Evaluation report on the acquisition component of the Acquisition and Processing of Private Archives Program (2019–2020 to 2023–2024)

Executive summary
1. Objectives of the evaluation
2. Program description
3. Methodology and limitations of the evaluation
4. Evaluation findings
5. Conclusion
6. Recommendations
Appendix A: Management response and action plan
Appendix B: Logic model for the acquisition and processing of Private Archives Program
Appendix C: Performance measurement strategy
Appendix D: Results of the donor and staff surveys
Appendix E: Private archives acquisitions examples
Appendix F: Bibliography
Footnotes

Executive summary

Introduction

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the acquisition component of the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) Acquisition and Processing of Private Archives Program (APPAP). APPAP is part of LAC’s core responsibility: Acquiring and preserving documentary heritage. Through this program, LAC acquires documentary heritage of historical value from the general public, national institutions, non-governmental organizations and the private sector via donation and purchase agreements. The program ensures that private archives, both analog and digital, are acquired and made discoverable for the use of Canadians.

Archival acquisition is how an institution gains physical and intellectual control over documentary heritage material it has obtained through donation, purchase or transfer. It involves an assessment of the material by archival experts to determine its suitability for acquisition according to the collection policies and criteria of the institution as well as established archival science principles and practices for determining historical/archival significance and value.

The acquisition decisions and priorities of LAC are governed by its Evaluation and Acquisitions Policy Framework (2016) and the Private Archives Acquisition Orientation 2019–2024.

Evaluation scope

The evaluation covered the period from 2019–2020 to 2023–2024 and addressed the Program’s performance using the following questions:

To what extent are the private archives acquisition policies, strategy and procedures being followed and meeting their objectives?
How efficient is the process at LAC for acquiring private archives?
What progress has been made in attaining the expected short-, medium- and long-term program results to which the component contributes (see Appendix B)?

Methodology

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the 2016 Treasury Board Policy on Results and Directive on Results. The evaluation used a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative and quantitative lines of inquiry, including a document and literature review, key informant interviews, surveys of donors and archival employees, and analysis of financial and performance data.

Main findings

Overall, the acquisition component of the APPAP is performing well. The acquisition policy instruments are still relevant and are actively used, the acquisition process works in accordance with the established policy instruments, and the Program is making good progress towards achieving its intended results. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed and areas that need further improvement. Donors are primarily driven by LAC’s national standing and the opportunity to preserve their legacy. However, their satisfaction with the donation process and interaction with LAC staff varies significantly, particularly for those whose offers were declined or withdrawn, highlighting the need for improved clarity, communication and timeliness throughout the donation process.

The evaluation noted that certain aspects of the policy instruments need to be revised to ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ rights are respected and that there is a lack of specific policy instruments about acquiring material created by or about First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples. It also noted that the unpredictability of financial allocations for acquisition purchasing affects the Program’s ability to pursue major acquisition opportunities on short notice and to proactively acquire and adequately address underdeveloped areas of the collection. However, the evaluation found no evidence that there are significant or persistent resource shortages preventing the Program from achieving its results. Finally, the acquisition process needs to be re-examined taking into consideration the improvements suggested by staff and donors.

Recommendations

The following are the recommendations to Program management:

Acquisition policy instruments that honour Indigenous rights: Ensure that acquisition policies and procedures are free of colonial or discriminatory concepts. Develop specific policy instruments and procedures to address the data governance needs of Indigenous Peoples and to guide outreach and consultation activities with Indigenous communities in the acquisition of private archives.
Enhance donor communication, support and outreach: Update information on LAC’s “Donate archival material” website regarding the donation of archival material and include links to LAC’s Evaluation and Acquisition Policy Framework and Private Archives Acquisition Orientation. Develop guidance and support tools for donors that explain the process and associated timelines using simple terminology. Develop tools for formal recognition of donors’ contributions to the national documentary heritage.
Re-examine processes and strengthen staff professional development: Re-examine processes and simplify internal procedures to improve the acquisition process. Gather data to identify opportunities to optimize the use of available resources, such as ensuring a better balance between acquisition and processing-related activities in staff workload. Provide more training to staff in the areas of cultural sensitivity, Indigenous relations and people skills to help improve donor relations and the experience of donors.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management’s response to the recommendations and the action plan it has put forward are set out in Appendix A.

1. Objectives of the evaluation

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the acquisition component of the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) Acquisition and Processing of Private Archives Program. The evaluation assessed the Program’s performance over a five-year period, from 2019–2020 to 2023–2024, and addressed the following questions:

To what extent are the private archives acquisition policies, strategy and procedures being followed and meeting their objectives?
How efficient is the process at LAC for acquiring private archives?
What progress has been made in attaining the expected short-, medium- and long-term program results to which the component contributes (see Appendix B)?

2. Program description

2.1. Acquisition and Processing of Private Archives Program

The Acquisition and Processing of Private Archives Program^{Footnote 1} is part of LAC’s core responsibility: Acquiring and preserving documentary heritage. Through this program, LAC acquires documentary heritage of historical value from the general public, national institutions, non-governmental organizations and the private sector via donation and purchase agreements. The Program ensures that private archives, both analog and digital, are acquired and made discoverable for the use of Canadians. It is administered by the Science and Governance and the Social Life and Culture private archives directorates within the Private Archives and Published Heritage Branch^{Footnote 2} (formerly Archives Branch).

The Science and Governance Private Archives Division is responsible for private archives from the economic, scientific, political, administrative and military spheres of Canadian society, while the Social Life and Culture Private Archives Division is responsible for private archives from the social, cultural and artistic spheres of Canadian society.

For simplicity’s sake, the term “LAC’s private archives” (LPA) will be used to jointly refer to the above divisions throughout the report.

2.2. Private archives acquisition process/workflow^{Footnote 3}

According to the literature, archival acquisition involves “seeking and receiving materials from any source by transfer, donation, or purchase.”^{Footnote 4} It is the result of archival appraisal and accessioning. Archival appraisal is the process through which a repository determines whether records and other materials have permanent or enduring value in relation to its mandate and collection policies.^{Footnote 5} Accessioning is “the physical and legal addition of predominantly unpublished documentary material to an archival repository’s holdings.”^{Footnote 6}

Appraisal decisions are of paramount importance as they impact the repository’s overall collection development, as well as related operational activities such as accessibility and preservation. A common practice among archival institutions is to develop an acquisitions strategy, which documents the principles and criteria that guide appraisal and acquisition decisions. This further helps an institution make strategic decisions about the resources, labour and storage infrastructure dedicated to the care of its collections.

The acquisition decisions and priorities of LAC are governed by its Evaluation and Acquisitions Policy Framework (2016) and the Private Archives Acquisition Orientation 2019–2024. Private material is acquired through donations, transfers and purchases and is assessed using established archival science standards and practices.

The acquisition process follows the same basic steps with slight variations for purchases and proactive acquisitions. In those cases, the archivists perform an analysis of the holdings in the archival portfolio for which they are responsible and an environmental scan to identify material that would address collection development needs, then provide a recommendation to management.

In the case of donations, the process is typically as follows:

Donation offers are submitted to LAC by completing the “Offer of archival material form” and sending it to the Gifts section by email.^{Footnote 7} Donors can also first make an inquiry to the Gifts section by email or phone, following which they are provided with the donation form.
The Gifts section sends an acknowledgement email to the donor and triages offers to the appropriate archival portfolio.
The portfolio archivists review the offer and determine if the material fits with LAC’s private archives collection policies and priorities.
The archivists prepare an Evaluation and Acquisition Report (EAR) in which they describe the material offered (e.g., its physical condition, contents, volume, estimated level of effort required to describe and arrange it) and provide an analysis of its significance and whether it would strengthen or complement material in existing collections. If the material is not appropriate for LAC to acquire, they will notify the donor and, depending on the case, may refer the donor to another cultural institution.^{Footnote 8} An EAR is also prepared for additions of new material to existing collections, proactive acquisitions initiated by the archivists and purchases.
The EAR is reviewed by the portfolio manager, who provides approval and, depending on the case, submits the report for further approval to the directors. Additions of new material to existing collections are approved by managers, while new acquisitions are approved by directors. In the case of purchases, depending on the price, further approvals by higher levels are needed,^{Footnote 9} in which case a briefing note to the appropriate level is prepared.
Upon approval of the EAR, the archivist informs the donor of the decision, updates the status of the offer in the Acquisition Case Tracking System (ACTS) and contacts the Physical Control team from the Preservation and Digitization Branch with the donor’s contact information.
The Physical Control team contacts the donor to arrange transportation of the material from the donor’s location to LAC. In the case of digital material, the archivists notify the Digital Integration team from the Digital Services Sector to arrange ingest of the material into the appropriate LAC systems.
The archivist prepares the Deed of Gift—the legal instrument through which the donor transfers ownership of the material to LAC—and mails it to the donor for signature.
The donor returns the signed Deed of Gift to the archivist for appropriate signatures on LAC’s side, following which a final official copy of the Deed of Gift is sent to the donor for their records.^{Footnote 10}
If the donor has requested a tax receipt or cultural property certification, the archivist informs the Private Archives Quality Assurance and Coordination team, who make the arrangements for internal or external monetary evaluation of the material.
The archivist proceeds with the arrangement and description of the material, which is a requirement for external assessments. Material of monetary value above $15,000^{Footnote 11} requires external appraisal by the National Archival Appraisal Board (NAAB), who have their own application process and procedures.
Upon receipt of the NAAB monetary appraisal, the archivist informs the donor of the result and proceeds with the issuing of the tax receipt so that the donor can claim a tax credit.
If the donor has requested a cultural property certification, the NAAB appraisal and other required documentation are submitted to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board (CCPERB) ^{Footnote 12} for their assessment.
The archivist informs the donor of the result of the assessment and provides the appropriate tax receipt. Tax credit receipts resulting from monetary appraisal by NAAB or CCPERB must be issued within five years of the signing of the Deed of Gift.

