2013-2014 Community-Based Research Grant

Final Report

May 16, 2014

Preserving Local History:

A Field-Based

Digitization Pilot Project

RESEARCH TEAM

Principal Faculty Member: David Gwynn, Digital Projects Coordinator, University Libraries, UNCG. 336.256.2606 jdgwynn@uncg.edu

Research Coordinator: J. Stephen Catlett, Visiting Professional Librarian, Digital Project Manager, Textiles, Teachers and Troops LSTA Digitization Grant, University Libraries, UNCG. 336.334.9813 jscatlet@uncg.edu

Community Partner: College Place United Methodist Church, 509 Tate St., Greensboro, NC 27403. Pastor Jason Harvey, 275.3363 jharvey@wnccumc.net

Undergraduate Student: Ms. Rachel Sanders, Junior HIS/Spanish, 1406 Whites Mill Rd., High Point, NC 27265. Graduate Student: Ms. Megan Coker, MA History with a Concentration in Museum Studies, 122-A Yester Oaks Way E, Greensboro, NC 27455

Note: IRB approval is not required, per conversation with Melissa Beck, 5/13/2013.

Project Narrative

2a. Title of Research Project:

Preserving Local History: A Field-Based Digitization Pilot Project

2b. Research Question(s): Address the specific aims of the study This project was designed to begin a conversation with and among a diverse group of community organizations and groups about the existence, status, condition and digitization possibilities of their archives or historical/library materials. The goal was to develop strategies, methodologies and “best practices” in order to begin a process, using the resources and expertise of UNCG, to preserve this rich history in a digital format, for easier dissemination to their constituencies and eventually to the wider public.

Results: Our grant was not designed to actually collect, organize, or preserve community collections. We were, however, prepared to provide information about those topics to groups or organizations, and in fact did just that at the November 19, 2013 group meeting held at College Place United Methodist Church. We also did that with some individual groups/organizations after November 19, providing handouts, local contact sheets and other supplementary materials.

Another aspect of the project was to make the groups more aware of the Digital Projects unit of the University Libraries’ Electronic Resources and Information Technology Department (ERIT). One of the unit’s missions is to digitize local history materials and to become a leader in the local digital community, in part by using existing infrastructure to help create a community history web portal where groups, organizations and individuals can more easily share their history in a long term, stable platform—at little to no cost for participants. This point was specifically addressed, and illuminated in the Power Point we provided on the 19th.

The student outreach aspect of the project included utilizing the two grant-funded students – undergraduate Rachel Sanders, and graduate student Megan Coker – as much as possible in all phases of the project: initial planning and calendaring, interacting with the staff at CPUMC, technical aspects of the actual camera test “scanning”, preparation of the materials, blog posting, and 2nd semester follow-up with groups and organizations who had not responded, and also several field-trips to capture additional, non-CPUMC materials from willing organizations who attended the November 19 meeting.

2c. Background & Significance: Explain how the study advanced disciplinary scholarship and community interests Based on the existing knowledge of team members David Gwynn and J. Stephen Catlett regarding Greensboro community history and resources, we undertook a process that tested both the technical possibilities and challenges of taking digital cameras into the field to digitize rare and inaccessible historical materials, and also met with and surveyed community groups and organizations about their needs and challenges in regards to their history and library/archival materials.

With the active and supportive partnership we had with College Place United Methodist Church, and their hosting of a community meeting on November 19, 2013, we feel certain we made positive progress on both fronts. The conceptual approach we followed used both the intellectual resources of UNCG students and librarians along with UNCG resources, to reach into the community with a project that was able to identify the digitization wants and needs of a broad group of organizations.

Results:

Some of the questions we addressed and the answers we got, included:

What are the most important materials they hold – from their perspective and from our perspective – that warrant digital preservation? The answers varied, but the survey showed a variety of materials were identified by the survey (as seen by this slide). In terms of public popularity any type of graphic material (photographs, drawings, etc.) are always of interest, and rated highly among the participants. Letters and printed publications were also highly rated, and would be important in our estimation. Not indicated here, minute books can be particularly useful, not only to an organization but to the wider public as well.

