Present
- Geoff Pick, Joint Archive Service (GP – Chair/Convenor)
- Liz Hallam Smith, The National Archives (EHS)
- Steven Jones, The National Archives (SJ)
- Charlotte Hodgson, Glamorgan Record Office (CH)
- Alison Horsburgh, National Archives of Scotland (AH)
- Deborah Jenkins, JAS (DJ)
- David Mander, Hackney Archives (DM)
- Chris Pickford
- Catherine Redfern, The National Archives (CR – Secretary)
1. Apologies for absence
1.1 Apologies were received from Alison Hems, Bruce Jackson and Richard Childs.
2. Minutes of meeting held on 21 April 2004, and matters arising
2.1 [PSQG logo] – GP circulated a suggested logo which was an adapted version of the NCA logo. A couple of suggested amendments were made. GP will take this forward; once confirmed it will be incorporated into the website. GP CR
2.2 [MLA digest of statistics] – This has now been published by MLA (www.mla.gov.uk/information/evidence/ev_stats.asp). CH said the document was very useful.
2.3 [Cultural Trends] – CP’s article, “Archives: a statistical overview” had now been published in the Cultural Trends journal.
2.4 [DCMS / Audit Commission performance management framework for cultural services] – Nothing more had been heard about the consultation on Local Authorities. However, a DCMS representative is invited to the next CIPFA meeting in November, where this could be discussed. The DCMS representative would be Roger Stratton-Smith who is responsible for performance indicators for Best Value. SJ reported that TNA colleagues had met with Brian Tate of the Audit Commission. SJ offered to forward an update on the outcome of this meeting to the Steering Group.SJ
2.5 [Archives Task Force Report] – MLA is currently drafting an “Archives Development Plan” which will take forward the recommendations of the Archives Task Force. CR reported that IDAC had discussed this at their meeting on 2 July. TNA had proposed that the Government Policy on Archives Action Plan be closed as many of the actions had been completed. In its place, a high-level priority list has been proposed, which IDAC would oversee. This would incorporate MLA’s plan and also some other ongoing and uncompleted actions.
2.6 [Long-term user statistics] – SJ had drafted a note requesting information about long-term user statistics, which would be published in the first issue of TNA’s new magazine for archivists and records managers (which would replace the Place of Deposit Bulletin). This will be published in July.
3. Review of working parties' activities
3.1 CIPFA statistics
Data has now been received for 2003-4, and Bruce Jackson has drafted a response. For the first time the results include Scottish data. This will be very useful, but will affect the presentation of the data. GP will be able to provide more information at the next meeting.
3.2 Access Standard
GP has redrafted the preamble. EHS had had a meeting with the Historic Houses Archivists Group, who were now generally supportive of the standard. CP SJ
The standard would be developed as follows:
- The letters of endorsement need to be compiled and the standard re-launched on the website with the new preamble.
- Examples of policies, standards etc. should be added on the website. CP would send some to SJ for publication.
- CP would provide a tool for self-assessment (a checklist), which should also be added. Archivists should be encouraged to check compliance annually.
3.3 SJ reported some positive developments which would help to promote the standard:
- It had been incorporated into TNA’s Framework of Standards for inspection and approval of repositories
- At a meeting with TNA, the Information Commissioner had recognised the standard as a good benchmark for meeting the s.21 exemption (“reasonably accessible”). This news, and other FOI issues discussed with the ICO, would be presented to the archives community shortly by TNA (e.g. in ARC).
3.4 The Group then discussed ideas for promoting the standard. EHS said Lucy Fulton (NCA) could help promote the standard. CR would add some promotional text could be added to the mailing for the PSQG Forum. The Group also discussed launching the standard at the Society of Archivists’ Conference. CR
3.5 A press release / promotional text should be written which promotes the standard’s relationship to FOI, HLF (which requires an access policy to be in place), Disability Discrimination Act, and coping with increased demand. The press release should include a contact for any organisation interested in a training event. CP would draft this. CP
3.6 Training events could be provided at meetings of the Regional Agencies (Katie Norgrove could send a list of dates), and at meetings of other organisations. This could be funded by profits from the Quality Forum. CP already had a generic presentation which could be adapted for this purpose, and would forward this to the Steering Group. The SOA Training Offer could also be contacted. The group discussed the need to promote the standard amongst community archives. Frieda Midgley at TNA might be able to provide advice on the best way to make contact. KN CP
3.7 EHS said it was important that PSQG keep ownership of the standard even though the working group no longer exists.
3.8 Visitors' survey
The survey had now ended. Data would be produced during end July / early August, and would be ready by September. National results would probably be ready by the Quality Forum in November. All data is now being processed by IPF, which should speed up the process.