Additions of new material to existing collections follow the same process. In the case of purchases, a purchase agreement is provided to the owner of the material, payment is issued and the material is transferred to LAC.

2.3. Program resources

The financial and human resources allocated to the program are presented in Table 1 for information purposes.

Table 1: Program resources: Actual spending and human resources
Description	2019–2020	2020–2021	2021–2022	2022–2023	2023–2024
Actual spending: base budget (in dollars $)
Salary	5,599,125	5,079,235	4,579,430	4,921,901	6,464,180
O&M	157,195	6,885	23,471	63,352	586,039
Total	5,756,321	5,086,120	4,602,902	4,985,253	7,050,218
Actual spending: temporary funding (in dollars $)
Salary	1,880,895	1,933,938	1,104,597	283,856	-
O&M	108,238	28,698	93,093	75,094	17,283
G&Cs	1,190,037	1,107,233	719,565	-	-
Total	3,179,170	3,069,870	1,917,255	358,950	17,283
Grand total	8,935,491	8,155,990	6,520,157	5,344,203	7,067,501
Human resources (in full-time equivalents—FTEs)
FTEs: base budget
Actual FTEs	65	58	49	55	67
FTEs: temporary funding
Actual FTEs	24	24	13	3	-
Grand total	89	82	62	58	67
Source: LAC’s financial systems

3. Methodology and limitations of the evaluation

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the 2016 Treasury Board Policy on Results and Directive on Results, including the evaluation standards described therein. The evaluation used a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative and quantitative lines of inquiry, including a document and literature review, key informant interviews, surveys of donors and archival employees, and analysis of financial and performance data.

The response rate for the donor survey was less than 30%, which limits judgments about the prevalence and the severity of issues with the donation process raised by respondents. Nevertheless, the survey results provided valuable insights into donor experiences and areas for improvement.

4. Evaluation findings

4.1 Efficiency and effectiveness of LPA’s acquisition policy instruments

Finding: The policy instruments are still relevant and are actively used. They are consistent with best practices in the archival field. The Program has taken some steps to keep the instruments up to date. However, certain aspects need to be re-examined and updated, and supporting instruments need to be revised to ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ rights are respected.

4.1.1 Relevance of the Evaluation and Acquisition Policy Framework

According to management interviews and staff surveys, the Evaluation and Acquisition Policy Framework (2016) is still relevant, but it requires updating and certain aspects of it need to be re-examined. Management sees the Framework as an evergreen document that provides sufficient flexibility to set and adjust acquisition priorities in response to changing and emerging social contexts. Some staff, however, find that there is a contradiction between the Framework’s “representativeness” and “national significance” principles and that these principles need to be reviewed. It was pointed out that the concept of national significance is not inclusive and has certain colonial and privilege connotations, as not all creators who were influential in their fields were able to achieve national recognition due to social barriers and systemic discrimination.

There is evidence in the Program documentation that the Framework is actively used. The evaluation found that key elements of the Framework are reflected in supporting operational instruments and guidelines.

4.1.2 Effectiveness of the Evaluation and the Acquisition Policy Framework, and Private Archives Acquisition Orientation 2019-2024 in addressing collection development issues

Management interviews and staff surveys revealed that, although the Evaluation and Acquisition Policy Framework and the Private Archives Acquisition Orientation (PAAO) policy instruments^{Footnote 13} are intended to work together, it is the orientation instruments that are primarily used to guide collection development and to establish strategies for addressing collection deficiencies.

The evaluation observed that the perspectives of management and staff differ regarding the effectiveness of PAAO 2019–2024 in addressing collection development issues. Management maintained that PAAO 2019–2024 was effective as it supported the selection of material, acquisition decision-making and the identification of collection areas that need to be strengthened. Staff, however, stated that the policy instruments need to be supplemented by adequate resources and financing to effectively address collection development issues and deficiencies. They also noted that there is too much reliance on donation offers and not enough incentive for proactive acquisition and outreach.

The evaluation also noted that there is a lack of specific policy instruments about acquiring material created by or about First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The existing instruments are too generic to address the specific concerns and needs of Indigenous Peoples and communities. Other national cultural institutions, such as the National Library of New Zealand^{Footnote 14} and the National Archives of Australia,^{Footnote 15} have developed specific protocols or principles that guide their institutions in all matters related to the traditional knowledge and cultural heritage of Indigenous Peoples in those countries. LAC does not yet have such guidelines.

The evaluation team reached out to LAC’s Indigenous Initiatives staff to get their perspective on private archives acquisition practices and the inclusiveness of the collection with regard to Indigenous heritage material. They advised that the Program re-examine its acquisition practices and instruments to ensure that they are not “extractive”^{Footnote 16} and that they respect Indigenous data sovereignty, data governance and community ownership. In addition, to the extent possible, the Program should explore flexible arrangements—such as co-management stewardship models—that allow Indigenous communities to retain ownership of and access rights to their material. Indigenous Initiatives staff also advised that, in cases where donation offers contain Indigenous material, archival staff need to ensure that the material was obtained with the permission of the communities concerned and that the access conditions set by the donor take into consideration the needs and preferences of the communities.

The Program is currently in the process of developing a new acquisition orientation for the period 2025–2030 with a focus on First Nations, Inuit and Métis; equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility (EDIA); youth; and users, which is consistent with LAC’s strategic priorities expressed in its Vision 2030 and its 2025-27 Strategic Orientation. The new acquisition orientation will be premised on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Joinet-Orentlicher Principles, the Tandanya Declaration, Indigenous data sovereignty and the recommendations of the Steering Committee on Canada’s Archives regarding reconciliation. Management also indicated they have been doing extensive consultations with LAC’s Indigenous Advisory Circle, the Youth Advisory Council and various archival institutions.

4.2 Efficiency of the LPA acquisition process

Finding: Overall, the private archives acquisition process works in accordance with the established policy instruments, and the Program is managing its resources within its allocated budget. There are appropriate mechanisms in place to identify collection deficiencies and ensure that the collection is inclusive and captures the diversity of Canadian society as it evolves. The experience of the Program indicates that the unpredictability of financial allocations for purchasing private archives affects the Program’s agility/nimbleness to pursue major acquisition opportunities on a short notice and limits its ability to proactively acquire and address underdeveloped areas of the collection. However, based on the Program’s performance and financial data, the evaluation found no evidence that there are significant or persistent resource shortages preventing the Program from achieving its results.

4.2.1 Acquisition planning

The evaluation observed that planning practices vary among the different sections/teams/portfolios, mainly because of the subject matter domains involved and the associated external environment. Acquisition planning in general is challenging as there are a lot of elements of uncertainty and unpredictability. While LAC strives to use a variety of acquisition methods, there appears to be a strong reliance on donations and limited opportunity for outreach/proactive approaches.

From management’s point of view, acquisitions cannot be planned in terms of quantity. This is because it is not possible to anticipate the content of the donation offers that LAC may receive or to predict certain external circumstances (such as auctions, closures of organizations, corporate restructurings, takeovers or bankruptcies) that could lead to acquisitions. The latter typically occur at short notice and need to be addressed in a nimble manner; they also tend to be resource- and labour-intensive, and there is not always sufficient capacity in the two divisions to handle such acquisitions. Furthermore, both senior management and managers acknowledged that budget allocations have been unpredictable over the past five years, further hampering their ability to plan and acquire proactively. Because of that, donations remain the preferred method of acquisition.

