SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 31
processed Boxes barcoded and sent to offsite. Level 2 Description: MARC record Finding aid and box list full
description where practicable. Arrangement: Intellectually arranged (series level) generally no refoldering metal, tape,
etc. Stays no appraisal. General Guidelines: Assess physical extent to determine any need to rebox Boxes barcoded
and sent to offsite does collection have some research demand? on processing wish list? Notes: Unless egregious and
obvious, preservation neither noted nor addressed presence of AV/digital noted but not addressed. Product: 35–50
l.f./month. Level 3 Description: MARC record finding aid full description. Arrangement: Combination of intellectual
and physical arrangement (series/sub-series level) combination of box and folder level control. Preservation: Refolder if
needed flag egregious needs metal, tape, etc. Stays minimal appraisal (duplicates). General Guidelines: On processing
short list? accessible in current form? staff to dedicate to project? Notes: Presence of AV/digital noted not addressed
Product: 23–30 l.f./month. Level 4 Description: Finding aid full description MARC record. Arrangement: Folder-level
control. Preservation: folders/archival boxes preservation needs referred to conservation metal stays full appraisal, AV/
images/digital addressed. General Guidelines: on processing short list? compelling justification (funding: administrative
priority? is collection in demand? faculty demand/support?) outreach component? curriculum support? Product:
11–15 l.f./month.
Single manuscripts and codex manuscripts are considered either cataloged or uncataloged (has or does not have a
MARC cataloging record).
The above terms apply generally to folderable and boxable documents. There are collections, however, for which an
inventory, even at the piece rather than folder level, does not adequately expose content. I think, for example, of a
collection of scrapbooks 1890–1920 in which theater manager pasted weekly reports on programming. These are
well described at the volume level, but the real — and very important — content is in the performer names and
performance descriptions, and only deep indexing would provide adequate access.
We do not use formal definitions: we know the categories when we see them.
We have 4 processing levels: Accession-level control (Established at time of acquisition with basic collection information
taken from the accession record. May have box list.) Box-level control (Materials sorted as to particular form or in rough
series—rarely used.) Folder-level control (Materials are arranged into series order, properly foldered and are described
at the folder level, but little or no effort made to sort within folders. A complete finding aid produced (includes title
page, table of contents, administrative information, creator’s sketch (biographical/historical note), scope and contents
note and intellectual/physical arrangement). A complete catalog record and EAD version of the finding aid are
created). Full intellectual and physical control (Materials are sorted and arranged by series and sub-series, refoldered
and reboxed. Records are properly arranged within each folder. Collection is described at the box and folder level and
a complete finding aid produced (includes title page, table of contents, administrative information, creator’s sketch
(biographical/historical note), scope and contents note at various levels and intellectual/physical arrangement). A
complete catalog record and EAD version of the finding aid are created).
We purposely don’t have definitions because not having them helps us remain flexible and responsive to the needs of
any given collection (or part thereof). So we’re comfortable with saying that a particular collection is “fully processed”
when the same treatment applied to a different collection might result in that second collection’s being “minimally
processed.” Not having definitions also helps us explain to curators, public services staff, other colleagues, and even
donors how we operate.
We tend to see this as a continuum, with most collections somewhere between unprocessed and fully processed.
We typically use the terms pre-processed and processed instead of minimally and fully (and add post-processed for
those collections we revisit, update, or otherwise alter). “Minimal” sets the wrong tone and too often guides archivists
to aspire to the minimum.
processed Boxes barcoded and sent to offsite. Level 2 Description: MARC record Finding aid and box list full
description where practicable. Arrangement: Intellectually arranged (series level) generally no refoldering metal, tape,
etc. Stays no appraisal. General Guidelines: Assess physical extent to determine any need to rebox Boxes barcoded
and sent to offsite does collection have some research demand? on processing wish list? Notes: Unless egregious and
obvious, preservation neither noted nor addressed presence of AV/digital noted but not addressed. Product: 35–50
l.f./month. Level 3 Description: MARC record finding aid full description. Arrangement: Combination of intellectual
and physical arrangement (series/sub-series level) combination of box and folder level control. Preservation: Refolder if
needed flag egregious needs metal, tape, etc. Stays minimal appraisal (duplicates). General Guidelines: On processing
short list? accessible in current form? staff to dedicate to project? Notes: Presence of AV/digital noted not addressed
Product: 23–30 l.f./month. Level 4 Description: Finding aid full description MARC record. Arrangement: Folder-level
control. Preservation: folders/archival boxes preservation needs referred to conservation metal stays full appraisal, AV/
images/digital addressed. General Guidelines: on processing short list? compelling justification (funding: administrative
priority? is collection in demand? faculty demand/support?) outreach component? curriculum support? Product:
11–15 l.f./month.
Single manuscripts and codex manuscripts are considered either cataloged or uncataloged (has or does not have a
MARC cataloging record).
The above terms apply generally to folderable and boxable documents. There are collections, however, for which an
inventory, even at the piece rather than folder level, does not adequately expose content. I think, for example, of a
collection of scrapbooks 1890–1920 in which theater manager pasted weekly reports on programming. These are
well described at the volume level, but the real — and very important — content is in the performer names and
performance descriptions, and only deep indexing would provide adequate access.
We do not use formal definitions: we know the categories when we see them.
We have 4 processing levels: Accession-level control (Established at time of acquisition with basic collection information
taken from the accession record. May have box list.) Box-level control (Materials sorted as to particular form or in rough
series—rarely used.) Folder-level control (Materials are arranged into series order, properly foldered and are described
at the folder level, but little or no effort made to sort within folders. A complete finding aid produced (includes title
page, table of contents, administrative information, creator’s sketch (biographical/historical note), scope and contents
note and intellectual/physical arrangement). A complete catalog record and EAD version of the finding aid are
created). Full intellectual and physical control (Materials are sorted and arranged by series and sub-series, refoldered
and reboxed. Records are properly arranged within each folder. Collection is described at the box and folder level and
a complete finding aid produced (includes title page, table of contents, administrative information, creator’s sketch
(biographical/historical note), scope and contents note at various levels and intellectual/physical arrangement). A
complete catalog record and EAD version of the finding aid are created).
We purposely don’t have definitions because not having them helps us remain flexible and responsive to the needs of
any given collection (or part thereof). So we’re comfortable with saying that a particular collection is “fully processed”
when the same treatment applied to a different collection might result in that second collection’s being “minimally
processed.” Not having definitions also helps us explain to curators, public services staff, other colleagues, and even
donors how we operate.
We tend to see this as a continuum, with most collections somewhere between unprocessed and fully processed.
We typically use the terms pre-processed and processed instead of minimally and fully (and add post-processed for
those collections we revisit, update, or otherwise alter). “Minimal” sets the wrong tone and too often guides archivists
to aspire to the minimum.
