours 5.0% 9.3% 8.1% 11.6% 13.2% 12.4% 

Virtual reality tours 0.6% 7.4% 13.5% 7.7% 7.1% 12.5% 

Web site for your institution 40.0% 92.6% 100.0% 78.0% 96.7% 96.9% 

Other 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 16.7% 12.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6; respondents were asked to select all that apply. Size 

information is missing for 13 museums surveyed in 2004 and for 9 museums surveyed in 2001; therefore, the 

totals vary from Figure 28. 

3.3 Funding for Technology and Digitization 

 

The percentage of museums that reported having funding in 2004 for both technology and 

digitization activities is down from the percentage that reported having funding in 2001. 

34
EXHIBIT 30 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITIZATION

Survey Year 

2001 

(n=250) 

2004 

(n=457) 

Response Option Yes No 

Don't know/ 

Not applicable Yes No 

Don't know/ 

Not applicable 

Technology 

In the past 12 months, did your institution 

have funding for technology? 84.0% 16.0% - 63.0% 34.1% 2.8% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to have 

funding for your technology? - - - 62.3% 22.5% 15.2% 

Digitization 

In the past 12 months, did your institution 

have funding to support your digitization 

activities? 

37.7% 62.3% - 37.0% 53.8% 9.1% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to obtain 

funding to support your digitizing activities? 62.7% 37.3% - 40.3% 36.8% 23.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 1, 2, 18, and 19; respondents were asked to select only one option. 

3.4 Sources of Funding for Technology 

The top two sources of funding in both 2001 and 2004 were as follows: 

• Institutional operating funds 

• Gifts from donors 

FIGURE 31 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY

Survey Year 

Source of Funding 2001 

(n=210) 

2004 

(n=288) 

Endowment funds 12.4% 8.3%

Foundation grants 23.8% 17.7%

Gifts from donors 50.0% 31.9%

Grants from Federal agencies 11.4% 9.4%

Institutional operating funds 67.1% 53.8%

State funds 23.3% 15.6%

City, county, or other local government funds 21.4% 18.1%

Corporate funds 0.0% 8.0%

Other sources 9.0% 12.8%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 1; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

3.5 Sources of Funding for Digitization Activities 

 

The top three sources of funding in 2004 were the same as they were in 2001: 

• Institutional operating funds 

• Gifts from donors 

• Foundation grants 

35
FIGURE 32 

FUNDING FOR DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Survey Year 

Source of Funding 2001 

(n=93) 

2004 

(n=149) 

Endowment funds 17.2% 4.7%

Foundation grants 30.1% 21.5%

Gifts from donors 37.6% 24.8%

Grants from Federal agencies 17.2% 15.5%

Institutional operating funds 63.4% 51.7%

State funds 18.3% 19.5%

City, county, or other local government funds 16.1% 14.1%

Corporate funds 0.0% 7.4%

Other sources 8.6% 10.7%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 18; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

3.6 Digitization Policies 

 

There has been an increase in the number of digitization policies in place or in development 

(versus not in place or in development/don’t know) since 2001. However, the majority of 

museums do not have policies in place or in development. 

FIGURE 33 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES

 

2001 

(n=251) 

2004 

(n=401) 

Policy Not 

checked 

Policies 

in 

place 

Policies in 

development 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don’t know 

Policies 

in 

place 

Policies in 

development 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don’t know 

Access 12.4% 4.8% 7.6% 75.3% 23.0% 21.7% 55.3%

Best practices 16.3% 2.8% 5.6% 75.3% 8.6% 22.1% 69.4%

Conversion of digital files to 

next-generation formats 21.9% 0.8% 2.0% 75.3% 7.4% 17.6% 75.0%

Digital format (e.g., TIFF, 

GIF, PAL) 12.7% 6.4% 5.6% 75.3% 21.2% 17.9% 60.9%

Evaluation 19.1% 2.0% 3.6% 75.3% 8.4% 16.2% 75.5%

Intellectual property issues 12.7% 4.4% 7.6% 75.3% 15.7% 19.8% 64.5%

Materials to be digitized 11.6% 5.2% 8.0% 75.3% 21.3% 22.3% 56.4%

Priorities for digitization 9.6% 6.4% 8.8% 75.3% 18.8% 21.6% 59.6%

Preservation 14.3% 3.2% 7.2% 75.3% 19.8% 24.4% 55.7%

Quality control 16.7% 3.2% 4.8% 75.3% 14.8% 19.7% 65.5%

Standards 15.1% 4.4% 5.2% 75.3% 16.3% 21.0% 62.7%

Other 11.2% 13.1% 0.4% 75.3% 3.8% 2.9% 93.3%

Note: Data are based on survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

36
3.7 Top Goals for Digitization Projects 

 

In 2001, the top three responses museums provided when asked about their goals for 

digitization activities were as follows: 

• Minimize damage to original materials: This was a goal for 32.6 percent of museums. 

• Preserve materials of importance or value: This was a goal for 31.3 percent. 

• Don’t know/Not applicable: This response option was chosen by 27.9 percent of 

museums. 

In 2004, however, the top three goals for digitization activities were as follows: 

• Increase access to collections/materials/files: This was a goal for 56.0 percent of 

museums. 

• Preserve materials of importance or value: This was a goal for 48.7 percent. 

• Minimize damage to original materials: This was a goal for 33.0 percent of museums. 

FIGURE 34 

GOALS FOR DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Survey year 

Goal 2001 

(n=230) 

2004 

(n=382) 

Preserve materials of importance or value 31.3% 48.7%

Increase access to collections/materials/files 6.1% 56.0%

Minimize damage to original materials 32.6% 33.0%

Provide access to materials via the Web 25.7% 30.6%

Increase interest in the institution 17.0% 20.7%

Save space in the institution 20.4% 4.2%

Present more of the collection than is on display at any one time 4.8% 10.5%

Save costs by eliminating duplication of materials 1.7% 2.6%

Provide access to materials for specific audiences (e.g., reserve 

room materials for students) 0.0% 3.4%

Encourage cooperation among institutions to increase the 

number and variety of materials available 26.5% 0.8%

For distance and other e-learning programs 0.0% 2.1%

Provide greater information about the institution’s collections to 

artists, scholars, students, teachers, and the public 0.9% 18.1%

Increase access to state services 16.1% 1.0%

For our institution’s internal records 0.0% 15.2%

Support educational programs 3.0% 9.7%

Other (please list) 0.0% 1.0%

Don’t know/Not applicable 27.9% 11.0%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 31; respondents were asked to select their 

institution’s top three goals. 

37
Chapter 1. Public Libraries 

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the public library data, a detailed description of 

certain survey question responses by public library size, and a summary of comparisons with 

the data from the 2001 survey. 

1. Public Library Overview 

1.1 Technology Overview 

• Availability of funding: Overall, more than three-fourths of public libraries (81.4 

percent) had funding for technology in the past 12 months. Most large public libraries 

(92.7 percent) had funds, but small libraries were not as well funded (72.6 percent.) 

Anticipated technology funding for the next 12 months is weaker overall at 74.3 

percent. 

• Adequacy of technology funding: The majority of medium and large public libraries 

report that 76 percent or more of their technology needs are adequately funded. The 

majority of small public libraries report that 50 percent or less of their technology 

needs are funded. Among the small public libraries, however, 21.7 percent reported 

that 100 percent of their technology needs are adequately funded. 

• Maintaining and adding technologies: Public libraries, regardless of size, tended to 

agree that their institutions are able to maintain their current levels of technology, with 

larger libraries reporting stronger agreement. Generally, public libraries are neutral 

about their ability to add new uses of technology to meet evolving needs. 

• Technology capacity: This includes equipment, software, connectivity, skills and 

expertise, and staffing. Three-fourths of public libraries either have the technology 

capacity necessary to meet their needs or their capacity almost meets their mission. 

Only one-fourth report that their technology capacity falls short of meeting, or does 

not meet, their needs. 

• Technologies in use: 

o Public libraries’ use of basic technologies over the past 12 months is pervasive, 

particularly for e-mail (100%), desktop computers (96.4%), and office 

productivity software (96.8%). 

o All large public libraries have a Web site, but only 66.1 percent of small public 

libraries have one. 

o Broadband Internet access is used by 67.3 percent of small public libraries, 

83.6 percent of medium public libraries, and 90.4 percent of large public 

libraries. Modem (dial-up Internet access) use is strongest among small public 

libraries, 34 percent of which use modems, compared with 23.1 percent of 

medium and 26 percent of large public libraries. 

o Wireless networks, including WiFi, are used in 47.1 percent of large public 

libraries but only in 17.3 percent of small libraries. 

38
o Computerized catalogs of collections are very heavily used in medium and 

large public libraries; 96.6 percent of medium public libraries and 98.1 percent 

of large ones use computerized catalogs, while 70.5 percent of small libraries 

use them. 

o Meta- or federated searching in online collections and catalogs is used in 40.8 

percent of public libraries. 

o Software to manage public-access computers and printing is in use in 43 

percent of public libraries. 

• Staff for technology activities: Libraries that “have the right amount of skilled staff” 

included 20.4 percent of small libraries, 21.1 percent of medium libraries, and 35.3 

percent of large libraries. Overall, the majority of public libraries (73.1%), regardless 

of size, do not have enough skilled staff to accomplish their technology activities.

• Needs assessment: Only one-fourth (25.9%) of all public libraries conduct assessments 

of user or visitor needs for technology-supported services or experiences. Overall, the 

majority of public libraries (67.6%), regardless of size, do not conduct needs 

assessments. 

1.2 Digitization Overview 

• Digitization policies: Among the few public libraries that have policies, policies 

related to access (20% of libraries), best practices (10.8%), security (10.5%), and 

intellectual property (9.9%) are the most prevalent. Overall, however, the majority of 

public libraries (71.6%) do not have (or do not know whether they have) digitization 

policies in place or in development. 

• Funding for digitization activities: More large public libraries (17.6%) had funding to 

support digitization activities than did medium and small public libraries (12.3 and 

9.3%, respectively). The majority of public libraries, regardless of size, did not have 

funding to support their digitization activities in the past 12 months. 

• Digitization priorities: Digitizing historical documents/archives was a top priority for 

50.5 percent of all public libraries; digitizing photographs was important to 31.7 

percent; and digitizing newspapers was a top priority for 28.8 percent of all public 

libraries. 

• Materials and images digitized: The great majority of all public libraries are not active 

digitizers although a small percentage is very active. Large public libraries were more 

active than small and medium public libraries in digitization over the past 12 months; 

36 percent of large public libraries digitized 1 to 500 images, 2 percent digitized 5,000 

to 10,000 images, and 2 percent digitized more than 25,000 images. Almost all of the 

small and medium public libraries (82.4 and 80.4%, respectively) created zero digital 

materials or images in the past 12 months. 

• Materials or images still to be digitized: Large public libraries have significant 

numbers of images to be created; in fact, 12.2 percent have more than 25,000 images 

39
left. Overall, 46.6 percent of public libraries report that they have zero materials or 

images left to be digitized; 55.7 percent of small libraries report that they have zero 

materials to digitize, and 49.1 percent of medium libraries report zero materials. 

• Undertaking digitization activities: Among the public libraries that have digitization 

activities, 17.2 percent train current staff to perform digitization activities and 9.1 

percent use volunteers. These were the most cited means for undertaking digitization 

activities. Using outside help is also frequently cited: 6.2 percent of public libraries 

used commercial vendors to perform digitization off-site; 2.9 percent performed these 

activities at another institution’s digitization center; and 2.4 percent used contractual 

staff to perform digitization activities in-house. 

• Making digital images available: Among large public libraries, 37.5 percent make 

some or all of their digital image collections available to the public, compared with 

17.9 percent of small libraries and 14.8 percent of medium libraries. Large public 

libraries are more likely to make digital images available on the Web; 37.2 percent of 

large public libraries have digital images on the Web. Among small public libraries, 

16.3 percent use their computer network (local area network or LAN) to make digital 

images available to the public. Overall, the majority (73.6%) of public libraries 

responded “Don’t know/Not applicable” when asked whether they make digital 

images available to the public. 

• Capability for digitization activities: On average and across all categories, public 

libraries indicated that they feel deficient in their capability to initiate, accomplish, and 

sustain digitization activities. On a scale of 1 (deficient) to 5 (fully capable), the 

highest ratings were among large public libraries related to their staff skills and 

expertise (2.3) and equipment and software (2.4). 

• Hindrances to digitization: Overall, public libraries tended to agree the most strongly 

that lack of funds and lack of staff time are hindrances to their digitization activities. 

40
2. Public Library size analyses 

This section highlights the difference between small, medium, and large public libraries based 

on their budget size. To determine the small, medium, and large categories, we used the 

public library survey question D on public library annual budget size. 

FIGURE 1 

PUBLIC LIBRARY SIZE ANALYSES

Size of Annual Budgets Budget Categories

Less than $250,000 Small 

$250,001–$500,000 

$500,001–$750,000 Medium 

$750,001–$1,000,000 

$1,000,001–$5,000,000 

$5,000,001–$10,000,000 

$10,000,001–$25,000,000 

More than $25,000,000 

Large 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question D: 

respondents were asked to select only one option. 

2.1 Demographics 

A total of 239 public libraries participated in the survey. One survey was removed from the 

analyses due to a large amount of incomplete data, resulting in a final sample size of 238. 

However, not all pubic library participants responded to every question, so the sample sizes in 

the tables below might be slightly lower than 238. In addition, some tables are broken down 

by size of public library while others are presented on the whole, which may result in different 

sample sizes for different tables. 

Population 

Figure 2 shows the size of the populations served by the public libraries participating in the 

survey. More than one-third of the public libraries reported serving fewer than 5,000 people. 

FIGURE 2 

PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES SERVING 

EACH POPULATION SIZE

Population Size Percent (n=238) 

Less than 5,000 34.5 

5,001–10,000 16.4 

10,001–25,000 21.8 

25,001–50,000 13.0 

50,001–100,000 6.7 

100,001–250,000 5.0 

250,001–500,000 1.7 

500,001–1,000,000 0.4 

Over 1,000,000 0.4 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question B; 

respondents were asked to select only one option. 

41
Budget 

Figure 3 shows the annual budgets for the public libraries in the survey sample. Just over half 

of the public library participants had an annual budget of less than $250,000.

FIGURE 3 

PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES WITH 

EACH SIZE ANNUAL BUDGET

Budget Size Percent 

(n=233) 

Less than $250,000 50.6% 

$250,001–$500,000 16.7% 

$500,001–$750,000 8.6% 

$750,001–$1,000,000 6.0% 

$1,000,001–$5,000,000 12.4% 

$5,000,001–$10,000,000 4.3% 

$10,000,001–$25,000,000 0.9% 

Over $25,000,000 0.4% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question D; 

respondents were asked to select only one option.

Staff Size 

Figure 4 shows the number of full-time staff reported by public libraries. More than half of 

the public libraries had fewer than five full-time-equivalent staff.

FIGURE 4 

PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES

WITH EACH SIZE CURRENT PAID, 

FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT STAFF

Staff Size 

Percent 

(n=235) 

Less than 5 54.5% 

6–10 18.7% 

11–25 14.9% 

26–75 8.9% 

76–150 1.7% 

151–250 0.9% 

251–500 0.4% 

501–1,000 0.0% 

1,001–1,500 0.0% 

More than 1,500 0.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 

E; respondents were asked to select only one option.

42
2.2 Technology 

Technology Funding 

Overall, more than three-quarters of public libraries (81.4 percent) had funding for technology 

in the past 12 months. Most large public libraries (92.7 percent) had funds, but small libraries 

were not as well funded (72.6 percent.) Anticipated technology funding for the next 12 

months is weaker overall at 74.3 percent. 

FIGURE 5 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY

Small 

(n=117) 

Medium 

(n=58) 

Large 

(n=55) 

Total 

(n=230) 

In the past 12 months, did your institution have funding for technology? 

Yes 72.6% 88.1% 92.7% 81.4% 

No 27.4% 10.2% 1.8% 16.9% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0% 1.7% 5.5% 1.7% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to have funding for your technology? 

Yes 62.4% 81.0% 92.7% 74.3% 

No 15.4% 1.7% 1.8% 8.7% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 22.2% 17.2% 5.5% 17.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 1 and 2; respondents were 

asked to select only one option.

Adequate Funding of Technology Needs 

The majority of medium and large public libraries report that 76 percent or more of their 

technology needs are adequately funded, while the majority of small public libraries report 

that 50 percent or less of their technology needs are adequately funded.

FIGURE 6 

PERCENTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY NEEDS 

THAT ARE ADEQUATELY FUNDED 

Percent 

Small 

(n=115) 

Medium 

(n=58) 

Large 

(n=53) 

Total 

(n=226) 

0% 6.1% 3.4% 0.0% 4.0% 

1–25% 31.3% 10.3% 20.8% 23.5% 

26–50% 13.0% 12.1% 3.8% 10.6% 

51–75% 13.9% 22.4% 20.8% 17.7% 

76–99% 13.9% 24.1% 37.7% 22.1% 

100% 21.7% 27.6% 17.0% 22.1% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 3; respondents were 

asked to select only one option.

43
Maintaining and Adding Technology 

Overall, public libraries agree that they are able to maintain their current levels of technology. 

In fact, the larger that libraries are, the more they agree that they are able to maintain their 

current levels of technology. However, public libraries are neutral on their ability to add new 

uses of technology to meet evolving needs.

Figure 7 shows the mean ratings of an institution’s ability to maintain or add technology 

based on a 5-point scale with “1” being “strongly agree” and “5” being “strongly disagree.” 

Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 indicate agreement, ratings between 2.5 and 3.5 indicate 

neither agreement nor disagreement, and ratings greater than 3.5 indicate disagreement. 

FIGURE 7 

Ability to Maintain and Add Technology

Mean Rating 

My institution is able to: Small 

(n=114) 

Medium

(n=57)

Large 

(n=53) 

Total 

(n=224)

Maintain its current level of technology 2.5 2.0 1.9 2.2 

Add new uses of technology to meet evolving needs 3.4 2.9 3.0 3.2 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 4. The scale for this question was 1, meaning strongly 

agree, to 5, meaning strongly disagree. 

Extent of Technology Capacity 

More than three-quarters of public libraries either currently have the technology capacity 

necessary to meet their mission, or their technology capacity almost meets their mission. 

Nearly one-quarter of public libraries report that their technology capacity falls short of or 

does not meet their mission. 

FIGURE 8 

TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY TO MEET MISSION 

Response Option Small 

(n=115) 

Medium

(n=58) 

 Large 

(n=53) 

Total 

(n=226) 

Currently meets our mission 40.0% 36.2% 41.5% 39.4% 

Almost meets our mission 38.3% 39.7% 34.0% 37.6% 

Is short of meeting our mission 14.8% 20.7% 24.5% 18.6% 

Does not meet our mission 6.1% 3.4% 0.0% 4.0% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 5; respondents were asked 

to select only one option.

Technologies Used in Past 12 Months 

All public libraries used e-mail in the past 12 months, and almost all used office productivity 

software and desktop computers. Few public libraries used point-of-sale software and 

systems, or virtual reality tours.

In the past 12 months, all large public libraries had Web sites, whereas only 66.1 percent of 

small public libraries and 87.7 percent of medium public libraries did. 

44
FIGURE 9 

PUBLIC LIBRARIES THAT USED THE FOLLOWING TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Technology Small 

(n=113) 

Medium 

(n=58) 

Large 

(n=53) 

Total 

(n=224) 

Accounting/payroll software/human relations 36.4% 70.9% 75.0% 54.4%

Broadband Internet connection 67.3% 83.6% 90.4% 77.0%

Computerized catalog of library or other collections 70.5% 96.6% 98.1% 83.9%

Computerized collections management system 50.0% 63.0% 66.7% 57.3%

Database software or system for membership development 33.3% 50.0% 49.0% 41.4%

Desktop computers 95.6% 98.3% 96.2% 96.4%

E-mail 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

GIS (geographic information systems) applications 7.8% 9.6% 12.5% 9.4%

Integrated library system (ILS) 36.8% 60.0% 90.0% 55.5%

Intranet 18.1% 43.4% 69.4% 36.7%

LAN (local area network) 68.2% 82.5% 92.2% 77.7%

Marketing and promotion software and systems 11.8% 18.5% 12.5% 13.7%

Meta- or federated searching in online collections and catalogs 38.7% 41.1% 44.9% 40.8%

Modem (dial access) Internet connection 34.0% 23.1% 26.0% 29.3%

Multimedia services or collections 43.0% 71.4% 84.3% 60.9%

Notebook or tablet computers 14.3% 42.9% 54.9% 31.6%

Office productivity software, including word processing, desktop 

publishing, and spreadsheets 96.4% 94.7% 100.0% 96.8%

PDAs (personal digital assistant handheld devices, e.g., Palm 

Pilots) 6.7% 13.0% 32.0% 14.4%

Personal information management (PIM) software 3.8% 7.4% 10.2% 6.3%

Point-of-sale software and systems 1.9% 3.8% 9.8% 4.3%

RFID (radio frequency identification) in services or collections 0.0% 3.7% 4.0% 1.9%

Software to manage public-access computers and printing 40.6% 43.9% 47.1% 43.0%

Video tours 3.9% 3.7% 10.0% 5.3%

Virtual reality tours 2.9% 3.8% 4.1% 3.4%

Web portal or gateway for services or collections 26.0% 48.1% 52.9% 38.3%

Web site for your institution 66.1% 87.7% 100.0% 79.9%

Wireless network, including WiFi 17.3% 29.6% 47.1% 27.8%

Other 5.6% 13.3% 14.3% 8.6%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

The majority of small public libraries used between 6 and 15 technologies in the past 12 

months, while the majority of medium and large public libraries used between 11 and 20 

technologies. 

FIGURE 10 

PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES THAT USED THE FOLLOWING NUMBER OF 

TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Budget Number 

Small (n=113) Medium (n=58) Large (n=53) Total (n=224) 

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1-5 12.3% 1.7% 0.0% 6.7%

45
FIGURE 10 

PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES THAT USED THE FOLLOWING NUMBER OF 

TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Budget Number 

Small (n=113) Medium (n=58) Large (n=53) Total (n=224) 

6-10 48.7% 22.4% 13.2% 33.5%

11-15 37.2% 58.6% 58.5% 47.8%

16-20 0.9% 17.3% 20.8% 9.8%

21 or more 0.9% 0.0% 7.5% 2.2%

 Note: Data are based on survey question 6. 

Staff Capabilities 

Among large public libraries, 35.3 percent reported that they have the right number of staff to 

accomplish their technology activities. Overall, however, the majority of public libraries 

(73.1%) report that they do not have enough skilled staff to accomplish their technology 

activities.

FIGURE 11. 

EXTENT TO WHICH LIBRARIES HAVE SUFFICIENT 

SKILLED STAFF TO ACCOMPLISH TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES

Budget 

Response Option 

Small 

(n=108) 

Medium

(n=57) 

 Large 

(n=51) 

Total 

(n=216) 

We do not have enough skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 75.9% 78.9% 60.8% 73.1% 

We have the right amount of skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 20.4% 21.1% 35.3% 24.1% 

We have more than enough skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Other (please list) 1.9% 0.0% 3.9% 1.9% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 10; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Needs Assessments 

A slightly higher number of small and medium public libraries (27.1 and 27.6%, respectively) 

conduct assessments of user or visitor needs for technology-supported services or experiences 

at their institutions than large public libraries (21.6%) do. More than two-thirds of public 

libraries (67.6%) do not conduct these assessments. 

FIGURE 12 

CONDUCT NEEDS ASSESSMENTS 

FOR TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED SERVICES

Response Option Small 

(n=107) 

Medium 

(n=58) 

Large 

(n=51) 

Total 

(n=216) 

Yes 27.1% 27.6% 21.6% 25.9% 

No 65.4% 69.0% 70.6% 67.6% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 7.5% 3.4% 7.8% 6.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 12; respondents were asked to select only one option. 

46
2.3 Digitization 

Digitization Policies 

The most prevalent digitization policies among all public libraries are those for access 

(20.0%), best practices (10.8%), and security (10.5%). The least prevalent policies include 

those for conversion of digital files to next-generation formats (0.5%) and metadata (1.9%). 

Overall, the data show that even the most prevalent policies are in place in less than onefourth of all public libraries.