Another important planning consideration cited by managers is staff capacity. Some noted that they do not have adequate human resources and are forced to rely on casual and part-time employees to supplement the existing teams. Resource estimation practices vary among managers, with some using quotas and planning matrices based on past precedents. For the most part, resource planning is derived from the Evaluation Acquisition Reports prepared by the archivists, which provide estimates of the level of effort required, the time necessary to arrange and describe the material, and any potential preservation treatments that may be needed. Certain managers have sought to address capacity issues by ensuring that staff in their section are proficient in a variety of subject areas and can be utilized interchangeably.

From staff’s perspective, acquisition planning refers to the more practical and operational aspects leading up to and following the acquisition decision. Typically, it involves consultations with the donors, management and other LAC divisions, such as Preservation, Physical Control, Digital Integration and other private archives sections. The primary planning considerations identified by staff are the format and quantity of the material. Specialized areas are consulted as needed—for example, when staff need to understand the resources required for preserving certain types and quantities of analog material or when they are dealing with large volumes of digital material and unknown formats. In some cases, staff may need to plan for specialized equipment or software and notify the appropriate support areas in advance.

4.2.2 Factors considered in acquisition decision-making

The Program documentation, management interview data and staff survey data show that acquisition decisions are made at the director level for all new acquisitions. Managers can approve the acquisition of accruals^{Footnote 17} and review the recommendations made by archival staff in the Evaluation Acquisition Reports.

In general, the reasoning of staff when making acquisition recommendations revolves around the following:

Does the material help address underdeveloped areas of LAC’s collection?
Does the material duplicate material already in the collection?
Is the material related to an area of Canadian life or history that is not well documented or is it related to an area for which there is an abundant amount of publicly available information?
Is it an enduring piece of history that will provide context or continue to be relevant in the future?
Is it about something that is well known or not known at all?

The staff survey data also revealed that “uniqueness” and “alignment with LAC’s acquisition priorities” are the criteria most used by archivists when assessing material for acquisition (Figure 1), followed by “historical significance,” “national significance,” “sufficiency,” “EDIA” and “physical condition.” In their explanations, staff noted that while all criteria are important and are considered, they do not have the same weight. For example, “uniqueness” and “rarity” are considered on a case-by-case basis, “sufficiency” and “physical condition” help determine which material should be excluded from an acquisition, and the “needs of researchers/ LAC’s users” criterion is used in a complimentary way because it is not considered a priority. Staff pointed out that while criteria such as “time needed to arrange and describe,” “preservation” and “transportation costs” do not necessarily prohibit acquisition, they are usually considered by management when deciding whether to approve an acquisition, especially at times when resources or storage space are limited. Some staff also noted that they do not consider the “cost of preservation” criterion as they do not see it as part of their responsibilities. Others remarked that the “rarity” criterion is used on a case-by-case basis because it requires physical examination of the material, which is not always possible.

Figure 1 - Factors/criteria used in acquisition recommendations (in %)

Figure 1 - Factors/criteria used in acquisition recommendations (in %) - Text version

The graph shows the ratings that Private Archives staff gave to the factors or criteria they use when making acquisition recommendations. In percentages.

Factors/criteria used in acquisition recommendations (in %)
Factor/criteria	Percentage
Historical significance	95
National significance	95
Sufficiency (within the collection)	89
Rarity	74
Uniqueness	100
Needs of researchers/LAC’s users	68
Alignment with LAC acquisition priorities	100
EDIA (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Accessibility)	89
Physical condition of the material	89
Format of material (for digital and AV)	68
Time needed to arrange and describe	53
Access (how quickly the material will become available to researchers)	53
Cost of preservation	53
Transportation costs	21
Need for appraisal trip	21
Other	5

The factors considered by management in their decision-making included the following:

Linkages to LAC’s Evaluation and Acquisition Policy Framework and the Private Archives Acquisition Orientation 2019–2024.
Availability of financing for purchases.
The quantity, complexity and physical condition of the material.
Historical significance, national significance, representativeness and sufficiency within the collection.
Whether the material would complement the collection or be a duplication.
Capacity to complete the work in accordance with LAC service standards and tax credit receipt-issuing requirements.

Management indicated that they strive to make acquisition decisions in a timely manner, usually within seven business days of receiving the Evaluation Acquisition Report. They also pointed out that delays typically occur after the decision has been made, during the negotiation process with the donor and at the monetary appraisal stage. Donor negotiations are complex and heavily dependent on the donor, who can withdraw their offer at any time. Quite often, donors are reluctant to part with the material, and archival staff must be sensitive to this. Communication problems, lack of timely response on the part of some donors and exceptional circumstances beyond the control of either party were the most common factors cited by managers as affecting negotiations. Logistics around setting up both internal and external monetary appraisals are time consuming and depend on the availability of appraisal experts. In the case of external appraisals, they also involve two external bodies, the NAAB and CCPERB, which have their own separate application processes and timelines. In addition, program staff must devote considerable effort to preparing the material for appraisal.

It was also pointed out that priority is given to donors who have requested a tax credit receipt or who have time constraints associated with their donation, such as estate administration.

4.2.3 Methods for identifying deficiencies in the collection and for ensuring the collection is representative of the diversity of Canadian society

Both staff and management noted the following means used to identify which areas of the collection are underdeveloped and to ensure the collection reflects the diversity of Canadian society:

The development of a strategic acquisition orientation document every five years informed by an in-depth analysis of the entire collection.
Staff’s knowledge and understanding of their individual portfolios.
Staff’s awareness and knowledge of the holdings of other cultural institutions.
Environmental scanning and research related to the subject matter of staff’s portfolios.
Networking with creators and communities and involvement in various forums related to the subject matter expertise of staff.

Management indicated that the development of the strategic acquisition orientation is typically undertaken by a working group comprised of senior archival staff and overseen by a director. The working group sends a template to portfolio staff to gather information about the strengths, underdeveloped areas, strategies for improvement, and future priorities related to the parts of the collection managed by each portfolio. The information collected is then used to create the new five-year acquisition orientation.

Some managers and staff pointed out that certain deficiencies in the collection reflect historical circumstances and broader societal trends that it is not always possible to address. In addition, according to staff, it takes between 30 and 40 years for contemporary records that are still in active use to become archival and available for donation or purchase. Furthermore, certain fields themselves lack social representation and diversity and pose challenges to collection development. Finally, some communities are historically distrustful of government institutions and are unwilling to place their records in the care of LAC.

There appear to be some issues related to the methods through which collection is being developed. According to some staff, the current approach is too high-level and too focused on the national significance and the underrepresentation of events, geographic locations and groups. Instead, attention should be given to an analysis that considers the missing perspectives of societal actors and looks at how significant historical events or groups are documented (e.g., from an outsider’s perspective or from personal experience; representing a researched or a lived experience). Other staff argued that too much focus on documenting underrepresented voices can lead to losing sight of documenting the nation. They noted that a more balanced approach is needed to ensure that the most important voices are captured. It was also pointed out that the portfolio-based collection structure is outdated because it is based on areas of collecting and selection developed in the 1960s to 1980s, which makes it unsuitable for capturing the diversity of Canada.

From the managers’ perspective, LAC and archives in general have an important role to play in raising awareness among authors, creators and other societal actors about the importance of archives and good record-keeping practices. According to managers, not all societal actors are aware of the archival potential and the significance of the records they hold. Those in the beginning of their careers have the tendency not to think about their records or the archives they would be creating. Managers pointed out that this is the reason why establishing relationships with societal actors and starting the conversation early are so important. In some portfolios, managers stated that they are turning their attention to more contemporary authors and creators to document current developments in the national scene; in other portfolios, the preferred practice is to acquire collections in their entirety at the end of the individual’s career or after the individual’s death, because they do not have the resources to make more frequent acquisitions and also because active professionals still need their records. Management is also placing a strong emphasis on increasing diversity in hiring to ensure that there are different perspectives and to foster a greater understanding of social issues within their teams.

4.2.4 Methods for addressing underrepresented or excluded groups

Program documentation and management interview data indicate that efforts have been made to acquire material related to underrepresented or historically excluded groups. The Private Archives Acquisition Orientation 2019–2024^{Footnote 18} prioritized, at the broadest, overall level, the proactive acquisition of “materials created by or documenting:

First Nations, Inuit and the Métis Nation, in accordance with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action;
Multicultural communities;
Francophone culture;
Women;
Sexual diversity and gender expression;
Regional diversity: Atlantic, Western, and Northern Canada.”

Of the 25 acquisition areas listed in this orientation, eight have more specific acquisition priorities aimed at strengthening the inclusiveness and diversity of the collection. For example, the Labour area prioritized organizations assisting workers with disabilities, the Medicine and Health area gave consideration to women fulfilling roles beyond nursing, and the Social Justice area focused on sexual diversity and gender expression, the contemporary women’s movement and the LGBTQ2+ [sic] community and activism. There are two areas in particular dedicated to First Nations, Inuit and the Métis Nation and to multicultural communities. The emphasis in these two areas was on outreach to Indigenous creators^{Footnote 19} and on engaging with the more established communities that have immigrated to Canada since the 1960s.^{Footnote 20}

Furthermore, in its Vision 2030 LAC made a commitment to be more inclusive in its acquisitions and focus on “racialized groups, linguistic minorities, members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ communities, refugees and immigrants, and people with disabilities.”

