DEI Toolkit

To understand the current relationship of collecting organizations in New York State to DEI, Aria Strategies engaged in the following research components:

• Qualitative components
  • Relevant Publications: The relevant publications list surveyed and summarized key existing published work in the fields of libraries, museums, and archives with special focus on DEI background and practice, inclusive collecting practices, reparative description, community access and engagement, and the influences of recruitment and retention of diverse personnel. The relevant publications list also surveyed and summarized key published work in the areas of diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, justice, and antiracism.
  • Facilitated Community Engagements: Aria Strategies facilitated ten small group sessions with staff, volunteers, leadership, and users at cultural heritage repositories including museums, libraries, archives, historical and genealogical societies, and cultural heritage sites. The goals of these community engagements were to understand what tools and supports organizations need from a toolkit, hear opportunities and concerns from the participants, and better understand how to support diverse, inclusive governance practices. Together with the relevant publications list and quantitative components, these stakeholder engagements informed the development of the DEI toolkit.
• Quantitative components
  • Quantitative survey instrument: This instrument was developed with insights learned from the relevant publications list and facilitated community engagements. The goal of this survey was to learn if there were any significant differences among regions or types of collecting organizations throughout New York State in terms of their collecting practices, antiracist competencies, or other key metrics.
  • Access and access methods analysis: This research resulted in a description of the extent to which cultural heritage repositories are transparent about their collections, and provide intellectual or physical access to those collections. This analysis surveyed the websites of a random sample of organizations chartered by the New York State Board of Regents.

Aria Strategies used recent and well-respected antiracism and racial equity frameworks to provide the ideological backbone of a methodology to develop a DEI toolkit for collecting organizations in New York. The toolkit builds on the New York State Education Department’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Framework for Schools as well as the Board of Regents’ 6 Pillars of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It also incorporates the ongoing antiracism resources developed and made available by Documentary Heritage and Preservation Services for New York (DHPSNY).

Specifically, the methodology for this project built on three exemplary frameworks recently developed in the racial equity, DEI, and antiracism fields:

• National Equity Project’s Core Values.
• Race Forward’s Theory of Change.
• Equity in the Center’s Awake to Woke to Work Framework.

The Aria Strategies team facilitated ten small group sessions with staff, volunteers, leadership, and users at cultural heritage repositories including museums, libraries, archives, historical and genealogical societies, and cultural heritage sites. The goal of these community engagements was to understand what tools and supports organizations need from a toolkit, hear opportunities and concerns from the participants around diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, antiracism, and justice (DEI) orientations for their work, and better understand how to support diverse, inclusive governance practices.

What did we do?

Our team hosted ten small group engagements in three different formats: constituent caucuses, focus groups, and facilitated conversations with advisory councils.

Constituent caucuses consisted of groups of people who hold affinity with a specific group or identity such as LQBTQ+, gender, race, ethnicity, job role or title, etc. Focus groups consisted of cross-stakeholder participants providing multiple perspectives on a specific topic. Finally, the Aria Strategies team facilitated conversations with the Regents Advisory Council on Libraries and the New York State Historical Records Advisory Board.

Constituent caucuses included:

• Library constituent caucus- people (of any background) who support the missions of libraries in NYS through their paid or volunteer labor, including staff, volunteers, Friends groups and board members.
• Government and municipality constituent caucus- people (of any background) who work in or supervise records management, municipal historians, county and state employees who work in or with archives, libraries, and/or museums or historical societies at the municipal level.
• People of the Global Majority constituent caucus- Black, Indigenous and other people of color who work in, volunteer with, and/or use museums, libraries and/or archives in NYS.
• Black, African American and People of the African Diaspora constituent caucus- Black, African American and People of the African Diaspora who work in, volunteer with, and/or use museums, libraries and/or archives in NYS.
• Museums, and historical and genealogical societies constituent caucus- people (of any background) who support the mission of a museum, historical society, genealogical society and/or Friends group in NYS through their paid or volunteer labor, including staff, volunteers, and board members.
• Stakeholders with Disabilities constituent caucus- people (of any background) with visible and invisible disabilities, along with caretakers and/or advocates for people with disabilities, who support the missions of libraries, archives, museums, historical societies and genealogical societies in NYS through their paid or volunteer labor, including staff, volunteers, Friends groups, and Board members.