FIGURE 13. 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES IN PLACE

Type of Policy Small 

(n=108) 

Medium 

(n=56) 

Large 

(n=51) 

Total 

(n=215) 

Access 24.1% 25.0% 5.9% 20.0%

Best practices 15.0% 10.9% 2.0% 10.8%

Conversion of digital files to next-generation formats 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

Digital format (e.g., TIFF, GIF, PAL) 3.7% 3.6% 7.8% 4.7%

Evaluation 4.7% 7.3% 3.9% 5.2%

Institutional repository 1.9% 1.9% 3.9% 2.4%

Intellectual property issues 8.5% 10.9% 11.8% 9.9%

Materials to be digitized 3.8% 0.0% 2.0% 2.4%

Priorities for digitization 3.8% 0.0% 5.9% 3.3%

Preservation 4.7% 0.0% 7.8% 4.2%

Quality control 7.5% 3.6% 5.9% 6.1%

Standards 9.4% 3.6% 7.8% 7.5%

Metadata 1.9% 0.0% 3.9% 1.9%

Security 12.3% 7.4% 10.0% 10.5%

Other 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 1.2%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

Digitization Funding 

More large public libraries (17.6%) had funding to support their digitization activities in the 

past 12 months than medium and small public libraries (12.3 and 9.3%, respectively). More 

than two-thirds of all public libraries did not have funding to support their digitization 

activities in the past 12 months.

FIGURE 14 

FUNDING TO SUPPORT DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Response Option Small 

(n=108) 

Medium 

(n=57) 

Large 

(n=51) 

Total 

(n=216) 

Yes 9.3% 12.3% 17.6% 12.0% 

No 71.3% 70.2% 70.6% 70.8% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 19.4% 17.5% 11.8% 17.1% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 18; respondents were asked to 

select only one option.

47
Materials for Digitization 

Overall, few public libraries report digitizing any materials currently or in the past 12 months. 

Information on the institution, and photographs were digitized more than any other type of 

material. Medium and large public libraries are also digitizing historical documents/archives.

FIGURE 15 

MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN DIGITIZED 

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OR ARE CURRENTLY BEING DIGITIZED

Material Small 

(n=108) 

Medium 

(n=57) 

Large 

(n=50) 

Total 

(n=215) 

Correspondence, diaries and other personal records 0.9% 3.6% 4.1% 2.4% 

Course material 1.9% 0.0% 2.1% 1.4% 

Education and training material about the collections 1.9% 0.0% 2.1% 1.4% 

Films, videotapes 0.0% 1.8% 2.1% 1.0% 

Government publications 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Historical documents/archives 0.9% 5.4% 6.0% 3.3% 

Images of items in the collections (e.g., art work, 

artifacts, furniture, plants, animals) 1.9% 0.0% 2.2% 1.5% 

Information on the institution 5.7% 3.6% 4.2% 4.8% 

Journals and other serials 1.0% 0.0% 2.1% 1.0% 

Manuscripts 1.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1.0% 

Maps 1.0% 1.8% 4.3% 1.9% 

Music and other recorded sound 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 

Newspapers 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.5% 

Photographs 4.7% 5.5% 4.1% 4.8% 

Rare books 0.9% 0.0% 2.1% 1.0% 

Records about the collection 0.0% 3.6% 2.2% 1.4% 

Sheet music 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Special exhibits 0.0% 1.8% 2.2% 1.0% 

Theses and dissertations 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 

Other (please list) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 20; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

Primary Digitization Priorities 

For the public libraries surveyed, the most frequently identified digitization priorities were as 

follows:

• Historical documents/archives: 50.5 percent of all libraries considered this a priority. 

• Photographs: 31.7 percent considered this a priority. 

• Newspapers: 28.8 percent considered this a priority. 

FIGURE 16 

DIGITIZATION PRIORITIES 

Priority Small 

(n=106) 

Medium 

(n=54) 

Large 

(n=48) 

Total 

(n=208) 

Correspondence, diaries, and other personal records 9.4% 18.5% 25.0% 15.4% 

Course material 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.5% 

Education and training material about the collections 3.8% 1.9% 4.2% 3.4% 

48
FIGURE 16 

DIGITIZATION PRIORITIES 

Small Medium Large Total Priority (n=106) (n=54) (n=48) (n=208) 

Films, videotapes 3.8% 1.9% 2.1% 2.9% 

Government publications 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% 1.4% 

Historical documents/archives 41.5% 61.1% 58.3% 50.5% 

Images of items in the collections (e.g., art work, artifacts, 

furniture, plants, animals) 5.7% 7.4% 2.1% 5.3% 

Information on the institution 4.7% 9.3% 14.6% 8.2% 

Journals and other serials 5.7% 1.9% 0.0% 3.4% 

Manuscripts 0.9% 7.4% 6.3% 3.8% 

Maps 4.7% 18.5% 8.3% 9.1% 

Music and other recorded sound 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 

Newspapers 25.5% 31.5% 33.3% 28.8% 

Photographs 24.5% 29.6% 50.0% 31.7% 

Rare books 10.4% 9.3% 10.4% 10.1% 

Records about the collection 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 

Sheet music 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Special exhibits 1.9% 3.7% 0.0% 1.9% 

Theses and dissertations 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.5% 

Other (please list) 1.9% 7.4% 6.3% 4.3% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 41.0% 22.2% 22.9% 31.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 22; respondents were asked to select their institution’s top 

three priorities. 

Number of Digital Materials Created in the Past 12 Months 

Across all public libraries, 21.5 percent created between 1 and 500 digital images in the past 

12 months. However, three-quarters of public libraries (75.2%) created zero digital materials 

or images in the past 12 months. 

FIGURE 17. 

NUMBER OF DIGITAL MATERIALS OR IMAGES 

CREATED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Number Small 

(n=108) 

Medium 

(n=56) 

Large 

(n=50) 

Total 

(n=214) 

0 82.4% 80.4% 54.0% 75.2% 

1–500 16.7% 17.9% 36.0% 21.5% 

501–1,000 0.9% 0.0% 6.0% 1.9% 

1,001–5,000 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.5% 

5,001–10,000 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.5% 

10,001–25,000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

More than 25,000 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 23; respondents 

were asked to select only one option.

49
Number of Additional Images Remaining to be Digitized 

Large public libraries report considerable numbers of items still to be digitized, including 12.2 

percent with more than 25,000 images to be digitized. Overall, however, 46.6 percent of 

public libraries report that they have no digital materials or images left to digitize.

FIGURE 18 

NUMBER OF DIGITAL MATERIALS OR IMAGES

LEFT TO BE CREATED

Number Small 

(n=106) 

Medium 

(n=53) 

Large 

(n=49) 

Total 

(n=208) 

0 55.7% 49.1% 24.5% 46.6% 

1–500 26.4% 15.1% 22.4% 22.6% 

501–1,000 5.7% 9.4% 10.2% 7.7% 

1,001–5,000 7.5% 13.2% 16.3% 11.1% 

5,001–10,000 2.8% 9.4% 12.2% 6.7% 

10,001–25,000 0.9% 0.0% 2.0% 1.0% 

More than 25,000 0.9% 3.8% 12.2% 4.3% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 24; respondents were 

asked to select only one option. 

Undertaking Digitization Activities 

More than three-quarters of small and medium public libraries, and one-half of large public 

libraries either do not know how their institution undertakes digitization activities, or this 

question was not applicable to them. Large public libraries undertake their digitization 

activities by the following: 

• Training current staff to perform these activities: 17.2 percent use this means. 

• Having volunteers perform these activities: 9.1 percent use this means. 

• Having these activities performed by commercial vendors off-site: 6.2 percent use this 

means. 

FIGURE 19. 

MEANS OF UNDERTAKING DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Budget 

Response Option 

Small 

(n=106) 

Medium 

(n=55) 

Large 

(n=48) 

Total 

(n=209) 

Contractual staff were hired to perform these 

activities in-house. 2.8% 1.8% 2.1% 2.4%

New institutional staff were hired to perform 

these activities. 0.9% 1.8% 0.0% 1.0%

Current staff were trained to perform these 

activities. 7.5% 20.0% 35.4% 17.2%

Current staff were reassigned to perform these 

activities. 3.8% 5.5% 4.2% 4.3%

Volunteers perform these activities. 10.4% 5.5% 10.4% 9.1%

These activities are performed by commercial 

vendors off-site. 4.7% 1.8% 14.6% 6.2%

Materials are digitized off-site at another 

institution’s digitization center. 1.9% 0.0% 8.3% 2.9%

50
FIGURE 19. 

MEANS OF UNDERTAKING DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Budget 

Small Medium Large Total 

Response Option (n=106) (n=55) (n=48) (n=209) 

Other (please list) 0.9% 0.0% 2.1% 1.0%

Don’t know/Not applicable 75.5% 77.8% 51.1% 70.5%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 26; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

The Availability of Digital Image Collections to the Public 

Overall, 21.7 percent of public libraries make some or all of their digital image collections 

available to the public. A higher number of large public libraries (37.5%) make some or all of 

their digital image collections available to the public than small and medium public libraries 

(17.9 and 14.8%, respectively). However, 73.6% of all public libraries responded “Don’t 

know/not applicable” to this question. 

FIGURE 20. 

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF DIGITAL IMAGE COLLECTIONS

Response Option Small 

(n=106) 

Medium

(n=54) 

Large 

(n=48) 

Total 

(n=208) 

Yes, some of our digital image collections are 

available to the public. 7.5% 3.7% 16.7% 8.7%

Yes, all of our digital image collections are 

available to the public. 10.4% 11.1% 20.8% 13.0%

No, our digital image collections are not available 

to the public. 1.9% 5.6% 10.4% 4.8%

Don’t know/Not applicable 80.2% 79.6% 52.1% 73.6%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 27; respondents were asked to select only one option. 

How Digital Image Collections Are Made Available

Of those large public libraries that make their digital image collections available to the public, 

more than one-third make their collections available on the Web. Both large and small public 

libraries are more likely to make collections available on the premises on their computer 

network (LAN) than medium libraries. 

Of those small and medium public libraries that make their digital image collections available 

to the public, the majority (79.6 and 80.9%, respectively) either do not know how their 

collections are made available, or this question was not applicable to them. 

FIGURE 21 

HOW DIGITAL IMAGE COLLECTIONS ARE MADE AVAILABLE

Response Option 

Small 

(n=104) 

Medium 

(n=48) 

Large 

(n=43) 

Total 

(n=195) 

On the premises on our computer network (LAN) 16.3% 6.3% 18.6% 14.4%

On the Web 4.8% 12.5% 37.2% 13.8%

Through a third party 1.9% 6.3% 4.7% 3.6%

Don’t know/Not applicable 79.6% 80.9% 53.5% 74.1%

51
Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 28; respondents were asked to select all that 

apply. Table only includes respondents who reported that they make some or all of their digital image 

collections available to the public. 

Needs Assessments 

Only small and medium public libraries (4.6 and 3.8%, respectively) reported that they 

conduct assessments of their user or visitor needs for digitized materials and images. No large 

public libraries reported that they conduct assessments. Overall, three-quarters or more of 

public libraries do not conduct assessments of their user or visitor needs for digitized 

materials. 

FIGURE 22. 

CONDUCT NEEDS ASSESSMENTS FOR DIGITIZED MATERIALS

Response Option Small 

(n=109) 

Medium 

(n=53) 

Large 

(n=48) 

Total 

(n=210) 

Yes 4.6% 3.8% 0.0% 3.3% 

No 77.1% 86.8% 87.5% 81.9% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 18.3% 9.4% 12.5% 14.8% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 35; respondents were asked 

to select only one option. 

Collaboration 

Overall, 16 percent of public libraries collaborate (through specific partnering agreements) 

with other institutions and organizations to digitize materials. Large public libraries are about 

three times more likely to collaborate (through specific partnering agreements) than medium 

or small public libraries. 

FIGURE 23 

COLLABORATION TO DIGITIZE MATERIALS

Response Option Small 

(n=109) 

Medium 

(n=52) 

Large 

(n=48) 

Total 

(n=209) 

Yes 11.0% 11.5% 33.3% 16.3% 

No 73.4% 78.8% 60.4% 71.8% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 15.6% 9.6% 6.3% 12.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 37; respondents were asked 

to select only one option.

. 

FIGURE 24 

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Small 

(n=12) 

Medium 

(n=6) 

Large 

(n=16) 

Total 

(n=34) 

State library agencies 8.3% 66.7% 43.8% 35.3%

Academic libraries 0.0% 0.0% 18.8% 8.8%

Individual public libraries 16.7% 33.3% 25.0% 23.5%

Private libraries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Museums 8.3% 0.0% 12.5% 8.8%

Consortia 8.3% 33.3% 37.5% 26.5%

52
FIGURE 24 

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Small Medium Large Total 

(n=12) (n=6) (n=16) (n=34) 

State archives 0.0% 16.7% 12.5% 8.8%

− Special libraries 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 5.9%

Historical societies 41.7% 16.7% 18.8% 26.5%

Federal government agencies or archives 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other state government agencies 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 2.9%

City, municipal, or other local government 

agencies or archives 16.7% 16.7% 12.5% 14.7%

Universities and colleges 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9%

Community organizations 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 5.9%

Private companies 0.0% 16.7% 6.3% 5.9%

Foundations 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 2.9%

State library associations 8.3% 0.0% 6.3% 5.9%

State museum associations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other professional associations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other 16.7% 0.0% 6.3% 8.8%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 37; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

Capabilities in Initiating, Accomplishing, and Sustaining Digitization Activities 

Figure 25 shows the average ratings of an institution’s capability to initiate, accomplish, and 

sustain digitization activities based on a 5-point scale with “1” being “deficient” and “5” 

being “fully capable.” Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 tend to indicate deficiency and ratings 

greater than 2.5 tend to indicate capability. Overall, public libraries rate their capability at 

initiating, accomplishing, and sustaining digitization activities between “deficient” and 

“somewhat deficient” in all areas. 

FIGURE 25 

CAPABILITY TO INITIATE, ACCOMPLISH, AND SUSTAIN DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Capability Small 

(n=107)

Medium 

(n=50) 

Large 

(n=47)

Total 

(n=204)

Staff skills and expertise 2.0 1.8 2.3 2.0 

Equipment and software 1.9 1.7 2.4 2.0 

Funding 1.3 1.6 2.1 1.6 

Established digitization plan 1.5 1.3 1.8 1.5 

Established digitization policies 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.5 

Established quality standards 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.5 

Established procedures for preparation for creating digital images 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.5 

Established procedures for the management of images and files 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.5 

Other (please list) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 39; respondents were asked to select all that apply. The 

scale for this question was 1, meaning deficient, to 5, meaning fully capable. 

53
Hindrances to Digitization Activities 

Overall, public libraries (regardless of size) tended to agree that all of the following are 

hindrances to their digitization activities, with the strongest agreement elicited by “lack of 

funds” and “lack of staff time.” Public libraries tended to disagree with the notions that “not 

having collections worth digitizing” and “management is unaware of the benefits of 

digitization” were hindrances to digitization. 

FIGURE 26 

HINDRANCES TO DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Digitization activities in your institution 

are hindered by the following: 

Small 

(n=106)

Medium

(n=51) 

Large 

(n=46) 

Total 

(n=203)

Lack of staff time 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 

Lack of staff skills and expertise 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.7 

Lack of funds 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 

Lack of sufficient equipment and/or software 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.7 

Lack of an established digitization plan 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.7 

Lack of established digitization policies 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.8 

Lack of established quality standards 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.8 

Lack of established policies and procedures for preparation 

of materials for digitizing 

1.8 1.5 2.0 1.8 

Lack of established policies and procedures for the 

management of images and files 

1.8 1.6 2.1 1.8 

Having other projects of higher priority 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.7 

Concern about intellectual property issues 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.7 

Security concerns 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.9 

Not having collections worth digitizing 3.0 3.2 4.1 3.4 

Concern about costs of preservation and management 2.0 1.8 2.2 2.0 

Management is unaware of the benefits of digitization 2.7 3.3 3.8 3.2 

Other (please list) 2.0 1.5 0.0 1.9 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 40; respondents were asked to rate each 

potential hindrance. The scale for this question was 1, meaning strongly agree, to 5, meaning 

strongly disagree. 

54
3. Comparisons of the 2001 and the 2004 survey findings 

This section highlights the differences in the following categories between the 2001 and the 

2004 survey findings for public libraries. 

• Top technologies used 

• Funding for technology and digitization 

• Sources of funding for digitization activities 

• Digitization policies 

• Top goals for digitization projects 

Because of some differences between the 2001 and 2004 survey questions, comparisons are 

made only where applicable. 

3.1 Overview 

• Technologies used in the past 12 months: There were slight increases in some 

technologies (e-mail, office productivity software, desktop computers, institutional 

Web sites) and decreases in others (notebook or tablet computers, accounting/payroll, 

and software/human resources). The newer technologies (broadband, WiFi, software 

to manage public-access computers and printing, and federated searching) were not 

options in the 2001 survey, so these are not reflected in the comparisons. 

• Availability of funding for technology and digitization: Fewer public libraries reported 

having funding for technology in 2004 (81.4%) than in 2001 (98.7%). Similarly, in 

2004, 12.3 percent of the libraries had funding for digitization activities, a drop from 

30 percent in 2001. 

• Sources of funding for digitization activities: In 2001, 46.3 percent of all libraries 

identified institutional operating funds as a major source of funding for digitization 

activities; 25.4 percent identified gifts from donors as a major source; and 23.9 percent 

identified foundation grants as a major source of funding. In 2004, 37 percent of all 

libraries identified city, county, or other local government funds as a major source of 

funding; 33.3 percent identified institutional operating funds; and 22.2 percent 

identified gifts from donors and grants from Federal agencies as top sources. 

• Digitization policies: In general, the percentage of public libraries that have 

digitization policies in place or in development increased from 2001 to 2004. For 

example, 20.6 percent of all libraries had access policies in 2004, while only 1.3 

percent of libraries had access policies in 2001; and 10.7 percent of all libraries had 

best practices policies in 2004, as opposed to only 0.9 percent in 2001. Still, more than 

three-quarters of libraries did not have policies in place or in development in 2004. 

• Digitization goals: Preserving materials of importance and value ranked first in both 

2001 and 2004: 37.4 percent of all public libraries surveyed in 2001 ranked this goal 

as important, and 42.2 percent ranked it as important in 2004. In 2001, increasing 

55
interest in the institution came in second, with 32.5 percent of libraries indicating this 

to be an important goal; but in 2004, increasing access to collections, materials, and 

files came in second, with 32.2 percent of libraries identifying this goal as important. 

Providing access to materials via the Web was important in 2001 to 26.7 percent of all 

libraries, while minimizing damage to original materials was important in 2004 to 23.2 

percent of all libraries. 

3.2 Top Technologies Used 

For most types of technology that we asked about, there was an increase from the percentage 

of public libraries that reported using them in 2001 to the percentage of public libraries that 

reporting using them in 2004. However, the number of libraries using notebook or tablet 

computers, technology related to accounting/payroll/human resources, and computerized 

catalogs of library or other collections decreased 6 to 17 percent. The top three technologies 

used in 2001 and 2004 were e-mail, office productivity software, and desktop computers. 

FIGURE 27 

TECHNOLOGIES USED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Survey Year 

Technology 

2001 

(n=235) 

2004 

(n=228) 

Accounting/payroll/human resources software 63.8% 53.8% 

Database software or system for membership development 27.2% 42.1% 

Desktop computers 89.4% 96.0% 

E-mail 98.3% 100.0% 

Intranet 37.0% 36.5% 

Marketing and promotion software and systems 9.8% 13.9% 

Notebook or tablet computers 48.9% 31.5% 

Office productivity software, including word processing, desktop 

publishing, and spreadsheets 91.1% 96.9% 

PDAs (personal digital assistant handheld devices, e.g., Palm 

Pilots) 15.3% 14.6% 

Point-of-sale software and systems 3.4% 4.7% 

Video tours 3.4% 5.2% 

Virtual reality tours 2.6% 3.4% 

Web site for your institution 75.3% 80.3% 

Other 1.3% 8.6% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6; respondents were asked to 

select all that apply.

3.3 Funding for Technology and Digitization 

The percentage of public libraries that reported that they had funding in 2004 for both 

technology and digitization activities is lower than the percentage that reported they had 

funding in 2001. 

56
FIGURE 28 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITIZATION

Survey Year 

2001 

(n=230) 

2004 

(n=236) 

Response Option Yes No 

Don’t know/ 

Not applicable Yes No 

Don’t know/ 

Not applicable 

Technology 

In the past 12 months, did your institution 

have funding for technology? 98.7% 1.3% – 81.4% 16.9% 1.7% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to have 

funding for your technology? – – – 74.9% 8.5% 16.6% 

1. Digitization 

In the past 12 months, did your institution 

have funding to support your digitization 

activities? 

30.0% 70.0% – 12.3% 70.8% 16.9% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to obtain 

funding to support your digitization 

activities? 

60.9% 39.1% – 19.5% 51.8% 28.6% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 1 and 18; respondents were asked to select only one option. 

3.4 Sources of Funding for Technology 

For those public libraries that had funding for their technology activities, the top three sources 

were the same in 2001 as they were in 2004: city, county, or other local government funds; 

institutional operating funds; and State funds. 

FIGURE 29. 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY

Survey Year

Source of Funding 2001 

(n=227) 

2004 

(n=192) 

Endowment funds 13.7% 7.8% 

Foundation grants 34.8% 24.0% 

Gifts from donors 30.4% 20.8% 

Grants from Federal agencies 37.8% 12.5% 

Institutional operating funds 65.6% 32.8% 

State funds 56.4% 31.8% 

City, county, or other local government funds 71.8% 53.1% 

Other sources 20.3% 10.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 1; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

3.5 Sources of Funding for Digitization Activities 

The top three sources of funding for digitization activities in 2001 were as follows: 

• Institutional operating funds: 46.3 percent of libraries identified this as a top source. 

• Grants from Federal agencies: 37.3 identified this as a top source. 

• Gifts from donors: 25.4 percent identified this as a top source. 

57
In 2004, the top three sources were as follows: 

• City, county, or other local government funds: 37.0 percent of libraries identified this 

as a top source. 

• Institutional operating funds: 33.3 percent identified this as a top source. 

• Gifts from donors and grants from Federal agencies: 22.2 percent identified both of 

these categories as top sources of funding. 

FIGURE 30 

FUNDING FOR DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Survey Year 

Source of Funding 

2001 

(n=67) 

2004 

(n=27) 

Endowment funds 10.4% 14.8%

Foundation grants 23.9% 11.1%

Gifts from donors 25.4% 22.2%

Grants from Federal agencies 37.3% 22.2%

Institutional operating funds 46.3% 33.3%

State funds 19.4% 14.8%

City, county, or other local government funds 20.9% 37.0%

Other sources 4.5% 0.0%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 18; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

3.6 Digitization Policies 

In general, the percentage of public libraries that have digitization policies in place or in 

development (versus “not in place or in development/don’t know”) increased from 2001 to 

2004. However, even in 2004, the majority of public libraries did not have policies in place or 

in development. 

FIGURE 31 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES

Survey Year 

 2001 (n=227) 2004 (n=218) 

Policy Policies 

in place 

Policies in 

development 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don't know 

Policies 

in place 

Policies in 

development 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don't know 

Access 1.3% 7.5% 91.2% 20.6% 7.8% 71.6%

Best practices 0.9% 3.5% 95.6% 10.7% 5.1% 84.2%

Conversion of digital files 

to next-generation formats 0.4% 3.5% 96.0% 0.5% 7.0% 92.6%

Digital format (e.g., TIFF, 

GIF, PAL) 2.2% 4.8% 92.9% 4.7% 6.5% 88.8%

Evaluation 1.3% 4.4% 94.3% 5.1% 7.0% 87.9%

Intellectual property issues 0.9% 7.9% 91.2% 9.8% 7.0% 83.2%

Materials to be digitized 2.6% 10.1% 87.2% 2.3% 11.7% 86.0%

Priorities for digitization 2.2% 11.0% 86.8% 3.3% 10.7% 86.0%

58
FIGURE 31 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES

Survey Year 

 2001 (n=227) 2004 (n=218) 

No policies in No policies in 

Policy Policies 

in place 

Policies in 

development 

place or in place or in 

development/ Policies Policies in development/ 

Don't know in place development Don't know 

Preservation 0.4% 6.2% 93.4% 4.2% 11.2% 84.6%

Quality control 1.3% 5.3% 93.4% 6.0% 8.4% 85.6%

Standards 0.4% 7.0% 92.5% 7.5% 8.4% 84.1%

Other 4.0% 1.3% 94.7% 1.2% 2.4% 96.3%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

3.7 Top Goals for Digitization Projects 

The top three goals for digitization activities in 2001 were as follows: 

• Preserve materials of importance or value: 37.4 percent of libraries identified this as a 

goal. 

