to Surveys and Reports Overview | CoSA home | CoSA Site Map
The NHPRC Planning Initiative:
Report prepared by Sandra Clark, Michigan State Coordinator
|| In the 1980s the National
Historical Publications and Records Commission began funding statewide
assessment studies of archival needs and conditions. The hope was
that corrective action would follow the articulation of problems and
solutions. In some cases, it did. But in many, the recommendations
were so wide ranging and broadly defined that focused action was difficult.
New Hampshire is but one of the states that detailed the problem:
Its 1984 assessment identified 24 recommendations for state government
records, 23 for local government records, 10 for historical records
repositories and 12 for statewide supporting services and programs.
A decade later, only 11 of the 69 recommended objectives had been
achieved. The reason:
Since the late 1980s state budget reductions have
compelled all state agencies, including the Archives, to protect
their core missions, resulting in decreased attention to the Board
and its recommendations from State Archives staff. This, combined
with New Hampshire's strong tradition of local government autonomy,
has meant that the board lacked both the resources and influence
to implement state services or to knowledgeably advise other repositories.
|| Nonetheless, planning remained
a concern of both the states and the NHPRC, and the NHPRC's 1992 long-range
plan established as one of its top priorities:
To strengthen the efforts of state historical
records coordinators and boards by offering grants for creating
and updating state strategic plans for meeting records needs,
based on the previous state assessments, and encompassing both
documentary preservation and publication.
The intent was, in the words of Richard Cameron,
"to encourage state boards to move beyond the 'archives happen'
approach to a more active shaping of the archival landscape."
The initiative hoped to address concerns that the 1980s efforts
had not reached beyond the immediate archival and historical communities
nor involved cooperative, regional or national approaches, and that
planning had not become a standard operating procedure for the state
Since the implementation of the new planning grants
in 1993, thirty-six states have completed and adopted plans, five
states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (including those grants
made in November 1998) are working on plans. This report is the
Council of State Historical Records Coordinators' first effort to
evaluate the success of the NHPRC's 1990s planning initiative.
In order to evaluate the 1990s NHPRC planning initiative,
the state coordinators at their January 1998 meeting outlined a
series of questions to ask three groups of coordinators: those who
completed new plans by the end of 1995 (Group I); those who completed
new plans by the end of 1998 (Group II); and those who had not yet
begun a planning process.
Those in Group I were asked for more detail because
they have had time to see longer term results from their efforts.
However they also represent the most diverse planning experiences.
Some completed their plans under the state board travel and meeting
expense program and used less elaborate planning mechanisms. Others
used work done under National Endowment for the Humanities preservation
planning projects. Their reported expenditures on planning ranged
from $5,000 to $92,000. The coordinators hoped to answer the following
- How valuable to the states is the work done under
the NHPRC planning initiative?
- What are the best practices in state board planning?
- Have the plans produced results?
- Do the states have quantitative ways to measure
- Why have some states and territories not participated
in the initiative?
- Are there common goals in the state plans that
would lend themselves to collaborative regional or national efforts?
Richard Belding of Kentucky prepared and collected
the survey for Group I. Chris LaPlante of Texas handled Group II.
And Guy Rocha of Nevada and Conley Edwards of Virginia contacted
those who had not begun planning. Victoria Irons Walch shared a
content analysis of the early plans, which she prepared for the
Wisconsin SHRAB as part of its planning project. Sandra Clark of
Michigan compiled the responses for this report.
Of the 14 states who completed their plans prior
to 1996, twelve returned completed surveys; however two states had
begun a second planning effort. Because their responses reflected
their more recent work, they are not included in the statistical
portions of the report. Eleven of the 14 states that completed plans
in 1996 and 1997 responded, as did 11 of the 12 that had not begun
planning by January 1998.
How valuable to the states is the work
done under the planning initiative?
|| State coordinators in Group
I and Group II were asked how they would rate their NHPRC planning
effort in terms of 'bang for the buck on a scale of 1-5 with
5 being high. The average of the ratings in both groups was 3.9 and
the mean was 4. Ninety percent of the coordinators recommended going
through the planning process again. Only one coordinator in each group
said that they would not do so. One commented that the process took
too much staff and board effort for the results; and the other, that
there were no resources to continue the effort or bring people together
once the plan was completed.
