Howard County Historical Society Collecting Plan

Stewart E. Lauterbach, Bonnie Van Kley, Kelly Thompson Karickhoff

Submitted 2/19/2008

1.  Introduction

The Howard County Historical Society (HCHS) serves the people of Howard County.  The society’s audience is diverse, including students from five area school corporations, three universities, tourists from surrounding states and other countries, businesses, researchers, genealogists, clubs and organizations, local preservationists, and anyone inside or outside the community with an interest in Howard County history.

The HCHS has been passively collecting historical materials since its founding in 1916.  However, due to a lack of focus, the collection has suffered from over 80 years of inattention.  Parts of the collection are not representative of Howard County history, many artifacts are not properly documented, little conservation work has been performed, and even basic storage needs have not been met.  

Since 1998 the HCHS has worked toward developing a computerized catalog of its collection.  In 1999 the HCHS began using PastPerfect software to create a database to manage the collection.  With the help of dedicated staff and volunteers, nearly all of the collection has been processed.  By determining what is in the collection and where it is located, the society is gaining physical control of its collection.  While cataloging the collection, the staff members have had the opportunity to examine and evaluate many items, ranging from a jar of ash from Mt. St. Helens to some previously unknown photographs of community founder David Foster and his relatives found in a family Bible.  In this respect, the historical significance of items in the collection is disproportionate. 

In 2006 the staff and collection management committee came to the realization that the HCHS cannot continue operating in this manner.  Since staff time, space, and funds for collecting are limited, the society cannot collect everything, nor should everything be collected.

 The intent of this plan is to guide collecting decisions, so that collection development at the society will take place in an orderly and systematic manner.  Implementing such a plan will ensure that future collecting is conducted appropriately, and that the society uses its limited resources most effectively.  Upon completion, the plan will convey definite guidelines for future collecting, will provide the staff with a framework for making daily collecting decisions, and may serve as the basis for future exhibit work.  It is anticipated that this collecting plan will be used by, and will benefit the HCHS staff, the collection management committee, board members, society members, donors, other history institutions, community members, and visitors.

 The following collecting plan was created as a result of 20 collection management committee meetings over a period of 2 years and numerous hours of staff time.  In an attempt to gain insight concerning the significance of certain historical events, the HCHS surveyed 9 community groups, the largest being the society’s own membership, asking them to specify the parts of Howard County history they felt were most important.  To gain a more precise sense of the collection’s existing contents, the committee, and later the board of trustees, participated in evaluating a random sampling of items in the collection.  The results of the community survey and the random sampling were analyzed and compared, and a timeline correlating these findings with significant county events was constructed. 

2. Relationship of collecting plan to other HCHS policy and planning documents

 The Collecting Plan and Society Missions

The collecting plan supports the mission of the historical society by articulating guidelines that will shape future collecting decisions.  Furthermore, the Collection Committee recommends that the Board of Trustees adopt the following proposed mission statements for the collection department and the museum.  These statements attempt to provide more clarity regarding the reason for maintaining a collection, as well as delineating the uses to which individual collection items may be put.  Both are modeled on the mission of the Stan Mohr Library which states:           

The mission of the Stan Mohr Local History Library is to collect, preserve, provide physical protection for, and make accessible to the public the photographic and documentary history of the people, organizations, and institutions of Howard County, Indiana, and to provide support for the Howard County Historical Museum.  Minutes of the Howard County Historical Society Library Committee Meeting, November 27, 2000.  Approved by the board of trustees at their November 21, 2000 meeting.

 Action Item: Create a mission statement for the Collection Department 

Proposed Mission:  The mission of the collection department is to collect, preserve, provide physical protection for, and make accessible to the public the significant photographic and documentary history, and material culture of the people, organizations, and institutions of Howard County, and to create and manage the HCHS collection in a manner that supports the programs of the society.

 Action Item: Create mission statement for the Museum   

Proposed Mission:  The mission of the Howard County Museum is to collect, preserve, provide physical protection for, and make accessible to the public the significant material culture of Howard County through exhibition and programming, and to provide support for the Stan Mohr Local History Library.  