What is the most cost-efficient but standards-based digitization process for on-site digital capture? We used a fairly rigorous test of three cameras (with an iPhone used as a fourth example), along with baseline scans using the Digital Project department’s expensive, professional grade flatbed scanner (Epson XL10000). Grant money funded the purchase of a relatively inexpensive $100 Fuji point & shoot camera. Our test showed that there was, indeed, a perceptible difference between the $100 Fuji point & shoot and the more expensive Sony and Nikon cameras, especially when compared with the Epson flatbed scanner. However, even the less expensive camera could give acceptable results in many instances.

What we found, which seems to be just as important as the camera/lens, is that the technique of setting up the tripod/camera/copy stand or platform, and making certain that the item is well focused, is most important. That is where a scanner excels, since when an item is placed flat down on the scanner glass it is, by definition/situation, in the ideal spot for sharp focus and perfect lighting.

We experimented with several approaches to creating a low cost set-up, in particular finding a portable light weight copy platform on which to place the archival materials, which would allow for more precise “squaring” of the camera and copy stand: e.g.

a. A pre-printed, grid patterned surface mat cutting board. ca. $17.00 (18x24 inches, Hobby Lobby)

The advantage of this grid is that it is easy to see/align the camera (all of which had their own grid pattern in the viewfinder, which permits easier alignment when matched up with the grid pattern on the copy stand)

b. A magnetic bulletin board, with grid graph paper placed on top (held with small magnets). $34.00 (Staples)

The advantage of the magnetic board is that the use of different types of magnets (e.g. the long strips seen below, right) can be used to place on the very edges of the items and hold them verily flat). The graph paper had faint lines which were not easily visible, so we used a think black ink pen to highlight the lines.

c. A wedge pillow & grid $34.50 (Bed Bath & Beyond & Jo-Ann Fabrics)

A third approach to creating a stable and easy to use copy stand was the purchase of a wedge pillow. It is at an ideal angle and with the fabric pillow cover is fairly “tacky,” so the item does not slide down like often happened with the magnetic board (which we solved by using magnets at the bottom of the item). Using the pillow, there is the option of sticking pins in the foam (on the bottom border of the item) to further stabilize the item on the copy stand. The disadvantage is the loss of the long thin magnetic strips which are handy for holding down the edges of items when using the magnetic board.

The fabric found at Jo-Ann had two-inch printed squares on it, easily seen, and retained the “tacky” feel that helped keep the items in place.

The ideal set-up might possibly be to have a thin magnetic sheet underneath the wedge pillow fabric, which would allow for both a “tacky” outer fabric to hold the items to the copy platform, with an option to use magnet strips on the edges.

Digitizing material at West Market Street Methodist Church, May 2014

d. Other technical issues and how we addressed, if not totally resolved, included:

Keeping items flat. We used a variety of low cost techniques, including: magnets (both small & long thin ones) on the magnetic bulletin board; a piece of glass, taken from an old photo frame, which we put tape around the edges to make handling easier; long thin pointers (although we also used pen tips, and even fingers at times). We later also used long thin letter openers. An additional possibility is something like an expandable antennae, which can allow one to put firm but gentle pressure on the edge of a page, or pages, from a distance.

Keeping the camera tripod and copy stand from moving (which would require re-alignment of both) can be done (depending on the floor composition) with cheap duct tape.

e. Overall technical/quality results.

One test we undertook, of cameras versus the scanner, was to compare OCR quality generated by each device. How would photographed pages (e.g. from a booklet, program, book etc.) compare when put through an Optical Character Recognition process? This is an important comparison, since, to the extent a document is text-based, being able to generate accurate machine readable text allows for more accurate searching of the content. Using the same passages from a CPUMC anniversary program, we found that the Nikon, Sony and Epson scanner each had one error in the conversion process, as seen here:

Original text as photographed in camera

Nikon D7000 Camera

Sony RX100 Camera

Epson XL10000 Scanner

This test does not prove that the camera capture approach is the equal to that by a professional flatbed scanner, but it does suggest that it is possible, if the proper set-up and focusing techniques are used, that a camera can produce acceptable results.

The cost-benefit equation of cameras vs. scanners, must also take into account the issue of efficiency versus accuracy. As the chart below demonstrates, once the camera set-up is completed, it is possible to produce a lot more digital images in the same amount of time. Overall, however, a scanner will give the best, most consistent quality. So, if time and costs are not an issue we, like most professionals, would advocate for using a flatbed scanner (unless an item would be damaged). However, this grant project was designed to test the efficacy of using cameras in the field to capture historical materials that will, most likely, never be digitized or make their way into a local library or museum for long-term preservation. Under that scenario we believe that “triage digitization” can be a legitimate tool. In addition, locating this material and digitizing it will bring it to librarian’s/archivist’s attention, such that if it is a particularly valuable item there will be the possibility, if the originating organization agrees, to scan it in a more professional manner.

