Sustaining Community Archives in the Post-Custodial Digital Environment

2.1 Community Archives

The term “community archives” was first used in a Library Journal article in 1942. As Bastian and Flinn (2018) recount, the 1942 article “Libraries as Community Archives in Wartime” by Pelham Barr called for public libraries and community members to document the activities in communities during World War II (Barr 1942). Flinn (2007) traces the history of community archiving in England and attributes its development to the growing interest in local and family history, the political and social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, and the desire of communities that are going through dramatic changes to document their heritage. It wasn’t until the 1970s, however, that community archives began to grow rapidly, mirroring the political unrest of the civil rights era. Community groups defined by race, gender, culture, and identity became increasingly invested in documenting their stories (Sheffield 2017).

Definitions of community archives are a subject of ongoing discussion reflecting a variety of perspectives and revealing the tension between different understandings (Poole 2020; Welland and Cossham 2019). Gilliland and Flinn (2013) question whether it is appropriate to define community archives at all, given their incredible diversity, and the fact that the term is not used or accepted by all groups. Flinn et al (2009), however, offer one of the most inclusive definitions that relieves this tension to some degree: “A community… is any group of people who come together and present themselves as such, and a ‘community archive’ is the product of their attempts to document the history of their commonality” (75). The flexibility of this definition gives direct agency to groups in identifying and defining themselves as communities and allows for any level of diversity. Communities of every identity, ethnicity, religion, affiliation, geographic location, and culture have a shared goal: “to tell histories and save archives that they believe would not otherwise be saved and would not be heard” (Gilliland and Flinn 2013, 5).

Archival scholars identify several motivations for communities to create independent archives. Independent archiving initiatives are often inspired by enthusiasm for local history and concerns that the cultural heritage of the community is not preserved in mainstream institutions. Archives that aim to address the patterns of under-representation and marginalization are motivated by social and political activism (Flinn et al 2009). As Wakimoto et al (2013) state, “The histories of community archives are stories of defiance, change, and activism” (311). These motivations are often fueled by distrust of the institutions of power that have typically housed and organized archives, as well as a community’s desire for control of records and their representation in the archives (Poole 2020; Wakimoto et al 2013; Zavala et al. 2017). Digital technology can be employed by community archives to work towards these goals, while also emphasizing the need for robust measures to ensure the sustainability of these archives.

2.2 Sustainability

Sustainability has become a key concern in the digital environment because of the fragile nature of digital information and the challenges associated with technological obsolescence and long-term digital preservation (Poole 2020). Community archives face additional sustainability risks because of their voluntary nature and the lack of funding and expertise (Newman 2012; Sheffield 2018). Bradley (2007) offers one of the early definitions of digital sustainability, pointing out that the concept “encompasses the wide range of issues and concerns that contribute to the longevity of digital information” (151). He emphasizes that sustaining digital information is not just a technical issue but requires a wide range of strategies and organizational, socio-technical, and economic infrastructure. Sustainability in the digital environment is a multi-dimensional concept that requires considering not only the standards and technical factors but also organizational and social issues that are associated with managing and using cultural heritage materials (Eschenfelder et al. 2016).

Newman (2012) defines sustainability in the context of community archives and provides a methodological framework by which to measure an archive’s level of sustainability. In her definition of sustainability, she combines two concepts: “maintaining services at a proper level over time” and “responsibility to do so for future generations” (38). The proposed framework outlines elements considered essential to maintaining community or local history archives and organizes them into three categories: the organization; the archive; and the community connection. Newman further subdivides these three categories into eight factors under which she lists the specific prerequisites that will indicate the likelihood of archives’ sustainability based on the presence or absence of those criteria. The first of the three categories addresses the sustainability of a community archive as an organization, examining the five factors of governance, funding, skilled staff, collaboration, and dynamism. The second category deals with the sustainability of the archive as a physical location and the preservation of the materials and includes two factors, preservation and archival practices. The third category touches on an archive’s relationship with the community that it serves and includes community engagement as a factor. The framework is comprised of both social and technical factors that are interdependent and interrelated. For example, preservation and archival practices depend heavily on funding and skilled staff and can benefit from collaboration. The limitation of the framework, however, is its focus on physical archives and not addressing the digital nature of many community archives.