 The Collecting Plan and the Long Range Plan

1) The HCHS operates using the principles of long-range planning.  The current long-range plan covers 2005 through 2009 and consists of goals in five major areas, which are 1) funding – securing adequate and sustainable funding to support the vision of the Howard County Historical Society;

2) Wow factor – using creative and innovative means to increase awareness of programs and activities and to heighten the visitor’s overall experience; 3) staffing – securing adequate staff to enhance and support the operations and programs; 4) facilities – securing and maintaining adequate facilities to house staff, community and society programs and events, collection storage, and exhibits; 5) collections – creating and managing the collection in a manner that supports the programs of the society.

1) The collecting plan relates to the long-range plan in two ways.   Primarily, the long-range plan addresses the specific needs of the collection through the objectives listed under goal number five referenced above.  These include: 1) reviewing and revising the collection management policy;

2) creating a collecting plan (this document); 3) troubleshooting the inventory and accession book entries; 4) eliminating the current donation backlog; 5) inventorying library, photo, and archival materials; and 6) investigating the development of web access to the collection.  The plan also assigns responsibility for completion of these tasks to the appropriate staff member, volunteer, or committee. 

It should be noted that most of these objectives also appear in the implementation section of this plan where they are further refined.

Secondly, each of the other four goals in the long-range plan will have an impact on implementing the collecting plan.  Objectives have been set to raise funds to support collection management activities, construction of a number of temporary exhibits, and the creation of a new, permanent exhibit (Goal 1).  A strategic marketing plan has been developed which, if successful, should result in greater visitation to the society’s facilities and more opportunities to experience the collection firsthand (Goal 2).  A list of proposed historical events and topics has been created, which will serve as the basis for development of a new, cutting edge permanent exhibit and will guide associated collecting activities (Goal 2).  Additionally, the feasibility of becoming an accredited museum will be investigated (Goal 2), securing adequate staff to meet the collection department’s needs will be explored (Goal 3), as well as determining space needed for future exhibits, for collection storage, and for work (Goal 4).  Finally, the society will provide support to the county historian (Goal 3) and foster relationships with other county historical groups by sharing resources and information

(Goal 2).

3.  History of Collecting Efforts

During Indiana’s centennial celebration in 1916, members of the Kokomo Woman’s Department Club, along with civic-minded residents of Howard County, banded together to create the Howard County Historical Society, which was dedicated to the preservation and dissemination of local and state history.  The society’s first museum was established in the Carnegie Library in 1923.  In 1937 its collection was placed in the basement of the newly dedicated Howard County Courthouse.  Funding for the position of curator was appropriated by the county commissioners in 1956.  Mrs. Eos Richardson was the first curator, followed by Rev. O. B. Ransopher and Josephine Hobson.  In 1972, under the direction of Josephine Hobson, the museum was moved to the Seiberling Mansion following a successful fund drive for its restoration.  When the collection was moved to its new home, an attempt was made to return all loaned collection items to their owners by the board of trustees through public advertisement.  The understanding was that items not retrieved would become a part of the museum’s permanent collection.  This resulted in a collection with little documentation.  In addition, during this time period, the museum received many backdoor drop-offs, which they accepted to fill the many rooms of the mansion.  All artifacts were exhibited in an open storage presentation, resembling an antique store with many interesting treasures.

Richard Kastl was the first curator with professional training.  He is credited with writing a brief county history overview for the historical society and with setting up the accession system which is still in use.  Nola Zimmerman, the next curator, began stabilizing the textile collection, and subsequently Rebecca Reneau began inventorying the collection in an attempt to restore lost accession numbers to artifacts.  It was during this time that she instructed volunteers to give any artifact that could not be identified a 77.100 series number, creating a problem that is still being dealt with.  

Kelly Thompson Karickhoff was hired in 1991, as the executive director/curator, with the intention of strengthening the society’s financial capacity in order to expand the professional staff.  Karickhoff embraced professional museum standards and managed the historical society under the principles of long-range planning.  Under her direction, in 1992 Tom Tolen became a part-time assistant curator.  This position later became full-time, and Tolen is credited with starting a computerized catalog, establishing collection policies, streamlining collection storage, and initiating the deaccession process.  Together, Tolen and Karickhoff established a tripartite numbering system.  In 1994 the collection standards had improved to such a level of professionalism, that the Smithsonian Institution was willing to loan Elwood Haynes’ pioneer auto to the society for a month of exhibition. 