The evaluation observed that the Program relies on staff subject matter expertise and the networks (both professional and community) that staff have established to address issues related to underrepresented and excluded groups. Both management and staff noted that this is a sensitive area that requires sustained outreach and trust building. It was also noted that while these efforts may not always result in material coming to LAC, they are important because they support the collaboration principle of LAC’s Evaluation and Acquisition Framework. The collaboration principle is meant to ensure that documentary heritage material is not severed from the community it depicts or serves and is therefore placed in the care of the most appropriate institution. In addition, it recognizes that LAC is not the sole entity responsible for acquiring and preserving Canada’s national documentary heritage and that LAC works in partnership with other cultural institutions, requiring it at times to take on a more supportive rather than leading role. Management highlighted the important work private archivists are doing in this regard. For example, staff are providing archival advice and support to the National Sixties Scoop Healing Foundation. There are also staff members who are involved with various communities and organizations such as the Association for Canadian Jewish Studies, the Canadian Pride Historical Society and the Black Artists’ Networks in Dialogue.

However, there is some indication in both the management interview data and the staff survey data that the Program has challenges with proactive acquisitions and does not have optimal capacity for donation outreach to underrepresented communities.^{Footnote 21} From staff’s perspective, this is largely due to a lack of resources and dedicated time. Staff also noted that they have not been able to devote sufficient time to researching potential donors or acquisitions because they must balance their time with other work activities. Many indicated that they could not devote more than a few hours or days, sometimes spread out over a month or a year.

4.2.5 Main challenges and issues encountered with the acquisition process

Overall staff and management agree about the main challenges affecting private archives acquisitions. Staff’s perspective, however, is more detailed, as indicated in Table 2. It appears that the lack of a dedicated and stable acquisition purchasing budget prevents staff from proactively pursuing acquisition opportunities that could effectively strengthen less developed areas of the collection. Testimonies of both management and staff indicate that they have to seek additional financing and do not have the financial flexibility and nimbleness to be effective in auctions or to pursue the purchasing of collections that become available on short notice, given that negotiations leading to purchases take some time. In some cases, they were able to secure funding with the help of the LAC Foundation.

In addition, staff emphasized that they do not feel comfortable engaging in negotiations with potential donors and underrepresented communities knowing they do not have secure financial backing. As donation and tax credit are not the most viable options for all donors or communities, staff need to be able to purchase the material. Moreover, without proper resourcing in terms of both time and financing, staff noted that they are limited in their ability to effectively build relationships with potential donors. Staff stressed that they need resources to allow them to be more visible at various events and engage with creators and underrepresented communities. Furthermore, staff indicated that limited resource allocation prevents them from doing site visits and examining the material firsthand at the donor’s location. Instead, they rely primarily on the information provided by the donor via the donation form/preliminary questionnaire to make assessment decisions, which is not optimal.

Table 2: Major issues affecting acquisitions
Management perspective	Staff perspective
Insufficient permanent staff. Workload of staff is too heavy. Challenging to find alternatives to address resourcing issues. Reliance on donation offers and limited ability to acquire proactively. Infrastructure capacity: lack of tools for transfer and processing of digital material; challenges in obtaining software licenses for sporadic use; limitations to ACTS capacity; reliance on multiple systems that do not function in an integrated, seamless way; storage space.	Acquisition process redundancies: Additions of new material to existing collections required to go through the same process as new acquisitions. Excessive approval waiting times for smaller/single item accruals. Staff workload: Staff overburdened with excessive administrative tasks (e.g., monetary appraisals) limiting time for donor relationship building and timely updates. Material transfer: Lengthy physical transfer delays for accepted material. Work processes and procedures: Insufficient guidance documentation, lack of a centralized procedures repository, insufficient information sharing and inconsistent practices across divisions. Acquisition of digital material: Lack of strategy for acquiring the records of digital creators (e.g., vloggers and influencers). Procedures are unstable, change frequently and are not tailored to the needs of private archives. The process is vague, cumbersome and time-consuming. Appraisal of digital material: Challenges in appraising due to lack of past precedents or market comparables, resulting in undervaluation that impacts donors. Deed of Gift: Inability to use electronic signatures. Infrastructure: Inadequate digital infrastructure support and limited capacity to handle large digital acquisitions. Inability to read all digital formats and insufficient expertise for transferring material from diverse and complex digital systems. Donor communication: Difficulty explaining digital material requirements to donors who have limited technical knowledge.

The Program’s financial data (see Table 1) shows that the Program’s base budget was stable throughout the period examined by the evaluation and even increased in 2023–2024. However, a further examination of the Program’s financial documentation revealed that there was a noticeable decline in spending for private archives acquisition purchasing between 2014–2015 and 2022–2023, followed by an increase in 2023–2024, as shown in Figure 2.^{Footnote 22}

Figure 2 - Private archives purchase spending (historical)

Source: Program financial data.

Figure 2 - Private archives purchase spending (historical) - Text version

The graph shows the historical purchase spending data of LAC's private archives.

Private archives purchase spending (historical)
Year	Spending amount (in dollars)
2014/15	1,120,073
2015/16	489,788
2016/17	272,806
2017/18	2,625
2018/19	94,000
2019/20	45,243
2020/21	0
2021/22	16,096
2022/23	16,950
2023/24	436,749
2024/25	8,500

Staff made various suggestions for improving the acquisition process. These are summarized in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Staff suggestions for improving the acquisition process
Process element	Improvements recommended
Resources	Create a comprehensive employee resource portal for sharing operational procedures and guidelines, managed by a cross-sectional committee. Increase time and resources for community engagement, donor relations and site visits. Hire more archival assistants to allow archivists to focus on acquisitions. Hire more digital subject matter experts in each portfolio and provide more training on digital material. Increase information sharing across private archives portfolios about what is being acquired and on strategies for maintaining relationships with creators and communities. Dedicate resources to developing internal expertise on various types of data exports.
Work processes and procedures	Create an expedited process for less complicated accruals. Clarify procedures for donations containing published material. Improve the donor preliminary questionnaire by providing more detailed instructions and using simple language. Improve processes and procedures related to digital material. Clarify roles and responsibilities between Private Archives divisions and Digital Services Sector regarding the acquisition of digital material. Integrate multiple forms into a single document to streamline the documentation sent to donors.
Infrastructure/ system	Create a tracking and automated notification functionality to allow donors and staff to track the progress of an acquisition across the various stages of the process. Implement electronic signatures for the Deed of Gift. Enable staff to view, manipulate and ingest digital records on site at the donor’s location and to describe digital archives themselves (e.g., adding contextual and donor-generated descriptions). Procure ICA-AToM (open-source archival description software) and stop using databases that are not adapted to the needs of private archives. Improve maintenance of essential analog AV equipment and procure equipment for reading obsolete formats.

4.2.6 Experience of donors with the donation process

Motivation for selecting LAC for their donation

Donors had various motivations for donating to LAC, but the most common are the following:

Donors perceive LAC as the optimal choice due to its status as a national institution.
Donors wish to preserve their personal or family legacy, which they perceive to be of national significance.
Donors feel pride in giving back and contributing to Canada’s heritage.
Donors trust that the material they offer will be accessible to Canadians and researchers in the future.

Some donors were motivated by a presentation given by LAC staff at a public event the donors attended, while others were compelled to donate based on the terms and conditions of established funding agreements.

Satisfaction with the process and interaction with LAC staff

Data from the LAC donor survey^{Footnote 23} revealed that donors had different experiences with the process (see Appendix D and p. 16 for detailed survey results). The data showed that respondents in the accepted and declined offer categories were more satisfied with the process than those in the withdrawn offer category. For example, 52% of donors of accepted offers and 31% of declined offers indicated that the process was clear, compared to 12% of withdrawn offers; 49% of accepted offers and 33% of declined offers indicated that process was easy to follow, compared to 13% of withdrawn offers. In addition, 67% of respondents of accepted offers and 30% of declined offers indicated that their offer was given sufficient consideration, compared to 12% of withdrawn offers (Appendix D, Figures 8–10). The most common reasons for withdrawing their offer, cited in donors’ open-ended responses, were poor quality of information about the process, slow response time or lack of response from LAC, and lack of consistent communication or follow-up.