What are the most promising methods to help these groups learn basic skills that would permit them to undertake some of these efforts themselves? There are two primary methods of instruction that will be conducive to instructing non-trained individuals in Do It Yourself (DYI) camera digitization.

Having a “best practices” guide: - The best practices manual/guidebook is still in production as of this writing. It will be a basic summary, with illustrations, of the equipment we used, the things we learned (both successes and challenges), and how we adapted to various situations and issues. Our plan, and hope still, is to work with College Place United Methodist Church staff to do a brief test, so that we can refine it for future use/users. Having something concrete to look at and follow is always useful.

Offering brief but intense training sessions/workshops. - This was never designed as a part of our field test CBR grant, but it will be essential in the future if this methodology is promoted/used in the wider community. We do anticipate using this approach, along with the best practices guide, if we are awarded an IMLS Sparks Ignition! Grant later this year (in partnerships with the local Hayes-Taylor YMCA).

What minimum levels of long-term University assistance might be required to sustain such efforts? We have not, ultimately, addressed this in a comprehensive manner. We can report, however, that assuming the Digital Projects Unit at Jackson Library continues to be involved in the future with at least basic back-end support (storing files on their servers, and making their public servers/interface available as a host site for community groups and organizations) that one or two part-time student worker per semester might be able to sustain a fairly robust, community assistance presence.

What level of infrastructure needs will be required to sustain a long-term commitment? The University Libraries have committed to support for digitization projects involving local history resources, adopting local history as a priority collection focus area. Long-term hosting of such projects does come with certain costs: software and server maintenance are big factors as are the 3.5 FTE (1 professional librarian and 2.5 SPA positions) employed by the Digital Projects Unit. This level of staffing and server capacity is sufficient to the current workload in the department and could service additional projects for faculty and community partners with additional funding. The Digital Projects Unit has been aggressive in securing grant funding to support new initiatives (over $250,000 in the past three years) and intends to continue being proactive in this area, but depending entirely on grants is obviously not the ideal solution and limits the long-term planning that a significant community initiative would require. Again, a significant expansion would likely require some additional staffing and technology resources, whether from state funds or external sources.

What are the best ways to build trust and develop working relationships between the University and these private groups and organizations? This CBR effort focused more on conversations and meetings to better understand the level of interest there may be for assisting community groups and organization to capture their historical information. This might be either by themselves or through assistance from local groups and agencies (like UNCG or other colleges/universities, the Greensboro Historical Museum, or the Public Library). The ultimate goal, either way, is to make such material more accessible via a local history web portal hosted by UNCG. As this initial CBR grant project winds down we feel good in reporting that, although not all issues were addressed to our ultimate satisfaction, there have been some real successes in facilitating working relationships with numerous private groups and organizations. Specifically worth noting are:

Being able to show actual results in an online environment/site is obviously one thing that can be done to build trust and a working relationship. In fact, one of the selling points of the Digital Project Unit and UNCG University Libraries continuing commitment to local history is its facilities and expertise. This link is to the current “Community Collections” page/portal which will change and become more robust/accessible in the future, but gives an idea of how these materials can be hosted for these resource poor groups/organizations. They could easily link to this site from their existing websites, and not have to worry about the permanent hosting of the material. http://libcdm1.uncg.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/Community

Obviously our partner organization College Place United Methodist Church was our focus, and the one we developed a great working relationship with. They were enthusiastic from the beginning and were extremely helpful with anything we asked of them. Sitting just across from Aycock Auditorium they have, historically, had a close relationship with the University. Since they were our testing site, we photographed/digitized numerous of their historical materials and that in itself offered a level of trust; they had yet to undertaken such a venture themselves, and thus anything that we did for them was most welcomed. Most of our time, however, was spent in testing mode and not in a teaching/instruction mode, so the efficacy of our project in regards to that potential aspect was not carried out.