When the society recognized the public interest in, and strength of the archival materials, Bonnie Van Kley was hired as Curator of Archives in 2000 to begin the process of making the archives available to the public.  Archival collections were moved to the Elliott Carriage House which was renovated at the cost of $138,000.  Funding was received from a grant, private donor, and community contributions.  A photo technician was hired and volunteers were recruited to assist in the task of bringing order out of chaos.  These improvements, under Van Kley’s direction, resulted in organization, identification, stabilization, and cataloging of the collection, as well as providing climate control for, and improved public access to, the collections, making them more significant.

In 2001 Stewart Lauterbach was hired as curator of collections, bringing to the historical society prior experience from three other museums.  Lauterbach’s primary task was to establish physical and intellectual control of the society’s collection.  Under his direction, the textile collection was stabilized, all of the information from the accession books was entered into PastPerfect, problems involving conflicting data were researched and solved, and the objects collection was moved to the Seiberling Carriage House, allowing for improved storage.

With the installation of climate control in the Seiberling Mansion in 200l-2002, a $280,000 improvement, stabilization of the environment in all four buildings where collections are stored and exhibited, was achieved.  In 2002-2003 the Seiberling Mansion underwent a major renovation and redecoration project valued at $235,000.  This project furthered the preservation of the society’s largest artifact, expanded exhibit space, and created a beautiful backdrop for future exhibits. 

The historical society is especially proud of its ability to have expanded the staff from one full-time person to four staff members who are addressing the needs of the collection.  In addition, a team of dedicated volunteers has been developed to work alongside staff members, contributing thousands of hours annually to ensure that the collection receives the highest quality of care the society is able to provide.  Recognizing that the society is a collection-based institution, the board of trustees has consistently striven to make the collection the center of all society activities, while seeking to fulfill its mission.  The community has always played an integral role in providing the necessary support and resources for the society to attain its goals.    

4. Vision for the Collection

Since the HCHS is the county agency designated as custodian of Howard County history, preservation of that history is the society’s first priority.  The society envisions further serving its patrons in two primary ways:  1) The museum will showcase the collection primarily through exhibits and programming, and will also provide support for the library.  2) The library will maintain collections primarily for research, and will also provide support for the museum.  

Furthermore, the society’s vision for the collection is to create and maintain an assemblage of materials, which document people, places, and events that are historically significant to Howard
County for the purposes of research, exhibition, and programming.  In this vision there will be an appropriate place for everything, and everything will be in its place, resulting in the society gaining physical control of the collection.  The society’s collection will be culled to the point that only those artifacts with demonstrable significance to Howard County history remain.  Computer records will be completed for each item detailing why each item is significant to Howard County history, thereby establishing intellectual control of the collection.  Items in the collection will represent topics identified as significant through community surveys and in the timeline of Howard County historical events.  Additional items will be added to the collection as they are needed or as they become available.  Professional collection management standards will have been met.  The museum collection has been organized and will be exhibited on a rotating basis.  The archival collection has been organized and serve as a basis for personal research, society publications, educational programs, and exhibits.  In addition to collecting, the society will use other appropriate methods of documenting Howard County history such as photography and oral history projects when appropriate.

5. Intellectual Framework

In an attempt to answer the question “What should the HCHS collect?” the society surveyed 8 community groups, asking them to specify the parts of Howard County history that they felt were most important.  The responses to 108 surveys were tabulated on a spreadsheet according to a list of topics created by the collection management committee. This list was expanded as needed to accommodate all of the individual responses. The results are summarized in the following chart.

In addition, a timeline of historical events was developed based on several sources including the county historian, a local history professor, the Kokomo-Howard County Public Library, and two local history books, Howard County: A Pictorial History and Kokomo: A Pictorial History.  This information was then cross-referenced with the themes generated by the community survey.  The timeline should be considered a working document, and as the staff learns more about Howard County history, additional information will be added. 