The state coordinators
were also asked to rate on a 1-5 scale their NHPRC planning experience
with others in which they have participated. The average for Group
I was 3.95; that for Group II was 3.64.
the way the boards
|| A third set of questions
asked if the planning effort had made specific changes in the way
the state board functioned. The percentages responding in the affirmative
c. Better self-definition
d. Increased activity
e. Planning without NHPRC support
Clearly there is strong support for state board planning, as well
as a belief that such planning efforts strengthen a board. In one
The planning process is important because it builds
coalitions, develops consensus, establishes a framework for activities
and legitimacy for priorities. We consider the process so important,
we included it in our new regrant and will require applicants
to go through an initial process involving planning to identify
needs and priorities.
However the response to item e is a reminder
that the state boards are in most states created out of the core
mission of the NHPRC, not out of the core mission of the state archives.
Their continued vitality through planning depends on the continued
financial support of the NHPRC.
The coordinators in Group I were also asked the
cost of not planning. Though none offered dollar figures, their
responses made clear the value of their plans. Without planning,
the state boards would be less focused. They would have no basis
for regrant programs. They would lose opportunities to increase
documentation in targeted areas and have less visibility, less cooperation,
||Only one of
the 21 coordinators in Group I and Group II recommended that the NHPRC
discontinue funding planning, doing so on the basis that this should
be an encouraged state-board-funded activity. Those in favor of continued
funding cited the need for continuous improvement and adjustment of
goals and objectives; the opportunity to hold board meetings around
the state; and the opportunity to have local groups affect the plan
and better understand the state board, the NHPRC and NHPRC grant possibilities.
||Asked to choose
3, 5, 7, or 10 years as an optimal planning interval, the coordinators
in Group I and Group II were fairly evenly divided: 17% recommended
3 years; 31% recommended 5 years; 19% chose 7 years; 33% chose 10
years or more. (Choices of 3-5 and 5-7 were split between the two
numbers for these calculations.)
What are the best practices in
state board planning?
||The ten coordinators
in Group I and the eleven in Group II were asked to rate the usefulness
of eight planning practices as most useful, moderately useful and
least useful. Their responses were scored and averaged using 2 points
for "most useful," 1 point for "moderately useful"
and 0 points for "least useful." In the following table,
the number of states using a practice appears in parentheses before
the average score.
Formal training in strategic planning
b. Assistance provided by a
c. Public meetings or hearings
d. Input provided by focus
e. Input provided by task forces
or white papers
f. Data gathered from surveys
g. Board assessment or analysis
of previous plans
h. Board retreat for planning
Two practices stand out as having the most value to those that used
themhiring a consultant and planning in a retreat setting.
Focus groups, task forces and analysis of the 1980s planning effort
seemed less useful, even though board assessment of previous plans
was the most used practice. The reasons for the discrepancies between
the two groups on the value of public meetings and surveys are not
Overall, the states in Group II tended to incorporate
more options in their planning efforts (an average of 5.5 versus
4.9 for those in Group I). The states in both groups involved a
widely varying number of people in their planning efforts ranging
from 11 or 12 (presumably the board members) to 20 groups or 225
The coordinators were also asked to rank their planning effort on
a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 representing the state coordinator doing
all the work and 5 representing a board-led effort. The average
ranking for the coordinators in Group I was 2.85, with four coordinators
choosing 2 and three choosing 4. None chose 1 or 5. In Group II
the average was 3.45, with none choosing 1 or 2, and one choosing
5. This may reflect an overall increase in planning skills due to
the training and sharing of experiences that have been part of the
Council of State Historical Records Coordinators meetings.
State coordinators in Group I were asked what things worked well.
They cited the push to make implicit goals explicit and efforts
to eliminate unrealistic goals and to prioritize those that were
attainable. The change from the 1980s emphasis on identifying problems
to the 1990s focus on the potential for action is apparent here
and in the plans. The average number of priorities identified by
Vicki Walch in her analysis of the first 16 plans (including Wisconsin's
pending plan) was 6.9a much more realistic number than those
found in the 1980s plans. The lowest number was 4; the highest was
Clearly, it was difficult for some state boards
to step away from problems they could not solve, but they found
creative ways to identify these. One categorized objectives as "1.