Through our community meeting at CPUMC on November 19th we met several groups who filled out our online survey and were interested in finding out more about our project. From this came additional contacts and in a few instances we went into the field to continue our camera testing efforts. We believe all of these were extremely positive connections for/between the University and the groups. These included: - Fisher Park Neighborhood Association (Anne Stringfield. They are partnering directly with UNCG Special Collections) - Grimsley High School (Harry Bradley, volunteer archivist attended, UNCG Special Collections made follow-up visit) - Lindley Elementary School (Mary Herbenick, PTA rep. attended mtg. and digitization visit was made in 3/27) - First Presbyterian Church (Eliz Hurd attended & Betty K. Phipps of Church archives arranged digitization visit made 4/28) - West Market Street Methodist Church (Em Spivey attended mtg. & Gayle Fripp arranged a digitization visit May 5)

We do believe after completing this CBR grant that “Preserving Local History” has indeed helped advance the University’s 21st century vision and mission to be an “inclusive, collaborative, and responsive,” institution that makes “a difference in the lives of students and the communities it serves.”

2d. Research Design and Methods: Through partnership with College Place United Methodist Church (CPUMC), which for over one hundred years has been located adjacent to the UNCG campus, this project solicited input from a diverse sample of community organizations on the current state and use of their organizational/archival/library historical materials.

Results:

i. Describe the research strategy and the methods the team will use. Working with our community partner, we undertook several initiatives:

The methods we employed to test many of our initial proposals and ideas were detailed above (2b, “Research Questions”). In brief, we utilized the CPUMC archival/library materials to do our comparative test of the efficacy of using digital camera “preservation” capture, versus the more traditional flatbed “archival” scanning method. A representative sample of materials – photographs, pamphlet, bound booklets, scrapbooks, etc. – were selected for on-site digital capture. We photographed the items with various cameras, used a consistent lighting/tripod set-up, and experimented with various methods of setting the items up and keeping them as flat as possible. We also took a smaller sample pf the same items back to the DP lab for flatbed scanning, for comparative analysis. A detailed analysis of the scans was made to determine the viability/best practices necessary for on-site camera-based digital preservation. Our

basic finding is that such a set up can be used, although it will not yield the professional scan quality, nor finished cropped product, that such an in-the-field procedure will produce.

We issued a joint letter/invitation (email & printed) to a community meeting hosted at CPUMC on November 19, 2013. Some 7-9 groups attended the event, and there was good, lively conversation and questions, which led (as indicated above) to some substantial follow-up opportunities. This link documents not only the meeting, but also shows the social media blog we created to track some of the key events during the two semesters. http://uncgdigital.blogspot.com/2013/12/preserving-local-history-update.html

Our online survey was sent to 81 groups and we got 17 responses, a 21% response rate. Most of these were email solicitations, for which the 21% rate is considered a good return. We do believe if we had made at least one follow-up contact by phone shortly after the email was sent, that the response rate would have increased somewhat. Here is a link to the online survey. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pZaiUHEuZrx0nZPd0KPoRawJEYBoLNLNEtdJvwzJNtY/viewform

These slides present the results of the survey.

ii. Explain why this particular research strategy was the most appropriate way to answer the proposed research question. This project required extensive personal contact and collaboration among the grant team and the community partner, and the additional groups and organizations we solicited. In order to gather the relevant data – of both their status/wants/needs and the technological question concerning the viability of digital capture by camera versus flatbed scanning – we designed (as detailed above) a variety of strategies to gather the information and data we required, e.g.: letter & email contacts, created a cross-sectional survey (paper and electronic) for community participants, undertook a detailed analysis of the results, and designed a rigorous test on the use of digital camera capture versus the more traditional flatbed scanning approach.

iii. Include relevant literature and citations on methodologies to provide the review team with adequate grounding in the research strategy proposed. Much of the current literature on community-based digitization of historical materials focuses on community involvement in identifying and describing materials already held by a library or archives (e.g. “picture parties” where citizens identify people and places in historical photographs). Relatively little research has been published on field-based digitization schemes of the sort we undertook. One recent study (Robb, 2010) discusses an initiative in rural Washington that “avoided focusing their digitization efforts solely on discrete collections held by formally-designated cultural institutions”; this study is fairly representative in that it concentrates more on the identification of collections than on actual field-based digitization techniques. While we proposed doing a bit of both, we anticipated that our efforts would be directed slightly more toward the technical and logistical aspects than toward content. Locally, the North Carolina Digital Heritage Center (http://digitalnc.org/) consults with local cultural heritage institutions but generally operates with a more centralized digitization model.