3.9 GP reported that fewer organisations had taken part this year so he would write to those that didn’t to try to find out the reasons why. Even so, there were still over 100 participating archives. One difference this year was that participating archives had to use the data entry services of IPF. It was thought that this would have encouraged smaller repositories to take part, as it was cheaper. In previous years the working group had spent a lot of time chasing up archives and encouraging them to take part, although this had only had a small impact. The group discussed the need for advocacy for the survey, along the lines of “what it can do for you!” CH said the survey was much easier to undertake now than it had been in previous years, but people may not realise this. There was a need to find out how archivists have used the data.
3.10 A student had recently posted a message to archives-nra mailing list about his dissertation on different types of archive user groups. CP had contacted him about the survey data. The group agreed to let the student use the data as long as PSQG could also see the results of his research and could quote them.
3.11 The Group discussed the use of statistics to show the impact of archives on tourism and the local economy. CP said this was discussed in his Cultural Trends article. DH said there were many tourist organisations in London with money available who might be willing to fund a national study. A proposal needs to be written and quote received from IPF. It would probably be less than a week’s research. Then the Tourist Board could be approached to fund this. Members of the Visitors Survey group (Stuart, Elizabeth) would look into this. Survey working group
3.12 The Group discussed other uses of statistics such as on-site vs online, frequency of visits, or a long-term analysis of ethnicity of archive users. The group discussed problems with gathering data on ethnicity. Statistics on social inclusion were also difficult to obtain. A list of possible research areas would be useful.
3.13 Performance indicators, phase 2 (stewardship)
CH reported that the performance indicators work had proved to be more difficult than anticipated, and other work had taken priority. CH wondered whether it might be worth looking at how the phase 1 (access) PIs could be implemented practically before moving on to developing phase 2 (stewardship). CP had had contact with an expert in performance indicators who commented that the PIs were too detailed, but were nevertheless a great foundation, possibly for an ISO on measuring performance. CH said that Canadian contacts also thought the PIs were too detailed and it was possibly too ambitious to cover all UK archives. DM suggested it might be easier to start phase 3 (“financial / efficiency”) PIs before phase 2. The Group discussed whether MLA might be more likely to fund this than the PIs on access; how the PIs might extend to non-local authority archives; and any other issues from the visitors survey which might be included in the PIs.
3.14 CH wondered whether it would make sense to merge the CIPFA and PI working groups. The new merged group could look at breaking the current CIPFA questionnaire into headings which match those in the PIs work. CH would speak to Richard Childs about this. EHS and SJ would consider whether more information could be put on the PSQG web pages.CH EHS SJ
4. Quality Forum 2004
4.1 The programme had been finalised. There would be a later start and the morning break had been removed. The speakers would include: Stephen Thake, on regeneration and social inclusion; Gerry Slater, who would speak on how to form a community archive in a divided community; John Abbott, on learning other than by formal methods; Liz Hallam Smith on Community Archives and A2A; Jan Pimblett, LMA Interpretation Officer on where might learning and archives be in 5-10 years. CR would publicise the Forum as soon as possible. CR
4.2 The group thought that the theme of impact assessment could be taken up at the 2005 Forum, as this was an area where the sector was lagging behind museums and libraries.
5. Treasurer's report
5.1 DJ reported that there is around £800 in the account. Arrangements for the Quality Forum were discussed.
6. Any other business
6.1 SJ reported that TNA is to be peer-assessed against the Framework of Standards. PSQG agreed to help.
6.2 CH circulated a CyMAL prospectus, and talked about the organisation. It is a Welsh Assembly body with a role similar to that of MLA and a main focus on local government. CH has discussed with them how PSQG might help to provide useful evidence to support their policy work. CyMAL has offered to fund a translation of the Access Standard. PSQG were invited to think of other ways in which the Group could work with CyMAL, e.g. promoting the visitor survey. CH also reported that she would be attending an annual archives meeting in September and would be speaking about PSQG.
6.3 TNA had launched its new website and the PSQG pages had been transferred over. As discussed above, the logo would be placed on the pages once it has been finalised.
6.4 The British Library had held a conference on “Demonstrating Value” which looked at calculating economic value by a “contingent valuation” method. GP said it has been useful and interesting but was not necessarily the most appropriate method for archives.
6.5 Helen Shenton had written an article on assessing the cost of acquisition, cataloguing, preservation, and maintaining an archive i.e. lifecycle costing. This is relevant to phase 2 of the PIs work. DJ said this was interesting and showed how preservation costs become heavier over time, and how cataloguing costs drop off quickly. There is also a table showing costs at 1 year, 5 years, 10, 50, 100 years. DJ would email it to the rest of the Group.DJ
7. Date of next meeting
7.1 12th October, 10.30am, LMA
7.2 The Group would wait to hear when NCA meetings were scheduled for the coming year, before confirming future meeting dates. These were likely to be in January, April, July, and October.
CSR
19 July 2004
Public Services Quality group
Introduction
Steering group