The challenges to sustaining community archives continue to be discussed in archival research with similar themes around space, sources of funding, and trained staff but have been increasingly explored in the context of digital projects. Sheffield (2018) identifies some of the most crucial challenges to sustaining community archives as adequate space, funding, and expertise, and points out that those factors are interconnected. Community archives often depend on temporary funding sources such as donations and grants, which affect their ability to obtain the necessary technology to process and digitize materials and hire trained staff (Holcombe-James 2022). Many community archives rely on elderly volunteers who are dedicated but may lack technical training (Holcombe-James 2022). As a result, partnerships or collaboration with mainstream archives are often seen as a practical solution to addressing some challenges, especially around expertise and access to repositories (Newman 2012; Poole 2020; Sheffield 2018). However, partnerships with institutional archives pose new concerns about losing community autonomy, control over collections, and identity (Flinn 2007; Poole 2020; Stevens et al 2010).

Zavala et al. (2017) acknowledge that community archives face “significant challenges in terms of short- and long-term sustainability” (209) and find that funding, personnel, space, and access to adequate resources are major constraints. The authors also mention the impact of changing archival practices on sustainability. A post-custodial approach to acquisition and curation challenges and reimagines the traditional modes of archival practice. The post-custodial model allows community archives to maintain greater agency over their historic materials while expanding their representation and reach. At the same time, elements of this model pose certain risks to the sustainability of these archives.

2.3 Post-Custodial Approach

The post-custodial approach represents a shift in archival theory about curating archival collections in recognition of the transformative impact of digital technology and the exponential growth of documents in a wide variety of media and formats. The term “post-custodial era” was introduced by Ham (1981), who advocated for a more active role of archivists in shaping the documentary record and outlined acquisition strategies that focused on resource sharing and cooperation. In further discussion of post-custodial and post-modernist trends, Cook (1994) does not necessarily say that archives will not care for physical materials but suggests a change in the approach: “a post-custodial reorientation of the archival world means that the archival practices or mindsets formed in the older custodial era of paper records must change” (308). He argues for moving away from the paper-minded custody of things toward the focus on context, purpose, and relationships. Bastian (2002) summarizes the debate around “postcustodialism” and notes that technological and cultural changes and the emphasis on access make the physical location of archival materials increasingly irrelevant.

The post-custodial approach is also used as a strategy to address the gaps in representation in archival collections, expand the coverage, and build an intentional body of digital records for underrepresented groups, especially when acquiring physical materials is difficult (Shein and Lapworth 2016). Digital technology presents an opportunity to diversify the representation of archival collections, share otherwise inaccessible materials, strengthen participatory approaches to collection building, or even shift curatorial responsibility to community members (Becerra-Licha 2017). The post-custodial model includes several practical strategies to broaden access to archival materials and to support communities’ needs and values (Shein and Lapworth 2016; Zavala et al. 2017).

The “scan and return” practice represents one of the strategies within the post-custodial environment. It separates the physical custody of original materials from digital surrogates. In this approach, materials are loaned for digitization and after records and digital surrogates are created, physical materials are returned to individuals, communities, and organizations from which they originated. Digital archives steward and provide access to digital surrogates while community members retain the original materials. Shein and Lapworth (2016) note that “scan and return” is a practice that “is easily defensible within the context of the major archival theories of the post-custodial era” (2).

In practice, the post-custodial approach has been adopted by community archives and mainstream cultural institutions that engage in collaborative and participatory projects. Community archives and participatory archives are both part of a larger user-oriented archival movement, but they are also distinct. They are independent, established, and led by community members (Flinn 2007; Flinn et al 2009; Stevens et al 2010), while participatory archives embrace community input and participation and can have a high level of community engagement but are typically hosted by archival institutions (Allard and Ferris 2015; Benoit and Eveleigh 2019). Institutional archives engaged in participatory projects implement the post-custodial model to supplement their collections, diversify their representation, and expand their collaboration with communities. Shein and Lapworth (2016) share guidelines and some examples of successful participatory projects. Using the “scan and return” approach, many archives organize community scanning days where community members are encouraged to bring their unique materials for scanning and share the background information (Shein and Lapworth 2016).

