The preservation of state government information is the core responsibility of most LARM units. Overtime, more and more of this information is created and maintained in digital form. In the early days of the digital era, LARM units created ad-hoc response strategies informed by long-standing approaches for preserving paper-based information. As the scales have tipped to the point where information is almost exclusively created and maintained in digital form, these ad-hoc preservation approaches are no longer sufficient, however, states face many challenges as they work to evolve to more strategic digital preservation programs. In particular, funding and staffing investments appear to be driven by episodic problem solving priorities rather than an overall program development strategy. Survey respondents stated that recent or ongoing digital information preservation activities are supported with limited or project specific state funding or relatively short duration grants where funding ends when the project is complete. Additional evidence of this can be found in the approaches taken to respond to at-risk information. Survey responses illustrate a consistent focus on a small number of specific types of at-risk digital information rather than broader or multiple categories of at-risk digital information. This approach appears to be influencing investments in staff development programs as well. Training is primarily focused on gaining the skills necessary to solve a specific problem rather than to develop overall capability in terms of digital preservation. The low to medium level capabilities reported by the majority of states appears to be both a consequence of and a contributor to ad hoc project (versus program) level initiatives.

The task of using this baseline data to move the efforts to build digital preservation partnerships forward lies in the hands of LARM and IT professionals, agency executives, elected officials, and many others at all levels of government. The following recommendations are offered to assist them in that task.

The findings presented in this report highlight the many challenges facing state governments in their digital preservation efforts. However, the activities described in the state-level profiles present many success stories as well. Many states have been successful in at least one if not several areas of digital preservation including building successful funding models, training programs and collaborative partnerships, establishing clearly defined roles and responsibilities for digital preservation, and building effective technical tools and infrastructure. The baseline data presents the challenge; the profile data provides the inspiration that challenges can, in some cases, be overcome. The assignment for public managers with digital preservation responsibility is to seek out colleagues with complementary or leveraging capabilities and to employ partnerships as a strategy for building capability.

The results show that intra- and interstate partnerships present great opportunities to those involved in and responsible for state government digital information preservation. Building partnerships with those who share authority over the standards setting processes and responsibility for providing digital preservation services appears well-advised. The findings show that authority for and responsibility for digital preservation related standards setting and digital preservation services are divided among a number of agencies/units within each state. In many cases it is clear that LARM units have little authority over the standards setting processes for digital preservation related standards, yet significant responsibility for providing digital preservation services. This division of labor is one of the more challenging conditions in the environment. Its impact may be mitigated by building partnerships among state-level LARM units and those units located within legislative and judicial agencies.

Other new intra-state partners should include the state IT department. Of note, ten states – GA, IA, KS, ME, MI, MN, MT, PA, SD, and UT – indicated that the equivalent of their state IT department or a committee or commission formed by their state IT department is a partner in the digital preservation activity described in their response. These efforts and others can serve as models for other states in building new relationships between and among state LARM units and state and agency level IT units.

Decisions about how information is created, managed, and used are being made across all branches of government as well. This distribution of authority must be well understood in the development of digital preservation programs. Each state has taken a somewhat unique approach to assigning authority for standards that govern creation and management of information. How these differences come about is in some cases due to different institutional structures, unique policies, and idiosyncratic practices. In other cases their source is unclear. In some cases no formal authority for these activities have been assigned. Understanding the nature and source of these differences is an important element in identifying and working with potential partners.

In general, the nature of EA activities provides an ideal opportunity for integrating the full range of management, policy, and technology issues related to the preservation of state government digital information into enterprisewide information and information technology related decision making and planning. EA efforts provide a forum for the discussion of roles and responsibilities, as well as an examination of enterprise business processes and requirements. The centrality of digital preservation as a enterprise business responsibility can be illustrated and ideally, operationalized, through these discussions. EA efforts also provide a forum for discussions about the development of program capabilities rather than one-off problem solving efforts. The EA planning and policy development process may be the most effective venue for discussions about authority over standards setting processes that govern the full life-cycle of digital information. While the level of awareness reported above is encouraging, the level of involvement is less so. Fully, two-thirds of the respondents, generally top management in state LARM units, are not involved in the EA efforts of their state.

Participants in the Library of Congress States Workshops, as well as respondents to the survey, expressed an interest in and a need for additional and ongoing forums focused on the preservation of state government digital information. Workshop participants expressed a need for a continuing forum sharing knowledge and expertise among members of the “digital preservation community.”

Many respondents to the survey also shared ideas and preferences on future baseline efforts. Two examples of information of interest are:

• Identify those digital preservation initiatives funded/created by specific legislation – identify the state and the legislation so others can track it down as a reference.
• Determine if and how units act on their standards setting authority.

The baseline data and the state profiles provide a wealth of data to support a range of uses by the digital preservation community. The data will have most value to the community, however, if used and improved upon in the development of partnerships, in making a case to agency leaders or elected officials for investments in digital preservation, and for creating new synergies and new knowledge within and across states about digital preservation challenges and opportunities.