Possible to achieve with existing state and local resources, but
only if time is available; 2. Possible to achieve with changes in
administrative rules of, or relationships between existing agencies,
and with minimal impact upon overall state or local budgets, if
time is available; and 3. Possible to achieve only with new funds
from governmental or private sources resulting in new fulltime positions,
new or expanded facilities, or grant-funded programs." Others
offered to "assist," "'endorse," "'encourage"
and "support" some things, while making it the board's
responsibility to "develop" or "establish" others.
While some states did not order their goals, finding
them all to be of equal priority, many exercised the discipline
of setting clear priorities among their goals and objectives.
Other practices cited as working well by the coordinators
were retreat or day-long formats, using the NHPRC plan as a model,
and efforts to reach beyond the boardsurveys, public participation,
bringing in outside groups, working with allied groups and having
statewide meetings for stakeholders.
|| Coordinators in Group I
were also asked about pitfalls in the planning process. They cited
relationships with outside groupsfailing to include them in
the process, difficulty in sustaining their interest beyond the availability
of grants and the tendency of the board to want to move faster than
its constituents. One noted that combining planning with regular meetings
of the board stretched the process out too long. Other problems were
failure to focus on the doable and the difficulty of leveraging outside
funds for regrant match. One coordinator noted difficulty in getting
the board to view the process a means to an end rather than a requirement
of doing business with the NHPRC.
Have the plans produced results?
One of the hoped for results of the NHPRC 1990s
planning initiative was more inclusion of outside groups. Clearly,
this result has been achieved. The eleven states in Group II reported
involving a total of nearly 1,000 people. In one case, a State Records
Commission has been created as a result of the consolidation of
state archives and records management functions. In others new goals-based
alliances have been formed involving libraries, a records association
and other state departments. Board composition changes for Group
II have included the addition of more women in one state and the
involvement of the humanities council in another.
The Group I coordinators have had more time to observe
changes in board composition and alliances. They reported additions
to their boards of minorities and local government representatives,
broader geographic representation, and representatives of new groups
including land surveyors. In one state, two outside organizations
used the NHPRC-funded plan to guide their activities.
The variety of collaborative ventures resulting from the Group I
- Partnership with the Florida Records Management
- Minnesota's collaborations with more than 20
rural and Hispanic community organizations
- A pending project involving the North Dakota
and Minnesota boards
- Ohio board work with the State Library of Ohio,
the Ohio Public Library Information Network, the Western Reserve
Historical Society, the state Department of Administrative Services
and other state agencies
- Partnerships with the Society of North Carolina
Archivists and the North Carolina African American Archive Group
- An agreement in Michigan between a university
archive and the state archives on working with the governor's
office on public and private gubernatorial records
- Sponsoring the formation of a state archives
association in South Carolina
- In Vermont, work with land surveyors on land
records and with museums and galleries on collections care
A second goal of the NHPRC 1990s planning initiative was to create
plans that were used. The coordinators in Group I were asked to
respond to two statements on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being "strongly
agree." To the first statement, "Planning has become a
continuing activity," the average on the scale was 3.9. To
the statement, "The plan guided board discussion and activity,"
the average was 4.25. Given that one coordinator responded with
a 1 to both statements, this indicates a strong confirmation that
in most cases the plans are used and not put on the shelf to collect
The focus on achievable goals and actions has also
resulted in a variety of concrete programs to improve the preservation
of and access to records. Responses from the Group I coordinators
about which objectives were achievable and which were not made it
clear that there is no nationwide pattern. Some of the greatest
successes have come with regrant programs, but some states list
this as an unachievable objective because of the inability to raise
North Carolina and South Carolina both leveraged state funds to supplement
regrant programs. While Michigan was unable to do this, its board
members were enthusiastic enough about the objective of helping small
community-based organizations improve their archival practices to
volunteer to provide unpaid consultant services to forty of them as
match for Michigan's regrant program.
Plans were linked to support for new archival buildings in South
Carolina, New Hampshire and Delaware. Delaware reported:
Several Board members were early advocates with
the Governor on this issue and key members of the Friends of Delaware
Archives, Inc. initiated a petition drive that was a key to getting
this project on the Governor's 'front burner. Construction
is now under way with a December 2000 completion date.