• Increase interest in the institution: 32.5 percent of libraries identified this as a goal. 

• Provide access to materials via the Web: 26.7 percent of libraries identified this as a 

goal. 

• In 2004, the top three goals for digitization activities were as follows: 

• Preserve materials of importance or value: 42.2 percent of libraries identified this as a 

goal. 

• Increase access to collections/materials/files: 32.2 percent of libraries identified this as 

a goal. 

• Minimize damage to original materials: 23.2 percent of libraries identified this as a 

goal. 

FIGURE 32. 

GOALS FOR DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Survey Year Goal 

2001 (n=206) 2004 (n=211) 

Preserve materials of importance or value 37.4% 42.2%

Increase access to collections/materials/files 4.9% 32.2%

Minimize damage to original materials 24.3% 23.2%

Provide access to materials via the Web 26.7% 22.7%

Increase interest in the institution 32.5% 7.1%

Save space in the institution 10.7% 5.7%

Present more of the collection than is on display at any one time 3.9% 1.4%

Save costs by eliminating duplication of materials 0.5% 1.9%

Encourage cooperation among institutions to increase the 

number and variety of materials available 10.7% 1.4%

Provide greater information about the institution’s collections to 

artists, scholars, students, teachers, and the public 0.0% 2.8%

Increase access to state services 3.4% 0.9%

Support educational programs 1.0% 1.4%

59
FIGURE 32. 

GOALS FOR DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Survey Year Goal 

2001 (n=206) 2004 (n=211) 

Other (please list) 0.0% 0.5%

Don’t know/Not applicable 35.0% 48.6%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 31; respondents were asked to select their institution’s top 

three goals. 

60
Academic Libraries 

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the academic library data, a detailed description of 

certain survey question responses by academic library size, and a summary of comparisons 

with data from the 2001 survey. 

1. Academic library Overview 

1.1 Technology Overview 

• Availability of funding: Of the academic libraries surveyed, 95.6 percent report having 

received funding for technology in the past 12 months, and 88.1 percent expect to 

have funding in the next 12 months. 

• Adequacy of technology funding: Half of academic libraries indicate that more than 75 

percent of their technology needs are adequately funded. More than one-fourth 

(28.0%) of medium libraries report that their technology needs are fully (100%) met. 

However, 26.9 percent of large libraries indicate that 50 percent or less of their 

technology needs are adequately funded. 

• Maintaining and adding technologies: All academic libraries, regardless of size, agree 

that their institutions are able to maintain their current levels of technology but are 

neutral on their institutions’ ability to add new uses of technology to meet evolving 

needs. 

• Technology capacity: More than two-thirds of academic libraries (70.7%) either 

currently have the technology capacity necessary to meet their needs or almost have 

enough capacity to meet their needs. Overall, 29.3 percent of the libraries indicated 

that their technology capacity is short of meeting their mission or does not meet their 

mission. 

• Technologies in use: E-mail, desktop computers, office productivity software, 

institutional Web site, and computerized catalogs of library or other collections are 

used by nearly all academic libraries. Other technologies widely used include the 

following: 

o Broadband Internet connections, used by 90.8 percent of academic libraries. 

o Local area networks (LANs), used by 87.7 percent. 

o Integrated library system, used by 84.6 percent. 

o Multimedia services or collections, used by 78.5 percent. 

o Accounting/payroll/human resources software, used by 76.9 percent. 

o Software to manage public-access computers and printing, used by 66.7 

percent. 

• Staff capabilities: Overall, 71.4 percent of academic libraries report that they do not 

have enough skilled staff to accomplish their technology activities. This is particularly 

61
true among small academic libraries, of which 83.3 percent do not have sufficient 

numbers of skilled staff. 

• Needs assessment: Overall, 43.8 percent of academic libraries conduct assessments of 

user or visitor needs for technology-supported services, including 53.8 percent of large 

and 41.7 percent of small academic libraries. 

1.2 Digitization Overview 

• Digitization policies: Among all academic libraries, regardless of size, the most 

common policies in place include access (30.6% of academic libraries), digital format 

(23%), and intellectual property issues (19.7%). Large academic libraries are generally 

stronger in each of these categories (40.0, 36.0, and 28.0%, respectively). 

• Funding for digitization activities: Overall, 29.0 percent of academic libraries had 

digitization funds in the past 12 months, including 40.0 percent of large libraries. 

However, the majority of academic libraries (54.8%) did not have funding for this 

period. 

• Digitization priorities: Digitizing historical documents/archives is a top priority for 

38.7 percent of all academic libraries; digitizing course material is important to 33.9 

percent; and digitizing photographs is a top priority for 24.2 percent of all academic 

libraries. 

• Materials and images digitized: In the past 12 months, 45.0 percent of all academic 

libraries created 1 to 500 digital images. Overall, large academic libraries digitized 

more than small and medium ones did. No digital images were created by 40.0 

percent of all academic libraries, including 60.0 percent of small and 50.0 percent of 

medium libraries. 

• Materials or images still to be digitized: More that half (54.4%) of academic libraries 

of all sizes have between 1 and 10,000 items left to digitize, and 19.3 percent have 

more than 25,000 items left. Large academic libraries have the most items to digitize, 

with 66.6 percent having more than 5,000 items to digitize. Overall, 24.6 percent of 

the libraries report that they have no items to be digitized, including 44.4 percent of 

small academic libraries. 

• Undertaking digitization activities: Across all academic libraries, 45.2 percent train 

current staff to perform digitization activities, 12.9 percent reassign staff to perform 

these activities, and 11.3 percent hire new staff to digitize materials. 

• Making digital images available: The majority of large academic libraries (52.0%) 

make some of their digital image collections available to the public, while fewer small 

and medium academic libraries (27.3 and 23.2%, respectively) make their digital 

collections available. The majority (56.0%) of academic libraries make their digital 

62
collections available to the public via the Web, including 72.7 percent of large 

libraries. Access on-site is available in 20.0 percent of the academic libraries. 

• Needs assessment: More than two-thirds of academic libraries (78.7%) do not conduct 

assessments of user or visitor needs for digitized materials and images in their 

institutions. 

• Collaboration: Of all academic libraries, 21.3 percent report that they collaborate with 

other institutions through specific partnering agreements. When they collaborate, 69.2 

percent turn to other academic libraries, 61.5 percent turn to universities and colleges, 

61.5 percent turn to state library agencies, and 38.5 percent turn to historical societies. 

• Capability for digitization activities: On average, academic libraries feel somewhat 

deficient in their capability to initiate, accomplish, and sustain digitization activities. 

Staff skills and expertise are the most highly rated capabilities; funding is the lowest. 

• Hindrances to digitization: Overall, academic libraries (regardless of size) tend to 

agree most strongly that “lack of staff time,” “lack of funds,” and “other projects have 

higher priorities” are all hindrances to their digitization activities. 

63
2. Academic library size analyses 

This section highlights the differences between the small, medium, and large academic 

libraries that responded to the survey. It compares how issues related to technology and 

digitization differ among the three size categories. To determine the small, medium, and large 

categories, we used the academic library survey question D on academic library budget size. 

FIGURE 1 

ACADEMIC LIBRARY SIZE ANALYSES

Size of Academic Library 

Annual Budget (2004) 

Budget 

Category 

Less than $250,000 Small 

$250,001–$500,000 

$500,001–$750,000 Medium 

- $750,001–

$1,000,000 

$1,000,001–$5,000,000 

$5,000,001–$10,000,000 

$10,000,001–$25,000,000 

More than $25,000,000 

Large 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question D;

respondents were asked to select only one option.

2.1 Demographics 

A total of 70 academic libraries participated in the survey. However, not all academic library 

participants responded to every question, so the sample sizes presented in the tables below 

might be slightly lower than 70. In addition, some tables are broken down by size of academic 

library while others are presented on the whole, which may result in different sample sizes for 

different tables. 

Type of Academic Library 

Figure 2 shows the types of academic institutions participating in the survey. Almost half of 

all academic library respondents represented universities. 

FIGURE 2 

PERCENTAGE OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 

IN EACH TYPE OF INSTITUTION BY SIZE

Type 

Small 

(n=15) 

Medium

(n=28) 

Large 

(n=26) 

Total 

(n=69) 

- Two-year 

junior/community college 46.7% 35.7% 19.2% 31.9% 

Four-year college 33.3% 25.0% 7.7% 20.3% 

University (offers post-baccalaureate 

degrees 20.0% 35.7% 73.1% 46.4% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 1.4% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question C; respondents were asked to 

select only one option.

64
Budget 

Figure 3 shows the annual budget for academic libraries. Slightly more than a quarter of the 

academic libraries surveyed have budgets between $1 million and $5 million, although more 

than half of them have budgets of less than $750,000. 

FIGURE 3 

PERCENTAGE OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 

WITH EACH SIZE ANNUAL BUDGET

Budget Percent 

(n=69) 

Less than $250,000 21.7% 

$250,001–$500,000 23.2% 

$500,001–$750,000 17.4% 

$750,001–$1,000,000 5.8% 

$1,000,001–$5,000,000 26.1% 

$5,000,001–$10,000,000 2.9% 

$10,000,001–$25,000,000 2.9% 

More than $25,000,000 0.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 

D; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Staff Size 

Figure 4 shows the number of full-time staff reported by academic libraries. Three-quarters of 

academic libraries report staff sizes of fewer than 25. 

FIGURE 4 

PERCENTAGE OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

WITH EACH SIZE CURRENT PAID, 

FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT STAFF

Staff Size Percent 

(n=70) 

Less than 5 22.9 

6–10 28.6 

11–25 24.3 

26–75 15.7 

76–150 5.7 

151–250 1.4 

251–500 1.4 

501–1,000 0.0 

1,001–1,500 0.0 

More than 1,500 0.0 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question E; 

respondents were asked to select only one option.

65
2.2 Technology 

Technology Funding 

Almost all (95.6%) academic libraries had funding for technology in the past 12 months and 

88.1 percent plan to have funding in the next 12 months. 

FIGURE 5 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY

Small 

(n=15) 

Medium 

(n=27) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=67) 

In the past 12 months, did your institution have funding for technology? 

Yes 86.7% 96.3% 100.0% 95.6% 

No 13.3% 3.7% 0.0% 4.4% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to have funding for your technology? 

Yes 80.0% 85.2% 96.0% 88.1% 

No 13.3% 11.1% 0.0% 7.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 6.7% 3.7% 4.0% 4.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 1 and 2; respondents were 

asked to select only one option.

Adequate Funding of Technology Needs 

More than one-fourth of medium academic libraries report that 100 percent of their 

technology needs are adequately funded. 

FIGURE 6 

PERCENTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY NEEDS

THAT ARE ADEQUATELY FUNDED 

Percent Small 

(n=15) 

Medium 

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=26) 

Total 

(n=66) 

0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

1–25% 0.0% 8.0% 3.8% 4.5% 

26–50% 26.7% 8.0% 23.1% 18.2% 

51–75% 40.0% 16.0% 30.8% 27.3% 

76–99% 26.7% 40.0% 34.6% 34.8% 

100% 6.7% 28.0% 7.7% 15.2% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 3; respondents 

were asked to select only one option.

Maintaining and Adding Technology 

Figure 7 shows the mean ratings of an institution’s ability to maintain or add technology 

based on a 5-point scale, with “1” meaning strongly agree and “5” meaning strongly disagree. 

Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 indicate agreement, ratings between 2.5 and 3.5 indicate 

neither agreement nor disagreement, and ratings greater than 3.5 indicate disagreement. 

66
All academic libraries agree that their institutions are able to maintain their current levels of 

technology, but they are neutral on their institutions’ ability to add new uses of technology to 

meet evolving needs. 

FIGURE 7 

CAPACITY TO MAINTAIN AND ADD TECHNOLOGY

- My institution is able to: Small 

(n=14) 

Medium

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=26) 

Total 

(n=66) 

Maintain its current level of technology 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.1 

Add new uses of technology to meet evolving needs 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 4. The scale for this question was 1, meaning strongly 

agree, to 5, meaning strongly disagree. 

Extent of Technology Capacity 

More than two-thirds of academic libraries (70.7%) either currently have the technology 

capacity necessary to meet their mission, or their technology capacity almost meets their 

mission. On average, 29.3 percent of academic libraries report that their technology capacity 

is short of meeting their mission or does not meet their mission. 

FIGURE 8 

TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY TO MEET MISSION 

Response Option Small 

(n=13) 

Medium

(n=26) 

 Large 

(n=26) 

Total 

(n=65) 

Currently meets our mission 23.1% 38.5% 23.1% 29.2% 

Almost meets our mission 38.5% 42.3% 42.3% 41.5% 

Is short of meeting our mission 30.8% 15.4% 26.9% 23.1% 

Does not meet our mission 7.7% 3.8% 7.7% 6.2% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 5; respondents were asked to 

select only one option.

Technologies Used in Past 12 Months 

All academic libraries, regardless of size, used e-mail in the past 12 months, and almost all 

used desktop computers, office productivity software, and a Web site for their institutions. 

FIGURE 9 

ACADEMIC LIBRARIES THAT USED 

THE FOLLOWING TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Technology Small 

(n=12) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=26) 

Total 

(n=64) 

Accounting/payroll/human resources software 64.3% 70.6% 85.3% 76.9%

Broadband Internet connection 78.6% 88.2% 97.1% 90.8%

Computerized catalog of library or other collections 85.7% 100.0% 100.0% 96.9%

Computerized collections management system 50.0% 29.4% 54.5% 46.9%

Database software or system for membership development 21.4% 47.1% 51.5% 43.8%

Desktop computers 100.0% 94.1% 100.0% 98.5%

E-mail 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

GIS (geographic information systems) applications 0.0% 11.8% 28.1% 17.5%

Integrated library system (ILS) 50.0% 100.0% 91.2% 84.6%

67
FIGURE 9 

ACADEMIC LIBRARIES THAT USED 

THE FOLLOWING TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Technology Small 

(n=12) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large Total 

(n=26) (n=64) 

Intranet 53.8% 64.7% 71.9% 66.1%

LAN (local area network) 92.9% 100.0% 79.4% 87.7%

Marketing and promotion software and systems 0.0% 18.8% 18.8% 14.5%

Meta- or federated searching in online collections and catalogs 14.3% 35.3% 36.4% 31.3%

Modem (dial access) Internet connection 28.6% 29.4% 28.1% 28.6%

Multimedia services or collections 57.1% 88.2% 82.4% 78.5%

Notebook or tablet computers 50.0% 41.2% 59.4% 52.4%

Office productivity software, including word processing, desktop 

publishing, and spreadsheets 100.0% 94.1% 100.0% 98.5%

PDAs (personal digital assistant handheld devices, e.g., Palm 

Pilots) 28.6% 29.4% 39.4% 34.4%

Personal information management (PIM) software 14.3% 0.0% 12.5% 9.5%

Point-of-sale software and systems 7.1% 17.6% 21.2% 17.2%

RFID (radio frequency identification) in services or collections 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 1.6%

Software to manage public-access computers and printing 64.3% 64.7% 68.8% 66.7%

Video tours 14.3% 23.5% 15.6% 17.5%

Virtual reality tours 21.4% 5.9% 12.9% 12.9%

Web portal or gateway for services or collections 64.3% 47.1% 68.8% 61.9%

Web site for the institution 92.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.5%

Wireless network, including WiFi 14.3% 52.9% 76.5% 56.9%

Other 0.0% 20.0% 33.3% 20.0%

Note: Data are based on survey question 6; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

The majority of small academic libraries (58.3%) and medium academic libraries (57.7%) 

used between 11 and 15 technologies in the past 12 months, while the majority of large 

academic libraries (76.9%) used between 11 and 20 technologies. 

FIGURE 10 

PERCENTAGE OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 

THAT USED THE FOLLOWING NUMBER 

OF TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Number Small 

(n=12) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=26) 

Total 

(n=64) 

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1–5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

6–10 16.7% 11.5% 7.7% 10.9%

11–15 58.3% 57.7% 42.3% 51.6%

16–20 25.0% 23.1% 34.6% 28.1%

21 or more 0.0% 7.7% 15.4% 9.4%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6. 

68
Staff Capabilities 

A greater number of small academic libraries (83.3%) report that they do not have the right 

number of skilled staff to accomplish their technology activities than either medium or large 

academic libraries (69.2 and 68.0%, respectively). 

Overall, more than two-thirds of academic libraries (71.4%) do not have enough skilled staff 

to accomplish their technology activities. 

FIGURE 11 

EXTENT TO WHICH ACADEMIC LIBRARIES HAVE SUFFICIENT

SKILLED STAFF TO ACCOMPLISH TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES

Response Option Small 

(n=12) 

Medium

(n=26) 

 Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=63) 

We do not have enough skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 83.3% 69.2% 68.0% 71.4% 

We have the right amount of skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 16.7% 26.9% 24.0% 23.8% 

We have more than enough skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Other (please list) 0.0% 3.8% 8.0% 4.8% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 10; respondents were asked to select only 

one option.

Needs Assessments 

A greater number of small and large academic libraries (41.7 and 53.8%, respectively) 

conduct assessments of user or visitor needs for technology-supported services or experiences 

at their institutions than do medium academic libraries (34.6%). 

FIGURE 12 

NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

FOR TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED SERVICES

Response Option Small 

(n=12) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=26) 

Total 

(n=64) 

Yes 41.7% 34.6% 53.8% 43.8% 

No 58.3% 46.2% 34.6% 43.8% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0% 19.2% 11.5% 12.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 12; respondents were asked to select only 

one option.

2.3 Digitization 

Digitization Policies 

In general, a greater number of large academic libraries have digitization policies in place 

than medium or small academic libraries do. The most prevalent digitization policies among 

all academic libraries are those for access (30.6% of all libraries have such policies), digital 

format (23.0%), and intellectual property issues (19.7%). The least prevalent policies include 

69
those for conversion of digital files to next-generation formats (1.7%), quality control (6.6%), 

and preservation (8.2%). Overall, the data show that even the most prevalent policies are in 

place in less than one-third of all academic libraries. 

FIGURE 13 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES IN PLACE

Type of Policy Small 

(n=11) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=62) 

Access 18.2% 26.9% 40.0% 30.6%

Best practices 9.1% 12.0% 8.0% 9.8%

Conversion of digital files to next-generation formats 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 1.7%

Digital format (e.g., TIFF, GIF, PAL) 18.2% 12.0% 36.0% 23.0%

Evaluation 9.1% 11.5% 12.5% 11.5%

Institutional repository 9.1% 4.0% 16.0% 9.8%

Intellectual property issues 18.2% 12.0% 28.0% 19.7%

Materials to be digitized 9.1% 4.0% 24.0% 13.1%

Priorities for digitization 9.1% 8.0% 16.0% 11.5%

Preservation 0.0% 8.0% 12.0% 8.2%

Quality control 0.0% 4.0% 12.0% 6.6%

Standards 0.0% 12.0% 20.0% 13.1%

Metadata 0.0% 8.0% 24.0% 13.1%

Security 9.1% 4.0% 24.0% 13.1%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 6.7%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

Digitization Funding 

A greater number of large academic libraries (40.0%) had funding to support their digitization 

activities in the past 12 months than small and medium academic libraries (18.2 and 23.1%, 

respectively). A majority of small and medium academic libraries (72.7 and 57.7%, 

respectively) reported that they did not have funding to support their digitization activities in 

the past 12 months. 

FIGURE 14 

FUNDING TO SUPPORT DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Response Option Small 

(n=11) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=62) 

Yes 18.2% 23.1% 40.0% 29.0% 

No 72.7% 57.7% 44.0% 54.8% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 9.1% 19.2% 16.0% 16.1% 

Note: Data are based on survey question 18; respondents were asked to select only one option. 

Materials for Digitization 

Course materials, photographs, and information on the institution were digitized by academic 

libraries more than any other materials. Overall, 13.1 percent of academic libraries digitized 

course materials, 8.3 percent digitized photographs, and 8.2 percent digitized information on 

their institutions. 

70
FIGURE 15 

MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN DIGITIZED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS 

OR ARE CURRENTLY BEING DIGITIZED

Material Small 

(n=11) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=62) 

Correspondence, diaries, and other personal records 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 4.9% 

Course material 0.0% 19.2% 12.0% 13.1% 

Education and training material about the collections 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.3% 

Films, videotapes 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 3.3% 

Government publications 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 1.7% 

Historical documents/archives 9.1% 0.0% 12.0% 6.5% 

Images of items in the collections (e.g., art work, 

artifacts, furniture, plants, animals) 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 3.3% 

Information on the institution 10.0% 3.8% 12.0% 8.2% 

Journals and other serials 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 1.6% 

Manuscripts 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 4.9% 

Maps 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 1.7% 

Music and other recorded sound 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Newspapers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Photographs 10.0% 3.8% 12.5% 8.3% 

Rare books 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 3.3% 

Records about the collection 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 1.6% 

Sheet music 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 1.7% 

Special exhibits 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 6.5% 

Theses and dissertations 10.0% 0.0% 4.2% 3.4% 

Other (please list) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 20; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

Primary Digitization Priorities 

Of the academic libraries surveyed, the three highest digitization priorities were as follows: 

• Historical documents/archives: a priority for 38.7 percent of all academic libraries. 

• Course material: a priority for 33.9 percent of all academic libraries. 

• Photographs: a priority for 24.2 percent of all academic libraries. 

FIGURE 16 

DIGITIZATION PRIORITIES

Priority Small 

(n=11) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=62) 

Correspondence, diaries, and other personal records 0.0% 3.8% 28.0% 12.9% 

Course material 18.2% 42.3% 32.0% 33.9% 

Education and training material about the collections 18.2% 7.7% 0.0% 6.5% 

Films, videotapes 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 6.5% 

Government publications 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Historical documents/archives 9.1% 34.6% 56.0% 38.7% 

Images of items in the collections (e.g., art work, artifacts, 

furniture, plants, animals) 9.1% 0.0% 8.0% 4.8% 

Information on the institution 9.1% 23.1% 16.0% 17.7% 

71
FIGURE 16 

DIGITIZATION PRIORITIES

Small Medium Large Total Priority (n=11) (n=26) (n=25) (n=62) 

Journals and other serials 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 

Manuscripts 0.0% 3.8% 12.0% 6.5% 

Maps 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 1.6% 

Music and other recorded sound 0.0% 3.8% 4.0% 3.2% 

Newspapers 0.0% 3.8% 4.0% 3.2% 

Photographs 9.1% 23.1% 32.0% 24.2% 

Rare books 18.2% 0.0% 8.0% 6.5% 

Records about the collection 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 

Sheet music 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 1.6% 

Special exhibits 18.2% 3.8% 4.0% 6.5% 

Theses and dissertations 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 8.1% 

Other (please list) 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 1.6% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 54.5% 38.5% 16.0% 32.3% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 22; respondents were asked to select their institution’s top 

three priorities.

Number of Digital Materials Created in the Past 12 Months 

The majority of small academic libraries (60.0%) and half of medium academic libraries 

(50.0%) created no digital materials or images in the past 12 months, whereas the majority of 

large academic libraries (54.2%) created between 1 and 500 digital materials or images in the 

past 12 months. 

FIGURE 17 

NUMBER OF DIGITAL MATERIALS OR IMAGES

CREATED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Number Small 

(n=10) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=60) 

0 60.0% 50.0% 20.8% 40.0% 

1–500 40.0% 38.5% 54.2% 45.0% 

501–1,000 0.0% 11.5% 4.2% 6.7% 

1,001–5,000 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 3.3% 

5,001–10,000 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 3.3% 

10,001–25,000 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 1.7% 

More than 25,000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Note: Data are based on survey question 23; respondents were asked to select only 

one option.

Number of Additional Images Remaining to Be Digitized 

Overall, 54.4 percent of all academic libraries have from 1 to 10,000 digital materials or 

images left to be digitized. However, almost one-fourth (24.6%) of all academic libraries 

report that they have no materials or images left to digitize. 

72
FIGURE 18 

NUMBER OF DIGITAL MATERIALS OR IMAGES 

LEFT TO BE CREATED

Number Small 

(n=9) 

Medium 

(n=24) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=57) 

0 44.4% 25.0% 16.7% 24.6% 

1–500 0.0% 16.7% 4.2% 8.8% 

501–1,000 22.2% 16.7% 0.0% 10.5% 

1,001–5,000 22.2% 12.5% 12.5% 14.0% 

5,001–10,000 0.0% 16.7% 33.3% 21.1% 

10,001–25,000 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 1.8% 

More than 25,000 11.1% 8.3% 33.3% 19.3% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 24; respondents were asked to select 

only one option.

