Preserving State Government Digital Information: A Baseline Report
Print Chapter (html)Chapter 2. Creating capability for digital preservation partnerships
Observation 4. Executive, legislative, and judicial agencies operate parallel digital preservation efforts.
State-level LARM units and related units within legislative and judicial agencies are investing in parallel standards setting and service provision efforts in support of digital preservation. Survey findings consistently show that even within the areas generally considered to be within the realm of LARM units – retention and disposal; legislative and judicial agencies are operating to a great degree independent of state LARM units (see Table 5).
|
Table 5.
Setting standards for information retention and disposal (e.g., retention periods and methods of disposal) for various series/types of digital records and publications
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Agency Type
|
Authority not assigned
|
L, A, or RM has authority
|
L, A, or RM share authority with Other
|
Only Other has authority
|
|
Executive |
5% |
61%
|
26% |
8% |
|
Legislative |
21% |
34%
|
18% |
24% |
|
Judicial |
13% |
29%
|
18% |
39% |
The following two sections present a more detailed discussion of these findings both in terms of authority for setting standards and responsibility for providing services.
Authority for setting standards for digital information created or maintained by executive, legislative, and judicial agencies
The findings indicate that authority for setting standards related to the creation and maintenance of digital information resides primarily outside of state LARM units. In executive agencies authority is shared between LARM units and other units; in legislative and judicial agencies it often exists fully outside of state LARM units.
As shown in Tables 6-8, units other than the state LARM units were consistently identified by the states as having the authority to set standards for digital information created and maintained by government agencies. For some states, this authority was shared among the LARM units or some combination of the three and these other units. However, a number of states responded that authority resided only within units other than the state LARM units. As described above, these other governmental units most often included state IT units when dealing with digital information created or maintained by executive agencies and a combination of state IT units and legislative and judicial units when dealing with information created or maintained by legislative and judicial agencies.
|
Table 6.
Authority for setting standards for digital information created or maintained by
executive agencies
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Standard
|
Authority not assigned
|
L, A, or RM has authority
|
L, A, or RM share authority with Other
|
Only Other has authority
|
|
Setting data management standards and or guidelines for information creation (e.g., metadata, file formats) |
11%
(4) |
18%
(7) |
34%
(13) |
37%
(14)
|
|
Setting information technology standards and or guidelines for information creation (e.g., state approved software applications) |
13%
(5) |
5%
(2) |
16%
(6) |
66%
(25)
|
|
Setting standards for information retention and disposal (e.g., retention periods and methods of disposal) for various series/types of digital records and publications |
5%
(2) |
61%
(23)
|
26%
(10) |
8%
(3) |
|
Table 7.
Authority for setting standards for digital information created or maintained by
legislative agencies
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Standard
|
Authority not assigned
|
L, A, or RM has authority
|
L, A, or RM share authority with Other
|
Only Other has authority
|
|
Setting data management standards and or guidelines for information creation (e.g., metadata, file formats) |
29%
(11) |
13%
(5) |
13%
(5) |
39%
(15)
|
|
Setting information technology standards and or guidelines for information creation (e.g., state approved software applications) |
26%
(10) |
3%
(1) |
3%
(1) |
63%
(24)
|
|
Setting standards for information retention and disposal (e.g., retention periods and methods of disposal) for various series/types of digital records and publications |
21%
(8) |
34%
(13)
|
18%
(7) |
24%
(9) |
|
Table 8.
Authority for setting standards for digital information created or maintained by
judicial agencies
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Standard
|
Authority not assigned
|
L, A, or RM has authority
|
L, A, or RM share authority with Other
|
Only Other has authority
|
|
Setting data management standards and or guidelines for information creation (e.g., metadata, file formats) |
16%
(6) |
11%
(4) |
11%
(4) |
61%
(23)
|
|
Setting information technology standards and or guidelines for information creation (e.g., state approved software applications) |
13%
(5) |
0%
(0) |
5%
(2) |
82%
(31)
|
|
Setting standards for information retention and disposal (e.g., retention periods and methods of disposal) for various series/types of digital records and publications |
13%
(5) |
29%
(11) |
18%
(7) |
39%
(15)
|
Digital preservation services provided to executive, legislative, and judicial agencies
As shown in Tables 9-11, LARM units or some combination of the three appear to provide most of the digital preservation services to executive agencies. The numbers of states where the LARM units or some combination of the three provide digital preservation services to executive agencies increases when the services are also provided by other governmental units. The government units other than the LARM units that provide these services are the same state IT units that have authority for setting standards for information created and maintained by executive agencies.