 
6. Collecting Criteria

The society will consider only those items that are compelling enough to warrant further study, and will accept only those items determined significant to Howard County history.   In comparing existing or potential collection items to the intellectual framework, with the goal of shaping the ideal collection, the following criteria adapted from the model set forth in the Australian Heritage Collections Council’s online publication, Significance: A Guide To Assessing The Significance Of Cultural Heritage Objects and Collections¹ will be used in conjunction with a set of criteria developed by the HCHS staff. 

 Primary Criteria:  These are the four primary criteria to apply when assessing the significance of an item.

1. “Historic significance – An object or collection may be historically significant for its association with people, events, places and themes.  This is the most common category of significance in historical collections.” (Significance p. 25)  The society will accept only those items which are determined to be historically significant because they are produced in or related to Howard County, Indiana.  

2. “Aesthetic significance – An object may be aesthetically significant for its craftsmanship, style, technical excellence, beauty, demonstration of skill, and quality of design and execution.” (Significance p. 28)  The society will accept only those items that are aesthetically significant which are produced in or related to Howard County, Indiana.

3. “Research significance – An object or collection may have research significance if it has major potential for further . . . examination or study.” (Significance p. 30)  This is the primary criterion that the library should utilize when considering accepting collections.  In most cases the museum will utilize research significance as a secondary criterion when considering accepting collections.  Examples of possible museum collections, which might be collected due to their presumable research significance, are items produced by Jenkins Glass, Kingston Products, and Globe Manufacturing. 

4.   “Social significance – Objects have social significance if they are held in community esteem. This may be demonstrated by social, spiritual, or cultural expressions that provide evidence of a community’s strong affection for an object or collection, and of how it contributes to that community’s identity and social cohesion.  This evidence can usually be found by consulting people and communities, but it sometimes becomes apparent only when the object is threatened in some way . . . .  Objects may acquire social value with the passage of time and through particular events or activities that demonstrate present-day community esteem . . . . Social significance is only for living, contemporary value; if the value has ceased to exist, it becomes historical significance.”  (Significance p. 32)

Comparative Criteria:  These five comparative criteria are used to evaluate the degree of significance and are modifiers of the primary criteria.

1. “Provenance – Provenance means the chain of ownership and context of use of an object.  Knowing this history enables a more precise assessment.  Provenance is central to establishing historic and . . . [research] significance.  An object may be significant because its provenance . . . gives it a context in society at large or in the natural world, or in the more personal world of a known individual . . . .   Archival collections take the provenance of a record as a basic organizing principle.  A record forms part of a series created by a specific agency or individual, and must remain in its original place within the series to maintain its specific integrity, and the integrity of the series and archive as a whole.” (Significance p. 37) 

2. “Representativeness – An object may be significant because it represents a particular category of object, or activity, way of life or historical theme.” (Significance p. 39) 

3. “Rarity – An object may be significant as a rare, unusual or particularly fine example of its type.  It is possible for an object’s significance to be rated as both rare and representative.” (Significance p. 41) 

4. “Condition, intactness and integrity – An object may be significant because it is       unusually complete, or in sound, original condition.  Objects with these characteristics are said to have integrity.  Changes and adaptations made in the working life of an object do not necessarily diminish significance, and in fact are also recognized as an integral part of the object and its history.”   (Significance p. 43) 

5. “Interpretive potential – Objects and collections may be significant for their capacity to interpret and demonstrate aspects of experience, historical themes, people and activities . . . . Some objects may have very limited significance under the primary criteria, but they may still have some degree of significance for museums for their ability to interpret and illustrate particular themes, people or ideas.” (Significance p. 45)

Additional HCHS Collecting Criteria:  In addition to demonstrating significance to Howard County history, the answers to the following questions should be given consideration.

1.      Do adequate levels of contextual information exist for the object and/or is it worth the effort necessary to create such documentation?

2.      Does the society have clear title to the object?  (As a general rule, the society will not accept an object with an encumbered title or “permanent loans”.)

3.      Does the object bear any relationship to other objects in the society’s collection?

4.      Should the society give special consideration to the object due to its perceived  “rapidly vanishing” or “endangered” nature?

5.      Does the object have a monetary value which might be of greater benefit to the society than adding it to the collection?