Undertaking Digitization Activities 

Overall, academic libraries are more likely to undertake their digitization activities by training 

current staff to perform these activities. 

FIGURE 19 

UNDERTAKING DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=11) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=62) 

Contractual staff were hired to perform these 

activities in-house. 0.0% 3.8% 8.0% 4.8%

New institutional staff were hired to perform 

these activities. 0.0% 11.5% 16.0% 11.3%

Current staff were trained to perform these 

activities. 27.3% 42.3% 56.0% 45.2%

Current staff were reassigned to perform these 

activities. 9.1% 11.5% 16.0% 12.9%

Volunteers perform these activities. 9.1% 0.0% 4.0% 3.2%

These activities are performed by commercial 

vendors off-site. 9.1% 0.0% 20.0% 9.7%

Materials are digitized off-site at another 

institution’s digitization center. 0.0% 7.7% 12.0% 8.1%

Other (please list) 0.0% 3.8% 8.0% 4.8%

Don’t know/Not applicable 63.6% 38.5% 24.0% 37.1%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 26; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

The Availability of Digital Image Collections to the Public 

Overall, 43.6 percent of academic libraries make some or all of their digital image collections 

available to the public. More academic libraries with large budgets (60%) make some or all of 

their digital image collections available to the public than academic libraries with small and 

medium budgets (36.4 and 30.8%, respectively). 

73
FIGURE 20 

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF DIGITAL IMAGE COLLECTIONS

Response Option Small 

(n=11) 

Medium

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=62) 

Yes, some of our digital image collections are 

available to the public. 27.3% 23.1% 52.0% 35.5%

Yes, all of our digital image collections are 

available to the public. 9.1% 7.7% 8.0% 8.1%

No, our digital image collections are not available 

to the public. 18.2% 26.9% 12.0% 19.4%

Don’t know/Not applicable 45.5% 42.3% 28.0% 37.1%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 27; respondents were asked to select only one option.

How Digital Image Collections Are Made Available 

Of those large academic libraries that make their digital image collections available to the 

public, almost three-fourths of them (72.7%) make their collections available on the Web, 

while almost one-fourth (22.7%) make their collections available on the premises on their 

computer networks (LANs). 

Of those small and medium academic libraries that make their digital image collections 

available to the public, almost one half (44.4 and 42.1%, respectively) make their collections 

available on the Web. 

FIGURE 21 

HOW DIGITAL IMAGE COLLECTIONS ARE MADE AVAILABLE

Response Option Small 

(n=9) 

Medium 

(n=19) 

Large 

(n=22) 

Total 

(n=50) 

On the premises on our computer network (LAN) 11.1% 21.1% 22.7% 20.0%

On the Web 44.4% 42.1% 72.7% 56.0%

Through a third party 0.0% 5.3% 4.5% 4.0%

Don’t know/Not applicable 55.6% 57.9% 28.6% 44.9%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 28; respondents were asked to select all that 

apply. The table includes only respondents who reported that they make some or all of their digital 

image collections available to the public. 

Needs Assessments 

More than two-thirds of academic libraries (78.7%), regardless of size, do not conduct 

assessments of user or visitor needs for digitized materials and images in their institutions. 

FIGURE 22 

NEEDS ASSESSMENTS FOR DIGITIZED MATERIALS

Response Option Small 

(n=10) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=61) 

Yes 10.0% 7.7% 12.0% 9.8% 

No 90.0% 69.2% 84.0% 78.7% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0% 23.1% 4.0% 11.5% 

Note: Data are based on survey question 35; respondents were asked to select only one option.

74
Collaboration 

21.3 percent of all academic libraries collaborate (through specific partnering agreements) 

with other institutions and organizations to digitize materials. 

FIGURE 23. 

COLLABORATION TO DIGITIZE MATERIALS

Response Option Small 

(n=10) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=61) 

Yes 10.0% 11.5% 36.0% 21.3% 

No 80.0% 76.9% 48.0% 65.6% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 10.0% 11.5% 16.0% 13.1% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 37; respondents were 

asked to select only one option.

Of those academic libraries that do collaborate to digitize materials, 69.2 percent turn to other 

academic libraries, 61.5 percent turn to state library agencies, and 61.5 percent turn to 

universities and colleges. 

FIGURE 24. 

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Response Option Small 

(n=1) 

Medium 

(n=3) 

Large 

(n=9) 

Total 

(n=13) 

State library agencies 100.0% 66.7% 55.6% 61.5%

Academic libraries 100.0% 66.7% 66.7% 69.2%

Individual public libraries 100.0% 0.0% 22.2% 23.1%

Private libraries 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 7.7%

Museums 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 30.8%

Consortia 100.0% 33.3% 22.2% 30.8%

State archives 100.0% 33.3% 22.2% 30.8%

- Special libraries 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 7.7%

Historical societies 100.0% 66.7% 22.2% 38.5%

Federal government agencies or archives 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%

Other state government agencies 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

City, municipal, or other local government 

agencies or archives 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 7.7%

Universities and colleges 100.0% 100.0% 44.4% 61.5%

Community organizations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Private companies 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Foundations 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 7.7%

State library associations 100.0% 33.3% 0.0% 15.4%

State museum associations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other professional associations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 22.2% 15.4%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 37; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

75
Capabilities in Initiating, Accomplishing, and Sustaining Digitization Activities 

Overall, academic libraries rate their capability to initiate, accomplish, and sustain digitization 

activities between somewhat deficient and neutral in all areas. Medium academic libraries 

rated themselves the least capable, while small and large academic libraries rated themselves 

somewhat more capable. 

Figure 25 shows the average ratings of an institution’s capability to initiate, accomplish, and 

sustain digitization activities based on a 5-point scale, with “1” meaning deficient and “5” 

meaning fully capable. Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 tend to indicate deficiency and ratings 

greater than 2.5 tend to indicate capability. 

FIGURE 25 

CAPABILITY TO INITIATE, ACCOMPLISH, AND SUSTAIN DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Capability Small 

(n=10)

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25)

Total 

(n=61)

Staff skills and expertise 2.4 2.2 2.9 2.5 

Equipment and software 2.3 1.8 2.4 2.2 

Funding 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 

Established digitization plan 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.8 

Established digitization policies 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.9 

Established quality standards 2.1 1.8 2.3 2.1 

Established procedures for preparation for creating digital images 2.1 1.8 2.6 2.2 

Established procedures for the management of images and files 2.0 1.7 2.3 2.0 

Other (please list) 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 39; respondents were asked to rate each capability. The 

scale for this question was 1, meaning deficient, to 5, meaning fully capable. 

Hindrances to Digitization Activities 

Overall, academic libraries cite “lack of staff time,” “lack of funds,” and “other projects have 

higher priorities” as the strongest hindrances to their digitization activities. “Not having 

collections worth digitizing,” “security concerns,” “management is unaware of the benefits of 

digitization,” and “concern about intellectual property issues” are the least-cited hindrances. 

FIGURE 26 

HINDRANCES TO DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Response Options Small 

(n=10) 

Medium

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=61) 

Lack of staff time 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 

Lack of staff skills and expertise 2.0 1.8 2.5 2.1 

Lack of funds 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Lack of sufficient equipment and/or software 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.1 

Lack of an established digitization plan 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.0 

Lack of established digitization policies 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.1 

Lack of established quality standards 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 

Lack of established policies and procedures for preparation 

for materials for digitizing 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.3 

76
FIGURE 26 

HINDRANCES TO DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Small Medium Large Total Response Options (n=10) (n=26) (n=25) (n=61) 

Lack of established policies and procedures for the 

management of images and files 

2.0 1.9 2.4 2.2 

Other projects have higher priorities 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 

Concern about intellectual property issues 2.9 2.5 2.8 2.7 

Security concerns 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.8 

Not having collections worth digitizing 3.4 3.3 3.9 3.6 

Concern about costs of preservation and management 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.2 

Management is unaware of the benefits of digitization 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.8 

Other (please list) 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 40; respondents were asked to rate each 

potential hindrance. The scale for this question was 1, meaning strongly agree, to 5, meaning 

strongly disagree. 

77
3. Comparisons of the 2001 and the 2004 survey findings 

This section highlights the differences in the following categories between the 2001 and the 

2004 survey findings. 

• Top technologies used 

• Funding for technology and digitization 

• Sources of funding for digitization activities 

• Digitization policies 

• Top goals for digitization projects 

Because of some differences between the 2001 and 2004 survey questions, comparisons are 

made only where applicable. 

3.1 Overview 

• Technologies used in the past 12 months: Overall, technology use for basic operations 

became more pervasive among academic libraries. The percentage of academic 

libraries using e-mail went up from 98.7 percent in 2001 to 100 percent in 2004; the 

percentage of those using desktop computers went up from 93.7 percent to 98.5 

percent; office productivity software use went up from 91.1 percent to 98.5 percent; 

and the percentage of academic libraries with Web sites went up from 94.4 percent in 

2001 to 98.5 percent in 2004. The use of accounting/payroll/human resources software 

increased, as well: 58.2 percent of academic libraries used these technologies in 2001, 

compared with 76.9 percent in 2004. Also, the percentage of intranet use went up from 

57.0 percent to 66.1 percent. 

• Goals for digitization projects: The academic libraries’ primary goals for digitization 

activities changed from 2001 to 2004: 

o Preserving materials of importance or value was identified as a primary goal 

by 40.8 percent of academic libraries in 2001, but this figure went down to 

34.9 percent in 2004. 

o Increasing access to collections/materials was an important goal to 16.9 

percent in 2001, but this figure went up significantly to 42.9 percent by 2004. 

o Minimizing damage to original materials was identified as a primary goal by 

35.2 percent of academic libraries in 2001, but this figure dropped to 12.7 

percent in 2004. 

o Providing access to materials via the Web was important to 23.9 percent in 

2001; this number went up to 36.5 percent by 2004. 

o Increasing interest in the institution was a primary goal to 31.0 percent of all 

academic libraries in 2001, but this number dropped to 11.1 percent in 2004. 

3.2 Top Technologies Used 

The three technologies most commonly used by academic libraries in 2001 and 2004 were email, Web sites for their institutions, and desktop computers. Additionally, in 2004, office 

78
productivity software, including word processing, desktop publishing, and spreadsheets, was 

among the top technologies used. 

FIGURE 27 

TECHNOLOGIES USED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Survey Year 

Technology 2001 

(n=79) 

2004 

(n=65) 

Accounting/payroll/human resources software 58.2% 76.9% 

Computerized catalog of library or other collections 92.4% 96.9% 

Computerized collections management system 67.1% 46.9% 

Database software or system for membership development 19.0% 43.8% 

Desktop computers 93.7% 98.5% 

E-mail 98.7% 100.0% 

Intranet 57.0% 66.1% 

Marketing and promotion software and systems 8.9% 14.5% 

Notebook or tablet computers 48.1% 52.4% 

Office productivity software, including word processing, desktop 

publishing, and spreadsheets 91.1% 98.5% 

PDAs (personal digital assistant handheld devices, e.g., Palm 

Pilots) 29.1% 34.4% 

Point-of-sale software and systems 5.1% 17.2% 

Video tours 7.6% 17.5% 

Virtual reality tours 8.9% 12.9% 

Web site for your institution 94.9% 98.5% 

Other 3.8% 20.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6; respondents were asked to select all 

that apply 

3.3 Funding for Technology and Digitization 

The percentage of academic libraries that report they had funding in 2004 for both technology 

and digitization activities is lower than the percentage that reported funding in 2001. 

FIGURE 28 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITIZATION

Survey Year 

2001 (n=79) 2004 (n=69) Response Option 

Yes No 

Don’t know/ 

Not applicable Yes No 

Don’t know/ 

Not applicable 

Technology 

In the past 12 months, did your institution 

have funding for technology? 100.0% 0.0% – 95.7% 4.3% 0.0% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to 

have funding for your technology? – – – 88.2% 7.4% 4.4% 

79
FIGURE 28 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITIZATION

Survey Year 

2001 (n=79) 2004 (n=69) Response Option Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 

Yes No Not applicable Yes No Not applicable 

Digitization 

In the past 12 months, did your institution 

have funding to support your digitization 

activities? 

40.5% 59.5% – 28.6% 54.0% 17.5% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to 

obtain funding to support your 

digitization activities? 

66.2% 33.8% – 33.3% 38.1% 28.6% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 1, 2, 18, and 19; respondents were asked to select only one option. 

The sample size (n), and percentages differ slightly from Table 14 (Funding to Support Digitization Activities), where 

some respondents did not provide data on size of library which resulted in slightly smaller sample sizes. 

3.4 Sources of Funding for Technology 

The top three funding sources for technology did not change from 2001 to 2004; they were as 

follows: 

• Institutional operating funds 

• State funds 

• Grants from Federal agencies. 

FIGURE 29 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY

Survey Year 

Source of Funding 2001 

(n=78) 

2004 

(n=66) 

Endowment funds 21.8% 15.2% 

Foundation grants 23.1% 7.6% 

Gifts from donors 30.8% 13.6% 

Grants from Federal agencies 39.8% 18.1% 

Institutional operating funds 73.1% 90.9% 

State funds 64.1% 31.8% 

City, county, or other local government funds 15.4% 4.5% 

Other sources 16.7% 3.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 1; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

3.5 Sources of Funding for Digitization Activities 

For those academic libraries that had funding for their digitization activities, the top two 

sources were the same in 2004 as they were in 2001: 

• Institutional operating funds 

• Grants from Federal agencies 

80
FIGURE 30 

FUNDING FOR DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Survey Year 

Source of Funding 2001 

(n=32) 

2004 

(n=18) 

Endowment funds 25.0% 16.7% 

Foundation grants 15.6% 16.7% 

Gifts from donors 25.0% 16.7% 

Grants from Federal agencies 50.0% 27.8% 

Institutional operating funds 62.5% 88.9% 

State funds 34.4% 0.0% 

City, county, or other local government funds 0.0% 0.0% 

Other sources 3.1% 0.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 18; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

3.6 Digitization Policies 

The number of digitization policies in place or in development (versus not in place or in 

development/don’t know) has increased since 2001. However, even in 2004, the majority of 

academic libraries did not have policies in place or in development. 

FIGURE 31 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES

Survey Year 

2001 

(n=79) 

2004 

(n=63) 

Policy 

Policies 

in place 

Policies in 

development 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don’t know 

Policies 

in 

place 

Policies in 

development 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don’t know 

Access 3.8% 7.6% 88.6% 30.2% 7.9% 61.9% 

Best practices 1.3% 6.3% 92.4% 9.7% 16.1% 74.2% 

Conversion of digital files to 

next-generation formats 2.5% 6.3% 91.2% 1.6% 24.6% 73.8% 

Digital format (e.g., TIFF, GIF, 

PAL) 3.8% 7.6% 88.6% 22.6% 12.9% 64.5% 

Evaluation 0.0% 3.8% 96.2% 11.3% 12.9% 75.8% 

Intellectual property issues 2.5% 10.1% 87.4% 19.4% 24.2% 56.5% 

Materials to be digitized 3.8% 8.9% 87.4% 12.9% 14.5% 72.6% 

Priorities for digitization 2.5% 7.6% 89.9% 11.3% 12.9% 75.8% 

Preservation 0.0% 12.7% 87.4% 8.1% 12.9% 79.0% 

Quality control 2.5% 5.1% 92.4% 6.5% 12.9% 80.6% 

Standards 2.5% 6.3% 91.2% 12.9% 9.7% 77.4% 

Other 6.3% 0.0% 93.7% 6.7% 0.0% 93.3% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply. The 

sample size (n), and percentages differ slightly from Table 13 (Digitization Policies in Place), where some 

respondents did not provide data on size of library which resulted in slightly smaller sample sizes. 

81
3.7 Top Goals for Digitization Projects 

The top three goals for digitization activities in 2001 were as follows: 

• Preserve materials of importance or value: This was a goal for 40.8 percent of all 

academic libraries. 

• Minimize damage to original materials: This was a goal for 35.2 percent. 

• Increase interest in the institution: This was a goal for 31.0 percent. 

In 2004, however, the top three goals were as follows: 

• Increase access to collections/materials/files: This was a goal for 42.9 percent of all 

academic libraries. 

• Provide access to materials via the Web: This was a goal for 36.5 percent 

• Preserve materials of importance or value: This was a goal for 34.9 percent of 

academic libraries. 

FIGURE 32 

GOALS FOR DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Survey year 

Goal 2001 

(n=71) 

2004 

(n=63) 

Preserve materials of importance or value 40.8% 34.9% 

Increase access to collections/materials/files 16.9% 42.9% 

Minimize damage to original materials 35.2% 12.7% 

Provide access to materials via the Web 23.9% 36.5% 

Increase interest in the institution 31.0% 11.1% 

Save space in the institution 2.8% 3.2% 

Present more of the collection than is on display at any one time 7.0% 0.0% 

Save costs by eliminating duplication of materials 2.8% 0.0% 

Encourage cooperation among institutions to increase the number and 

variety of materials available 9.9% 1.6% 

Provide greater information about the institution’s collections to artists, 

scholars, students, teachers, and the public 0.0% 7.9% 

Increase access to state services 18.3% 0.0% 

Support educational programs 1.4% 14.3% 

Other (please list) 0.0% 1.6% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 21.1% 30.2% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 31; respondents were asked to select their institution’s top 

three priorities. 

82
Archives 

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the archives data and a detailed description of 

certain survey question responses by archives size. 

1. Archives Overview 

1.1 Technology Overview 

• Availability of funding: Of all archives surveyed, 76.5 percent report having received 

funding for technology in the past 12 months, and 67.3 percent expect to receive funds 

for the next 12 months. 

• Adequacy of technology funding: Overall, 51.8 percent of archives report that the 

majority of their technology needs are adequately funded; 30.9 percent report that 25 

percent or less of their technology needs are adequately funded. 

• Maintaining and adding technologies: All archives, regardless of size, agree that their 

institutions are able to maintain their current levels of technology, but they are neutral 

on their institutions’ ability to add new uses of technology to meet evolving needs. 

• Technology capacity: Overall, 54.8 percent of archives report that they have the 

capacity to meet or almost meet their missions. 

• Technologies in use: Almost all archives use basic computer technologies: e-mail is 

used by 99.0 percent of all archives; office productivity software is used by 98.1 

percent; and desktop computers are used by 96.2 percent. In addition, 95.2 percent of 

all archives have Web sites. Also used widely by all archives are the following: 

o LANs (local area networks), used by 82.5 percent. 

o Broadband Internet connections, used by 78.6 percent. 

o Computerized catalog of library or other collections, used by 72.5 percent. 

o Accounting/payroll/human resources software, used by 70.0 percent. 

• Staff for technology activities: The majority of archives (79.4%), regardless of size, do 

not have enough skilled staff to perform their technology activities. 

• Needs assessment: Only 14.7 percent of archives report that they conduct assessments 

of user or visitor needs for technology-supported services or experiences at their 

institutions. Among the archives that do conduct assessments, medium archives are the 

most active, with 19.2 percent conducting such assessments. 

1.2 Digitization 

• Digitization policies: Overall, fewer than half of all archives have digitization policies 

in place across the range of policy areas. Large archives demonstrate some strong 

83
policy efforts; 70.8 percent of large archives have policies in place related to access 

and 70.8 percent have policies relating to digital formats. 

• Funding for digitization activities: Overall, 57.4 percent of archives had funding for 

digitization over the last 12 months. Three-quarters of all large archives (75.0%) had 

funding for digitization, whereas only 64.0 percent of medium and 46.2 percent of 

small archives did. In the next 12 months, 59.0 percent of all archives expect to 

receive funding for digitization activities. 

• Digitization priorities: Digitizing photographs is a top priority for 65.0 percent of all 

archives surveyed; digitizing historical documents/archives is important to 59.0 

percent of archives; and digitizing images of items in their collections is a top priority 

for 20.0 percent of archives. 

• Materials and images digitized: Archives are active digitizers. Overall, 45.0 percent of 

archives digitized 1 to 500 items and 12.0 percent digitized more than 25,000 items in 

the past 12 months. Only 6.0 percent of archives report having digitized no items in 

the past 12 months. 

• Materials or images still to be digitized: Across all archives, 64.2 percent report 

having more than 25,000 items left to digitize, including 95.7 percent of all large 

archives. Only 2.1 percent of archives report having no items still to digitize; these are 

all small archives. 

• Undertaking digitization activities: Of all archives surveyed, 70.4 perform digitization 

activities by training current staff; 27.6 percent perform these activities by reassigning 

staff; 39.8 percent use volunteers to perform digitization activities; 16.3 percent use 

commercial vendors off-site; 14.3 percent hire new institutional staff; and 13.3 percent 

use contractual staff in-house. 

• Making digital images available: The majority of archives (81.6%), regardless of size, 

make some or all of their digital image collections available to the public. Access is 

provided via the Web by 66.3 percent and on-site by 57.0 percent of archives. The top 

three target audiences for digital images among all archives are the general public who 

have Internet access (71.4%), other researchers and scholars (60.2%), and on-site 

visitors (44.9%). 

• Needs assessment: The majority of archives (94.9%), regardless of size, do not 

conduct assessments of user or visitor needs for digitized materials and images in their 

institutions. 

• Collaboration: When archives collaborate to perform digitization activities, 41.9 

percent turn to State library agencies, 41.9 percent turn to academic libraries, and 25.8 

percent collaborate with historical societies. 

84
• Capability for digitization activities: On a scale of 1 (deficient) to 5 (fully capable), 

large archives rate themselves more capable than do small and medium archives. For 

large archives, “staff skills and expertise” and “equipment and software” (3.7) are the 

strongest categories. Among all archives, funding is the weakest category (1.9). 

• Hindrances to digitization: Using a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), 

archives rate “lack of staff time” (1.6), “lack of funds” (1.6), and “other projects have 

higher priorities” (2.0) as the strongest hindrances to their digitization activities. 

85
2. Archives size analyses 

This section highlights the difference between small, medium, and large archives based on 

their budget size and discusses issues related to technology and digitization comparing how 

these issues differ among the three size categories. To determine the small, medium, and large 

categories, we use the archives survey question C on archives annual budget size. 

FIGURE 1 

ARCHIVES SIZE ANALYSES

Size of Archives’ Annual 

Budget (2004) 

Budget 

Category 

Less than $250,000 Small 

$250,001–$500,000 

$500,001–$750,000 Medium 

$750,001–$1,000,000 

$1,000,001–$5,000,000 

$5,000,001–$10,000,000 

$10,000,001–$25,000,000 

More than $25,000,000 

Large 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question C; 

respondents were asked to select only one option. 

1.1 Demographics 

A total of 117 archives participated in the survey. Two surveys were removed from the 

analyses due to a large amount of incomplete data, resulting in a final sample size of 115. 

However, not all archives participants responded to every question, so the sample sizes in the 

tables below might be slightly lower than 115. In addition, some tables are broken down by 

size of archives while others are presented on the whole, which may result in different sample 

sizes for different tables. 

Type of Archival Institution 

Figure 2 shows the type of archives that responded to the survey. The majority of archives 

(58%) were not-for-profit. 

FIGURE 2 

TYPE OF ARCHIVAL INSTITUTION

Type Small 

(n=59) 

Medium

(n=27) 

Large 

(n=27) 

Total 

(n=113) 

Federal government archives 6.8% 0.0% 3.7% 4.4% 

State government archives 3.4% 29.6% 59.3% 23.0% 

Local government archives (e.g., 

county, municipal) 18.6% 18.5% 0.0% 14.2% 

Not-for-profit 71.2% 51.9% 33.3% 57.5% 

For-profit 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question A; respondents were asked to 

select only one option. 

86
Affiliated Institutions 

Figure 3 shows the affiliation of the archives in the survey. More than one-third of archives 

report that they are affiliated with another type of organization, while almost one-quarter 

report that they are separate or independent archives, and about one-fifth report that they are 

affiliated with a historical society. 