Ohio used its plan to leverage a state commitment to automation,
electronic records and World Wide Web information. Total funding
for the program from a State Library grant, a Library of Congress/Ameritech
Grant and Capital Funding is at nearly $2.5 million:
Capital funds have paid for implementation of
significant portions of the plan. A state GILS with a records
scheduling component, guidelines for management of electronic
records, web site access to finding aids and records are some
of the major areas addressed.
All but two of the states in Group I reported specific
actions resulting from their plans. They included:
- An archival practices book
- A teleconference training series
- Published directories of records repositories
- A Local Government Records Management Improvement
Fund state appropriation
- Education and training program regrants
- An annual conference on historical records
- General Fund appropriation for State Historical
Records Advisory Board activities
- South Carolina Public Service Announcements on
the value of archives and historic records
Do the states have quantitative ways
to measure results?
The information reported above indicates that the
1990s NHPRC planning initiative has been successful in encouraging
collaborative, action-oriented planning efforts. This is a marked
change from the 1980s effort. However, in the area of measurable
evaluation, there is clearly room for continued improvement.
Only two of the ten
Group I states had easy-to-access statistics to report in response
to questions about the number of records preserved, made more accessible
or better cared for under the plan. Both statesNorth Carolina
and Michiganrelied on estimates or numbers from regrant programs.
North Carolina estimated 7,000-12,000 feet of records preserved;
5,000-10,000 feet of records made more accessible; and 10,000 feet
of records better cared for. Michigan reported 19,000 photos and
10 feet of records made more accessible; and 19,000 photos and 380
feet of records receiving better care. Michigan noted that its numbers
did not include all who received regrants since some did not report
their final numbers. Nor did they include records in organizations
like the one that came to a self-evaluation session, did not apply
for a regrant, but did convince its township that it had to provide
security and environmental controls for the community's historical
There are two clear problems with this method of
measuring results: collecting the information is difficult and time
consuming, and measures are not precise.
A similar lack of specificity was apparent in questions
about dissemination of the plans. Most of the coordinators in Group
I used words like "effective," or "wide" to
describe this aspect of the planning process. They reported reaching
librarians, archivists, historical societies, museums, genealogists,
professional organizations, local governments, researchers, legislators
and Native Americans. But none offered any numbers.
Five states in Group I reported leveraged funds resulting from their
NHPRC planning efforts. They ranged in amounts from Delaware's and
North Carolina's $18 million building projects to North Carolina's
and Michigan's $115,000 and $180,000 respectively in regrants and
other grants. The total reported was $23,078,000 in onetime expenditures
and $210,000 in annual expenditures.
Although the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators did
not identify it as a measure in their 1998 meeting, another means
of measuring the impact of the NHPRC and the state board efforts
may be in the statewide surveys conducted first as part of the 1980s
planning initiative, then as part of some 1990s planning efforts,
and more recently as one of the coordinators' national projects.
Where those surveys focus on identifying problems,
there seems to be little apparent change. North Carolina, for example,
reported for records repositories across the state "a picture
eerily similar to that presented in 1983. Large backlogs of unarranged
and undescribed records continue as problems." The greatest
need was space, followed by staff, education, funding, acidity in
records, lack of emergency preparedness plans and problems with
heat, ventilation and air-conditioning systems.
Where the surveys also focus, as did the just completed
Council of State Historical Records Coordinators study on specific
measures, a slightly different picture may emerge. Florida could
report that the number of Florida institutions with a disaster plan
in place had risen from 32.8% in 1987 to 49% in 1993; the number
of repositories with a written statement of authority and/or a mission
statement had risen from 44% to 78%; and the number with an acquisitions
policy, from 43.2% to 76%.
As state boards work more closely with community
and local government repositories, this type of measurement may
be the best indicators of effective action.
Whatever measures are to be used, the NHPRC and
the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators need to agree
on a few, achievable measures and make a commitment to use them.
Why have some states and territories not
participated in the initiative?
The 12 state coordinators who had not participated
in the 1990s NHPRC planning initiative by January 1998 were asked
to identify "the reason why, or the circumstances that prevented
participation in the process" and indicate whether their states
planned to participate in the future
Nine of the 11 respondents
cited board problems ranging from inactive boards to difficulty
obtaining appointments, boards without the needed clout for effective
action, and politically appointed boards that did not reflect the
state's archival community. Six of the respondents cited competing
prioritiessome positive (a new building) and some negative
(threatened closure and staff reductions). Of those citing one or
both of these impediments to planning, five have now committed to
the process, though one does not believe that it will produce valuable
Three of the state coordinators in this group do
not value the NHPRC planning initiative and have chosen to not participate.