Survey data also indicates that, overall, donors’ interactions with LAC staff were positive. Respondents across all categories indicated that staff were professional and courteous and used the donor’s preferred official language in their communications (Appendix D, Figures 11–13). The open-ended responses from donors indicated that donors most appreciated when LAC staff were personal, attentive, patient and engaged in their interactions. Some reported that staff gave them a tour of LAC’s facilities and were delighted to see firsthand how their materials would be cared for. Others appreciated that staff made extra efforts to accommodate their needs or took a personal interest in them and their well-being.

“The person who attended to us was extremely pleasant—the donor was an older and complex person. He gave much time and showed understanding, patience and excellent advice throughout. And for follow-up questions and access. And checked in after to see if all well. Very professional and kind.”

“We very much enjoyed the personal tour of the archives that we were given when we delivered our materials there. It really personalized the process and the institution for us.”

“I had very good communications from D.R. He even checked to see if my lost hat showed up at the archives! Unfortunately not…”

“La personne qui m’a accompagnée dans ce processus a été remarquable de gentillesse et d’attention. Et surtout de bons conseils.”

However, certain aspects of the interactions between donors and LAC staff were rated less positively by respondents who withdrew their donation offer and by those whose offer was declined (Appendix D, Figures 11–13).

For example, 35% of respondents in the declined offer and 13% in the withdrawn offer categories strongly agreed that LAC staff explained the process in detail, including any limitations, compared to 69% in the accepted offer category. With respect to LAC staff providing explanations of the timelines and options available to donors, 35% of respondents in the declined and 13% in the withdrawn categories strongly agreed, compared to 52% in the accepted category. Similarly, 28% of respondents in the declined and 13% in the withdrawn categories strongly agreed that LAC staff explained the decision-making process regarding donation offers, compared to 48% in the accepted offer category (Appendix D, Figures 11–13).

Respondents in the withdrawn offer category were the least satisfied with the availability of staff to answer questions (13% strongly agree compared to 36% of declined offers and 64% of accepted offers), the promptness of staff’s responses to questions (25% strongly agree compared to 36% of declined offers and 57% of accepted offers), the quality of staff’s answers (13% strongly agree compared to 36% of declined offers and 69% of accepted offers) and the support provided to them throughout the process (14% strongly agree compared to 32% of declined offers and 60% of accepted offers) (Appendix D, Figures 11–13).

Even though not all donors had a positive experience with the process and interaction with staff, there are some encouraging signs. Survey data indicates that donors’ willingness to engage further with LAC, to make another offer or to recommend LAC to others were not seriously affected (Figures 3–5). There are some exceptions in the withdrawn donor category, but overall this group tends to have higher dissatisfaction rates in all aspects of their experience. Respondents in the declined offer group were interested in engaging with LAC by exploring the collections (58%), while the withdrawn offer group is more interested in contributing to crowdsourcing or other special projects (66%) and in attending events and exhibitions (33%); 25% of donors in the accepted category would like to be a speaker for an event or exhibition promoting the material they donated (Appendix D, Figure 14).

Figure 3 - Donor willingness to engage further/continue to engage with LAC based on their experience with the donation process and their interaction with LAC staff (in %)

Figure 3 - Donor willingness to engage further/continue to engage with LAC based on their experience with the donation process and their interaction with LAC staff (in %) - Text version

The graph presents the ratings of participants in the donor survey regarding their willingness to engage further or continue to engage with LAC based on their experience with the donation process and their interaction with LAC staff. In percentages.

Donor willingness to engage further/ continue to engage with LAC based on their experience with the donation process and their interaction with LAC staff (in %)
Willingness	Accepted offers	Declined offers	Withdrawn offers
Yes	48	41	37
No	13	24	50
Unsure	26	28	13
Prefer not to answer	13	7	0

Figure 4 - Likelihood of donors donating to LAC again or continuing to donate to LAC (in %)

Figure 4 - Likelihood of donors donating to LAC again or continuing to donate to LAC (in %) - Text version

The graph presents the ratings of participants in the donor survey regarding the likelihood of them donating to LAC again or continuing to donate to LAC. In percentages.

Likelihood of donors donating to LAC again or continuing to donate to LAC (in %)
Type of offer	Very unlikely	Somewhat unlikely	Undecided/Neutral	Somewhat likely	Very likely
Accepted offers	7	0	13	26	54
Declined offers	21	10	24	14	31
Withdrawn offers	38	25	0	12	25

Figure 5 - Likelihood of donors recommending LAC to someone who they know is considering donating (%)

Figure 5 - Likelihood of donors recommending LAC to someone who they know is considering donating (%) - Text version

The graph shows the ratings that participants in the donor survey gave regarding how likely they are to recommend LAC to someone they know who is considering donating. In percentages.

Likelihood of donors recommending LAC to someone who they know is considering donating (%)
Type of offer	Very unlikely	Somewhat unlikely	Undecided/Neutral	Somewhat likely	Very likely
Accepted offers	4	4	13	17	61
Declined offers	14	17	21	0	38
Withdrawn offers	38	25	0	12	25

Issues encountered with the process and suggested improvements

Open-ended responses in the donor survey revealed that the most common issues experienced by donors across all three categories, and hence the most common areas in need of improvement, are the following:

The length and transparency of the donation process.
The clarity of the criteria used for assessing donation offers.
The frequency of follow-up and the quality and timeliness of communication from LAC staff.
The way donors are acknowledged and treated.

Donors’ comments indicate that LAC needs to better manage the expectations of donors regarding timelines and notification of offer acceptance. Most donors in all three categories asked for more clarity about the process, procedures and decision-making criteria. They would like to see information about the process, criteria and timelines made publicly available and called for the use of plain language in all documentation. Some donors suggested that LAC develop clear guidelines or provide training to donors on how to prepare for the donation process. Others suggested the use of electronic signatures to speed up the process.

Several donors indicated that they would like more frequent follow-up and better communication from LAC staff about the status of their offer. Many expressed frustration at not having heard from LAC about the status of their offer. For some, it had been several years since they had submitted the required paperwork, while for others it had been even longer. In some cases, the lack of response from LAC was interpreted by the donors as a lack of interest in the material, which led them to contact other institutions or, in one case, to destroy some of the material.

There were also calls for greater transparency about the monetary evaluation process and the issuing of tax receipts. For example, donors would like to be informed in advance of the possibility that they may not receive a tax receipt or that the monetary evaluation may show that the material they have offered has no monetary value. This is important for donors as it impacts practical aspects of their lives such as filing their tax returns.

The length of the process was another contentious issue for some donors. While 41% of the accepted offer and 28% of the declined offer groups considered the length of the process reasonable, 63% of the withdrawn offer group did not (Appendix D, Figures 8–10). In addition, there was a consistent call across all three groups for shortening the process and wait times. Several respondents in the accepted offer category even noted that they would not have gone through with their offer if they had known in advance the process would take that long.

There were also some calls for improving how donors are treated. A few noted they did not receive the same level of recognition for their donation offer compared to the experiences they had with other archival institutions. Some described their experience with LAC as “off-putting” or “transactional” and characterized the general demeanour of the institution as “cold,” “detached” and “condescending.” Others pointed out that LAC staff had shown little or no enthusiasm about the material that donors offered and were unconcerned about the emotional significance donors attached to their offer and the level of effort required of them to complete the process. There were also donors who noted that the refusal of their offer could have been handled with more delicacy and empathy.

“I will say that donating to institutions which showed some enthusiasm for what I was offering was a much more affirming process: reassuring to me, as a donor, that what I was offering was valued and would be truly cared for, and therefore an encouragement to complete the donation process. LAC was somewhat cold and businesslike about the whole thing, to the point of detachment and disinterest, at times.”

“Appreciate what people are offering you and indicate interest even though you might decide not to accept things.”

“My experience was not good on many scores. I felt like you were superior and remote rather than truly interested in the history of Canada and the people who make that history.”

“Prendre la décision de faire un don de ses archives personnelles est un geste conséquent. C’est une grande partie de notre vie que l’on souhaite confier à BAC. Il est donc essentiel de bien expliquer le processus aux donateurs et de faire montre de délicatesse en cas de refus.”

LAC’s donations website

The issues donors experienced can partially be attributed to the way information about donating material is organized and presented on LAC’s website. Compared to the websites of other archival institutions,^{Footnote 24} ^{Footnote 25}the policy instruments outlining LAC’s collection strategy and appraisal criteria were not displayed alongside the information about donating, nor were links to them provided. The website provides a basic overview of the process; however, some sections do not have sufficient detail and may be misunderstood by a general audience. For example, the “Getting an appraisal and tax receipt” section does not provide any indication that some appraisals are carried out by external bodies that use their own administrative processes over which LAC has no control. This may create the impression that LAC is solely responsible for all appraisals. The links in the “Deciding copyright and moral rights” section are either broken or link to archived content that may not be up to date. In addition, the information on moral rights uses highly technical and professional terminology that may not be easy for members of the public to understand. There are no guidelines to help donors fill out the donation form, and the form itself is not entirely free of professional terminology. Finally, the website does not provide any information about timelines.