FIGURE 3 

AFFILIATED INSTITUTIONS

Affiliation Small 

(n=58) 

Medium

(n=27) 

Large 

(n=26) 

Total 

(n=111) 

Affiliated with a college or university 1.7% 3.7% 3.8% 2.7% 

Affiliated with a museum 12.1% 11.1% 3.8% 9.9% 

Affiliated with a library 8.6% 7.4% 0.0% 6.3% 

Affiliated with a historical society 15.5% 25.9% 15.4% 18.0% 

Affiliated with other type of 

organization 43.1% 33.3% 38.5% 39.6% 

Separate/independent archives 19.0% 18.5% 38.5% 23.4% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question B; respondents were asked to 

select only one option. 

Budget 

Figure 4 shows the annual budget reported by archives. More than half of the archives 

reported an annual budget of $250,000 or less. 

FIGURE 4 

PERCENTAGE OF ARCHIVES 

WITH EACH SIZE ANNUAL BUDGET

Budget Percent 

(n=115) 

Less than $250,000 53.0% 

$250,001–$500,000 20.0% 

$500,001–$750,000 3.5% 

$750,001–$1,000,000 7.0% 

$1,000,001–$5,000,000 11.3% 

$5,000,001–$10,000,000 3.5% 

$10,000,001–$25,000,000 0.9% 

More than $25,000,000 0.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 

C; respondents were asked to select only one option.

87
Staff Size 

Figure 5 shows the percentage of full-time staff reported by archives. The majority of archives 

(60.7%) report having fewer than five full-time staff. 

FIGURE 5 

PERCENTAGE OF ARCHIVES 

WITH EACH SIZE CURRENT PAID,

FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT STAFF 

Staff Size Percent 

(n=115) 

Less than 5 60.7% 

6–10 15.4% 

11–25 12.8% 

26–75 9.4% 

76–150 0.9% 

151–250 0.0% 

251–500 0.0% 

501–1,000 0.0% 

1,001–1,500 0.0% 

More than 1,500 0.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question D; respondents were asked to select only one 

option. 

2.2 Technology 

Technology Funding 

Seventy-seven percent of all archives report having funding for technology in the past 12 

months, and 67.3 percent expect to receive funding for the next 12 months. 

FIGURE 6 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY

Response Option Small 

(n=60) 

Medium 

(n=27) 

Large 

(n=26) 

Total 

(n=113) 

In the past 12 months, did your institution have funding for technology? 

Yes 63.9% 88.9% 92.6% 76.5% 

No 31.1% 7.4% 7.4% 20.0% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 4.9% 3.7% 0.0% 3.5% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to have funding for your technology? 

Yes 60.0% 74.1% 76.9% 67.3% 

No 20.0% 3.7% 7.7% 13.3% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 20.0% 22.2% 15.4% 19.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 1 and 2; respondents were 

asked to select only one option. 

Adequate Funding of Technology Needs 

Across all archives, about one-third report that 1 to 25 percent of their technology needs are 

adequately funded. Almost one-quarter of small archives report that 100 percent of their 

88
technology needs are adequately funded. 

FIGURE 7 

PERCENTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY NEEDS

THAT ARE ADEQUATELY FUNDED

Percent Small 

(n=59) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=25) 

Total 

(n=110) 

0% 8.5% 3.8% 0.0% 5.5% 

1–25% 33.9% 30.8% 24.0% 30.9% 

26–50% 13.6% 11.5% 8.0% 11.8% 

51–75% 13.6% 26.9% 24.0% 19.1% 

76–99% 8.5% 23.1% 36.0% 18.2% 

100% 22.0% 3.8% 8.0% 14.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 3; respondents 

were asked to select only one option. 

Maintaining and Adding Technology 

Figure 8 shows the mean ratings of an institution’s ability to maintain or add technology 

based on a 5-point scale, with “1” meaning strongly agree and “5” meaning strongly disagree. 

Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 indicate agreement, ratings between 2.5 and 3.5 indicate 

neither agreement nor disagreement, and ratings greater than 3.5 indicate disagreement. 

All archives agree that their institutions are able to maintain their current levels of technology, 

but they are neutral about their institutions’ ability to add new uses of technology to meet 

evolving needs. 

FIGURE 8 

ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND ADD TECHNOLOGY

My institution is able to: Small 

(n=56) 

Medium

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=105)

Maintain its current level of technology 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.4 

Add new uses of technology to meet evolving needs 3.4 3.0 3.2 3.3 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 4. The scale for this question was 1, meaning 

strongly agree, to 5, meaning strongly disagree. 

 

Extent of Technology Capacity 

The majority of archives, regardless of size, either currently have the technology capacity 

necessary to meet their mission or have almost enough capacity to meet their mission. Forty 

percent (40.3%) report that their technology capacity is short of meeting their mission or does 

not meet their mission. 

FIGURE 9 

TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY TO MEET MISSION

Response Option Small 

(n=57) 

Medium

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=106) 

Currently meets our mission 25.0% 22.6% 22.2% 23.7% 

Almost meets our mission 27.9% 35.5% 32.3% 31.1% 

89
FIGURE 9 

TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY TO MEET MISSION

Response Option Small 

(n=57) 

Medium

(n=25) 

Large Total 

(n=24) (n=106) 

Is short of meeting our mission 27.5% 35.5% 40.4% 32.8% 

Does not meet our mission 10.3% 5.6% 4.0% 7.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 9.3% 0.8% 1.0% 4.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 5; respondents were asked to select only one option. 

Technologies Used in Past 12 Months 

Almost all archives (99.0%), regardless of size, used e-mail in the past 12 months. In addition, 

98.1 percent used office productivity software, 96.2 percent used desktop computers, and 95.2 

percent had Web sites. 

FIGURE 10 

ARCHIVES THAT USED THE FOLLOWING TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Technology Small 

(n=55) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=105) 

Accounting/payroll/human resources software 55.7% 85.7% 96.0% 70.0%

Broadband Internet connection 71.4% 87.5% 91.7% 78.6%

Computerized catalog of library or other collections 62.3% 73.3% 96.2% 72.5%

Computerized collections management system 50.0% 70.6% 92.0% 63.7%

Database software or system for membership development 46.8% 56.3% 70.8% 53.9%

Desktop computers 93.7% 100.0% 100.0% 96.2%

E-mail 98.4% 100.0% 100.0% 99.0%

GIS (geographic information systems) applications 6.9% 25.0% 17.4% 12.4%

Integrated library system (ILS) 10.5% 26.7% 45.8% 21.9%

Intranet 45.8% 80.0% 75.0% 58.2%

LAN (local area network) 73.8% 94.1% 96.0% 82.5%

Marketing and promotion software and systems 6.8% 13.3% 34.8% 14.4%

Meta- or federated searching in online collections and catalogs 13.3% 33.3% 33.3% 21.2%

Modem-based Internet connection (dial-up access) 26.7% 25.0% 20.8% 25.0%

Multimedia services or collections 30.5% 26.7% 56.5% 36.1%

Notebook or tablet computers 35.0% 60.0% 72.0% 48.0%

Office productivity software, including word processing, desktop 

publishing, and spreadsheets 96.8% 100.0% 100.0% 98.1%

PDAs (personal digital assistant handheld devices, e.g., Palm 

Pilots) 24.1% 13.3% 20.8% 21.6%

Personal information management (PIM) software 10.2% 13.3% 13.0% 11.3%

Point-of-sale software and systems 11.7% 40.0% 33.3% 21.2%

RFID (radio frequency identification) in services or collections 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 1.1%

Software to manage public-access computers and printing 10.3% 20.0% 58.3% 23.7%

Video tours 6.9% 6.7% 4.2% 6.2%

Virtual reality tours 3.6% 6.7% 4.2% 4.2%

Web portal or gateway for services or collections 22.4% 60.0% 75.0% 41.2%

Web site for your institution 92.1% 100.0% 100.0% 95.2%

Wireless network, including WiFi 8.6% 42.9% 24.0% 17.5%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 8.0%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

90
The majority of small archives (56.4%) used between 6 and 10 technologies in the past 12 

months, while all medium and large archives used between 6 and 20 technologies. 

FIGURE 11 

PERCENTAGE OF ARCHIVES THAT 

USED THE FOLLOWING NUMBER OF 

TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Budget 

Number Small 

(n=55) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=105) 

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1–5 12.6% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7%

6–10 56.4% 30.8% 8.3% 39.0%

11–15 25.5% 38.4% 37.5% 31.4%

16–20 5.5% 30.8% 54.2% 22.9%

21 or more 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6. 

Staff Capabilities 

Overall, more than three-fourths of archives (79.4%) report that they do not have enough 

skilled staff to accomplish their technology activities. 

FIGURE 12 

EXTENT TO WHICH ARCHIVES HAVE SUFFICIENT SKILLED STAFF 

TO ACCOMPLISH TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=52) 

Medium

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=102) 

We do not have enough skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 80.8% 76.9% 79.2% 79.4% 

We have the right amount of skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 15.4% 19.2% 12.5% 15.7% 

We have more than enough skilled staff to 

accomplish our technology activities. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Other (please list) 1.9% 3.8% 8.3% 3.9% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 10; respondents were asked to select only 

 one option. 

Needs Assessments 

More medium and large archives (19.2 and 16.7%, respectively) conduct assessments of user 

or visitor needs for technology-supported services or experiences at their institutions than 

small archives (11.5%). 

91
FIGURE 13 

CONDUCT NEEDS ASSESSMENTS 

FOR TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED SERVICES

Response Option Small 

(n=52) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=102) 

Yes 11.5% 19.2% 16.7% 14.7% 

No 86.5% 73.1% 83.3% 82.4% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 1.9% 7.7% 0.0% 2.9% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 12; respondents were asked to select 

only one option. 

2.3 Digitization 

Digitization Policies 

In general, a greater number of large archives have digitization policies in place than medium 

or small archives. The most prevalent digitization policies among all archives are those for 

access (45.5% of archives), digital format (40.4%), and security (26.5%). The least prevalent 

policies include those for evaluation (9.2% of archives) and conversion of digital files to nextgeneration formats (11.1%). Overall, the data show that even the most prevalent policies are 

in place in fewer than half of all archives. 

FIGURE 14 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES IN PLACE

Type of Policy Small 

(n=49) 

Medium 

(n=26) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=99) 

Access 36.7% 38.5% 70.8% 45.5%

Best practices 10.4% 30.8% 29.2% 20.4%

Conversion of digital files to next-generation formats 8.2% 11.5% 16.7% 11.1%

Digital format (e.g., TIFF, GIF, PAL) 28.6% 34.6% 70.8% 40.4%

Evaluation 0.0% 16.0% 20.8% 9.2%

Institutional repository 14.3% 25.0% 16.7% 17.5%

Intellectual property issues 10.2% 23.1% 37.5% 20.2%

Materials to be digitized 8.2% 19.2% 33.3% 17.2%

Priorities for digitization 14.6% 19.2% 34.8% 20.6%

Preservation 22.4% 26.9% 20.8% 23.2%

Quality control 10.2% 23.1% 50.0% 23.2%

Standards 10.2% 19.2% 50.0% 22.2%

Metadata 8.2% 15.4% 41.7% 18.2%

Security 18.8% 26.9% 41.7% 26.5%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Note: Data are based on response to survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

92
Digitization Funding 

A greater number of large archives (75.0%) had funding to support their digitization activities 

in the past 12 months than medium and small archives (64.0 and 46.2%, respectively). 

FIGURE 15 

FUNDING TO SUPPORT DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Response Option Small 

(n=51) 

Medium 

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=100) 

In the past 12 months, did your institution have funding to support your digitization activities? 

Yes 46.2% 64.0% 75.0% 57.4% 

No 46.2% 32.0% 25.0% 37.6% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 7.7% 4.0% 0.0% 5.0% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to obtain funding to support your digitization activities? 

Yes 45.1% 80.0% 66.7% 59.0% 

No 29.4% 4.0% 12.5% 19.0% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 25.5% 16.0% 20.8% 22.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 18 and 19; respondents were asked to 

select only one option. 

Materials for Digitization 

Photographs, historical documents/archives, and manuscripts are the three kinds of materials 

that archives most commonly digitize. Of all archives surveyed, 17.5 percent report having 

digitized photographs, 11.6 percent report having digitized historical documents/archives, and 

7.4 percent report having digitized manuscripts. 

FIGURE 16 

MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN DIGITIZED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS 

OR ARE CURRENTLY BEING DIGITIZED

Material Small 

(n=51) 

Medium 

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=100) 

Correspondence, diaries, and other personal records 4.2% 4.2% 14.3% 6.5% 

Course material 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 

Education and training material about the collections 2.1% 0.0% 4.5% 2.2% 

Films, videotapes 6.5% 4.2% 9.1% 6.5% 

Government publications 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 1.1% 

Historical documents/archives 12.5% 8.0% 13.6% 11.6% 

Images of items in the collections (e.g., art work, 

artifacts, furniture, plants, animals) 8.2% 4.3% 4.8% 6.5% 

Information on the institution 4.2% 8.3% 4.8% 5.4% 

Journals and other serials 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Manuscripts 8.3% 4.0% 9.5% 7.4% 

Maps 4.3% 8.3% 10.0% 6.6% 

Music and other recorded sound 0.0% 4.3% 4.8% 2.2% 

Newspapers 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 

Photographs 20.4% 20.0% 8.7% 17.5% 

Rare books 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Records about the collection 2.1% 4.2% 4.5% 3.2% 

93
FIGURE 16 

MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN DIGITIZED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS 

OR ARE CURRENTLY BEING DIGITIZED

Small Medium Large Total Material (n=51) (n=25) (n=24) (n=100) 

Sheet music 2.1% 0.0% 4.8% 2.2% 

Special exhibits 6.3% 4.2% 9.1% 6.4% 

Theses and dissertations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Other (please list) 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 5.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 20; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

Primary Digitization Priorities 

The top two digitization priorities for all archives, regardless of size, are as follows: 

• Photographs: 65.0 percent of all archives considered this a digitization priority. 

• Historical documents/archives: 59.0 percent identified this category as a digitization 

priority. 

• Images of items in the collections are the third highest digitization priority for small 

archives, while maps are the third highest digitization priority for medium and large 

archives. 

FIGURE 17 

DIGITIZATION PRIORITIES

Priority Small 

(n=51) 

Medium 

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=100) 

Correspondence, diaries, and other personal records 9.8% 12.0% 12.5% 11.0% 

Course material 2.0% 8.0% 4.2% 4.0% 

Education and training material about the collections 7.8% 0.0% 8.3% 6.0% 

Films, videotapes 9.8% 12.0% 12.5% 11.0% 

Government publications 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 1.0% 

Historical documents/archives 56.9% 64.0% 58.3% 59.0% 

Images of items in the collections (e.g., art work, artifacts, 

furniture, plants, animals) 29.4% 8.0% 12.5% 20.0% 

Information on the institution 13.7% 8.0% 0.0% 9.0% 

Journals and other serials 7.8% 8.0% 0.0% 6.0% 

Manuscripts 15.7% 16.0% 16.7% 16.0% 

Maps 9.8% 28.0% 29.2% 19.0% 

Music and other recorded sound 5.9% 4.0% 4.2% 5.0% 

Newspapers 5.9% 16.0% 4.2% 8.0% 

Photographs 58.8% 80.0% 62.5% 65.0% 

Rare books 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 

Records about the collection 15.7% 16.0% 4.2% 13.0% 

Sheet music 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 

Special exhibits 2.0% 8.0% 8.3% 5.0% 

Theses and dissertations 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 1.0% 

Other (please list) 5.9% 0.0% 16.7% 7.0% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 7.8% 0.0% 4.2% 5.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 22; respondents were asked to select their institution’s 

top three priorities.

94
Number of Digital Materials Created in the Past 12 Months 

The majority of small archives (56.9%) created between 1 and 500 digital materials or images 

in the past 12 months, whereas the majority of medium and large archives (56.0 and 54.2%, 

respectively) created between 1 and 1,000 digital materials or images in the past 12 months. 

FIGURE 18 

NUMBER OF DIGITAL MATERIALS OR IMAGES 

CREATED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Number Small 

(n=51) 

Medium 

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=100) 

0 7.8% 4.0% 4.2% 6.0% 

1–500 56.9% 36.0% 29.2% 45.0% 

501–1,000 11.8% 20.0% 25.0% 17.0% 

1,001–5,000 7.8% 12.0% 20.8% 12.0% 

5,001–10,000 3.9% 8.0% 4.2% 5.0% 

10,001–25,000 0.0% 4.0% 8.3% 3.0% 

More than 25,000 11.8% 16.0% 8.3% 12.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 23; respondents 

were asked to select only one option. 

Number of Additional Images Remaining to Be Digitized 

Overall, 64.2 percent of all archives have more than 25,000 digital materials or images left to 

be digitized. Among small archives, 4.1 percent report that they have no materials or images 

to digitize. 

FIGURE 19 

NUMBER OF DIGITAL MATERIALS OR IMAGES 

LEFT TO BE CREATED

Number Small 

(n=49) 

Medium 

(n=23) 

Large 

(n=23) 

Total 

(n=95) 

0 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 

1–500 6.1% 8.7% 4.3% 6.3% 

501–1,000 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 

1,001–5,000 14.3% 8.7% 0.0% 9.5% 

5,001–10,000 16.3% 0.0% 0.0% 8.4% 

10,001–25,000 8.2% 4.3% 0.0% 5.3% 

More than 25,000 42.9% 78.3% 95.7% 64.2% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 24; respondents were 

asked to select only one option.

Undertaking Digitization Activities 

More than two-thirds of archives undertake their digitization activities by training current 

staff to perform these activities; 39.8 percent of them use volunteers. 

95
FIGURE 20 

UNDERTAKING DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Budget 

Response Option Small 

(n=49) 

Medium 

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=98) 

Contractual staff were hired to perform these 

activities in-house. 6.1% 20.0% 20.8% 13.3%

New institutional staff were hired to perform 

these activities. 10.2% 16.0% 20.8% 14.3%

Current staff were trained to perform these 

activities. 67.3% 76.0% 70.8% 70.4%

Current staff were reassigned to perform these 

activities. 26.5% 28.0% 29.2% 27.6%

Volunteers perform these activities. 49.0% 20.0% 41.7% 39.8%

These activities are performed by commercial 

vendors off-site. 20.4% 8.0% 16.7% 16.3%

Materials are digitized off-site at another 

institution’s digitization center. 4.1% 8.0% 4.2% 5.1%

Other (please list) 2.0% 8.0% 12.5% 6.1%

Don’t know/Not applicable 8.2% 4.0% 0.0% 5.1%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 26; respondents were asked to select all 

that apply. 

The Availability of Digital Image Collections to the Public 

Overall, 81.6 percent of archives make some or all of their digital image collections available 

to the public. 

FIGURE 21 

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF DIGITAL IMAGE COLLECTIONS

Response Option Small 

(n=49) 

Medium

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=98) 

Yes, some of our digital image collections are 

available to the public. 57.1% 64.0% 58.3% 59.2%

Yes, all of our digital image collections are 

available to the public. 20.4% 20.0% 29.2% 22.4%

No, our digital image collections are not available 

to the public. 10.2% 12.0% 12.5% 11.2%

Don’t know/Not applicable 12.2% 4.0% 0.0% 7.1%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 27; respondents were asked to select only one option. 

How Digital Image Collections Are Made Available 

Of the large archives that make their digital image collections available to the public, almost 

all make their collections available on the Web, while almost half make their collections 

available on the premises on their computer networks (LANs). 

Of the small and medium archives that make their digital image collections available to the 

public, slightly more make them available on the premises on their computer networks 

(LANs) than on the Web. 

96
FIGURE 22 

HOW DIGITAL IMAGE COLLECTIONS ARE MADE AVAILABLE

Response Option Small 

(n=43) 

Medium 

(n=22) 

Large 

(n=21) 

Total 

(n=86) 

On the premises on our computer network (LAN) 55.8% 68.2% 47.6% 57.0%

On the Web 53.5% 63.6% 95.2% 66.3%

Through a third party 7.0% 9.1% 9.5% 8.1%

Don’t know/Not applicable 16.3% 4.5% 0.0% 9.3%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 28; respondents were asked to select all that apply. Table 

only includes respondents who reported that they make some or all of their digital image collections available to 

the public. 

Target Audience 

Of all archives surveyed, 71.4 percent identified the general public who have Internet access 

as their target audience for access to digital images, 60.2 percent identified other researchers 

and scholars as their target audience, and 44.9 percent identified on-site visitors as their target 

audience for access to digital images. 

FIGURE 23 

TARGET AUDIENCE

Budget 

Response Option 

 Small 

(n=49) 

 Medium 

(n=25) 

 Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=98) 

General public who have Internet access 67.3% 60.0% 91.7% 71.4%

On-site visitors at our institution 44.9% 64.0% 25.0% 44.9%

Members (e.g., library card holders, museum 

members) 22.4% 28.0% 8.3% 20.4%

Our staff 44.9% 48.0% 29.2% 41.8%

Consortia/partners 6.1% 4.0% 4.2% 5.1%

Researchers/scholars at our institution 28.6% 20.0% 20.8% 24.5%

Faculty at our institution 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

Educators not part of our institution 6.1% 8.0% 20.8% 10.2%

Students at our institution 6.1% 4.0% 0.0% 4.1%

Students at affiliated institutions 4.1% 8.0% 0.0% 4.1%

Alumni 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

Other researchers and scholars 57.1% 56.0% 70.8% 60.2%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 4.1%

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 33; respondents were asked to select their 

institution’s top three target audiences. 

Needs Assessments 

Most archives (94.9%) do not conduct assessments of user or visitor needs for digitized 

materials and images. 

97
FIGURE 24 

CONDUCT NEEDS ASSESSMENTS FOR DIGITIZED MATERIALS

Response Option Small 

(n=49) 

Medium 

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=98) 

Yes 2.0% 4.0% 4.2% 3.1% 

No 95.9% 92.0% 95.8% 94.9% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 2.0% 4.0% 0.0% 2.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 35; respondents were asked to 

select only one option. 

Collaboration 

Nearly one-third (32.7%) of all archives collaborate (through specific partnering agreements) 

with other institutions and organizations to digitize materials. 

FIGURE 25 

COLLABORATION TO DIGITIZE MATERIALS

Response Option Small 

(n=49) 

Medium 

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=98) 

Yes 20.4% 28.0% 62.5% 32.7% 

No 73.5% 68.0% 37.5% 63.3% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 6.1% 4.0% 0.0% 4.1% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 37; respondents were 

asked to select only one option. 

Of the archives that do collaborate to digitize materials, 41.9 percent turn to State library 

agencies, 41.9 percent turn to academic libraries, and 25.8 percent collaborate with historical 

societies. 

FIGURE 26 

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Response Option Small 

(n=9) 

Medium 

(n=7) 

Large 

(n=15) 

Total 

(n=31) 

State library agencies 33.3% 42.9% 46.7% 41.9%

Academic libraries 55.6% 28.6% 40.0% 41.9%

Individual public libraries 44.4% 14.3% 0.0% 16.1%

Private libraries 11.1% 14.3% 0.0% 6.5%

Museums 44.4% 14.3% 13.3% 22.6%

Consortia 0.0% 14.3% 26.7% 16.1%

State archives 22.2% 0.0% 6.7% 9.7%

- Special libraries 22.2% 0.0% 13.3% 12.9%

Historical societies 44.4% 28.6% 13.3% 25.8%

Federal government agencies or archives 0.0% 14.3% 13.3% 9.7%

Other state government agencies 0.0% 14.3% 26.7% 16.1%

City, municipal, or other local government 

agencies or archives 22.2% 14.3% 0.0% 9.7%

Universities and colleges 22.2% 14.3% 26.7% 22.6%

Community organizations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

98
FIGURE 26 

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Small Medium Large Total Response Option (n=9) (n=7) (n=15) (n=31) 

Private companies 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 3.2%

Foundations 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 6.5%

State library associations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

State museum associations 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 3.2%

Other professional associations 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 3.2%

Other 22.2% 28.6% 26.7% 25.8%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 37; respondents were asked to 

select all that apply. 

Capabilities in Initiating, Accomplishing, and Sustaining Digitization Activities 

At initiating, accomplishing, and sustaining digitization activities, large archives rate 

themselves as capable in all areas except funding. Small archives rate themselves as deficient 

in most areas. 

Figure 27 shows the average ratings of an institution’s capability at initiating, accomplishing, 

and sustaining digitization activities based on a 5-point scale, with 1 meaning deficient and 5 

meaning fully capable. Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 tend to indicate deficiency, and ratings 

greater than 2.5 tend to indicate capability. 