6.      Is the society using the most effective means of preserving an object?

7.      Does the society have adequate resources to process this object?  Is the society able to provide proper storage for the object?  Does the society have adequate resources necessary to provide the object with proper long-term care?

 
7. Analysis of Existing Collection

One way of describing the collection is by using the PastPerfect catalog categories.  In 2006 the catalog consisted of 12,420 objects, 11,062 photos, 4,506 archival records, and 1,609 volumes in the library, creating a total collection of 29,597 items.  These results are shown in the chart below.

Another way of looking at the collection is by using the categories outlined in The Revised Nomenclature for Museum Cataloging: A Revised and Expanded Version of Robert G. Chenhall’s System for Classifying Man-Made Objects.²  A printed list of the kinds of collection items that the society has is 37 pages long and shows that approximately 55% of the collection is made up of  Documentary Artifacts (Chart C), a subcategory of Communication Artifacts.  This group can be further subdivided into historical images, such as Photographs (28% total collection), Photocopies (5%), Postcards (2%), Photomechanicals (1%), Documentary Artifacts--Other (14%), which includes catalogs, business papers, personal correspondence, etc. and Books (5%).  Personal Artifacts (12%) made up of articles of clothing such as outerwear, underwear, and footwear compose the second largest single category of objects in the collection.  The percentages for the other Chenhall categories are illustrated in the chart below.

Random Sampling

In an attempt to gain a more accurate sense of what the collection actually contains, the collection management committee, and later the board of trustees, participated in evaluating a random sampling of 756 items in the society’s collection.  Each participant was given collections records for 28 randomly selected artifacts and asked to consider the items they represented, based on the information contained in the reports.  Each participant filled out a written questionnaire answering the following questions.  Of the 28 items: 1) How many seem to be significant (have a historical association attached to them which cannot be replaced by a specimen)?  2) How many seem to be specimens (i.e. are representative of any other object in its class or type)?  3) Where do the items identified as significant fit on the committee’s list of historical topics?  4) If Howard County history was a book, how many items represent topics that would be chapters, paragraphs, sentences, or footnotes?  5) How many items in the packet would be eliminated from the collection and why?   6) What is the most significant item in the packet?  7) What is the least significant item in the packet?   The results of question 3 are summarized in the following chart.  (See appendix A for methodology) 

The results of comparing the survey with the random sample can be seen in the chart and table below. 

The results of comparing the survey with the random sample can be seen in the chart and table below. 

Appendix A:  Random Sampling Methodology

The random sampling of the collection was performed in order to develop generalizations about the contents of the collection based on a close examination of a limited number of artifacts.  It was based on sampling theory presented at www. custominsight.com/articles/random-sampling.asp.  According to calculations made using the website’s online calculator, a sampling of 737 random objects from a collection of 29,597 objects would give results with an error factor of 3% and a confidence factor of 90%.  This means that if the sampling was conducted 100 times, the same objects would be selected with as little variation of +/- 3% from the first time the sampling was conducted 90 times out of 100. 

Since 27 people (11 collection management committee members and 16 board members) were willing to review the documentation on the 737 randomly selected artifacts, and 737 is not evenly divisible by 27, each member was given 28 records to review, with the result that a total of 756 records was actually reviewed. 

The actual list of 756 items was generated by creating a spreadsheet containing all 29,597 catalog records, assigning a random number to each using Microsoft Excel’s random number generator, then sorting the records by random number and using the first 756 records.  Once these items were identified by their object identification number, packets containing records for 28 of the objects were printed out and distributed, along with a questionnaire, to the sampling participants for review.   The questions were aimed at determining if and how each object fit into the topical survey framework, and also to evaluate its significance.  While this methodology is no doubt an oversimplification of professional statistical analysis, it did yield some interesting insights as to the content of the society’s collection.

Note: An analysis was done on the amount of actual time spent doing collection work, and it is instructive to note that even with the help of volunteers, the collections department is only able to do the work equivalent to that of 2.25 fulltime staff members each week.  This is no doubt a result of the necessity of the small staff having to wear many hats in the organization and the specialized nature of much of the work, which requires extensive training of volunteers.