Focus groups included:

• Community constituent focus group- Community members (of any background) who use libraries, museums and/or archives for education, research, and/or entertainment.
• Aligned organizations focus group- New Yorkers (of any background) from aligned organizations such as GHHN, MANY, Advisory Groups (SHRAB, etc.), DHPSNY, Historic House Trust, etc.

Facilitated Conversations included:

This quantitative and qualitative survey instrument was developed with insights from the literature review and facilitated community engagements. The goal of this survey was to learn if there were any significant differences among regional locations or types of collecting organizations throughout New York State in terms of collecting practices, antiracist competencies, or other key metrics.

What did we do?

Together with representatives from the Office of Cultural Education, the New York State Museum, the New York State Library, and the New York State Archives, Aria Strategies developed a qualitative and quantitative survey to evaluate the experiences and needs of people who work in, volunteer for, and use museums, libraries, archives, historical and genealogical societies, and cultural heritage sites.

The survey was open from December 17, 2022 through February 5, 2023. It received 1,481 responses, and was validated with 99% confidence level and a less than 5% margin of error.

What did we find?

Type of Respondent to Survey

This survey used skip logic to develop three sets of data based on the type of respondent: a person who works in the cultural heritage community and is paid for their labor, a person who volunteers for the cultural heritage community and is not paid for their labor, and a person who uses cultural heritage organizations for education, entertainment, and/or fun.

Table 6: This pie chart shows respondents broken out by type. Most responses came from people who work in cultural heritage organizations. The next largest number of responses came from people who use cultural heritage organizations for fun, education and/or entertainment. Finally, the smallest number of responses came from people who volunteer for cultural heritage organizations.

Type of and Role in Organization

Of the respondents who indicated that they work in collecting institutions, over 75% worked in libraries. The next largest groups worked in museums, archives, and historical societies.

The most common response indicated that organizations have paid staff of approximately 11 to 50 people. The next most common answer confirmed staff teams of over 100 people. The next most common responses were paid staff teams of 1 to 5 people, 6 to 10 people, and 51 to 100 people.

Table 7: This table illustrates the size of paid staff teams. The most common paid staff team sizes in descending order are 11 to 50, more than 100, 1 to 5, 6 to 10, 51 to 100, and zero paid staff.

Of the respondents who indicated that they work in and are paid for their labor, 35% indicated they are front line customer-facing staff, 27% are middle or departmental managers, 20% are in executive leadership, and 11% described their work as “background.” 3% of respondents indicated that they were the only paid person at their organization.

Table 8: This chart illustrates the differences in roles across organizations. Most respondents are middle or departmental managers, or front-line staff. 20% are in executive leadership while 11% described their work as “background.”

Of respondents who indicated that they volunteer in collecting institutions, 37% volunteer in libraries and 32% volunteer in historical societies. The next most common answers in descending order were volunteers in museums, genealogical societies, and archives. Over 70% of these volunteers serve on the board of their organization.

Of the respondents who indicated that they use cultural heritage organizations for research, fun, and/or entertainment, over half of them visited a library recently and almost 30% visited a museum recently. Over 80% made their last visit to a cultural heritage organization during October, November, or December of 2022. Over 75% indicated that the organization they visited most recently is a major stakeholder in their community. Over 95% of respondents indicated that they were comfortable and felt like they belonged on their last visit. With few exceptions, the respondents who indicated comfort and belonging identified as white. Their primary reasons for feeling this way were (1) the staff and volunteers, (2) a comfortable, interesting or thought-provoking physical space, and (3) exhibits and/or collections that taught them something new or related to something they were interested in.

Race of Respondents

The stakeholder survey included two questions about race and ethnicity. The first question asked respondents to self-identify their race or ethnic background. Our team received a wide range of answers and coded them into the following categories: Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic, Native American or Indigenous, prefer not to say, Two or more, and White. The second question asked respondents if they identified as Hispanic or not. These two questions provided different data points so the Hispanic responses do not align.