Other archival institutions have better practices for organizing and presenting information about the donation process. For example, the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (BANQ) has a detailed donor guide^{Footnote 26} that outlines all the steps in the process, how decisions about donation offers are made and the associated timelines. The Canadian War Museum has a donation form^{Footnote 27} that uses plain language examples to help the public understand what information they should provide for each section. For example, they invite potential donors to tell them, “What is the historical significance of the objects and/or archival material? Is there a story connected to them? For example: When were they made? How were they used? Who made them? Who did they belong to?” In addition, both institutions have disclaimers on their donation forms stating that the process can be lengthy and that donors cannot expect immediate decisions/responses to their offer. BANQ even specifies that the process can take up to a year and that in case of a refusal, donors would be notified sooner.^{Footnote 28}

4.2.7 Private archives staff’s perspective on donor relations

The evaluation observed that staff are fully aware of their ethical obligations to donors and to LAC and of the negative impact that donor dissatisfaction can have on the institution’s reputation. They are doing their best to have good working relationships with donors, but there are aspects of the relationship that are out of staff’s control, and there are limits to the accommodation they can provide to a donor.

Data from the staff survey revealed that the most challenging aspects of donor relations are the following:

Explaining the acquisition process to donors in a realistic, easy-to-understand way.
Managing donor expectations about timelines and the results of monetary appraisals.
Determining frequency of communication and making sure donors are satisfied.

The data further revealed that the frequency of communication with the donors is determined by the preferences of the donors, their availability and the workload of staff. Communication tends to be more frequent at the beginning of the process as the archivists establish contact with the donor and gain an understanding of the material. After that, communication centres around major milestones such as the approval of the Evaluation and Acquisition Report, signing of the Deed of Gift, monetary appraisal and issuing of the tax receipt. However, this does not apply to donors whose offers have been declined. In such cases, the donors are sent a single communication informing them of this decision.

The support staff offers to donors is mainly focused on helping the donor understand the process, the paperwork involved and the legal or professional terminology used (for example, copyright, moral rights). Additional forms of support include advising donors on making selection decisions and preparing material for donation or transfer and providing reassurance and emotional support, especially to elderly people dealing with their life’s legacy and estate planning. Staff strive to be available to donors as much as possible but must balance this with their overall workload.

Interview data with management shows that managers are responsible for supervision and monitoring of staff with regard to all aspects of the acquisition process, including donor relations. However, practices among managers vary. For example, some managers follow up more closely with staff who are less experienced or less comfortable communicating with donors and review the communications archivists send to donors to ensure consistency. Others provide more general follow-up and assist staff in resolving donor issues as needed. Managers acknowledge that donor relations are complex and that there are many fine lines that must be considered. For example, staff need to be careful about how often they follow up with donors so that it is not perceived as harassment, as some donors have difficulty deciding. Managers stated that they do their best to ensure that staff maintain communication with donors throughout the process and provide quality service; however, there are limits to what staff can do to accommodate the needs of donors and there are certain aspects that staff cannot control. Some managers also pointed out that donor relations are part of staff’s expertise and that it is an intuitive skill that is developed with practice. They further stated that staff have discussions among themselves and that less experienced staff consult with senior colleagues on donor-related issues. Senior management also indicated that an appreciative inquiry exercise is currently underway, led by one of the directors, the purpose of which is to assess existing best practices in donor relations and to develop strategies for improvement.

Data from the staff survey, however, showed that not all staff feel supported in terms of donor relations. Some pointed out that there is a lack of written guidance, systematic thinking and coherent strategy across the two Private Archives divisions. Instead, archivists rely primarily on their professional experience and the practices they have developed over time. The data also indicated that 16% of respondents have had training related to donor relations and that 47% would like to receive such training (Appendix D, Figures 15–16).

Staff also reported that budgetary and resource constraints affect their capacity to effectively manage donor follow-up. More specifically, they noted that lack of resources for appraisal trips and lack of support staff limit their ability to complete donor-related tasks in a timely manner. In addition, staff appear to be struggling to manage multiple donation offers and their regular operational workload. Several staff noted that, in some portfolios, the work that used to be done by numerous staff is now being done by a single individual. The evaluation noted that while the number of donation offers received by LAC on an annual basis is not excessive (see Table 4), there appears to be a snowball effect experienced by staff. The addition of new donation offers to those already in progress strains staff’s capacity. In addition, offers appear to remain open indefinitely in the donation tracking system, which can be especially problematic when donors do not respond to staff’s communications and unexpectedly resume contact after an extended lapse of time. Both staff and management provided examples of such instances and noted that this was a common occurrence. This trend adds an element of uncertainty for staff and complicates staff’s time planning and management.

Table 4: Number of donation offers received per fiscal year^{Footnote 29}
2019–2020	2020–2021	2021–2022	2022–2023	2023–2024	Total
462	364	300	233	280	1639

Staff suggestions for improving donor relations are provided in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Staff suggestions for improving donor relations
Donor relations aspects	Improvements recommended
Staff resources	Hire more permanent archival assistants. Provide more cultural competence training and more donor relations support. Provide resources and time to enable staff to better accommodate the needs of donors—for example, in-person meetings with donors at the donors’ premises.
System/infrastructure	Add a feature to the ACTS system for automatic reminders to donors. Keep donor information up to date.
Strategic	Be more transparent with donors about the process and the steps involved. Adapt processes to accommodate the needs of elderly donors. Give more emphasis to proactive acquisition to enable staff to pursue more meaningful material that is consistent with LAC’s collection framework and priorities. Provide more time and opportunities for staff to engage with creators and underrepresented communities. Be aware if donors would like to be more involved in the process and accommodate them accordingly.
Donor resources	Develop educational materials for donors about archiving and the donation process, such as guides, YouTube videos or blogs. Develop outreach materials that can be used to establish contact with potential donors and underrepresented communities. Organize events to meet potential donors using venues that are culturally appropriate to the donors’ needs and levels of comfort.
Donor appreciation	Publicly acknowledge the material donated, such as public announcements on LAC’s website. Use oral history, blog posts or LAC facilities tours for donors to mark the conclusion of the donation process.

4.3 Progress in attaining the expected results

Finding: Overall, the Program is making good progress towards achieving its intended results. The Program is acquiring within its established priority areas and is achieving its targets. However, it must continue to improve the ability of staff to meet service standards for donor response times.

Program performance data show that the Program is making good progress in attaining its long-term result: LAC acquires a collection representative of Canada.^{Footnote 30} Performance targets for the 2019–2020 to 2023–2024 period were met and even exceeded (Figure 6). It should be noted, however, that achieving collection representativeness is not an absolute, quantifiable end state. Rather, as evidenced by the qualitative data from the Program management interviews and staff survey (see previous sections), it is an ongoing process that follows and documents the evolution of Canadian society. Therefore, the Program uses a proxy measure to assess the representativeness of the collection. Fluctuations in the actual percentage coverage of targeted acquisition areas can be explained by the nature of the donation offers received during the five-year period.

Figure 6 - % of targeted acquisition areas covered by an acquisition agreement

Figure 6 - % of targeted acquisition areas covered by an acquisition agreement - Text version

The graph presents the attainment of performance targets for the program performance indicator "Percentage of targeted acquisitions areas covered by an acquisitions agreement" for the period 2019-2020 to 2023-2024.

% of targeted acquisition areas covered by an acquisition agreement
No information	2019-2020	2020-2021	2021-2022	2022-2023	2023-2024
Target	75	75	75	75	75
Actual	88	76	76	92	100

Since the Program does not acquire outside its collection areas, the Program’s “Increased collection” short-term result is automatically achieved. It should be noted, however, that the label used for the result is somewhat misleading as it is not meant to illustrate the growth of the collection in terms of volume but rather in terms of coverage. The Program is currently updating its logic model and is addressing this issue. Some examples of the variety of private archives acquired by LAC over the period covered by this evaluation are shown in Table 6 (Appendix E).

The performance data also show that the attainment of the Program’s second short-term result, “Providing and sharing relevant information with customers and partners,” is also progressing well. Performance indicator targets for the Program’s service standards for responding to donors and other clients were exceeded, except in 2023–2024; the Program was dealing with more complex offers and was also working on unresolved offers from previous years (Figure 7). The staff survey data also showed that, overall, staff were able to meet the service standards; however, 26% were not aware that the Program had such service standards and 11% were unable to meet the standards (Annex D, Figure 17). The most common reasons for this were “high workload,” indicated by 89%, and “competing priorities,” indicated by 84% (Appendix D, Figure 18). In their open-ended responses, staff cited a variety of factors affecting their ability to meet the service standards related to donors. The most prevalent were insufficient personnel, communications problems with donors and dependencies on other institutional units. Some also pointed out that the service standards were outdated.