FIGURE 27 

CAPABILITY TO INITIATE, ACCOMPLISH, AND SUSTAIN 

DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Capability Small 

(n=49)

Medium 

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=98)

Staff skills and expertise 2.6 3.1 3.7 3.0 

Equipment and software 2.4 2.8 3.7 2.8 

Funding 1.7 1.8 2.3 1.9 

Established digitization plan 1.9 2.3 2.7 2.2 

Established digitization policies 1.9 2.5 3.0 2.3 

Established quality standards 1.9 2.7 3.4 2.5 

Established procedures for preparation for creating digital images 2.0 2.6 3.2 2.5 

Established procedures for the management of images and files 2.2 2.8 3.2 2.6 

Other (please list) 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 39; respondents were asked to rate their institution’s 

capability. The scale for this question was 1, meaning deficient, to 5, meaning fully capable. 

Hindrances to Digitization Activities 

Archives (regardless of size) most strongly agree that “lack of staff time,” “lack of funds,” 

and “other projects have higher priorities” are hindrances to their digitization activities. Small 

archives regard “lack of sufficient equipment and/or software” as a hindrance. 

99
FIGURE 28 

HINDRANCES TO DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Response Option Small 

(n=48) 

Medium

(n=25) 

Large 

(n=24) 

Total 

(n=97) 

Lack of staff time 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 

Lack of staff skills and expertise 2.0 2.8 3.0 2.5 

Lack of funds 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.6 

Lack of sufficient equipment and/or software 1.9 2.2 3.0 2.3 

Lack of an established digitization plan 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.4 

Lack of established digitization policies 2.3 2.7 3.0 2.6 

Lack of established quality standards 2.3 2.8 3.2 2.7 

Lack of established policies and procedures for preparation 

for materials for digitizing 

2.4 2.8 3.1 2.7 

Lack of established policies and procedures for the 

management of images and files 

2.4 2.7 2.8 2.6 

Other projects have higher priorities 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.0 

Concern about intellectual property issues 3.0 2.6 3.3 3.0 

Security concerns 3.1 3.0 3.6 3.2 

Not having collections worth digitizing 4.5 4.9 4.6 4.6 

Concern about costs of preservation and management 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.3 

Management is unaware of the benefits of digitization 3.7 3.8 4.2 3.9 

Other (please list) 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 40; respondents were asked to rate each potential 

hindrance. The scale for this question was 1, meaning strongly agree, to 5, meaning strongly disagree. 

100
State Library Administrative Agencies 

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the state library administrative agency (SLAA) 

data and a summary of comparisons with the data from the 2001 survey. 

1. SLAA Overview 

1.1 Technology Overview 

• Availability of funding: Most SLAAs (97.5%) had funding for technology in the past 

12 months, and all of them plan to obtain technology funding in the next 12 months. 

• Adequacy of technology funding: Of the SLAAs surveyed, 84.6 percent report that the 

majority of their technology needs are adequately funded. 

• Maintaining and adding technologies: All SLAAs agree that their institutions are able 

to maintain their current levels of technology, but they are less positive on their 

institutions’ ability to add new uses of technology to meet evolving needs. 

• Technology capacity: One-fifth of SLAAs (20.5%) indicate that their capacity 

currently meets their mission, and nearly half (46.2%) indicate that their capacity 

almost meets their mission. 

• Technologies in use: All SLAAs used broadband Internet connection, computerized 

catalogs of library or other collections, desktop computers, e-mail, local area networks 

(LANs), and office productivity software in the past 12 months. In addition, all of 

them had Web sites in the past 12 months. 

• Staff for technology activities: The majority of SLAAs (77.5%) do not have enough 

skilled staff to accomplish their technology activities. 

• Needs assessment: Of the SLAAs surveyed, 45.0 percent conduct assessments of user 

and visitor needs, and 50.0 percent do not. 

1.2 Digitization Overview 

• Digitization policies: Overall, fewer than half of SLAAs have digitization policies in 

place across the range of policy areas. The three most common policies in place are 

related to the following: digital format, with 42.5 percent of SLAAs having these 

policies; metadata, with 38.5 percent having these policies; and access, with 37.5 

percent having these policies. The three most common policies in development are 

related to the following: materials to be digitized, with 40.0 percent developing these 

policies; quality control, with 40.0 percent developing these policies; and institutional 

repository, with 35.0 percent developing these policies. 

101
• Provide direct funding or services to other institutions for their digitization activities:

The majority of SLAAs (70.7%) provide funding or services to other institutions for 

digitization. Of these, about three-fourths (75.9%) support cooperative digitization 

projects or partnerships; 72.4 percent support statewide digitization projects; 69.0 

percent support digitizing special collections; and 58.6 percent support providing 

access to digital products like collections online. 

• Funding for digitization activities: The majority of SLAAs (73.2%) had funding to 

support digitization in the past 12 months. In the next 12 months, 75.6 percent of 

SLAAs plan to obtain digitization funding. 

• Digitization priorities: For all the SLAAs surveyed, the primary digitization priorities 

include historical documents/archives, government publications, and photographs. For 

65.0 percent, digitizing historical documents/archives is a priority; for 52.5 percent, 

digitizing government publications is very important; and for 35.0 percent, digitizing 

photographs is a priority. 

• Materials and images digitized: In the past 12 months, 42.5 percent of SLAAs 

digitized 1 to 500 items and 12.5 percent digitized 1,001 to 5,000 items. 22.5 percent 

reported no digitization activities in this period. 

• Materials or images still to be digitized: Just more than one-half (51.3%) of SLAAs 

indicate that they have more than 25,000 items left to digitize, and 15.4 percent have 

none to digitize. 

• Undertaking digitization activities: To perform digitization activities, 67.5 percent of 

SLAAs train current staff, 37.5 percent reassign current staff, and 20.0 percent digitize 

materials off-site at another institution’s digitization center. 

• Making digital images available: The majority of SLAAs (82.5%) make some or all of 

their digital images available to the public. Most SLAAs (79.5%) rely on the Web to 

make the images available, and 23.1 percent provide on-site access to these images. 

• Needs assessment: Almost one-fourth (22.5%) of SLAAs conduct assessments of user 

or visitor needs for digitized materials and images in their institutions although most 

(72.5%) do not. 

• Collaboration: The majority of SLAAs are active collaborators: 80.8% collaborate 

with academic libraries: 61.5 percent collaborate with state archives; 57.7 percent, 

with other state government agencies; 53.8 percent, with museums; 50.0 percent, with 

public libraries; and 50.0 percent collaborate with historical societies. 

102
• Capability for digitization activities: SLAAs rate themselves strongest in “staff skills 

and expertise,” “established procedures for preparation for creating digital images,” 

and “established procedures for the management of images and files.” “Funding” and 

“established digitization plan” were their weakest areas. 

• Hindrances to digitization: Overall, SLAAs cite “lack of funds” and “lack of staff 

time” as the strongest hindrances to digitization. 

103
2. SLAA analyses 

This section highlights key survey findings for SLAAs. 

2.1 Demographics 

A total of 42 SLAAs participated in the survey. One survey was removed from the analyses 

due to a large amount of incomplete data, resulting in a final sample size of 41. However, not 

all SLAA participants responded to every question, so the sample sizes in the tables below 

might be slightly lower than 41. 

Budget 

Figure 1 shows the percentage of SLAAs by annual budget. All of the SLAAs report budgets 

of more than one million dollars. 

FIGURE 1 

SLAA BUDGET

Budget Percent (n=39) 

Less than $250,000 0.0% 

$250,001–$500,000 0.0% 

$500,001–$750,000 0.0% 

$750,001–$1,000,000 0.0% 

$1,000,001–$5,000,000 41.0% 

$5,000,001–$10,000,000 12.8% 

$10,000,001–$25,000,000 30.8% 

More than $25,000,000 15.4% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question D; 

respondents were asked to select only one option.

Staff Size 

Figure 2 shows the staff size of the SLAAs surveyed. The majority of SLAAs (59.0%) report 

a staff size of 26 to 75. 

FIGURE 2 

SLAA STAFF

Staff Percent (n=39) 

5 or fewer 2.6%

6–10 0.0%

11–25 7.7%

26–75 59.0%

76–150 20.5%

151–250 7.7%

251–500 0.0%

501–1,000 0.0%

1,001–1,500 2.6%

More than 1,500 0.0%

104
Note: Data are based on responses to survey question E; 

respondents were asked to select only one option.

 

The total number of SLAAs is small in comparison with other survey respondent groups (e.g., 

public libraries, museums), so we do not provide breakouts of the SLAA data by budget size 

because there would be too few respondents in each category to draw meaningful conclusions. 

2.2 Technology 

Technology Funding 

Almost all (97.5%) SLAAs had funding for technology in the past 12 months and all of them 

plan to obtain technology funding in the next 12 months. 

FIGURE 3 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY

Percent 

(n=40) 

In the past 12 months, did your institution have funding for technology? 

Yes 97.5% 

No 2.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to have funding for your technology? 

Yes 100.0% 

No 0.0% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 1 and 2; respondents 

were asked to select only one option. 

Adequate Funding of Technology Needs 

Most SLAAs (84.6%) report that the majority of their technology needs are adequately 

funded. 

FIGURE 4 

PERCENTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY NEEDS 

THAT ARE ADEQUATELY FUNDED

Percent Percent 

(n=39) 

0% 0.0% 

1–25% 7.7% 

26–50% 7.7% 

51–75% 48.7% 

76–99% 25.6% 

100% 10.3% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 3; 

respondents were asked to select only one option. 

105
Maintaining and Adding Technology 

Figure 5 shows the mean ratings of an institution’s ability to maintain or add technology 

based on a 5-point scale, with “1” meaning strongly agree and “5” meaning strongly disagree. 

Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 indicate agreement, ratings between 2.5 and 3.5 indicate 

neither agreement nor disagreement, and ratings greater than 3.5 indicate disagreement. 

All SLAAs agree that their institutions are able to maintain their current levels of technology, 

but they are less positive on their institutions’ ability to add new uses of technology to meet 

evolving needs. 

FIGURE 5 

ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND ADD TECHNOLOGY

My institution is able to: 

Average 

Rating 

(n=40) 

Maintain its current level of technology 2.2 

Add new uses of technology to meet evolving needs 3.1 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 4. The scale for this 

question was 1, meaning strongly agree, to 5, meaning strongly disagree. 

Extent of Technology Capacity 

One-fifth of SLAAs (20.5%) currently have the technology capacity necessary to meet their 

mission, and nearly half of them (46.2%) report that their technology capacity almost meets 

their mission. 

FIGURE 6 

TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY 

TO MEET MISSION 

Response Option Percent 

(n=39) 

Currently meets our mission 20.5%

Almost meets our mission 46.2%

Is short of meeting our mission 28.2%

Does not meet our mission 5.1%

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 5; 

respondents were asked to select only one option.

Technologies Used in the Past 12 Months 

Every SLAA (i.e., 100% of all those surveyed) used the following seven technologies in the 

past 12 months: 

• Broadband Internet connection 

• Computerized catalog of library and other collections 

• Desktop computers 

• E-mail 

• LAN (local area network) 

• Office productivity software 

• Web site for its institution 

106
FIGURE 7 

SLAAS THAT USED THE FOLLOWING TECHNOLOGIES 

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Technology Percent (n=40) 

Accounting/payroll/human resources software 87.5% 

Broadband Internet connection 100.0% 

Computerized catalog of library or other collections 100.0% 

Computerized collections management system 70.0% 

Database software or system for membership development 41.0% 

Desktop computers 100.0% 

E-mail 100.0% 

GIS (geographic information systems) applications 47.4% 

Integrated library system (ILS) 95.0% 

Intranet 77.5% 

LAN (local area network) 100.0% 

Marketing and promotion software and systems 20.5% 

Meta- or federated searching in online collections and catalogs 46.2% 

Modem (dial access) Internet connection 16.2% 

Multimedia services or collections 56.4% 

Notebook or tablet computers 74.4% 

Office productivity software, including word processing, desktop 

publishing, and spreadsheets 100.0% 

PDAs (personal digital assistant handheld devices, e.g., Palm Pilots) 70.0% 

Personal information management (PIM) software 21.6% 

Point-of-sale software and systems 0.0% 

RFID (radio frequency identification) in services or collections 7.7% 

Software to manage public-access computers and printing 56.4% 

Video tours 2.6% 

Virtual reality tours 2.6% 

Web portal or gateway for services or collections 70.0% 

Web site for your institution 100.0% 

Wireless network, including WiFi 42.5% 

Other 7.1% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

Almost two-thirds of SLAAs (65.0%) used 16 or more technologies in the past 12 months. 

FIGURE 8 

PERCENTAGE OF SLAAS THAT USED THE FOLLOWING 

NUMBER OF TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Number Percent (n=40) 

0 0.0% 

1–5 0.0% 

6–10 2.5% 

11–15 32.5% 

16–20 62.5% 

21 or more 2.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6. 

107
Staff Capabilities 

More than three-fourths of SLAAs (77.5%) report that they do not have enough skilled staff 

to accomplish their technology activities. 

FIGURE 9 

EXTENT TO WHICH SLAAS HAVE SUFFICIENT 

SKILLED STAFF TO ACCOMPLISH TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES

Response Option Percent 

(n=40) 

We do not have enough skilled staff to accomplish our technology activities. 77.5%

We have the right amount of skilled staff to accomplish our technology activities. 20.0%

We have more than enough skilled staff to accomplish our technology activities. 0.0%

Other (please list) 2.5%

Don’t know/Not applicable 0.0%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 10; respondents were asked to 

select only one option. 

Needs Assessments 

Forty-five percent of SLAAs conduct assessments of user and visitor needs, while 50 percent 

do not. 

FIGURE 10. 

CONDUCT NEEDS ASSESSMENTS FOR 

TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED SERVICES

Percent Response Option (n=40) 

Yes 45.0% 

No 50.0% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 5.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey 

question 12; respondents were asked to select 

only one option. 

2.3 Digitization 

Digitization Policies 

As a group, the SLAAs surveyed have established or are developing digitization policies in all 

areas. However, for each type of policy, at least one-third of them either do not have 

digitization policies in place or in development or they responded “don’t know/not 

applicable”. The top three digitization policies that SLAAs have in place are for the 

following: 

• Digital format, with 42.5 percent having such policies. 

• Metadata, with 38.5 percent having such policies. 

• Access, with 37.5 percent having such policies. 

108
The top three digitization policies that SLAAs have in development are for the following: 

• Materials to be digitized, with 40.0 percent having such policies. 

• Quality control, with 40.0 percent having such policies. 

• Institutional repository, with 35.0 percent having such policies. 

FIGURE 11 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES

Type of Policy 

Policies in 

place 

(n=40) 

Policies in 

development 

(n=40) 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don’t know

(n=40) 

Access 37.5% 30.0% 32.5% 

Best practices 25.0% 22.5% 52.5% 

Conversion of digital files to next-generation formats 12.8% 25.6% 61.5% 

Digital format (e.g., TIFF, GIF, PAL) 42.5% 22.5% 35.0% 

Evaluation 17.5% 30.0% 52.5% 

Institutional repository 25.0% 35.0% 40.0% 

Intellectual property issues 30.0% 17.5% 52.5% 

Materials to be digitized 22.5% 40.0% 37.5% 

Priorities for digitization 27.5% 32.5% 40.0% 

Preservation 35.0% 27.5% 37.5% 

Quality control 25.0% 40.0% 35.0% 

Standards 30.0% 32.5% 37.5% 

Metadata 38.5% 25.6% 35.9% 

Security 30.8% 25.6% 43.6% 

Other 0.0% 12.5% 87.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

Direct Funding to Other Institutions for Digitization 

Almost three-fourths of SLAAs (70.7%) provide direct funding or services to other 

institutions for their digitization activities. Of these, 75.9 percent support cooperative 

digitization projects or partnerships; 72.4 percent support statewide digitization projects; 69.0 

percent support the digitization of special collections; and 58.6 percent support providing 

access to digital products like online collections. 

FIGURE 12. 

DIRECT FUNDING 

TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS

Response Option Percent 

(n=41) 

Yes 70.7% 

No 26.8% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 2.4% 

Note: Data are based on responses to 

survey question 17; respondents were 

asked to select only one option. 

109
FIGURE 13 

ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY DIRECT FUNDING

Response Option Percent 

(n=29) 

Digitizing library collections is funded by my institution. 31.0% 

Digitizing special collections (like rare books or historical documents) is 

funded by my institution. 69.0% 

Supporting cooperative digitizing projects or partnerships is funded by my 

institution. 75.9% 

Accessing digital products (e.g., historical collections online) is funded by 

my institution. 58.6% 

Supporting statewide digitizing projects, such as developing strategic 

plans, surveying collections, and implementing digitizing facilities, is 

funded by my institution. 

72.4% 

Supporting interstate digitizing efforts, such as developing strategic plans, 

surveying collections, and implementing digitizing facilities, is funded by 

my institution. 

3.4% 

Other 17.2% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 17; respondents were asked to select all 

that apply. 

Digitization Funding 

Almost three-quarters of SLAAs (73.2%) had funding to support their digitization activities in 

the past 12 months. 

FIGURE 14. 

FUNDING TO SUPPORT 

DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Response Option Percent 

(n=41) 

Yes 73.2% 

No 24.4% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 2.4% 

Note: Data are based on responses to 

survey question 18; respondents were 

asked to select only one option. 

Materials for Digitization 

The top three materials that SLAAs digitized in the past 12 months or are currently digitizing 

are as follows: 

• Government publications, with 15.4 percent digitizing these materials. 

• Correspondence, diaries, and other personal records, with 12.8 percent digitizing these 

materials. 

• Maps, with 8.1 percent digitizing these materials. 

110
The top three materials that SLAAs plan to digitize in the next 12 months are as follows: 

• Historical documents/archives, with 12.8 percent digitizing these materials. 

• Newspapers, with 10.5 percent digitizing these materials. 

• Government publications, with 10.3 percent digitizing these materials. 

FIGURE 15 

MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN DIGITIZED OR ARE PLANNED FOR DIGITIZATION

Material 

Digitized 

more than 12 

months ago 

(n=40) 

Digitized in last 

12 months or 

currently 

digitizing 

(n=40) 

Plan to 

digitize in 

next 12 

months 

(n=40) 

Plan to digitize 

more than 12 

months from 

now 

(n=40) 

Correspondence, diaries, and other 

personal records 17.9% 12.8% 2.6% 10.3% 

Course material 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 

Education and training material about 

the collections 8.1% 2.7% 0.0% 8.1% 

Films, videotapes 5.3% 7.9% 5.3% 7.9% 

Government publications 41.0% 15.4% 10.3% 12.8% 

Historical documents/archives 35.9% 5.1% 12.8% 10.3% 

Images of items in the collections (e.g., 

art work, artifacts, furniture, plants, 

animals) 

11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 

Information on the institution 28.9% 5.3% 2.6% 7.9% 

Journals and other serials 13.5% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 

Manuscripts 20.5% 2.6% 7.7% 5.1% 

Maps 27.0% 8.1% 0.0% 13.5% 

Music and other recorded sound 5.4% 0.0% 2.7% 10.8% 

Newspapers 7.9% 5.3% 10.5% 15.8% 

Photographs 40.5% 2.7% 2.7% 8.1% 

Rare books 15.4% 2.6% 2.6% 15.4% 

Records about the collection 8.3% 2.8% 0.0% 11.1% 

Sheet music 5.6% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 

Special exhibits 18.9% 0.0% 2.7% 13.5% 

Theses and dissertations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 

Other (please list) 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 20; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

Primary Digitization Priorities 

The top three digitization priorities for SLAAs are as follows: 

• Historical documents/archives, with 65.0 percent indicating this priority. 

• Government publications, with 52.5 percent indicating this priority. 

• Photographs, with 35.0 percent indicating this priority. 

FIGURE 16 

DIGITIZATION PRIORITIES

Priority Percent 

(n=40) 

Correspondence, diaries, and other personal records 7.5% 

Course material 2.5% 

Education and training material about the collections 2.5% 

111
FIGURE 16 

DIGITIZATION PRIORITIES

Percent Priority (n=40) 

Films, videotapes 5.0% 

Government publications 52.5% 

Historical documents/archives 65.0% 

Images of items in the collections (e.g., art work, artifacts, 

furniture, plants, animals) 12.5% 

Information on the institution 12.5% 

Journals and other serials 5.0% 

Manuscripts 5.0% 

Maps 10.0% 

Music and other recorded sound 0.0% 

Newspapers 25.0% 

Photographs 35.0% 

Rare books 12.5% 

Records about the collection 0.0% 

Sheet music 0.0% 

Special exhibits 7.5% 

Theses and dissertations 0.0% 

Other (please list) 5.0% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 7.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 22; respondents 

were asked to select their institution’s top three priorities. 

Number of Digital Materials Created in the Past 12 Months 

Most SLAAs created digital images in the past 12 months, including 42.5 percent that created 

1 to 500 images. However, 22.5 percent of SLAAs report having created no images. 

FIGURE 17 

NUMBER OF DIGITAL MATERIALS

OR IMAGES CREATED 

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Number Percent 

(n=40) 

0 22.5% 

1–500 42.5% 

501–1,000 5.0% 

1,001–5,000 12.5% 

5,001–10,000 2.5% 

10,001–25,000 7.5% 

More than 25,000 7.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey 

question 23; respondents were asked to select 

only one option.

112
Number of Additional Images Remaining to Be Digitized 

The majority (51.3%) of SLAAs have more than 25,000 digital materials or images left to 

digitize. 

FIGURE 18 

NUMBER OF DIGITAL MATERIALS 

OR IMAGES LEFT TO BE CREATED

Number Percent 

(n=39) 

0 15.4% 

1–500 12.8% 

501–1,000 2.6% 

1,001–5,000 5.1% 

5,001–10,000 7.7% 

10,001–25,000 5.1% 

More than 25,000 51.3% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 24; 

respondents were asked to select only one option. 

Undertaking Digitization Activities 

SLAAs undertake their digitization activities by the following: 

• Training current staff to perform these activities: 67.5 percent use this means. 

• Reassigning current staff to perform these activities: 37.5 percent use this means. 

• Digitizing their materials off-site at another institution’s digitization center: 20.0 

percent use this means. 

FIGURE 19 

MEANS OF UNDERTAKING DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Response Option Percent 

(n=40) 

Contractual staff were hired to perform these activities in-house. 12.5% 

New institutional staff were hired to perform these activities. 15.0% 

Current staff were trained to perform these activities. 67.5% 

Current staff were reassigned to perform these activities. 37.5% 

Volunteers perform these activities. 7.5% 

These activities are performed by commercial vendors off-site. 10.0% 

Materials are digitized off-site at another institution’s digitization 

center. 20.0% 

Other (please list) 7.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 15.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 26; respondents were asked to select 

all that apply. 

113
The Availability of Digital Image Collections to the Public 

More than three-fourths of SLAAs (82.5%) make some or all of their digital image collections 

available to the public. 

FIGURE 20 

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF DIGITAL IMAGE COLLECTIONS

Response Option Percent 

(n=40) 

Yes, some of our digital image collections are available to the public. 37.5% 

Yes, all of our digital image collections are available to the public. 45.0% 

No, our digital image collections are not available to the public. 2.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 15.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 27; respondents were asked to select only one option. 

How Digital Image Collections Are Made Available 

More than three-fourths (79.5%) of the SLAAs make their digital image collections available 

to the public via the Web. 

FIGURE 21 

HOW DIGITAL IMAGE COLLECTIONS 

ARE MADE AVAILABLE

Response Option Percent 

(n=39) 

On the premises on our computer network (LAN) 23.1% 

On the Web 79.5% 

Through a third party 20.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 15.4% 

Note: Data are based on survey question 28; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

Table only includes respondents who reported that they make some or all of their digital 

image collections available to the public. 

Needs Assessments 

Only 22.5 percent of SLAAs conduct assessments of user or visitor needs for digitized 

materials and images in their institutions. Overall, however, almost three-fourths of them 

(72.5%) do not conduct assessments. 

FIGURE 22 

NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

Response Option Percent 

(n=40) 

Yes 22.5% 

No 72.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 5.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 35; 

respondents were asked to select only one option. 

114
Collaboration 

Almost two-thirds of SLAAs (65.0%) collaborate (through specific partnering agreements) 

with other institutions and organizations to digitize materials. 

FIGURE 23 

COLLABORATION TO DIGITIZE MATERIALS

Response Option Percent 

(n=40) 

Yes 65.0% 

No 32.5% 

Don’t know/Not applicable 2.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 37; 

respondents were asked to select only one option. 