Similar to authority for setting standards for information created and maintained by legislative and judicial agencies, the units that provide digital preservation services to both of these branches of government appear to be combinations of LARM units along with other units within the legislative and judicial branches and to a lesser extent state IT units. In the case of services provided to legislative agencies and even more so for services provided to judicial agencies, a large number of the states indicated that these same legislative, judicial, and to a lesser extent state IT units provided these services rather than the LARM units.
|
Table 9.
Services provided to executive agencies
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Service
|
Service not provided
|
L, A, or RM provide service
|
L, A, or RM provide service with Other
|
Only Other provides service
|
|
Storage for digital information |
11%
(4) |
26%
(10) |
34%
(13)
|
29%
(11) |
|
Consultation and training services on digital information creation |
21%
(8) |
32%
(12)
|
32%
(12)
|
16%
(6) |
|
Consultation and training services on digital information management |
13%
(5) |
50%
(19)
|
32%
(12) |
5%
(2) |
|
Consultation and training services on digital information preservation |
18%
(7) |
66%
(25)
|
11%
(4) |
3%
(1) |
|
Consultation and training services on digital information access |
26%
(10) |
42%
(16)
|
18%
(7) |
16%
(6) |
|
Preservation (e.g., migration, reformatting) |
18%
(7) |
45%
(17)
|
26%
(10) |
11%
(4) |
|
Access (e.g., search engine) |
13%
(5) |
39%
(15)
|
26%
(10) |
21%
(8) |
|
Certification (e.g., trustworthiness of system, backups sufficient) |
34%
(13) |
11%
(4) |
16%
(6) |
37%
(14)
|
|
Table 10.
Services provided to legislative agencies
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Service
|
Service not provided
|
L, A, or RM provide service
|
L, A, or RM provide service with Other
|
Only Other provides service
|
|
Storage for digital information |
13%
(5) |
21%
(8) |
32%
(12) |
34%
(13)
|
|
Consultation and training services on digital information creation |
26%
(10) |
26%
(10) |
18%
(7) |
29%
(11)
|
|
Consultation and training services on digital information management |
24%
(9) |
29%
(11)
|
21%
(8) |
26%
(10) |
|
Consultation and training services on digital information preservation |
26%
(10) |
45%
(17)
|
11%
(4) |
16%
(6) |
|
Consultation and training services on digital information access |
32%
(12)
|
26%
(10) |
13%
(5) |
29%
(11) |
|
Preservation (e.g., migration, reformatting) |
18%
(7) |
34%
(13)
|
18%
(7) |
29%
(11) |
|
Access (e.g., search engine) |
18%
(7) |
26%
(10) |
18%
(7) |
37%
(14)
|
|
Certification (e.g., trustworthiness of system, backups sufficient) |
37%
(14) |
5%
(2) |
5%
(2) |
50%
(19)
|
|
Table 11.
Services provided to judicial agencies
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Service
|
Service not provided
|
L, A, or RM provide service
|
L, A, or RM provide service with Other
|
Only Other provides service
|
|
Storage for digital information |
13%
(5) |
18%
(7) |
24%
(9) |
45%
(17)
|
|
Consultation and training services on digital information creation |
18%
(7) |
24%
(9) |
16%
(6) |
42%
(16)
|
|
Consultation and training services on digital information management |
16%
(6) |
29%
(11) |
16%
(6) |
39%
(15)
|
|
Consultation and training services on digital information preservation |
26%
(10) |
29%
(11)
|
16%
(6) |
29%
(11)
|
|
Consultation and training services on digital information access |
21%
(8) |
18%
(7) |
21%
(8) |
39%
(15)
|
|
Preservation (e.g., migration, reformatting) |
39%
(15)
|
18%
(7) |
16%
(6) |
26%
(10) |
|
Access (e.g., search engine) |
29%
(11) |
18%
(7) |
18%
(7) |
34%
(13)
|
|
Certification (e.g., trustworthiness of system, backups sufficient) |
37%
(14) |
3%
(1) |
5%
(2) |
53%
(20)
|
|
Next >
© 2012 The Research Foundation of State University of New York