Table 9: This bar graph shows the self-identified race and ethnic background of survey respondents. 86.8% of respondents identified as white, 5.6 identified as Black or African American, 2.2% identified as Asian or Pacific Islander, 2% identified as two or more, 1.5% identified as Hispanic, 1.4% preferred not to say, and 0.5% identified as Native American or Indigenous.

Location of Respondents (based on location of organization)

Respondents came from all over New York State with the greatest number of respondents concentrated in Queens County (Borough of Queens) and Kings County (Borough of Brooklyn), and high rates of response from Suffolk, New York (Borough of Manhattan), Bronx (Borough of Bronx), Westchester, Erie, Monroe, and Richmond (Borough of Staten Island) counties. Albany, Broome, Duchess, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Orange, Rockland, and Saratoga counties are equally represented in survey responses. All other counties accounted for the final 17% of responses.

Table 10: This clustered column chart shows the location, by county, of responses to the survey. Most responses came from Kings (Brooklyn), Queens (Queens), Suffolk, New York (Manhattan), Bronx (Bronx), Westchester, Erie, Monroe, and Richmond (Staten Island) counties. Albany, Broome, Duchess, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Orange, Rockland, and Saratoga counties are equally represented in survey responses. All other counties account for the remaining 17% of responses.

Age of Respondents

Respondents selected from the following age ranges: under 18, 18-21, 22-40, 41-55, 56-65, 66-75, and over 75. The single largest group came from the 41-55 range, with the most respondents between the ages of 22 and 55.

Table 11: Fewer than 2% of respondents were in the 18-21 years old range and the Under 18 range. Ages 22-40 made up 27% of respondents, while the 41-55 range made up 33% of respondents. Respondents in the range between 55 and 65 were 19% of the total, and those in the 66-75 range were 14% of respondents. 4% of respondents were older than 75 years old.

Organization Budget

Respondents were given the option to share their organization’s budget. Their choices were budgets of $50,000 and less, $50,000 to 200,000, $200,000 to $1M, $1M to 10M, $10M to 100M, and greater than $100M. Most respondents were from organizations with budgets between $1M to 10M.

Table 12: This clustered column chart shows the budget ranges for organizations included in the survey. The largest number of responses came from organizations with budgets of $1M to 10M. After this, in descending order of respondents, organizational budgets were $200,000 to $1M, $50,000 to $200,000, $10M to 100M, less than $50,000, and greater than $100M.

Volunteer Corps

This survey asked respondents to share the number of volunteers in their organizations. Nearly 65% of respondents indicated that their organizations had a volunteer corps of fewer than 10 people. 16% and 8% indicated a volunteer corps of 11 to 25 or 26 to 50, respectively. Only 12% of respondents indicated that they had a volunteer corps of over 50 people.

Table 13: This table illustrates that most organizations have fewer than 10 volunteers at their organization.

Accessibility in Our Organizations Some indicators we measured were:

• 58% of respondents indicated that their organization offers materials in languages other than English.
• 44% of respondents indicated that their organization has a DEI policy.
• Over 60% of respondents indicated that DEI is included in some way in their staff recruitment and retention. Over 40% said the same thing about volunteer recruitment and retention.
• For a more in-depth discussion of physical and digital accessibility, please see Data Overview: Access and Access Methods Analysis.

Collections and Our Organizations

• 82% of respondents indicated that their organization has a collection. Nearly all of these organizations have a Collections Management Policy.
• Over half of the organizations with collections make acquisition decisions through a committee of staff.
• Over 60% of organizations with collections make acquisition decisions with diversity, equity, inclusion, antiracism, accessibility and/or sustainability in mind.

Other notes about quantitative data:

• This survey under sampled respondents who identified as Hispanic. In the most recent federal census (2020/21), nearly 20% of New Yorkers identified as Hispanic. Only 5% of survey respondents self-identified as Hispanic. Our survey team hoped to reach enough respondents to benchmark to the census percentage.
• This survey oversampled respondents who identified as white. In the most recent federal census (2020/21), 69% of New Yorkers identified as white. 86.8% of survey respondents identified as white.
• There was not significant overlap between those who participated in small group engagements and those who responded to the survey. Fewer than 5% of survey respondents also participated in a small group engagement.
• 25% of respondents shared resources they have used to develop their individual and organizational DEI practice. These peer-generated resources are included in the Relevant Publication, and Tools and Resources sections of this document.
• Over 75% of respondents indicated they would use all or part of a DEI Toolkit developed for museums, libraries, archives, historical and genealogical societies, and cultural heritage sites.