Figure 7 - % of responses to offers of content to clients, memory institutions and communities that meet current service standards

Figure 7 - % of responses to offers of content to clients, memory institutions and communities that meet current service standards - Text version

The graph presents the attainment of performance targets for the program performance indicator "Percentage of responses to offers of content to client, memory institutions and communities that meet current service standards" for the period 2019-2020 to 2023-2024.

% of responses to offers of content to clients, memory institutions and communities that meet current service standards
No information	2019-2020	2020-2021	2021-2022	2022-2023	2023-2024
Target	70	70	70	70	70
Actual	79	74	73	86	66

5. Conclusion

The acquisition component of the Acquisition and Processing of Private Archives Program is performing well despite certain challenges and issues. For the most part, the Program has met and even exceeded its performance targets throughout the period covered by the evaluation; however, several areas still require attention.

The acquisition policy instruments used by the Program are consistent with common practices in the archival field. They are still relevant and actively used; however, certain aspects need to be updated, and new tools need to be developed to ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ rights are respected. In addition, supporting procedures and tools need to be revised to address efficiency issues raised by staff, donors and Indigenous stakeholders.

The Program needs to explore alternatives to its acquisition methods. Currently, it relies primarily on donations, which requires staff to spend considerable time and effort on reviewing offers—not all of which may meet LAC’s acquisition priorities or criteria—and not enough time on outreach. Resource constraints further limit the ability of the Program to plan purchases, to acquire proactively and to address underdeveloped areas of the collection. The Program should consider using its acquisition orientation instruments to streamline offerings and reduce related staff workload. For example, the Program may want to consider using the themes from the acquisition orientation to issue time-limited public appeals for material related to specific areas of the collection that are underdeveloped and lack representation or diversity.

With respect to donor relations, the experience of the Program is consistent with general trends noted in the archival literature. Donor relations are premised on a fine balance between the needs of donors and the needs of the archival institution. They are as dynamic and unique as the personality of each donor, and they can have various time spans. Also, understanding donor motivations and needs is a laborious and time-consuming process. Donor relations require ongoing cultivation as they are crucial for the viability of archival institutions.^{Footnote 31} Private Archives staff and management demonstrated good understanding of the importance of donor relations and of donors’ needs. However, the experiences of some donors indicate that there is room for improvement. In addition, experts in the field have noted a generational shift in donor motivations and characteristics.^{Footnote 32} Twenty-first-century donors tend to be younger, be more interested in selling their archival material and expect faster communication and services. They are also more technologically savvy and more open to making multiple donations throughout their careers. Furthermore, the archives being created by twenty-first-century donors are entirely digital and constantly at risk of becoming obsolete. Therefore, to meet the needs of these new types of donors, archivists are required to be more flexible and adaptable and to develop good communication and people skills. They also need to be more proactive in their donor identification and acquisition strategies.^{Footnote 33} The Program should consider these trends when revising its approach and acquisition orientation.

The acquisition process needs to be re-examined taking into consideration the improvements suggested by staff and donors. More detailed information about its various stages needs to be made available to the public. It should clearly delineate the Program’s processes and responsibilities from those of external entities, such as NAAB and CCPERB. In addition, the information about the donation of private archives on LAC’s website needs to be updated, links to LAC’s collection development policies and priorities need to be prominently displayed, and the terminology used should be made easy to understand for the general public. More guidance should be provided to donors on how to complete the donation offer form, and information should be provided on expected response times.

In addition, the Program should consider exploring holding events similar to the Genealogy Fairs of the National Archives Records Administration (NARA)^{Footnote 34}. These are theme-based events that are broadcast live on NARA’s YouTube channel but have also been held in person in the past. Designed for family historians of all skill levels, the events showcase NARA’s records, research tools and staff expertise. The Program could use the format as inspiration to design its own event tailored to the needs of donors. The event could provide insight into the different aspects of the acquisition process by bringing together various levels of expertise both from within LAC and from external entities involved, such as NAAB and CCPERB. The event could also showcase some of LAC’s more recent private archival acquisitions and invite the donors who contributed them to speak about their experiences. Tours of LAC facilities could also be offered. Such an interactive forum could help potential future donors understand LAC’s collecting areas and priorities, what the process entails and how to prepare. It would also allow participants to put questions directly to the experts and allow LAC to publicly acknowledge the contributions of donors to the national collection.

6. Recommendations

The following are the recommendations to the Program management:

Acquisition policy instruments that honour Indigenous rights: Ensure that acquisition policies and procedures are free of colonial or discriminatory concepts. Develop specific policy instruments and procedures to address the data governance needs of Indigenous Peoples and to guide outreach and consultation activities with Indigenous communities in the acquisition of private archives.
Enhance donor communication, support and outreach: Update information on LAC’s “Donate your archival material” website regarding the donation of archival material and include links to LAC’s Evaluation and Acquisition Policy Framework and Private Archives Acquisition Orientation. Develop guidance and support tools for donors that explain the process and associated timelines using simple terminology. Develop tools for formal recognition of donors’ contributions to the national documentary heritage.
Re-examine processes and strengthen staff professional development: Re-examine processes and simplify internal procedures to improve the acquisition process. Gather data to identify opportunities to optimize the use of available resources, such as ensuring a better balance between acquisition and processing-related activities in staff workload. Provide more training to staff in the areas of cultural sensitivity, Indigenous relations and people skills to help improve donor relations and the experience of donors.

Appendix A: Management response and action plan

Appendix A: Management Response and Action Plan
Evaluation recommendation	Management response to recommendations	Action to be taken	Anticipated completion date	Lead
Recommendation 1: Acquisitions policy instruments that honour Indigenous rights: Ensure that acquisition policies and procedures are free of colonial or discriminatory concepts. Develop specific policy instruments and procedures to address the data governance needs of Indigenous Peoples and to guide outreach and consultation activities with Indigenous communities in the acquisition of private archives.	Agreed. Proactive action was already underway prior to publication of report. Indigenous relationships is one of five strategic anchors in the newly drafted Private Archives Acquisition Orientation, 2025–2030.	Update Private Archives Deed of Gift and guidelines to reflect Indigenous data sovereignty.	Q4, FY 2025-26	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives
		Communication of the 2025–2030 Private Archives Acquisition Orientation internally to staff and externally on LAC’s website.	Q4, FY 2025-26	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives
		Update Evaluation and Acquisition Report template and guidelines to include strategic anchors in new acquisition orientation, including engagement with Indigenous Peoples where appropriate.	Q3, FY 2025-26	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives
Recommendation 2: Enhance donor communication, support and outreach: Update information on LAC’s “Donate your archival material” website regarding the donation of archival material and include links to LAC’s Evaluation and Acquisition Policy Framework and Private Archives Acquisition Orientation. Develop guidance and support tools for donors that explain the process and associated timelines using simple terminology. Develop tools for formal recognition of donors’ contributions to the national documentary heritage.	Agreed. Proactive action was already underway prior to publication of report. A new donor relations strategy has been developed and approved and is ready for implementation. Proposed actions derive from the strategy.	Launch donor brochure explaining process and timelines.	Q2, FY 2026-27	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives
		Launch thank-you cards to provide to donors upon acquisition.	Q2, FY 2025-26	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives
		Implement regular communications with donors in accordance with the donor relations strategy. The following requirements will be included in staff’s work plans for FY 2025-26: Establish initial contact with donors within a week of receiving a new offer Update donors on the status of their donation every six months at a minimum	Q1, FY 2025–2026	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives
		Links to LAC’s Evaluation and Acquisition Policy Framework and Private Archives Acquisition Orientation will be added to the Donor page. The new private archives acquisition orientation will be uploaded following approval.	Q4, FY 2025-26	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives
Recommendation 3: Re-examine processes and strengthen staff professional development: Re-examine processes and simplify internal procedures to improve the acquisition process. Gather data to identify opportunities to optimize the use of available resources, such as ensuring a better balance between acquisition and processing-related activities in staff workload. Provide more training to staff in the areas of cultural sensitivity, Indigenous relations and people skills to help improve donor relations and the experience of donors.	Agreed.	Document and track processing activities to ensure better work planning and opportunities for process optimization.	Ongoing, beginning in Q2, FY 2025-26	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives
		Develop private archives learning plan focused on Indigenous relations, cultural sensitivity and people skills.	Q2, FY 2025-26	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives
		Review acquisition process for accruals and implement changes as needed.	Q3, FY 2026-27	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives
		Systemic review of Restricted Access Forms (RAF) and update access conditions when possible. Managers will develop a list of RAF review priorities that will be included in staff’s work plans for FY 2025-26.	Q4, FY 2025-26	Director, Cultural Archives Director, Science, Governance and Political Private Archives