When SLAAs collaborate to digitize materials, 80.8 percent turn to academic libraries; 61.5 

percent turn to state archives; and 57.7 percent turn to other state government agencies. 

FIGURE 24 

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS

Response Option Percent 

(n=26) 

State library agencies 15.4% 

Academic libraries 80.8% 

Individual public libraries 50.0% 

Private libraries 19.2% 

Museums 53.8% 

Consortia 30.8% 

State archives 61.5% 

− Special libraries 23.1% 

Historical societies 50.0% 

Federal government agencies or archives 7.7% 

Other state government agencies 57.7% 

City, municipal, or other local government agencies or archives 19.2% 

Universities and colleges 26.9% 

Community organizations 3.8% 

Private companies 3.8% 

Foundations 3.8% 

State library associations 15.4% 

State museum associations 3.8% 

Other professional associations 0.0% 

Other 3.8% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 37; respondents were 

asked to select all that apply. 

115
Capabilities in Initiating, Accomplishing, and Sustaining Digitization Activities 

Overall, SLAAs rate themselves capable at initiating, accomplishing, and sustaining 

digitization activities in most areas. They rate themselves deficient at having established 

digitization plans and in funding. 

Figure 25 shows the average ratings of an institution’s capability at initiating, accomplishing, 

and sustaining digitization activities based on a 5-point scale, with “1” meaning deficient and 

“5” meaning fully capable. Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 tend to indicate deficiency and 

ratings greater than 2.5 tend to indicate capability. 

FIGURE 25 

CAPABILITY TO INITIATE, ACCOMPLISH, AND SUSTAIN 

DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Capability 

Average 

Rating 

(n=40) 

Staff skills and expertise 2.9 

Equipment and software 2.6 

Funding 1.8 

Established digitization plan 2.2 

Established digitization policies 2.5 

Established quality standards 2.7 

Established procedures for preparation for creating digital images 2.8 

Established procedures for the management of images and files 2.8 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 39; respondents were asked to rate each 

capability. The scale for this question was 1, meaning deficient, to 5, meaning fully capable. 

Hindrances to Digitization Activities 

Overall, SLAAs agree that “lack of funds,” “lack of staff time,” and “other projects have 

higher priorities” are the greatest hindrances to their digitization activities. 

FIGURE 26 

HINDRANCES TO DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Digitization activities in your institution are hindered by: 

Average 

Rating

(n=40) 

Lack of staff time 2.0 

− Lack of staff skills and expertise 2.7 

Lack of funds 1.9 

Lack of sufficient equipment and/or software 2.3 

− Lack of an established digitization plan 2.8 

Lack of established digitization policies 3.0 

Lack of established quality standards 3.2 

Lack of established policies and procedures for preparation for materials for digitizing 3.2 

Lack of established policies and procedures for the management of images and files 3.1 

Other projects have higher priorities 2.1 

Concern about intellectual property issues 3.5 

Security concerns 3.7 

116
FIGURE 26 

HINDRANCES TO DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Average 

Digitization activities in your institution are hindered by: Rating

(n=40) 

Not having collections worth digitizing 4.5 

Concern about costs of preservation and management 2.6 

Management is unaware of the benefits of digitization 4.1 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 40; respondents were asked to rate each 

potential hindrance. The scale for this question was 1, meaning strongly agree, to 5, meaning 

strongly disagree. 

117
3. Comparisons of the 2001 AND the 2004 survey findings 

This section highlights the differences in the following categories between the 2001 and the 

2004 survey findings for SLAAs. 

• Top technologies used 

• Funding for technology and digitization 

• Sources of funding for digitization activities 

• Digitization policies 

• Top goals for digitization projects 

3.1 Overview 

• Technologies used in the past 12 months: SLAAs’ use of technologies for day-to-day 

operations (e-mail, desktop computers, office productivity software, and institutional 

Web site) was pervasive in both surveys. In the 2004 survey, the following newer 

technologies were implemented in the past 12 months. (With the exception of PDAs, 

these technologies were not asked about in the 2001 survey.) 

o Broadband Internet, used by 100 percent of all SLAAs. 

o Web portal or gateway for services or collections, used by 70.0 percent. 

o Personal digital assistant handheld devices (e.g., Palm Pilots), used by 70.0 

percent. 

o Software to manage public-access computers and printing, used by 56.4 

percent. 

o Geographic information systems (GIS), used by 47.4 percent. 

o Meta- or federated searching in online collections and catalogs, used by 46.2 

percent in the last 12 months, and expected to be acquired or implemented by 

35.9 percent in the next 12 months. 

o Wireless network, including WiFi, used by 42.5 percent. 

• Goals for digitization projects: SLAAs report a change in emphasis in digitization 

project goals over the three-year period: 

o Preserve information of importance or value: a goal for 64.9 percent in 2001 

but for only 50.0 percent in 2004. 

o Increase access to collections: a goal for 18.9 percent in 2001 but for 87.5 

percent in 2004. 

o Minimize damage to original materials: a goal for 40.5 percent in 2001 but for 

only 22.5 percent in 2004. 

o Provide access to material via the Web: a goal for 24.3 percent in 2001 but for 

72.5 percent in 2004. 

o Increase interest in the institution: a goal for 43.2 percent in 2001 but for only 

2.5 percent in 2004. 

118
3.2 Top Technologies Used 

For almost all of the technologies that were asked about, the percentage of SLAAs that 

reported using a given technology in the past 12 months increased from 2001 to 2004. 

However, decreases in technology use of 5 to 20 percent were reported for notebook or tablet 

computers, point-of-sale software and systems, and video tours. 

The largest differences in reported use from 2001 to 2004 are related to the following 

technologies: 

• PDAs: Usage increased from 28.9 percent of SLAAs in 2001 to 70.0 percent in 2004. 

• Database software or system for membership development: Usage increased from 18.4 

percent of SLAAs in 2001 to 41.0 percent in 2004. 

• Notebook or tablet computers: Usage decreased from 94.7 percent in 2001 to 74.4 

percent in 2004. 

FIGURE 27 

TECHNOLOGIES USED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Survey Year 

Technology 2001 

(n=38) 

2004 

(n=40) 

Accounting/payroll/human resources software 86.8% 87.5% 

Computerized catalog of library or other collections 89.5% 100.0% 

Database software for collections management 55.3% - 

Computerized collections management system - 70.0% 

Database software or system for membership development 18.4% 41.0% 

Desktop computers 100.0% 100.0% 

E-mail 100.0% 100.0% 

Intranet 63.2% 77.5% 

Marketing and promotion software and systems 5.3% 20.5% 

Notebook or tablet computers 94.7% 74.4% 

Office productivity software, including word processing, desktop 

publishing, and spreadsheets 100.0% 100.0% 

PDAs (personal digital assistant handheld devices, e.g., Palm 

Pilots) 28.9% 70.0% 

Point-of-sale software and systems 7.9% 0.0% 

Video tours 7.9% 2.6% 

Virtual reality tours 2.6% 2.6% 

Web site for your institution 97.4% 100.0% 

Other 2.6% 60.0% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

3.3 Funding for Technology and Digitization 

The percentage of SLAAs that report they do not plan to obtain funding for digitization 

activities in the next 12 months (14.6%) is up from what was reported in 2001 (5.4%). 

119
FIGURE 28 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITIZATION

Survey Year 

2001 (n=38) 2004 (n=41) Response Option 

Yes No Don’t know/ Not 

applicable Yes No Don’t know/ 

Not applicable 

Technology 

In the past 12 months, did your 

institution have funding for 

technology? 

100.0% 0.0% – 97.5% 2.5% 0.0% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to 

have funding for your technology? – – – 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Digitization 

In the past 12 months, did your 

institution have funding to support 

your digitization activities? 

71.1% 28.9% – 73.2% 24.4% 2.4% 

In the next 12 months, do you plan to 

obtain funding to support your 

digitizing activities? 

94.6% 5.4% – 75.6% 14.6% 9.8% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 1, 2, 18, and 19; respondents were asked to select only 

one option. 

3.4 Sources of Funding for Technology 

The top two sources of funding for technology in 2004 were the same as they were in 2001: 

• Grants from federal agencies 

• State funds 

FIGURE 29 

FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY

Survey Year 

Source of Funding 2001 

(n=37) 

2004 

(n=39) 

Endowment funds 5.4% 0.0% 

Foundation grants 5.4% 69.2% 

Gifts from donors 16.2% 10.3% 

Grants from Federal agencies 78.4% 97.4% 

Grants from other Federal agencies (e.g., Department of 

Education, National Endowment for the Humanities) 13.5% 12.8% 

IMLS Library Services and Technology Act State Program and 

Library National Leadership Grants 62.2% 79.5% 

IMLS Museum National Leadership Grants 2.7% 5.1% 

Institutional operating funds 37.8% 30.8% 

State funds 91.9% 87.2% 

City, county, or other local government funds 2.7% 0.0% 

Other sources 5.4% 2.6% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 1; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

120
3.5 Sources of Funding for Digitization Activities 

For the SLAAs that did receive funding for their digitization activities, the top three sources 

of funding in 2004 were the same as they were in 2001: 

• IMLS Library Services and Technology Act State Program and Library National 

Leadership Grants 

• State funds 

• Institutional operating funds 

FIGURE 30 

FUNDING FOR DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Survey Year Source of Funding 2001 (n=27) 2004 (n=30) 

Endowment funds 0.0% 0.0% 

Foundation grants 3.7% 13.3% 

Gifts from donors 7.4% 6.7% 

Grants from federal agencies 96.3% 76.6% 

Grants from other federal agencies (e.g., Department of 

Education, National Endowment for the Humanities) 14.8% 13.3% 

IMLS Library Services and Technology Act State 

Program and Library National Leadership Grants 74.1% 60.0% 

IMLS Museum National Leadership Grants 7.4% 3.3% 

Institutional operating funds 22.2% 16.7% 

State funds 63.0% 73.3% 

City, county, or other local government funds 0.0% 3.3% 

Other sources 3.7% 3.3% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 18; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

3.6 Digitization Policies 

The number of policies in place or in development (versus not in place or in 

development/don’t know) increased from 2001 to 2004. With some exceptions, the majority 

of SLAAs do not have policies in place or in development in 2004. 

FIGURE 31 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES

Survey Year 

2001 (n=37) 2004 (n=40) 

Policy 

Policies 

in place 

Policies in 

development 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don’t know 

Policies 

in place 

Policies in 

development 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don’t know 

Access 10.8% 27.0% 62.1% 37.5% 30.0% 32.5% 

Best practices 16.2% 13.5% 70.2% 25.0% 22.5% 52.5% 

Conversion of digital files 

to next-generation formats 5.4% 16.2% 78.3% 12.8% 25.6% 61.5% 

Digital format (e.g., TIFF, 

GIF, PAL) 16.2% 21.6% 62.1% 42.5% 22.5% 35.0% 

121
FIGURE 31 

DIGITIZATION POLICIES

Survey Year 

2001 (n=37) 2004 (n=40) 

Policy 

Policies 

in place 

Policies in 

development 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don’t know 

Policies 

in place 

No policies in 

place or in 

Policies in development/ 

development Don’t know 

Evaluation 5.4% 8.1% 86.4% 17.5% 30.0% 52.5% 

Intellectual property issues 16.2% 18.9% 64.8% 30.0% 17.5% 52.5% 

Materials to be digitized 16.2% 27.0% 56.7% 22.5% 40.0% 37.5% 

Priorities for digitization 13.5% 32.4% 54.0% 27.5% 32.5% 40.0% 

Preservation 8.1% 10.8% 81.0% 35.0% 27.5% 37.5% 

Quality control 13.5% 24.3% 62.1% 25.0% 40.0% 35.0% 

Standards 5.4% 27.0% 67.5% 30.0% 32.5% 37.5% 

Other 27.0% 2.7% 70.2% 0.0% 12.5% 87.5% 

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply. 

3.7 Top Goals for Digitization Projects 

The top three goals of SLAAs in terms of digitization activities in 2001 were as follows: 

• Increase interest in the institution: a goal for 43.2 percent of all SLAAs. 

• Minimize damage to original materials: a goal for 40.5 percent. 

• Preserve materials of importance or value: a goal for 35.1 percent. 

In 2004, the top three goals for digitization activities were as follows: 

• Increase access to collections/materials/files: a goal for 87.5 percent of all SLAAs. 

• Provide access to materials via the Web: a goal for 72.5 percent. 

• Preserve materials of importance or value: a goal for 50.0 percent. 

FIGURE 32. 

GOALS FOR DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Survey year Goal 

2001 (n=37) 2004 (n=40) 

Preserve materials of importance or value 35.1% 50.0%

Increase access to collections/materials/files 18.9% 87.5%

Minimize damage to original materials 40.5% 22.5%

Provide access to materials via the Web 24.3% 72.5%

Increase interest in the institution 43.2% 2.5%

Save space in the institution 2.7% 5.0%

Present more of the collection than is on display at any one time 2.7% 2.5%

Save costs by eliminating duplication of materials 0.0% 2.5%

Encourage cooperation among institutions to increase the 

number and variety of materials available 13.5% 15.0%

Provide greater information about the institution’s collections to 

artists, scholars, students, teachers, and the public 18.9% 0.0%

Increase access to state services 5.4% 15.0%

Support educational programs 2.7% 0.0%

122
FIGURE 32. 

GOALS FOR DIGITIZATION ACTIVITIES

Survey year Goal 

2001 (n=37) 2004 (n=40) 

Other (please list) 0.0% 2.5%

Don’t know/Not applicable 8.1% 5.0%

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 31; respondents were asked to select their institution’s top 

three goals. 

123
Afterword: Post-Survey Discussions with the Constituent 

Communities 

At the conclusion of the 2004 survey, IMLS held facilitated telephone discussions with 

practitioners from the five constituent communities represented in the survey: museums, 

public libraries, academic libraries, archives, and state library administrative agencies. 

The participants were asked about the needs of their individual organizations and of their 

fields in using technology and undertaking digitization to better serve the public. They were 

asked what issues the Institute should study to best serve them. The participants were asked 

whether the survey should be repeated in the future. 

The views expressed in the discussions largely corresponded with and validated the survey 

findings. The groups pointed out ways the Institute can help address their needs. They 

concurred that the 2001 and 2004 surveys provided useful information, particularly about 

trends over time. They said that a third survey would be useful and suggested improvements 

toward that end. 

Summary of the Participants’ Comments and Suggestions 

1. There is a need for information appropriate to the institution’s size and type about 

• developing models, guidelines, standards, policies, best practices, and effective 

business models for both technology and digitization activities; 

• successful collaborations and how they can be replicated; 

• hardware and software choices, including interoperability issues. 

2. Institutions want to participate in sharing information about 

• ongoing projects utilizing a particular tool or method, or covering a particular topic; 

• successful projects and collaborations; 

• webcasts, webstreaming, and other electronic ways to participate in conferences. 

3. Institutions would like information, training, and guidance on how to better assess user 

needs, including methods of collecting information about the characteristics of users, how 

they use an institution’s technology and digitization services and products, and for what 

purpose. Those in the library field are particularly interested in information-seeking 

behaviors. 

4. To be able to plan effective digitization and technology projects, institutions need 

• case studies, particularly business case studies; 

• models for project management; 

• information technology strategic planning models, training, and guidance. 

124
5. Staff needs education and training in order to 

• keep current with technology and digitization developments; 

• learn project management skills; 

• perform needs assessments. 

6. Respondents also requested assistance with 

• long-term preservation, especially of born-digital material and the sustainability of 

digital products; 

• staff management, training, and retention; 

• incorporating new technologies; 

• linking digitization projects within and across collections. 

The participants suggested ways that IMLS could support them, including 

1. Conducting studies on 

• user needs in both digital products and technology 

• technology use in services to the public, including the latest changes and the ability of 

technology to draw new audiences; 

2. Conducting or sponsoring conferences on 

• how new technologies can change the way institutions do business, such as changes in 

integrated library systems 

• the lessons of successful projects, particularly digitization projects 

• digital archives; 

3. Encouraging interoperability in software applications, such as integrated library systems 

and cross-collection searching of digital images; 

4. Encouraging and supporting communities of practice that enable people to share 

information, expertise, and experience. 

IMLS appreciates the contributions each of the participants and groups made to our 

understanding of their needs and thanks them for their suggestions for the Institute’s 

continuing work on their behalf. 

125
This survey is designed to document the Status of Technology and Digitization in Libraries, 

Museums, Archives and State Library Administrative Agencies (SLAAs) in the United 

States. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is attempting to gather information 

to determine the needs of these institutions as they progress towards their technology and 

digitization goals. 

Responses to these survey items will be compiled into a report and will be made publicly 

accessible so that libraries, museums, archives and SLAA's, as well as Congress, policy makers 

and other organizations, can see what progress has been made towards technology and 

digitization and where there are still shortcomings. The information you provide will only be 

reported in aggregate form. By looking at the results from this survey, IMLS hopes to identify 

current trends in digitization and technology and determine where to focus their funding efforts 

in the future. 

For purposes of this survey, technology refers to using and managing information in digital 

formats through use of computers (hardware and software), automated systems to support 

services, Internet and other network connections, Web sites and Web-based services, office 

productivity applications like word processing and e-mail, staff to support these activities, and 

the range of technologies that help staff and users search, access, and experience collections onsite and virtually. Digitization is the process of converting, creating, and maintaining books, art 

works, historical documents, photos, journals, etc. in electronic representations so they can be 

viewed via computer and other devices. 

If your museum is part of a larger institution, please respond to the questions in this survey in 

reference to your museum only. 

Please complete this survey and return it via fax to Farrasha Jones, 703-219-3777. If you have 

any questions regarding this survey, please send an e-mail to IMLSSurvey@caliber.com and we 

will get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your participation.

Burden Estimate and Request for Public Comments: 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour (60 minutes) per response, 

including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate 

or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Institute 

of Museum and Library Services, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 223, Washington, DC 20506; and to the 

Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3137-0050), Washington, DC, 20503. 

This survey is being conducted under OMB clearance number 3137-0054 expiring December 31, 2004.

Institute of Museum and Library Services 

Technology and Digitization Survey
BACKGROUND ON MUSEUMS

A. Select the type of museum that most closely describes your museum. (Select the one best 

option.) 

 Aquarium 

 Arboretum or botanical garden 

 Art Museum 

 Children's museum 

 General Museum 

 Historic house/site 

 History museum 

 Natural history/anthropology museum 

 Nature center 

 Planetarium 

 Science or technology center 

 Zoological park 

 Other (Please list): 

________________________________ 

B. What is the size of your museum's annual budget? (Select the one best option.) 

 Less than $250,000 

 $250,001 - $500,000 

 $500,001 - $750,000 

 $750,001 - $1,000,000 

 $1,000,001 - $5,000,000 

 $5,000,001 - $10,000,000 

 $10,000,001 - $25,000,000 

 More than $25,000,000 

C. What is the current size of your museum’s paid, full time equivalent (FTE) staff? (Select the 

one best option.) 

 Less than 5 

 6 – 10 

 11 – 25 

 26 – 75 

 76 – 150 

 151 – 250 

 251 – 500 

 501 – 1,000 

 1,001 – 1,500 

 More than 1,500 
This survey is designed to document the Status of Technology and Digitization in Libraries, 

Museums, Archives and State Library Administrative Agencies (SLAAs) in the United 

States. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is attempting to gather information 

to determine the needs of these institutions as they progress towards their technology and 

digitization goals. 

Responses to these survey items will be compiled into a report and will be made publicly 

accessible so that libraries, museums, archives and SLAA's, as well as Congress, policy makers 

and other organizations, can see what progress has been made towards technology and 

digitization and where there are still shortcomings. The information you provide will only be 

reported in aggregate form. By looking at the results from this survey, IMLS hopes to identify 

current trends in digitization and technology and determine where to focus their funding efforts 

in the future. 

For purposes of this survey, technology refers to using and managing information in digital 

formats through use of computers (hardware and software), automated systems to support 

services, Internet and other network connections, Web sites and Web-based services, office 

productivity applications like word processing and e-mail, staff to support these activities, and 

the range of technologies that help staff and users search, access, and experience collections onsite and virtually. Digitization is the process of converting, creating, and maintaining books, art 

works, historical documents, photos, journals, etc. in electronic representations so they can be 

viewed via computer and other devices. 

If your archive is part of a larger institution, please respond to the questions in this survey in 

reference to your archive only. 

Please complete this survey and return it via fax to Farrasha Jones, 703-219-3777. If you have 

any questions regarding this survey, please send an e-mail to IMLSSurvey@caliber.com and we 

will get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your participation.

Burden Estimate and Request for Public Comments: 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour (60 minutes) per response, 

including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate 

or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Institute 

of Museum and Library Services, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 223, Washington, DC 20506; and to the 

Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3137-0050), Washington, DC, 20503. 

This survey is being conducted under OMB clearance number 3137-0054 expiring December 31, 2004.

Institute of Museum and Library Services 

Technology and Digitization Survey
BACKGROUND ON ARCHIVES

A. Your archive is which type of archival institution? (Select the one best option.) 

 Federal government archive 

 State government archive 

 Local government archive (e.g., county, 

municipal) 

 Affiliated with a college or university 

 Affiliated with a museum 

 Affiliated with a historical society 

 Separate/independent archive 

B. What is the size of your archive's annual budget? (Select the one best option.) 

 Less than $250,000 

 $250,001 - $500,000 

 $500,001 - $750,000 

 $750,001 - $1,000,000 

 $1,000,001 - $5,000,000 

 $5,000,001 - $10,000,000 

 $10,000,001 - $25,000,000 

 More than $25,000,000 

C. What is the current size of your archive’s paid, full time equivalent (FTE) staff? (Select the 

one best option.) 

 Less than 5 

 6 – 10 

 11 – 25 

 26 – 75 

 76 – 150 

 151 – 250 

 251 – 500 

 501 – 1,000 

 1,001 – 1,500 

 More than 1,500 
This survey is designed to document the Status of Technology and Digitization in Libraries, 

Museums, Archives and State Library Administrative Agencies (SLAAs) in the United 

States. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is attempting to gather information 

to determine the needs of these institutions as they progress towards their technology and 

digitization goals. 

Responses to these survey items will be compiled into a report and will be made publicly 

accessible so that libraries, museums, archives and SLAA's, as well as Congress, policy makers 

and other organizations, can see what progress has been made towards technology and 

digitization and where there are still shortcomings. The information you provide will only be 

reported in aggregate form. By looking at the results from this survey, IMLS hopes to identify 

current trends in digitization and technology and determine where to focus their funding efforts 

in the future. 

For purposes of this survey, technology refers to using and managing information in digital 

formats through use of computers (hardware and software), automated systems to support 

services, Internet and other network connections, Web sites and Web-based services, office 

productivity applications like word processing and e-mail, staff to support these activities, and 

the range of technologies that help staff and users search, access, and experience collections onsite and virtually. Digitization is the process of converting, creating, and maintaining books, art 

works, historical documents, photos, journals, etc. in electronic representations so they can be 

viewed via computer and other devices. 

If your archive is part of a larger institution, please respond to the questions in this survey in 

reference to your archive only. 

Please complete this survey and return it via fax to Farrasha Jones, 703-219-3777. If you have 

any questions regarding this survey, please send an e-mail to IMLSSurvey@caliber.com and we 

will get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your participation.

Burden Estimate and Request for Public Comments: 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour (60 minutes) per response, 

including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate 

or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Institute 

of Museum and Library Services, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 223, Washington, DC 20506; and to the 

Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3137-0050), Washington, DC, 20503. 

This survey is being conducted under OMB clearance number 3137-0054 expiring December 31, 2004.

Institute of Museum and Library Services 

Technology and Digitization Survey
BACKGROUND ON ARCHIVES

A. Your archive is which type of archival institution? (Select the one best option.) 

 Federal government archive 

 State government archive 

 Local government archive (e.g., county, 

municipal) 

 Affiliated with a college or university 

 Affiliated with a museum 

 Affiliated with a historical society 

 Separate/independent archive 

B. What is the size of your archive's annual budget? (Select the one best option.) 

 Less than $250,000 

 $250,001 - $500,000 

 $500,001 - $750,000 

 $750,001 - $1,000,000 

 $1,000,001 - $5,000,000 

 $5,000,001 - $10,000,000 

 $10,000,001 - $25,000,000 

 More than $25,000,000 

C. What is the current size of your archive’s paid, full time equivalent (FTE) staff? (Select the 

one best option.) 