They question the ability of State Historical Records Advisory Boards
to plan and take effective, specific action; and they believe they
can better use their resources in other types of planning and assessment.
From these responses and the two negative responses
in Group I and Group II, two things are clear. First, planning cannot
be effective if the organization doing the planning does not have
the status, power or will to set collective priorities and take
collective action. The diverse SHRAB conditions created by gubernatorial
appointments and the varying strengths of state archival programs
make it impossible to achieve 100% participation or consistency
across the nation. Second, the impetus for and burden of statewide
board planning lie with state archival programs. Such planning is
a resource commitment that competes with everything from internal
planning to accessioning, processing and referencing records.
Are there common goals in the state plans that
would lend themselves to collaborative regional
or national efforts?
Vicki Walch identified 18 priorities in the 16 state
plans she reviewed. The top eleven were:
- Improved access to records and collections (14)
- Preservation (13)
- Education and training in archives and records
- Raising public awareness (11)
- Electronic records (10)
- Partnerships/cooperation (9)
- Statewide collecting strategies (6)
- Improved records programs (5)
- State government records (5)
- Local government records (5)
- Regrant Programs (5)
Her summary of the objectives and strategies under
these goals suggests several areas where the Council of State Historical
Records Coordinators or cooperating states might develop collaborative
Seven of the states talked about public education campaigns. This
might be an effective area for either comparing materials or developing
national materials that could be adapted to individual states.
Eight states were concerned with developing statewide databases and
seven (including two not in the first group) with promoting the use
of archival descriptive standards. This could be a fruitful area for
sharing strategies and best practices for such things as finding a
host agency and obtaining accurate, usable information and cooperation
from small community-based repositories and local governments.
Three-fourths of the states (12) included education and training
in their goals and objectives. Seven talked of advisory services
for small repositories and five included regrant programs in their
plans. Some planned on using materials from national professional
organizations; others were developing their own materials. This
would be an area where a group of archivists from several states
with experience in what is effective with volunteer organizations,
community repositories or local governments could assemble the materials
that could be easily adapted for use in any state. Even putting
all the materials created to date on line with an index could be
The five states concerned with central preservation
services and the four considering disaster planning should be able
to learn from each others' experiences.
Electronic records are a topic of concern for 10 states, with most
of them concerned primarily with state government records. This is
an area that has received a great deal of academic study and should
be ripe for practical applications in the diverse situations represented
by the various states. It is also an area where National Archives
partnership and leadership might be appropriate.
While only five states listed a regrant program as a goal, ten included
regrant programs to small repositories (8) and/or local governments
(5) in their objectives. There is probably enough experience in
this area by now to prepare some good best-practices and template
materials for those considering such programs.
Some Final Thoughts
The NHPRC 1990s planning initiative is changing
the way State Historical Records Advisory Boards work. Perhaps more
than consciously intended, it is pushing them and the state archives
that lead them towards taking responsibility for statewide coordination
of archival planning. The parallel support of the Council of State
Historical Records Coordinators offers the potential of creating
an archival planning and support system that extends from the national
level to the smallest community. This is particularly important
in a era when all seem to realize that large archival repositories
will never be able to collect, preserve and provide access to all
of the important records created in the nation. Many of those recordssome
documenting corporations and individuals of national significancewill
remain in the hands of volunteers, librarians and others not trained
Most state archives have long had a focused, legislatively
mandated missionto preserve and make accessible the records
of state and possibly local government. Some with a long association
with a state historical society and/or library also have strong
manuscript collections. Few have seen their core mission as being
the leader of statewide historical records planning and advocacy,
or as improving the condition of records held in community repositories
throughout their states.
The NHPRC posits a role for the State Historical
Records Advisory Boards of serving as a link between national archival
efforts and local communities. It does this in the traditional federal-state
relationship of state developmental assistance and review of grants
(or National Register Nominations) before they reach a federal agency.
But with its planning initiatives, it also asks the boardsand
therefore the state archivists who serve as their coordinatorsto
take on statewide planning, advocacy and educational roles that
might be performed in other history disciplinesor the archival
disciplineby professional associations or advocacy organizations.