In community archives, post-custodial strategies have been adopted to broaden the coverage of archival collections but also to address the limitations of space and resources. Flinn (2007) notes that a post-custodial model is appropriate for community archives because it helps to avoid making difficult decisions about selecting materials for acquisition and preservation or depositing collections in institutional archives. Caswell (2014a) identifies shared stewardship as one of the characteristics of community archives where “archival material is viewed less as property and more as a cultural asset” (312). Community archives maintain autonomy over records and can provide digital access even though they may not have physical custody of original materials. In the study of community archives in Southern California, Zavala et al. (2017) found that seven of the 12 sites adopted post-custodial strategies. The South Asian American Digital Archive (SAADA) is an example of a community archive that fully embraces the post-custodial approach. SAADA collects born-digital and physical materials related to the history and experiences of South Asians in the United States but does not keep physical holdings. The original materials are returned to owners after scanning and creating digital objects (Caswell 2014b; 2019). The robust SAADA digital archive provides access to collections, community stories, and digital exhibits (https://www.saada.org/).

3.1 The Park County Local History Archives

This section presents the case of a local community archive, the Park County Local History Archives (PCLHA), focusing on the post-custodial practice and the efforts to sustain this community archive through a collaborative project. Located in Fairplay in Park County, Colorado, in the United States, PCLHA serves a remote and rural community in the Rocky Mountains. In the past, the area was the center of silver and gold mining in Colorado. Settlers began arriving in Park County in the second part of the nineteenth century attracted by the prospects in mining, railroad construction, and ranching. The mining and railroad boom lasted several decades but eventually waned in the 1930s, leaving behind many historical tales and scattered archival records.

The archive was established in 2001 by a group of volunteers who dedicated their efforts to documenting the history of Park County and collecting archival materials. They collected over 4,000 photographs, 60 oral histories, manuscripts, newspapers, maps, and other records. The archive provides unique primary sources for community members and researchers interested in the history of mining and railroads, or the challenges of rural life in the mountainous region. The volunteer group digitized the photographic collection, maintained a website, and published two books on local history.

However, the original volunteer group was unable to continue its efforts after 20 years as several of the key members passed away or moved away from the area. The loss of the original volunteers posed serious challenges to sustaining the archive, and the local government agency, the Park County Department of Heritage and Tourism, stepped in and offered to house the archive in the new county building. The Park County Department of Heritage and Tourism also reached out to the Library and Information Science (LIS) program at the University of Denver for assistance in organizing and digitizing the archival materials. The LIS faculty and graduate students (referred to as the LIS team in this paper) began working collaboratively with community volunteers and the Department of Heritage and Tourism in the summer of 2019. For more information about the physical archive and the first phase of the collaborative project, see Matusiak et al (2019).

3.2 Post-custodial Practice

The PCLHA photographic collection was built as a result of substantial community outreach. The original volunteer group launched a major initiative to collect historical photographs from community members and acquired over 4,000 images. The archive assumed a hybrid approach in its acquisition practices – it collected original photographs when community members were willing to donate them and, if families wanted to retain originals, volunteers created digitized copies through a “scan and return” practice. Volunteers often scanned photographs using a portable scanner at the community members’ homes and returned the original materials. Most of the digitization work occurred between 2003 and 2017. In most cases, the archive did not maintain documentation about the provenance of the original materials.

The photographic collection represents a mix of original photographs and digital surrogates captured in different formats and resolutions. The analog photographic collection was organized into thematic folders with a unique number assigned to each photograph. The LIS team conducted an assessment of the archival collections in 2019 and found that the archive held in its custody approximately 1,000 original photographs either in print or film negative formats. The remaining 3,000 are digital surrogates created with the “scan and return” approach and have no original equivalent in physical holdings. Digitized versions of all photographs have been created and print copies of low-resolution scans were filed in the folders when originals were not available.

The equipment and technical specifications used for image capture varied over the years as volunteers used portable office scanners or cameras on their phones. Most digital surrogates were captured at low-resolution images (72 ppi) and saved in the highly compressed JPEG format. The images were created primarily for access, to be featured on the archive’s static website. The quality of images was low as some were pixelated, blurred, or distorted. The volunteer group was somewhat aware of scanning best practices, as they consulted a professional archivist at the beginning of the digitization project. Initially, they were creating high-resolution files in the TIFF format but abandoned this practice because the process was time-consuming and required a significant amount of storage space. The files were stored on CD-ROMs and external drives and only a small set of TIFF files could be retrieved. Further, volunteers began their digitization work in the early 2000s and did not have access to proper scanning equipment and storage solutions. The remote location of the archive was also a challenge because volunteers did not have easy access to consultants with digitization expertise.