 Less than 5 

 6 – 10 

 11 – 25 

 26 – 75 

 76 – 150 

 151 – 250 

 251 – 500 

 501 – 1,000 

 1,001 – 1,500 

 More than 1,500 
TECHNOLOGY

In this survey technology refers to using and managing information in digital formats through 

use of computers (hardware and software), automated systems to support services, Internet and 

other network connections, Web sites and Web-based services, office productivity applications 

like word processing and e-mail, staff to support these activities, and the range of technologies 

that help staff and users search, access, and experience collections on-site and virtually. 

1. In the past 12 months, did your institution have funding for technology? (Select the one best 

option.) 

 No 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

 Yes (If yes, select all that apply below.) 

If yes, you obtain your funds from: (Select all below that apply.)

 Endowment funds 

 Foundation grants, including 

Gates Library Initiative 

 Gifts from donors 

 IMLS Museum National 

Leadership Grants 

 IMLS LSTA State Program and 

Library National Leadership 

Grants 

 Grants from other Federal agencies 

(e.g., Dept. of Ed., NEH) 

 Institutional operating funds 

 State funds 

 City, county or other local 

government funds 

 Corporate sponsors 

 Other (Please list): 

____________________________ 

2. In the next 12 months, do you plan to obtain funding for your technology? (Select the one

best option.) 

 No 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

 Yes (If yes, select all that apply below.) 

If yes, you plan to obtain funds from: (Select all below that apply.)

 Endowment funds 

 Foundation grants, including 

Gates Library Initiative 

 Gifts from donors 

 IMLS Museum National 

Leadership Grants 

 IMLS LSTA State Program and 

Library National Leadership 

Grants 

 Grants from other Federal agencies 

(e.g., Dept. of Ed., NEH) 

 Institutional operating funds 

 State funds 

 City, county or other local 

government funds 

 Corporate sponsors 

 Other (Please list): 

____________________________ 

3. What percent of your institution's technology needs are met by current funding? (Select the 

one best option.) 

 0% 

 1%-25% 

 26%-50% 

 51%-75% 

 76%-99% 

 100% 
4. Indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements. (Select one in each 

row.) My institution is able to: 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 

Not 

Applicable 

a. Maintain its current level 

of technology      

b. Add new uses of 

technology to meet 

evolving needs 

     

5. To what extent does your institution have the technology capacity (e.g., equipment, software, 

connectivity, skills and expertise, staffing) necessary to meet its mission? (Select the one best 

option.) Our technology capacity: 

 Currently meets our mission 

 Almost meets our mission 

 Is short of meeting our mission 

 Does not meet our mission 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

6. What technologies has your institution used in its day-to-day operations within the past 12 

months, or plan to acquire or implement in the future? (Select one in each row.) 

Used in past 

12 months 

Plan to 

acquire or 

implement in 

next 12 

months 

Plan to 

acquire or 

implement 

more than 12 

months from 

now 

Do not plan 

to acquire or 

implement/ 

Don’t know 

a. Accounting/payroll software/HR    

b. Broadband Internet connection    

c. Computerized catalog of library 

or other collections    

d. Computerized collections 

management system    

e. Database software or system for 

membership development    

f. Desktop computers    

g. E-mail    

h. GIS (geographic information 

systems) applications    

i. Integrated library system (ILS)    

j. Intranet    

k. LAN (local area network)    

l. Marketing and promotion 

software and systems    

m. Meta- or federated searching in 

online collections and catalogs    

n. Modem (dial access) Internet 

connection    

o. Multimedia services or collections    

p. Notebook or tablet computers    
Used in past 

12 months 

Plan to 

acquire or 

implement in 

next 12 

months 

Plan to 

acquire or 

implement 

more than 12 

months from 

now 

Do not plan 

to acquire or 

implement/ 

Don’t know 

q. Office productivity software, 

including word processing, 

desktop publishing and 

spreadsheets 

   

r. PDA (personal digital assistant 

handheld devices, e.g. Palm)    

s. Personal information management 

(PIM) software    

t. Point-of-sale software and 

systems    

u. RFID (radio frequency 

identification) in services or 

collections 

   

v. Software to manage public access 

computers and printing    

w. Video tours    

x. Virtual reality tours    

y. Web portal or gateway for 

services or collections    

z. Web site for your institution    

aa. Wireless network, including WiFi    

bb. Other (Please list): 

___________________________    

7. For which of the following purposes has your institution used technology to serve your 

community (i.e., users and visitors that your institution serves, supports, and engages) in the 

past 12 months, and for which purposes does your institution plan to start using technology to 

serve this community in the next 12 months? (Select one in each row.) 

Used in past 

12 months 

Plan to 

start using 

in next 12 

months 

Plan to 

start using 

more than 

12 months 

from now 

Do not plan 

to use for 

this 

purpose 

a. To disseminate research findings and 

publications by our institution's staff    

b. To orient and instruct users about available 

services    

c. To present educational programs    

d. To provide access to computers    

e. To provide access to the Internet    

f. To provide educational programs offered by 

our institution    

g. To provide information literacy instruction    

h. To provide orientation, introduction and 

educational information on exhibits    
Used in past 

12 months 

Plan to 

start using 

in next 12 

months 

Plan to 

start using 

more than 

12 months 

from now 

Do not plan 

to use for 

this 

purpose 

i. To provide user services (e.g., provision of 

career, health, government information)    

j. Other (Please list): 

___________________________________    

8. Indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements. (Select one in each 

row.) Technology has been useful in your institution because it: 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 

Not 

Applicable 

a. Makes programs and 

exhibits more interactive      

b. Provides a richer 

educational experience      

c. Increases the number of 

people who participate in 

programs 

     

d. Increases access to 

institutional resources 

and services 

     

e. Other (Please list): 

____________________      

9. What are the primary hindrances to your institution's use of technology? (Select your top 

three (3) hindrances from the list below.) 

 Lack of staff time 

 Lack of staff skills and expertise 

 Lack of funds 

 Lack of necessary equipment, software and/or networking 

 Concerns about intellectual property issues 

 Security concerns 

 Technology is not appropriate for our collection and services or the pubic we serve 

 Technology is not supported by management and/or the Board 

 Other (Please list): _________________________ 

10. To what extent do you have sufficient, skilled staff to accomplish your technology activities? 

(Select the one best option.) 

 We do not have enough skilled staff to accomplish our technology activities 

 We have the right amount of skilled staff to accomplish our technology activities 

 We have more than enough skilled staff to accomplish our technology activities 

 Other (Please list): _______________________________________________________________ 

 Don't know/Not applicable 
11. Where in your institution’s organizational structure are the staff with technology 

responsibilities (e.g., procurement, installation, resource allocation, operations and 

maintenance) placed? (Select all that apply.) 

 Management 

 Separate Information Systems/Technology Department 

 Integrated within operational departments 

 Other (Please list): _______________________________________________________________ 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

12. Do you conduct needs assessments of user or visitor needs for technology supported services 

or experiences at your institution? (Select the one best option.) 

 No (Please skip to question 14.) 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

 Yes 

13. Are you taking action based on the results of your assessments? (Select the one best option.) 

 Yes 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

 No (If no, select all that apply below.) 

If no, because of: (Select all below that apply.)

 Lack of staff time 

 Lack of staff skills and 

expertise 

 Lack of funds 

 Lack of appropriate equipment, 

software and networking 

 Not appropriate for our 

mission/goals 

 Other (Please list): 

____________________________ 

14. Which of the following statements best describes the attitudes of your institution’s 

Directors or Trustees towards technology acquisition and technology use by your 

institution? (Select the one best option.) 

 The Directors / Trustees of my institution generally promote expansion of my institution’s 

technology capabilities and they provide specific guidance of these efforts 

 The Directors / Trustees of my institution generally promote expansion of my institution’s 

technology capabilities, but they provide little specific guidance of these efforts 

 The Directors / Trustees of my institution are generally neutral on the subject of expanding my 

institution’s technology capabilities 

 The Directors / Trustees of my institution generally oppose the expansion of my institution’s 

technology capabilities 

 Don't know/Not applicable 
15. Which of the following statements best describes the attitudes of the population served by 

your institution towards technology acquisition and technology use by your institution? 

(Select the one best option.) 

 The population served by my institution generally promotes expansion of my institution’s 

technology capabilities and offers suggestions for these efforts 

 The population served by my institution generally promotes expansion of my institution’s 

technology capabilities, but provides few suggestions for these efforts 

 The population served by my institution is generally neutral on the subject of expanding my 

institution’s technology capabilities 

 The population served by my institution generally opposes the expansion of my institution’s 

technology capabilities 

 Don't know/Not applicable 
DIGITIZATION

Digitization is the process of converting, creating, and maintaining books, art works, historical 

documents, photos, journals, etc. in electronic representations so they can be viewed via 

computer and other devices. 

16. What digitization policies does your institution currently have in place or in development? 

(Select one in each row.) 

Policies in place Policies in 

development 

No policies in 

place or in 

development/ 

Don’t know 

a. Access   

b. Best practices   

c. Conversion of digital files to next 

generation formats   

d. Digital format (e.g., TIFF, GIF, PAL)   

e. Evaluation   

f. Institutional repository   

g. Intellectual property issues   

h. Materials to be digitized   

i. Priorities for digitization   

j. Preservation   

k. Quality control   

l. Standards   

m. Metadata   

n. Security   

o. Other (Please list): 

____________________________   

17. Do you provide direct funding or services to other institutions for their digitization activities? 

(Select the one best option.) 

 No 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

 Yes (If yes, select all that apply below.) 

If yes, the following activities are funded by your institution: (Select all that apply.)

 Digitizing library collections 

 Digitizing special collections (like rare books or historical documents) 

 Supporting cooperative digitizing projects or partnerships 

 Accessing digital products (e.g., historical collections on-line) 

 Supporting statewide digitizing projects, such as developing strategic plans, surveying 

collections and implementing digitizing facilities 

 Supporting inter-state digitizing efforts, such as developing strategic plans, surveying 

collections and implementing digitizing facilities 

 Other (Please list): ______________________________________________________ 
18. In the past 12 months, did your institution have funding to support your digitization 

activities? (Select the one best option.) 

 No 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

 Yes (If yes, select all that apply below.) 

If yes, you obtained your funds from: (Select all below that apply.)

 Endowment funds 

 Foundation grants 

 Gifts from donors 

 Grants from other Federal 

agencies (e.g., Dept of Ed, 

NEH) 

 IMLS LSTA State Program and 

Library National Leadership 

Grants 

 IMLS Museum National 

Leadership Grants 

 Institutional operating funds 

 State funds 

 City, County or other local 

government funds 

 Corporate sponsors 

 Other (Please list): 

____________________________ 

19. In the next 12 months, do you plan to obtain funding to support your digitizing activities? 

(Select the one best option.) 

 No 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

 Yes (If yes, select all that apply below.) 

If yes, you plan to obtain funds from: (Select all below that apply.)

 Endowment funds 

 Foundation grants 

 Gifts from donors 

 Grants from other Federal 

agencies (e.g., Dept of Ed, 

NEH) 

 IMLS LSTA State Program and 

Library National Leadership 

Grants 

 IMLS Museum National 

Leadership Grants 

 Institutional operating funds 

 State funds 

 City, County or other local 

government funds 

 Corporate sponsors 

 Other (Please list): 

____________________________ 
20. What materials has your institution digitized or imaged, and what additional materials is your 

institution planning to digitize or image? (Select one in each row.) 

Began 

digitizing 

more than 

12 months 

ago 

Began 

digitizing 

in last 12 

months or 

currently 

digitizing 

Plan to 

begin 

digitizing 

in next 12 

months 

Plan to 

begin 

digitizing 

more than 

12 months 

from now 

Do not 

plan to 

digitize/ 

Don’t 

know 

a. Correspondence, diaries and 

other personal records     

b. Course material     

c. Education and training 

material about the collections     

d. Films, videotapes     

e. Government publications     

f. Historical documents/archives     

g. Items in the collections (e.g., 

art work, artifacts, furniture, 

plants, animals) 

    

h. Information on the institution     

i. Journals and other serials     

j. Manuscripts     

k. Maps     

l. Music and other recorded 

sound     

m. Newspapers     

n. Photographs     

o. Rare books     

p. Records about the collection     

q. Sheet music     

r. Special exhibits     

s. Theses and dissertations     

t. Other (Please list): 

__________________     

21. If you had the resources, which of the following kinds of materials would you digitize or 

image? (Select your top three (3) from the list below.) 

 Correspondence, diaries and other 

personal records 

 Course material 

 Education and training material about 

the collections 

 Films, videotapes 

 Government publications 

 Historical documents/archives 

 Items in the collections (e.g., art work, 

artifacts, furniture, plants, animals) 

 Information on the institution 

 Journals and other serials 

 Manuscripts 

 Maps 

 Music and other recorded sound 

 Newspapers 

 Photographs 

 Rare books 

 Records about the collection 

 Sheet music 

 Special exhibits 

 Theses and dissertations 

 Other (Please list): 

______________________________ 
22. What are your institution's primary digitization priorities? (Select your top three (3)

priorities from the list below.) 

 Correspondence, diaries and other 

personal records 

 Course material 

 Education and training material about 

the collections 

 Films, videotapes 

 Government publications 

 Historical documents/archives 

 Items in the collections (e.g., art work, 

artifacts, furniture, plants, animals) 

 Information on the institution 

 Journals and other serials 

 Manuscripts 

 Maps 

 Music and other recorded sound 

 Newspapers 

 Photographs 

 Rare books 

 Records about the collection 

 Sheet music 

 Special exhibits 

 Theses and dissertations 

 Other (Please list): 

__________________ 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

23. In the past 12 months, how many digital materials or images has your institution created? 

(Select the one best option.) 

 0 

 1-500 

 501-1,000 

 1,001-5,000 

 5,001-10,000 

 10,001-25,000 

 More than 25,000 

24. How many more digital materials or images does your institution have to digitize or image? 

(Select the one best option.) 

 0 

 1-500 

 501-1,000 

 1,001-5,000 

 5,001-10,000 

 10,001-25,000 

 More than 25,000 
25. What is your institution's obligation to make digitized materials or images available, to 

sustain the digital materials or images, and to sustain user access to them? (Select all that 

apply, and at least one in each row.) 

 We have no obligation to maintain digital materials or images or access to them. (Please skip to 

question 26.)

Make 

digitized 

materials 

available 

Sustain 

digitized 

materials 

Sustain user 

access to 

digitized 

materials 

Not 

Applicable 

a. It is mandated by regulatory or 

legislative authority    

b. It is mandated by organizational 

directives or by-laws    

c. It is compelled by licensing 

agreements    

d. It is compelled by membership 

participation    

e. It is compelled by public expectation    

f. It is compelled by consortia 

commitment    

g. Other (Please list): 

______________________________    

26. How does your institution undertake its digitization activities? (Select all that apply.) 

 Contractual staff were hired to perform these activities in-house 

 New institutional staff were hired to perform these activities 

 Current staff were trained to perform these activities 

 Current staff were reassigned to perform these activities 

 Volunteers perform these activities 

 These activities are performed by commercial vendors off-site 

 Materials are digitized off-site at another institution's digitization center 

 Other (Please list): _______________________________________________________________ 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

27. Do you make some or all of your digital image collections available to the public? (Select the 

one best option.) 

 Yes, some of our digital image collections are available to the public 

 Yes, all of our digital image collections are available to the public 

 No, our digital image collections are not available to the public (Please skip to question 29.) 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

28. How are your digital image collections made available? (Select all that apply.) 

 On the premises on our computer network (LAN) 

 On the Web 

 Through a third party 

 Don't know/Not applicable 
29. Who can access some or all of your institution's digital image collections, and is there a 

charge for service? (Select one in each row.) 

Pays for 

access 

Does not 

pay for 

access 

Does not 

have access 

Don’t 

know/Not 

applicable 

a. General public who have Internet access    

b. Anyone who subscribes to a commercial 

agent that provides access (e.g., AMICO)    

c. Onsite visitors at your institution    

d. Members (e.g., library card holders, 

museum members)    

e. Your staff    

f. Consortia/partners    

g. Researchers/scholars at your institution    

h. Faculty at your institution    

i. Educators not part of your institution    

j. Students at your institution    

k. Students at affiliated institutions    

l. Alumni    

m. Outside researchers and scholars    

n. Other (Please list): 

__________________________________    

30. Are your digital materials or images listed in a digital registry (e.g., Association for Research 

Libraries’ Digital Initiatives Database, UIUC OAI Metadata Harvesting Project)? (Select the 

one best option.)

 No 

 Don’t know/Not applicable 

 Yes (Please list): _____________________________________ 
31. What are the primary goals for your institution's digitizing activities? (Select your top three 

(3) goals from the list below.) 

 Preserve materials of importance or value 

 Increase access to collections/materials/files 

 Minimize damage to original materials 

 Provide access to material via the Web 

 Increase interest in the institution 

 Save space in the institution 

 Present more of the collection than is on display at any one time 

 Save cost by eliminating duplication of materials 

 Provide access to materials for specific audiences (e.g., reserve room materials for students) 

 Encourage cooperation among institutions to increase the number and variety of materials 

available 

 For distance or other e-learning programs 

 Provide greater information about the institution's collections to artists, scholars, students, 

teachers, and the public 

 Increase access to state services 

 For our institution's internal records 

 Support educational programs 

 Other (Please list): ________________________________ 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

32. If you had no constraints, why would you digitize your materials? (Select your top three 

(3) from the list below.) 

 Preserve materials of importance or 

value 

 Increase access to 

collections/materials/files 

 Minimize damage to original materials 

 Provide access to material via the Web 

 Increase interest in the institution 

 Save space in the institution 

 Present more of the collection than is on 

display at any one time 

 Save cost by eliminating duplication of 

materials 

 Provide access to materials for specific 

audiences (e.g., reserve room materials 

for students) 

 Encourage cooperation among 

institutions to increase the number and 

variety of materials available 

 Provide greater information about the 

institution's collections to artists, 

scholars, students, teachers, and the 

public 

 Increase access to state services 

 For our institution's internal records 

 Support educational programs 

 Other (Please list): 

________________________________ 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

33. Who do you consider your primary target audiences for your institution's digital materials? 

(Select your top three (3) target audiences from the list below.) 

 General public who have Internet access 

 Onsite visitors at the institution 

 Members (e.g., library card holders, 

museum members) 

 Your staff 

 Consortia/partners 

 Researchers/scholars at your institution 

 Faculty at your institution 

 Educators not part of your institution 

 Students at your institution 

 Students at affiliated institutions 

 Alumni 

 Outside researchers and scholars 

 Other (Please list): 

________________________________ 

 Don't know/Not applicable 
34. If you had no constraints, for what audiences would you target your digitized materials? 

(Select your top three (3) target audiences from the list below.) 

 General public who have Internet access 

 Onsite visitors at the institution 

 Members (e.g., library card holders, 

museum members) 

 Your staff 

 Consortia/partners 

 Researchers/scholars at your institution 

 Faculty at your institution 

 Educators not part of your institution 

 Students at your institution 

 Students at affiliated institutions 

 Alumni 

 Outside researchers and scholars 

 Other (Please list): 

________________________________ 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

35. Do you conduct needs assessments of user or visitor needs for digitized materials and images 

in your institution? (Select the one best option.) 

 No (Please skip to question 37.) 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

 Yes 

36. Are you taking action to meet the needs of users based on the results of your assessments? 

(Select the one best option.) 

 Yes 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

 No (If no, please select all that apply below.) 

If no, because of: (Select all below that apply.)

 Lack of staff time 

 Lack of staff skills and 

expertise 

 Lack of funds 

 Not appropriate for our 

mission/goals 

 Other (Please list): 

____________________________ 

37. Does your institution actively collaborate (through specific partnering agreements) with other 

institutions and organizations to digitize materials? (Select the one best option.) 

 No (Please skip to question 39.) 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

 Yes (If yes, please select all that apply below.) 

If yes, we collaborate with: (Select all below that apply.)

 State library agencies 

 Academic libraries 

 Individual public libraries 

 Private libraries 

 Museums 

 Consortia 

 State archives 

 Special libraries 

 Historical societies 

 Federal government agencies or 

archives 

 Other state government agencies 

 County, municipal or other local 

government agencies or archives 

 Universities and colleges 

 Community organizations 

 Private companies 

 Foundations 

 State library associations 

 State museum associations 

 Other professional associations 

 Other (Please list): 

____________________________ 
38. In what ways does your institution collaborate with other libraries, museums, archives, and 

other institutions in digitization activities? (Select all that apply.) 

 By coordinating state-wide, regional or 

consortial digitization activities 

 By identifying the materials or 

collections to be digitized 

 By providing financial support 

 By providing staff, equipment or 

technical expertise for digitization 

projects 

 By undertaking demonstration projects 

on digitizing 

 By providing a digitization center to 

which institutions send their materials 

for imaging 

 By setting policies or standards on 

digitizing, selecting materials and 

collections for digitizing 

 By providing Best Practices and 

Guidelines 

 By providing consultation to local 

libraries or museums on digitizing, 

management of digital collections 

 By encouraging cooperative digitizing 

projects 

 By issuing sub-grants for digitization 

 Other (Please list): 

________________________________ 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

39. Rate on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Deficient” and 5 being “Fully Capable,” how 

capable your institution is in the following areas for initiating, accomplishing and sustaining 

digitization activities. 

Deficient 

1 2 3 4 

Fully 

Capable 

5 

Not 

Applicable 

a. Staff skills and expertise      

b. Equipment and software      

c. Funding      

d. Established digitization plan      

e. Established digitization 

policies      

f. Established quality standards      

g. Established procedures for 

preparation for creating 

digital images 

     

h. Established procedures for the 

management of images and 

files 

     

i. Other (Please list): 

__________________      
40. Indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements. (Select one in each 

row.) Digitization activities in your institution are hindered by: 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 

Not 

Applicable 

a. Lack of staff time      

b. Lack of staff skills and 

expertise      

c. Lack of funds      

d. Lack of necessary 

equipment and/or 

software 

     

e. Lack of an established 

digitization plan      

f. Lack of established 

digitization policies      

g. Lack of established 

quality standards      

h. Lack of established 

policies and procedures 

for preparation of 

materials for digitizing 

     

i. Lack of established 

policies and procedures 

for the management of 

images and files 

     

j. Other projects that have 

higher priorities      

k. Concern about 

intellectual property 

issues 

     

l. Security concerns      

m. Not having collections 

worth digitizing      

n. Concern about costs of 

preservation and 

management 

     

o. Management is unaware 

of the benefits of 

digitization 

     

p. Other (Please list): 

____________________      
41. What are the primary hindrances of your institution's digitization activities? (Select your top 

three (3) hindrances from the list below.) 

 Lack of staff time 

 Lack of staff skills and expertise 

 Lack of funds 

 Lack of necessary equipment and/or 

software 

 Lack of an established digitization plan 

 Lack of established digitization policies 

 Lack of established quality standards 

 Lack of established policies and 

procedures for preparation of materials 

for digitizing 

 Lack of established policies and 

procedures for the management of 

images and files 

 Other projects have higher priorities 

 Concern about intellectual property 

issues 

 Security concerns 

 Do not have collections worth digitizing 

 Concern about costs of preservation and 

management 

 Other (Please list): 

_________________________ 

 Don't know/Not applicable 
IMLS ROLE

42. What are the top three (3) ways IMLS should support the implementation of appropriate 

technologies in your institution? (Select your top three (3) from the list below.) 

 Identify the costs and resources required 

 Identify and provide information about models 

 Provide funding 

 Provide information on sources of funding 

 Identify and promote standards 

 Identify and promote technology best practices (e.g., cost effective technologies, efficient 

technology implementation) 

 Inform us about the advantages and challenges of implementing technology 

 Report on the current status of technology implementation 

 Provide referral information on projects, resources, standards, guidelines, etc. 

 Other (Please list): _______________________________________________________________ 

 IMLS should not have a role in technology implementation 

 Don't know/Not applicable 

43. What are the top three (3) ways IMLS should support digitization activities in your 

institution? (Select your top three (3) from the list below.) 

 Identify the costs and resources required 

 Identify and provide information about models 

 Provide funding 

 Provide information on sources of funding 

 Identify and promote standards 

 Identify and promote best practices 

 Inform us about the advantages and challenges of digitization 

 Help with intellectual property issues 

 Support development of a Web portal/Web site to enable users to search digital resources 

 Lead and promote national digitization efforts 

 Provide referral information on projects, resources, standards, guidelines, etc. 

 Other (Please list): _______________________________________________________________ 

 IMLS should not have a role in digitization efforts 

 Don't know/Not applicable