While developing the Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Toolkit, we knew it was important to first understand where we were starting in order to identify the work ahead. A prerequisite to planning for the success of the Toolkit for New York State’s collecting organizations (libraries, archives, history organizations, museums, and municipalities¹³) was determining if those organizations were already engaged in DEI work. Therefore, we asked a series of research questions including but not limited to: are these organizations open and accessible, who is clearly welcomed, and what groups might feel discouraged in approaching the organization and its collections for leisure, learning, or research?

What did we do?

To answer these questions, we set out to examine the website homepages¹⁴ of over 1,600 of New York State’s organizations with collections of books, papers, objects, local history, genealogy, public records, and art. The research team took a randomly selected sample from the whole group of 4,26015 organizations and looked for evidence of digital and physical accessibility and DEI work already underway. We scanned the text of the organization homepages for measures of inclusivity and access: open hours, translation services, references to historically marginalized groups, and methods for contacting the municipal historian.

Additionally, to examine how the organizations might already use inclusive processes in creating their collections, we analyzed the text of 302 collection management policies, collection development policies, or similar documents and statements that inform the public about how the collections are shaped at the organization.

What did we find?

Not all organizations have websites

Our research showed that of the 1618 organizations we examined (sampled proportionally based on Regional Economic Development Council geography), 10% did not have a website to evaluate. A New York State resident looking for collecting organizations is more likely to find a website for an independent archive, museum, library (or one of those embedded in a college or university), or a local municipality (if they’re looking for an historian), than they are to find a website for an historical association, genealogical society, or other kind of history organization. More than 25% of history organizations do not have an internet presence.

We further examined archives, libraries, and museums (and those same kinds of organizations embedded in higher education organizations) separately from Municipal Historians because, while both maintain collections, municipal websites serve many different functions in addition to listing the municipal historian or providing information about local history.

Table 14: This bar graph illustrates the number of surveyed organizations with websites. Most organizations were found to have websites; history organizations represented the largest exception to this.

Open times are not always posted

Could someone easily find when and how to visit the organization (either during open hours or by appointment) to check out a book, attend a program, see an exhibit, or conduct research? To answer this, we looked for posted open hours, the ability to make an appointment, or a combination of the two methods. More than 50% of archives and history organizations, and 25% of museums listed no public hours or other clear way to connect with the collections in person, while 94% of public libraries had open hours posted on their homepage. We did not compare the quantity of open hours. If an organization was open one hour per week, seasonally, or only by appointment, even if no open hours were posted, that still counted as providing information about physical access.

Table 15: This pie graph illustrates methods of physical access posted by evaluated organizations. The most common form of access is walk-in only. The next most common forms of access are walk-in or by appointment, and appointment only. 24% of websites evaluated provided no apparent way to access the organization and its collection.

Accommodations are not offered, or are not advertised

Did the organization mention available accommodations for persons with functional limitations? We looked for language that referenced accessible entrances, wheelchairs, elevators, materials in braille, or other accessibility features at the location. Most homepages made no reference to accommodations a user might find at their location. Public libraries and organizations embedded in Higher Education were most likely to specifically refer to accommodations, but 82% of history organizations made no reference to accommodations for patrons with impairments.

Content by, for, and about historically marginalized communities is sparse

In addition to in-person accessibility (open hours and accommodations), we wanted to know if the organization’s programming and content offered any indication of engagement with diversity, equity, and inclusion work. To understand this, we looked for the presence of a list of terms that might indicate diversity in programming either for or about historically marginalized cultures. We scanned homepage text for references including but not limited to Black, Indigenous, and Asian cultures, and women, and LGBTQAI+ identities. Because many cultural organizations in the United States were founded and are staffed by white cis-heteronormative¹⁶ individuals, specifically identifying references to one or more historically marginalized groups was important to this research.