2e. Roles of Research Team: i. Faculty member(s) – what activities and responsibilities are expected? The faculty team organized and guided the initial phases of preliminary work during the summer of 2013. They kept Rachel Sanders and Megan Coker apprised of the developing plans, and they allowed the students input before their return to class

in the fall. Research Coordinator J. Stephen Catlett organized the initial meetings, and coordinated the participation of the students. He, along with Project principal David Gwynn, maintained contact and cooperation with CPUMC. Gwynn was primarily responsible for refining and putting together the various PowerPoint presentations that we did during the course of the grant. Together they fine-tuned many of the student productions and made certain the students stayed on task, both for the grant proper but also for the various additional presentations that were required. ii. Community partner(s) - what activities and responsibilities are expected? Pastor Jason Harvey and church historian Carol Deaton of College Place United Methodist Church, were tremendous to work with. They gladly gave of their time in helping us select material for digitization, and once we found the proper location (in a former children’s classroom) gave us keys and free reign to come and go as we needed. They were very encouraging to our efforts and were lively participants in the community meeting which they hosted at the Church on November 19. They lent their names to our community solicitation and encouraged members of their congregation to participate in the November 19 event. Overall they were wonderful partners and seemed to appreciate our efforts, and of course appreciated us digitizing some of their materials and making them available via our website.

iii. Undergraduate student(s) - what activities and responsibilities are expected?

Contact with Rachel Sanders was maintained during the summer of 2013, even while she was studying in Spain. During the fall and spring she continued as an active participant in all team meetings, and was especially involved in the online survey which she created using a Google survey application. Rachel participated in the initial meetings at CPUMC when we selected material for digitizing, and in the testing phase. She also played a significant role in the PowerPoint presentation during the community meeting on Nov 19 and was involved in following up in January with organizations we solicited for participation. She also went into the field in the spring to assist with additional camera digitization. Rachel participated in the brown bag lunch session, and also presented on our grant at the 8th Annual Carolyn & Norwood Thomas Undergraduate Research and Creativity Expo on March 20, for which she created the poster for her presentation (see below). She also worked with the team at the final CBR presentation/report on April 24. In addition, Rachel generated blog posts and worked on a transcript for the November 19 meeting. Overall Rachel did an excellent job, especially since she was juggling her final two semesters, including student teaching in the spring. She was an excellent representative for the University out in the community. Poster created by Rachel Sanders for student Expo on March 20

iv. Graduate student(s) - what activities and responsibilities are expected? Contact with Megan Coker, a graduate student in History/Public History was also maintained during the summer of 2013, when she was on an internship at a historic farmstead in Texas. During the fall and spring she actively participated in all team meetings, planning sessions, and the initial meetings at CPUMC, when we selected material for digitizing. She helped with all phases of the actual testing, and had a major role during the November 19 community presentation. One of Megan’s biggest contributions – chosen for this because of her significant and ongoing digitization experience working in

Digital Projects at Jackson Library on the Textiles, Teachers, and Troops: Greensboro 1880-1945 grant – was in the processing of all the CPUMC digital photographs. Megan did all the scanning back at the lab too, when we brought back selections of items we had camera-digitized in the field, to be tested for comparison purposes on the Epson flatbed scanner. Her work on this aspect of the project was excellent and also crucial for the project’s success. During the spring semester she made follow-up phone calls and went into the field to assist with digitizing some material at Lindley Elementary School. Megan was involved in the brown bag lunch session, and participated in the final CBR presentation/report on April 24. She was a wonderful addition to the team, and also a great representative for UNCG out in the wider community.

Megan Cocker processing material for the project in the Digital Projects lab at Jackson Library

2f. Project Timeline: Fortunately we were able to keep to our project timeline as proposed in our grant application, with one exception. The exception being that the final Bests Practices Manual is completed for this final report, and will not be finalized until June. But, an extensive outline with some initial section text is included with this final May 16 report. We are taking particular care in the production of this manual because it has major implications, and future anticipated use, as we continue our community outreach. Following is the timeline as was outlined it our original application.