In the field of historic preservation, this role is filled by state
agenciesthe State Historical Preservation Officesbut it
is subsidized at a much higher level than that offered through NHPRC
Where this NHPRC-encouraged stepping out of the
state archives box is successful, it can result in much broader
public support of the state archives program and an enhanced role
for archives across the state. But because it is not an altogether
comfortable role, it will continue to be greeted with different
levels of enthusiasm and financial support from state to state.
The NHPRC's efforts to leverage a relatively small
federal grant program into something that touches historical records
throughout the nation is commendable and remarkably successful.
To expand that success, the NHPRC will need to be clear in its expectations.
It will need to encourage collaborations not only within and among
the states but with the National Archives and national archival
professional associations in providing best-practices information
to all who protect and provide access to our nation's records. It
may also need to consider leading efforts to raise the priority
of this work with other funding organizations such as private foundations,
the Institute for Museum and Library Services, and the national
and state endowments for the humanities.
Discussion of SHRAB
Summary of the Discussion of SHRAB Planning
January 20, 1999
At its January 20 meeting, the Council of State
Historic Records Coordinators (COSHRC) reviewed the NHPRC Planning
Initiative Evaluation and added the following comments to that evaluation:
The Value to the States
Work Done Under the Planning Initiative
One of the most important results of the planning
initiative has been the opportunity to give voice to a broad range
of individuals and groups with vital concerns in the preservation
of our nation's heritage. In particular, the process has extended
this voice to traditionally under-represented groups and to those
who care for records at the grassroots level.
The COSHRC discussed possible ways to better answer
the question of whether or not boards have embraced planning. One
clear indicator of board vitality is projects that go beyond planning
and reviewing NHPRC grant applications.
Another indicator is the number of boards that would
continue if there were no NHPRC.
- Fifteen of the thirty-nine coordinators present
indicated that they would definitely continue to work with their
boards if there were no NHPRC.
- Another six said they would 'probably
continue if there were no NHPRC.
- All noted that a large number of variables would
effect any such decision.
- Only five have line item budgets for their boards.
Looking to the future, some advocated NHPRC support
of basic travel and operation of boards, suggesting that if planning
were required as a precondition for receiving this support, the
NHPRC could accomplish the same ends. Others noted that the advantage
of NHPRC support of planning was in conducting major efforts involving
such things as facilitators and focus groups.
The COSHRC also considered the emphasis that should
be placed on planning in the short term.
Members agreed that minimal effort should be placed
on pushing states that are not ready for or enthusiastic about
planning to proceed with planning efforts. A goal of 100% participation
is not nearly as important as assisting states with plans in moving
ahead with implementation.
In the short term, the COSHRC members rated planning
as "important" (18) or "somewhat important"
(16), but not as the "most important" thing for the
Commission to fund.
Members agreed that the current system and guidelines
are working well and should continue to be available for those
states ready to enter into a major planning effort.
COSHRC members emphasized that many state planning
efforts are just beginning to produce results. Everything in the
current evaluation must be considered preliminary at best. However,
most can see immediate benefits from the process and its inclusion
of new and old players in thinking about the preservation and access
of archival records in their states.
They also noted that the most difficult part of
planning for the SHRABs remains keeping the focus on things the
boards can do and defining clear products that will result from
successful implementation of a plan. A second concern is that the
plans cast a wide enough net to allow the states to respond to unforeseen
opportunities and seek NHPRC support for their efforts in such cases.
Producing Results and Quantifying Them
COSHRC members cautioned that care must be taken
in assuming cause and effect when attributing results to planning
efforts. Plans are often only one element in the successful pursuit
of improvement in the condition of archival records in a state.
They noted that with more time, they could put together
more statistical information on outputs. Such outcomes as the number
or percentage of institutions achieving certain archival standards
over a period of time may be more revealing than the simple counting
of feet of records processed.
Members strongly supported performance measures,
set by NHPRC, that are consistent across similar grants and agreed
upon at the beginning of a grant. They suggested including demonstration
projects with evaluation measures in the planning process.
Finally, COSHRC members encouraged NHPRC staff to
increase efforts to ensure wide dissemination of grant products.
| Back to Surveys and Reports Overview | CoSA home | CoSA Site Map