SPEC Kit 305: Records Management· 15
agement procedures (85%), transfers permanent re-
cords to archives (76%), prepares records retention
schedules (68%), picks up materials from originating
departments (56%), stores text records (56%), and re-
trieves records from storage (56%). Only three or four
respondents don’t offer these services.
Records management programs are somewhat
more likely to store graphic materials (13 vs. 9 cases),
answer reference questions from records in storage
(13 vs. 8 cases), and store audio-visual materials (12 vs.
8 cases). Responsibility for preparing content lists is
almost equally divided between the records manage-
ment program and another unit (13 vs. 14 cases).
Another unit more often has responsibility for
storing electronic records (64%), destroying records
at the end of their retention period (60%), deliver-
ing retrieved records to the originating department
(48%), storing other record formats (44%), and convert-
ing permanent records to preservation format (40%).
Eleven respondents (44%) report that discarding re-
cords at the end of their retention schedules is not a
service offered thirteen (52%) report that refreshing
the format of permanent records is not offered.
At all of the responding institutions staff in the
originating department have responsibility for cre-
ating content lists at some level. At 11 institutions
staff in the records management program share this
responsibility. Lists are most often made at the box
level (23 respondents) and the folder level (22 respon-
dents). Originating departments perform this task
in 20 cases (91%), while records management pro-
gram staff are responsible in 11 cases (50%). Twelve
respondents create content lists at the item level. Four
respondents report making content lists at some other
level, for example, document level for electronic re-
cords, accession level, and series level. One respon-
dent reported that each department maintains its
own record keeping system and levels vary from
department to department.
Policy Decisions
Policy decisions are made at many levels and can
involve a number of individuals. In some cases, state
records commissions or the state archives either sin-
gularly or jointly may establish records retention
schedules for institutions of higher education. In
others, there may be statewide policies through the
action of a state board of regents.
At the university level, policy decisions may be
made by records management committees or by the
individual in charge of the records management pro-
gram. Retention schedules may be created by the
individual in charge of the records management pro-
gram, often with input from originating divisions or
offices and the appropriate dean or vice president, as
well as with input from University Counsel. In some
cases, such a records retention policy must then be
approved by the state records commission. Changes
to statewide retention schedules may be suggested
to the state records commission. Others mentioned
by respondents as involved in retention schedules
include the designee of the president, the records
officer in each department, and the head of the office
creating the records.
Policies and procedures for training of depart-
ments, transportation, storage, and destruction are
often the role of the University Archivist.
Records Storage
Physical records are stored in a variety of locations.
Fifteen respondents (60%) report using remote stor-
age, eleven (44%) use on-site storage, and six (24%)
report storage in the originating department. Eleven
(44%) use a combination of locations. The survey also
asked where electronic records are stored. The 23
open-ended responses indicate that electronic re-
cords are widely distributed across individual office
computers, departmental servers, enterprise-wide
systems, offsite facilities, state records centers, and
commercial vendors. Only a few respondents men-
tioned storing records in an institutional repository.
The amounts of materials currently in storage
were reported in different ways, including items,
boxes, cubic feet, and linear feet. While this makes it
difficult to compare different programs, it is clear that
there is a wide range in the quantities of records be-
agement procedures (85%), transfers permanent re-
cords to archives (76%), prepares records retention
schedules (68%), picks up materials from originating
departments (56%), stores text records (56%), and re-
trieves records from storage (56%). Only three or four
respondents don’t offer these services.
Records management programs are somewhat
more likely to store graphic materials (13 vs. 9 cases),
answer reference questions from records in storage
(13 vs. 8 cases), and store audio-visual materials (12 vs.
8 cases). Responsibility for preparing content lists is
almost equally divided between the records manage-
ment program and another unit (13 vs. 14 cases).
Another unit more often has responsibility for
storing electronic records (64%), destroying records
at the end of their retention period (60%), deliver-
ing retrieved records to the originating department
(48%), storing other record formats (44%), and convert-
ing permanent records to preservation format (40%).
Eleven respondents (44%) report that discarding re-
cords at the end of their retention schedules is not a
service offered thirteen (52%) report that refreshing
the format of permanent records is not offered.
At all of the responding institutions staff in the
originating department have responsibility for cre-
ating content lists at some level. At 11 institutions
staff in the records management program share this
responsibility. Lists are most often made at the box
level (23 respondents) and the folder level (22 respon-
dents). Originating departments perform this task
in 20 cases (91%), while records management pro-
gram staff are responsible in 11 cases (50%). Twelve
respondents create content lists at the item level. Four
respondents report making content lists at some other
level, for example, document level for electronic re-
cords, accession level, and series level. One respon-
dent reported that each department maintains its
own record keeping system and levels vary from
department to department.
Policy Decisions
Policy decisions are made at many levels and can
involve a number of individuals. In some cases, state
records commissions or the state archives either sin-
gularly or jointly may establish records retention
schedules for institutions of higher education. In
others, there may be statewide policies through the
action of a state board of regents.
At the university level, policy decisions may be
made by records management committees or by the
individual in charge of the records management pro-
gram. Retention schedules may be created by the
individual in charge of the records management pro-
gram, often with input from originating divisions or
offices and the appropriate dean or vice president, as
well as with input from University Counsel. In some
cases, such a records retention policy must then be
approved by the state records commission. Changes
to statewide retention schedules may be suggested
to the state records commission. Others mentioned
by respondents as involved in retention schedules
include the designee of the president, the records
officer in each department, and the head of the office
creating the records.
Policies and procedures for training of depart-
ments, transportation, storage, and destruction are
often the role of the University Archivist.
Records Storage
Physical records are stored in a variety of locations.
Fifteen respondents (60%) report using remote stor-
age, eleven (44%) use on-site storage, and six (24%)
report storage in the originating department. Eleven
(44%) use a combination of locations. The survey also
asked where electronic records are stored. The 23
open-ended responses indicate that electronic re-
cords are widely distributed across individual office
computers, departmental servers, enterprise-wide
systems, offsite facilities, state records centers, and
commercial vendors. Only a few respondents men-
tioned storing records in an institutional repository.
The amounts of materials currently in storage
were reported in different ways, including items,
boxes, cubic feet, and linear feet. While this makes it
difficult to compare different programs, it is clear that
there is a wide range in the quantities of records be-