Aug.-Sept: Meetings with CPUMC, information & analysis of their archives, beginning of digital camera tests. Sept-Oct: Survey questions finalized & a package of background information for CPUMC/ outside groups prepared Oct (mid-late): Letter & invitations, and initial survey sent to selected community organizations/groups Oct/Nov: Meeting of selected community groups & organizations hosted by CPUMC & UNCG team (Nov. 19) Nov/Dec: Digital camera tests continue & loan of CPUMC material to Digital Projects for flatbed test scans Dec/Jan: Based on meeting & surveys, one or two additional organizations will be approached for more in-depth

consultations, including potential small samples of material for camera/flatbed scanning tests. Feb-March: Results of surveys, meetings, & technical tests analyzed, compiled & ready for preliminary findings/reports for

brown bag & OLSL presentations in April. April-May: Final report – including feedback/recommendations from public presentations – completed for 5/16 deadline.

2g. Demonstrated Outcomes: v. How will the proposed research enhance understanding or performance of the community partner/agency? Our proposal was specifically designed to obtain feedback from community groups and organizations. As the principal partner CPUMC was the focus of the initial contacts. We did interact with them extensively and got significant feedback regarding their current state of preservation, their use or non-use of their historical materials, their church’s abilities (or lack of) to address these issues, their level of awareness of the possibilities their historical materials offer. We undertook extensive testing of a selection of their materials, and they received both access to their digitized materials online but also via fixed media.

vi. How will impact of the research on the community be assessed? Or, how will you know that the research has been useful? When will evaluation or assessment take place? To gauge the impact and usefulness of the project we met two of our proposed assessment goals, but did not complete one.

We did a self-assessment and got feedback from CPUMC, which was and will be useful in our planning as we go forward in the future with this approach. In regards to the surveying component of the grant, we feel we made significant efforts in reaching out. However, in choosing a primarily e-mail based approach (especially one that

including attachments, which were more likely to do automatically into a spam filter) we probably missed an opportunity to reach more people. The follow-up phone calls we made in the spring were somewhat helpful, but it would have been more productive, we believe, if we had undertaken them a week or so after the email surveys went out.

In regards to the project proper, i.e. the technical testing of camera digitization, we believe we made significant progress and learned some valuable lessons in regards to using this approach. There are still refinements that need to be made, but we did prove to our satisfaction that although the final output might not be as esthetically pleasing in all instances (as compared to scanner based production), the digitized content using in-the-field-cameras can be, if carried out with some care, a viable method of capturing at-risk historical material. Our method of recording what we did, and looking closely at the results was, in our estimation, sufficient to validate this conclusion.

The one task we did not complete was an anonymous, online assessment from all the community participants in the project. The anecdotal responses we got both at the community meeting and the follow-up contacts and additional in-the-field digitizing efforts, although not as valid, were all extremely positive.

We do believe that many of the organizations that came to the meeting, and which we interacted with at other times, were in particular need of more and better information (and assistance) regarding the actual taking care of their original materials, and not simply digitizing them. We anticipated that to some extent in our survey, and discussed it as well at the community meeting. Ultimately, we believe providing this additional help/assistance to community groups and organizations would be an important part of any digitizing outreach. That this topic came up a lot, however, does emphasize the need that exists at least among the groups and organizations that really value their history.

vii. How will the proposed research advance understanding of the faculty member(s) scholarly identity, development of community partner capacity, and student learning through the high impact practice of undergraduate research? The very nature of this grant did, we believe, enhance contacts and communication between the faculty, team members and the community. We also think there was a heightened community awareness of the University’s commitment to becoming a useful/valuable resource in this area, although the total population we addressed was not as great as we had hoped. The CBR team did receive invaluable information about the state of historical materials out in the community, which will in fact help us in assessing the best way forward in our attempts to better preserve and make it available.

viii. How will the proposed research contribute to the students’ academic development? The project benefited Rachel and Megan who were able to develop new skills, as well as bring some of their existing academic knowledge as well as personal enthusiasm, to a real-world community-intensive project. They were involved in: creating online surveys; interacting with community organizations; surveying and analyzing historical collections; intensive hands-on experience working with digital cameras; and furthering their public speaking and presentation skills.

ix. How will findings be disseminated to the community/agency and academic disciplines? We created a blog, and also a new Community Collection section of the Digital Projects website to host the CPUMC materials as well as other organizations. The grant was also publicized by the University Libraries, and has been featured in other online sites, and of course via the on-campus presentations we undertook as part of the grant requirements.