Public libraries offered the fewest references on their homepages to programming or content by, for, or about specific cultures. Archives, libraries, and museums embedded in Higher Education were most likely to specifically mention non-white or non- Eurocentric perspectives. This study did not examine the catalogs of collecting organizations for resources created by members of specific cultures or with specific racial, ethnic, or gender identities. If collecting organizations do hold these materials, they were not mentioned on their homepages.

Table 16: This table illustrates the average number of terms that might indicate content related to historically marginalized communities. Of the websites evaluated, public library sites contained the fewest applicable terms while higher education sites contained the most.

Most content is English-only

We looked for offerings in languages other than English and found that while 17% of collecting organizations might offer translation services, only 7% clearly offer services or programs in multiple languages. In this research we checked for mention of one or more of the top 12 languages other than English spoken in New York State. Independent collecting organizations are not required to offer services in other languages, but all services provided by the New York State government must be offered in all 12 languages¹⁷. As New York State’s population becomes more diverse, offering content in more languages or offering translation resources will be essential to maintaining a substantial visitor base and including the community’s perspectives in collecting and programming initiatives.

Many organizations are not present on social media

Other than a website, how else might collecting organizations reach a wide and diverse audience? To answer this question, we looked for evidence that the organization interacted with social media. While this communication channel can be contentious, we wanted to know if organizations were seeking to connect with audiences of varying ages through different methods. We looked for links to popular social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok) on organization homepages and found that 85% of public libraries had an account on at least one platform. Most of the museums, libraries and archives embedded in higher education organizations were present on more than one social media platform. Only 58% of history organizations appear to participate in social media at all. Of those that do, most maintained an account on just one platform.

Contacting a municipal historian is difficult

We evaluated municipal historians separately from the other organizations, and reviewed the entire website rather than just the homepage for each locality. New York State Law requires that each municipality have an appointed historian who is responsible for collecting the history of the town, village, or county. This part of the review investigated whether residents can access their historian to find out what is being collected. In more than 40% of municipal websites evaluated the historian was not mentioned at all. If the historian was listed, most websites provided a means of contact via either email or phone. Overall, if someone wants to contact their municipal historian, they’ll be thwarted more than 50% of the time either by the municipality not having a website, the historian not being listed, or no contact information being provided. This situation is worst on Long Island where less than 10% of municipalities list their historian or provide contact information. By contrast, North Country residents can find contact information for almost 80% of their municipal historians.

Websites are not accessible for people with disabilities

We also examined whether websites conformed to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), an international standard that helps ensure web content is accessible to people with disabilities. Although WCAG has been available since the early 21st century and will be moving into version 2.2 in April 2023, the standard is still relatively unknown. WCAG helps to ensure that web content can be read by screen readers and that the content is accessible without using a mouse (keyboard or voice commands can be used to navigate the website). Free tools like WAVE (developed by WebAIM, a project of the Institute for Disability Research, Policy and Practice at Utah State University) can help web developers and content creators determine whether their website conforms to WCAG. We ran 977 websites through the WAVE tool, which reports on many accessibility dimensions. This analysis showed that the number of errors (accessibility barriers with notable end user impact that likely fail conformance with WCAG 2.0) in all kinds of New York State collecting organizations was the same or higher than those of a national benchmark study that evaluated the homepages of one million of the top websites in the United States. History organizations showed the lowest number of errors–the closest to the national averages–of all types of collection organizations.

Transparency about how collections are developed varies widely

Information about how the collection is shaped is generally difficult to find. Only 16% of history organizations, archives, museums, and those embedded in Higher Education posted any kind of policy, plan, or statement about how their collections are developed; further, these policies were 10 years old on average. In comparison, over 50% of public libraries made such policies easy to locate on their websites, and these were more likely to have been revised within the past five years.

We also reviewed the policies to determine whether ethics considerations were part of an organization’s collection development process. Public libraries referenced the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, its Freedom to Read Statement, and/or similar statements on professional ethics more than 85% of the time, and museums, archives, and history organizations referenced their own ethics policies or those of a professional association more than 50% of the time.

Finally, we identified whether collections policies referenced specific cultural groups. Higher Education organizations made specific references to historically marginalized groups in more than 90% of policies, while public libraries and museums, archives and history organizations mentioned these groups nearly 75% of the time.