3.3 Collaborative Project

The efforts to sustain the archive, rescan the photographic collection, and build a searchable digital archive involved the collaboration of multiple partners. The LIS faculty and graduate students offered expertise and support in digitizing materials, evaluating copyright, creating metadata records, and building a robust digital archive and exhibits. The community members and volunteers formed an advisory board and recommended themes for digital exhibits, helped with selecting materials for scanning, and provided feedback on metadata. The Park County Department of Heritage and Tourism offered space for housing the physical collections and funding to support students and purchase equipment and supplies. The Colorado State Library provided Omeka software for hosting the digital archive and has supported the harvesting of metadata to the Digital Public Library of America.

The LIS team decided to rescan the photographs after reviewing the quality of digital images. Digital surrogates did not meet the criteria for preservation-quality digital objects in light of the established digitization practices. The digitization project undertaken by the LIS team used a use-neutral approach and created high-quality master files for preservation as well as derivatives for online access. The guidelines for the project were based on digitization standards and best practices to ensure the creation of digital objects for current use and long-term preservation (FADGI 2023). The use-neutral approach involves creating high-resolution master files and saving them as uncompressed TIFF files.

The set of 1,000 original photographs from the archive’s holdings was rescanned. The Department of Heritage and Tourism provided funds for purchasing two photo scanners for the archive. Original photographs were scanned at high resolution and digital master files were saved as uncompressed TIFFs – they serve as preservation copies and as sources for derivative (access) images (see Figure 1 for an example of a rescanned image). Access files were used for building the digital archive and exhibits in Omeka. Unfortunately, the team was unable to locate the original photographs for 3,000 digital surrogates and those images are not included in the digital archive.

Figure 1:

An example of a rescanned photographic print from the archive’s holdings. McLaughlin family, 1870s. Park County Local History Digital Archive, https://pclha.cvlcollections.org/items/show/1548.

The archive has received new donations since the collaborative project began in 2019. It received a unique set of glass plate negatives from the end of the nineteenth century, a collection documenting the life of a local cowboy and musician, Charles Dell, and a large photographic and manuscript collection from the Baker family. In most cases, the owners opted to retain the physical materials but were open to sharing digitized versions online. The LIS team prepared appropriate donation forms and recorded the donor’s contact information. The donated materials were scanned using the “scan and return” approach but with special attention to creating high-resolution master files. This approach ensured not only the high quality of digitized objects but also their long-term preservation. The glass negative plates showed some signs of deterioration and those were scanned at 1,200 ppi resolution. Archival masters were saved as 16-bit grayscale TIFF files. Figure 2 demonstrates an example of an image scanned from a glass plate negative. Figure 3 shows an image scanned from the photographic print from the Baker family collection. The original materials were returned to the owners after the scans were created. The project has generated a significant amount of high-resolution uncompressed files of digitized photographs. The community partner, the Department of Heritage and Tourism, provided server space and cloud storage for the digital preservation of master files.

Figure 2:

An example of an image created using the “scan and return” approach. The image was scanned from a glass plate negative. Group of people with a horse-drawn wagon at Allen Ranch, 1890–1900. Park County Local History Digital Archive, https://pclha.cvlcollections.org/items/show/1603.

Figure 3:

An example of an image created using the “scan and return” approach. The image was scanned from a photographic postcard in the Baker Family collection. Group standing outside Hotel Windsor in Fairplay, Colorado, 1913. Park County Local History Digital Archive, https://pclha.cvlcollections.org/items/show/2362.

The collaborative project has been sustained for more than five years. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the LIS team continued their work on creating metadata records and building the digital archive. It also completed the digitization of oral histories with the assistance of a community volunteer. Unfortunately, during this period the team was unable to visit the archive in Fairplay and lost some of their connections with volunteers and community members. The LIS team resumed their work in the post-pandemic years focusing on processing and digitizing manuscript collections. The digital archive built as a result of this project provides remote access to unique archival resources and promotes the history and cultural heritage of the region. As of January 2025, the Park County Local History Digital Archive (https://pclha.cvlcollections.org/) featured 2,361 digital objects, including 1,806 photographs. As mentioned before, 1,000 photographs were rescanned from original prints and negatives in archival holdings. More than 800 images represent new donations and were created using the “scan and return” approach. The site also presents five digital exhibits (https://pclha.cvlcollections.org/exhibits) that document the history of the area and tell stories about different aspects of community life. The team is currently working on digitizing manuscript collections and building a digital exhibit about the history of rural schools and student educational experiences in Park County.