Download our Logo
April 1996
Our Nation's "Other" National Archives
by Richard Cameron, Assistant Program Director for State Programs
Reflecting on our Federal system of government, some of you might muse that the enduring records of our government are housed not only in the National Archives, but in state archives in every state of the union as well as in university and research libraries, and in county and parish court houses, town halls, municipal records offices, and school buildings in almost every community. While each state bears responsibility for the management and preservation of its own records and information as the Federal government does for the records and information it creates, in a larger sense the States and Federal government share stewardship for a large portion of the government records of our nation that have enduring value.
From this perspective, the report soon to be released on the Internet by the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators is a description of our nation's "other" national archives. The report, entitled Maintaining State Records in an Era of Change: a National Challenge, analyzes and summarizes a tremendous amount of information about state archives and records programs in the United States. Building on a 1993 Council report, the forthcoming report is based on a survey conducted jointly with the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators early last year. It is an attempt to assess the progress made by state government archives and records programs, especially as they confront the challenges posed by the ever accelerating information revolution.
An article in Annotation on the Council's 1993 report indicated considerable progress in state archival and records programs in the thirty years since Ernst Posner first reported on them in his seminal study, American State Archives. In the three years since the last Council report, the change is far less extensive, but in some areas no less dramatic.
In 1993 only five state archivists even had basic electronic mail capability, several only because they paid for a personal account themselves. Today, no fewer than 30 have Internet e-mail and 20 state archives have their own World Wide Web homepages. In 1993, 25 state archives reported providing some access to their holdings through automated systems. In the new report, 31 states report some use of automated descriptive systems, and 26 report participation in state, regional, or national bibliographic networks.
Although the report documents state archives' active participation in the new information age, it also cautions that in terms of access to records already in archival custody "the biggest impediment to full use of these automated tools may become a lag in traditional archival activities." Although most state archives (36 of those reporting) claimed to have descriptive control of 80 percent or more of their holdings at the record group level, only 10 state archives reported 90 percent or more of their holdings described in automated systems. Clearly, a tremendous amount of work remains to make Internet access to descriptions of state archives a realistic goal.
Another area in which technology is having an impact on access to government records is the development of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS). The Federal government mandated that all Federal agencies provide Internet access to descriptions of their "core records" by the end of 1995. These are the records maintained in the Federal government agencies. NARA was chosen to develop guidelines and training to help Federal agencies implement GILS. (See page 4 for a related article.) A number of states are also developing their own GILS, but the report contains information on only a few states that have actually begun GILS efforts. In several of these, the state archives is playing an active role, building on previous experience in providing standardized descriptions and reference service for public access to government records.
The report also discusses state archives' efforts to develop sound programs for electronic records and to incorporate archival and records management perspectives into state information resources management and information policy development. While most states have a statutory or regulatory definition of records that includes electronic records, fewer (only 15) specifically include electronic mail. Moreover, state archives have come to recognize that requiring good electronic records management practices and achieving them are two different things.
But beyond the electronic frontiers of the information revolution, there is change and progress in other areas of interest to archivists and users of archives. The survey indicates facilities are continuing to be a focal point for state archives and records management programs with more than half the existing state archives constructed since 1970, six new buildings opened since 1990, and eight more being planned. Yet, the report also reveals that despite the growth in facilities, many state archives are filled to capacity.
The information on holdings, while not necessarily reflecting dramatic change, demonstrates the significant challenges archivists and records managers face in handling the diverse storage media that their holdings now include. In addition to the more than 1.7 million cubic feet of paper holdings held by state archives across the country, state archives now provide access to 2.5 million reels of microfilm and more than 10 million photographic images.
Interestingly enough, these aggregate figures are comparable to the 1.8 million cubic feet reported in the 1994 NARA annual report for its archival holdings (exclusive of the holdings of the presidential libraries). The state archives' paper holdings, again in the aggregate, are also growing at a rate comparable to that reported by NARA in 1994. These comparisons are meaningful only in that they suggest the national scope and importance of the state archives and records programs. These programs truly do represent our nation's other national archives.
The Council's report should add to our understanding and appreciation of the role these agencies play in a national information system, and it should further their efforts to learn more about each other's programs and incorporate the best features toward the betterment of their own. It should also advance efforts to find solutions to common challenges at the national level.
