Canadian Collections Care Survey Summary of Results Introduction The Canadian Association for Conservation of Cultural Property (CAC) and the Canadian Association of Professional Conservators (CAPC) are proud to introduce the first national survey of its kind to examine the current state of collections care and conservation in heritage institutions in Canada. This data can be used freely for advocacy, fundraising and programming purposes. Responses were collected using online survey software between 23 May and 31 July 2018. As with all surveys that useanopeninvitationtoparticipateviaelectronicnetworks,the results are determined by respondents who have access plus an incentive to respond. The respondents’ locations and profiles are described at the beginning of this document. Please note that in this report, Canadian regions are defined as follows: Atlantic (New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island), Central (Ontario, Quebec), Prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba), West Coast (British Columbia), North (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut). Associate Partners CAC and CAPC would like to thank the following organizations for their help in disseminating the survey link throughout their respective networks. Alberta Museums Association Community Museums Association of PEI Archives Society of Alberta Government of Nunavut, Department of Culture and Heritage Association des archivistes du Québec Government of Yukon, Department of Tourism Association of Manitoba Museums ICOM-Canada Association of Newfoundland and Labrador Archives Museum Association of Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Nova Scotia Museums Museum Association of Saskatchewan British Columbia Museums Association Ontario Museum Association Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization Regroupement des services d'archives privées agréés du Québec Canadian Conservation Institute Saskatchewan Council for Archives and Archivists Canadian Council of Archives Société des musées du Québec Canadian Heritage Information Network Canadian Museums Association Authors Simon Lambert, Gyllian Porteous, Sophia Zweifel Technical Committee Heather Dumka (CAPC), Diana Komejan (CAPC), Simon Lambert (CAC), Miki Lee (CAPC), Gyllian Porteous (CAC), Sophia Zweifel (CAC) © CAC-ACCR & CAPC-ACRP, 2019 This material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Respondents’ Profile 389 institutions from Museum 63% Archive 45% 10 provinces and Library 17% 3 territories Historic site 16% Art Gallery 12% Academic study collection 6% Community centre 4% Indigenous cultural centre 3% 11 Corporate / private collection 3% 2 3 Other 16% 11 68 How respondents described their institution, by number 41 of responses (could select more than one option) 20 12 46 (389 responses) 137 5 13 20 Collections manager 35% Curator 33% Geographic distribution of respondents Director 27% 127 Archivist 26% Conservator 15% 86 Exhibitions officer 14% 55 45 Collections technician 13% 38 Registrar 13% Education / programming 12% officer $0 - $39,999 $40,000 - $100,000 - $500,000 - > Other 19% $99,999 $499,999 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Number of respondents, by operating budget size (CAD) How respondents described their role, by number of (2017) responses (could select more than one option) (389 responses) Many responses were submitted by a number of respondents togetherasateam,orbyindividualswhotakeonmultipleof these roles within their institution. The most common types of institutions represented in the survey are museums and archives, however, nearly half of respondents described their institutions as serving multiple functions, and a wide variety of collection types were captured. Together, these institutions care for over 106 million objects and 510 linear kilometres of archival records (381 responses) 2 Collections Are a Valuable Resource Internal research projects 70% External researchers (including archival research) 68% Digitization for access 63% Loans to other institutions 55% Open storage tours for the general public 26% Features on “underused” objects on social media 26% Object handling activities 22% Open storage tours for school groups 22% Visible storage displays 17% Features on “underused” objects in special exhibitions 17% We only use collections for in-house display 15% Loans to originating cultural groups 14% Other 13% How respondents used their collections (other than for exhibitions) (388 responses) Canadian collections are growing rapidly 48% of respondents said their collection size had doubled or more than doubled over the last 20 years Collections are an extremely valuable resource for communities. In addition to being used for Increased More than exhibitions, they are an integral component of by 10% doubled historical and cultural research, educational or less in size programming, and community engagement. 33% The top ways in which respondents are using 35% collections remain somewhat “traditional” (i.e. for research and loans). Yet, digitization, which ranked third, opens possibilities for innovative ways to reach new and diverse audiences. Many respondents indicated that collections that are kept “behind-the-scenes” are being used for storage tours, social media campaigns, visible storage and special exhibitions. 19% 13% Respondents also mentioned using collections for community festivals or other heritage-related Increased Doubled activities, for classroom teaching, outreach programs, by 50% in size traditional knowledge revitalization workshops, and a range of publication types (i.e. print, blogs, websites). Change in collection size, compared to 20 years ago (1998) (384 responses) 3 Indigenous Material Heritage 53% 47% 37% 26% 16% 16% 16% 5% 5% 5% 4 0 3 0 2 1 1 1 5 0 2 0 1 How respondents from Indigenous institutions described their institution, by number of responses (could select Geographical distribution of Indigenous more than one option) (19 responses) institutions surveyed External researchers (including No External researchers (including 63% change archival/specialarchival/special collections collections… research Increased 11% Internal research projects 58% by 10% 11% More than Loans to other institutions 58% Increased doubled 11% by 50% in size 67% Digitization for access 53% Open storage tours for school 37% groups Change in collection size of Indigenous Loans to originating cultural 37% institutions, compared to 20 years ago (1998) groups (18 responses) Visible storage displays 32% 5% of respondents identified as Indigenous Open storage tours for the institutions. These institutions are diverse in nature. 26% In addition to the Indigenous cultural centres (noted general public on p. 2), these include museums, archives, art We only use collections for in- 26% galleries, libraries, research centres or study house display collections, First Nations government collections, Features on “underused” objects community centres, a privately owned collection, 21% and a historic site. on social media Features on “underused” objects Overthepast20years,collectionsinIndigenous 21% institutions have grown more quickly: 67% more in special exhibitions than doubled in size (compared to 35% for overall respondents). Object handling activities 16% Intermsofcollectionuse,openstoragetoursfor school groups, loans to originating cultural groups Other (please specify) 16% and visible storage displays ranked about twice as high compared to respondents overall. How Indigenous institutions use their collections (other than for exhibitions) (19 responses) 4 Indigenous Material Heritage 58% of non-Indigenous institutions surveyed indicated that at least 1% of their collections consisted of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis material culture, representing over 6 million items across 207 responding institutions by this survey’s estimation Do not Have have plans/ plans/ policies policies 37% 38% 63% 62% Do not Have have plans/ plans/ policies policies Whether Indigenous institutions have plans or policies Whether non-Indigenous institutions with Indigenous for the repatriation of Indigenous material culture collections have plans or policies for the repatriation (19 responses) of Indigenous material culture (206 responses) 47% of non-Indigenous institutions collaborate with members of Indigenous communities for the care, treatment, and use of Indigenous material culture Among non-Indigenous institutions, some indicated that repatriation requests are handled on a case-by-case basis without an overarching policy, while others mentioned that the issue of repatriation had not previously come up. A number of survey respondents expressed that the repatriation of items of Indigenous origin does not apply to their institution for various reasons: the nature of their collections (e.g. contemporary art galleries possessing only contemporary Indigenous artworks in their collections), the quantity of material, or because they’ve determined their collections do not contain "spiritual," "significant," or "unique” materials that warrant such policies. The responses collected do not provide information as to how these determinations were made. Some respondents expressed that limited funding and staff resources have prevented the implementation of a repatriation policy from being addressedasapriority.Numerouscommentsexpressedawillingnessto adopt a policy, but uncertainty as to how to begin or to proceed. 5 Collections Conservation Needs 0% of collections requiring treatment 15% or more of collections requiring 11% Greater