Research Findings Summary

As a final step, we combined all the research dimensions to determine which collecting organizations are currently working to become more accessible, equitable, diverse, and inclusive. The research showed that history organizations show the least evidence of DEI work already underway. Many of these organizations have no web presence, or if they do it is limited to a website with no social media activity. While the history organizations that do have websites maintain sites that have fewer accessibility-related functional errors, they fail to reference accommodations that might be available at their physical location. Public libraries are the clearest about open times and accommodations but offer the fewest references to content by, for, or about historically marginalized groups. Higher Education organizations show the most evidence of commitment to DEI work. It is more often easy to learn when these collecting organizations are open, and how to access them. Accommodations are more readily discoverable. These organizations place content by, for, and about non-Eurocentric and non-cis-heteronormative groups front and center for users to see right away.

Steps toward improvement

How can collecting organizations improve their equity and inclusion practices?

Post open hours and contact methods on your homepage.

It should be very easy for folks to know when you’re open. Municipal Historians and history organizations have the most work to do in this area. Start by posting a contact method even if you have limited open hours. Keep in mind that all chartered history organizations must be open and accessible to the public on a regular basis, and organizations with operating budgets over $100,000 must be open to the public at least 1,000 hours each year¹⁸.

Let EVERYONE know about available accommodations and diverse programming, resources, and collections that you create and steward.

Do you have any accommodations like translation services, content in another languages, or accessible entrances and restrooms? Let users know prominently. This not only shows that you have accommodations for those who need them, but lets ALL visitors know that you value people of all abilities and include them in your planning and work.

If you have programming, collections, or exhibits by, for, or about marginalized communities, promote this! Just like accommodations, this shows that you value these members of your community. If you do not have these offerings, consider how you might be able to work with members of your communities to change that. Resources in this toolkit can help.

Moreover, be intentional when displaying your services, collections, programming, and accommodations, and proactive in illustrating your engagement in diversity and equity work. The concepts of “neutrality” and “objectivity” associated with cultural institutions including libraries and museums have historically served and perpetuated the social and ideological norms of the dominant white culture (whiteness), thus influencing the foundational structure of cultural institutions more broadly¹⁹. To work against this structural issue, highlight work and offerings that are reflective of historically marginalized perspectives, and advocate for its expansion. When an organization is actively working against a long history of exclusion, it is especially important to show historically marginalized communities clearly that you are engaged in diversity and equity work and are striving toward more inclusive practices.

Post your collection development policies.

All types of collecting organizations appear to take DEI work seriously in their policies. Posting these guiding documents will increase transparency and help audiences understand how decisions are made about the resources your organization stewards. Unify your organization’s approach to DEI across internal and external practices and communication.

Learn from each other.

Collecting organizations may differ from each other structurally or in what they collect and why, but their basic function is the same: to assemble resources for the public’s learning and enjoyment. If you work at a public library or history organization, consider asking the museum at your local college or university for some advice in embedding diversity into collecting policies. If you work at a museum, connect with your public library for guidance on offering content in other languages or making your facility more accessible. Collecting organizations are more alike than different, and rather than struggle alone we could pool our knowledge to improve public experience everywhere.

---

¹³ Organization type was determined by the organization’s listing on FindNYCulture in October 2022.

¹⁴ This study did not examine any other pages on the organization website or the text of dropdown menus.

¹⁵ All organizations on Find NY Culture https://findnyculture.org/ plus the list of public historians maintained by the Association of Public Historians of New York State provided the population of organizations studied here. Both lists were accessed in October 2022.

¹⁶ Cis-Heteronormative: This term refers to the assumption that heterosexuality and being cisgender (identifying with the gender assigned at birth) are the norm, which plays out in interpersonal interactions and society, and furthers the marginalization of queer and gender diverse people.

¹⁷ New York State Language Access Law EXC18.120 § 202-a. Passed in April 2022.

¹⁸ Rules of the Board of Regents (8 NYCRR) §3.27(d)

¹⁹ Honma 2005, Gusa 2010, Espinal Sutherland Roh 2018, Gohr 2017, Brook, Ellenwood, Lazaro 2015