Appendix B: Logic model for the acquisition and processing of Private Archives Program

Logic model for the acquisition and processing of Private Archives Program

Logic model for the acquisition and processing of Private Archives Program - Text version

Input
- FTEs
- Budget
Activities
- Acquisition and processing
- Partner and client relations
Outputs
- Evaluation reports
- Private archives acquisitions
- Private archives processing
- National institutions transfers
- Services to donors
- Services to memory institutions and communities
Short Term results
- Increased collection
- Relevant information provided and shared with clients and partners
Medium term result
- Enhanced collection through descriptions and tools
Core responsibility results
- LAC acquires a collection that is representative of Canada
- Documentary heritage acquired by LAC is processed in a timely manner to make it searchable

Appendix C: Performance measurement strategy

Appendix C: Performance measurement strategy
Key activities	Logic model element	Indicator	Data collection frequency
Outputs
Acquisition and processing	Evaluation reports	Number of evaluation reports prepared	Quarterly
Acquisition and processing	Private archives acquisitions	Number of deeds of gift and purchase agreements	Quarterly
Short-term results
Acquisition and processing	Increased collection	Percentage of acquired collection aligned with LAC acquisition areas	Quarterly
Acquisition and processing	Relevant information provided and shared with clients and partners	Percentage of responses to offers of content from clients, memory institutions and communities that meet current service standards	Quarterly
Medium-term results
Acquisition and processing	Enhanced collection through descriptions and tools	Number of descriptions	Quarterly
Core responsibility (ultimate) results
Not available	LAC acquires a collection that is representative of Canada	% of targeted acquisition priorities (areas) that lead to (or are covered by) acquisition agreements	Quarterly

Appendix D: Results of the donor and staff surveys

Figure 8 - Donor opinion of the donation process - Accepted offers (in %)

Figure 8 - Donor opinion of the donation process - Accepted offers (in %) - Text version

The image presents the logic model for the Acquisition and Processing of Private Archives Program. It depicts the logical connections between the program’s inputs, activities, outputs, short-term results, medium-term results and core responsibility results.

Donor opinion of the donation process - Accepted offers (in %)
Opinion	Stronly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neutral	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree
Information about donating to LAC is easy to find.	4	9	13	29	45
The process is clear.	4	11	11	22	52
The process is easy to follow.	3	7	17	24	49
The length of the process is reasonable.	9	20	17	13	41
Response time to your donation offer was reasonable.	7	15	15	15	48
Your donation offer was given sufficient consideration.	2	7	15	9	67

Figure 9 - Donor opinion of the donation process - Declined offers (in %)

Figure 9 - Donor opinion of the donation process - Declined offers (in %) - Text version

The graph shows the opinion of respondents in the declined offers category of the donor survey regarding the donation process.

Donor opinion of the donation process - Declined offers (in %)
Opinion	Stronly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neutral	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree
Information about donating to LAC is easy to find.	0	14	28	34	24
The process is clear.	7	10	28	24	31
The process is easy to follow.	4	11	19	33	33
The length of the process is reasonable.	15	25	15	17	28
Response time to your donation offer was reasonable.	14	17	14	24	31
Your donation offer was given sufficient consideration.	22	11	26	11	30
The explanation for not accepting your donation offer was reasonable.	31	10	28	14	17
LAC staff referred you to other cultural institutions.	28	3	21	10	38
LAC staff provided assistance in contacting other cultural institutions.	43	7	29	7	14

Figure 10 - Donor opinion of the donation process - Withdrawn offers (in %)

Figure 10 - Donor opinion of the donation process - Withdrawn offers (in %) - Text version

The graph shows the opinion of respondents in the withdrawn offers category of the donor survey regarding the donation process.

Donor opinion of the donation process - Withdrawn offers (in %)
Opinion	Stronly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neutral	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree
Information about donating to LAC is easy to find.	38	0	25	25	12
The process is clear.	38	25	25	0	12
The process is easy to follow.	50	0	13	0	13
The length of the process is reasonable.	63	0	25	0	12
Response time to your donation offer was reasonable.	50	0	25	0	13
Your donation offer was given sufficient consideration.	25	25	38	0	12

Figure 11 - Donor experience interacting with PA staff - Accepted offers (in %)

Figure 11 - Donor experience interacting with PA staff - Accepted offers (in %) - Text version

The graph shows how respondents in the accepted offers category of the donor survey responded to questions about their experience interacting with Private Archives staff.

Donor experience interacting with PA staff - Accepted offers (in %)
Opinion	Stronly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neutral	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree
Staff were professional and courteous.	0	0	4	12	84
Staff communicated with you in the language of your choice.	0	0	2	0	98
LAC staff explained the process in detail including any limitations.	0	6	13	12	69
LAC staff explained the timelines and available options regarding your donation.	2	4	27	15	52
LAC staff explained how decisions are made regarding donation offers.	2	4	34	12	48
LAC staff provided support to you throughout the process.	0	0	20	20	60
LAC staff were available to answer questions.	0	3	7	26	64
LAC staff responded promptly to your questions.	0	7	7	29	57
The quality of the answers provided by LAC staff to your questions was satisfactory.	0	4	9	18	69

Figure 12 - Donor experience interacting with PA staff- Declined offers (in %)

Figure 12 - Donor experience interacting with PA staff- Declined offers (in %) - Text version

The graph shows how respondents in the declined offers category of the donor survey responded to questions about their experience interacting with Private Archives staff.

Donor experience interacting with PA staff- Declined offers (in %)
Opinion	Stronly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neutral	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree
Staff were professional and courteous.	3	0	14	24	59
Staff communicated with you in the language of your choice.	3	3	3	0	90
LAC staff explained the process in detail including any limitations.	3	10	31	21	35
LAC staff explained the timelines and available options regarding your donation.	3	10	38	14	35
LAC staff explained how decisions are made regarding donation offers.	13	28	24	7	28
LAC staff provided support to you throughout the process.	14	21	29	4	32
LAC staff were available to answer questions.	3	14	36	11	36
LAC staff responded promptly to your questions.	7	21	32	4	36
The quality of the answers provided by LAC staff to your questions was satisfactory.	18	14	29	3	36

Figure 13 - Donor experience interacting with PA staff - Withdrawn offers (in %)

Figure 13 - Donor experience interacting with PA staff - Withdrawn offers (in %) - Text version

The graph shows how respondents in the withdrawn offers category of the donor survey responded to questions about their experience interacting with Private Archives staff.

Donor experience interacting with PA staff - Withdrawn offers (in %)
Opinion	Stronly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neutral	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree
Staff were professional and courteous.	0	13	37	13	37
Staff communicated with you in the language of your choice.	0	0	13	0	87
LAC staff explained the process in detail including any limitations.	25	25	37	0	13
LAC staff explained the timelines and available options regarding your donation.	50	13	25	0	13
LAC staff explained how decisions are made regarding donation offers.	25	25	37	0	13
LAC staff provided support to you throughout the process.	29	14	43	0	14
LAC staff were available to answer questions.	25	13	37	13	13
LAC staff responded promptly to your questions.	25	13	38	0	25
The quality of the answers provided by LAC staff to your questions was satisfactory.	25	25	25	13	13

Figure 14 - Donor’s willingness for further engagement with LAC - categories (in %)

Figure 14 - Donor’s willingness for further engagement with LAC - categories (in %) - Text version

The graph presents the responses of participants in the donor survey regarding their willingness to engage further with LAC based on the following categories: as a speaker for an event or exhibition promoting the material they donated; exploring LAC's collections; as contributor (i.e. crowdsourcing or other special projects); attending events and exhibitions. In percentages.

Donor’s willingness for further engagement with LAC - categories (in %)
No information	Accepted offers	Declined offers	Withdrawn offers
As a speaker for an event or exhibition promoting the material you donated	25	0	0
Exploring LAC’s collections	6	58	33
As a contributor (i.e. crowdsourcing or other special projects)	11	33	66
Attending events and exhibitions	3	8	33

Figure 15 - Staff had training related to donor relations in the past 5 years (in %)

Figure 15 - Staff had training related to donor relations in the past 5 years (in %) - Text version

The graph shows how participants in the Private Archives staff survey responded to the question of whether they had received training related to donor relations in the past five years.

Staff had training related to donor relations in the past 5 years (in %)
Yes	16
No	84

Figure 16 - Staff willingness to have training regarding donor relations (in %)

Figure 16 - Staff willingness to have training regarding donor relations (in %) - Text version

The graph shows how participants in the Private Archives staff survey responded to the question about their willingness to receive training regarding donor relations.

Staff willingness to have training regarding donor relations (in %)
Yes	47
No	42
Not applicable	11

Figure 17 - Ability to meet donor-related service standards (in %)

Figure 17 - Ability to meet donor-related service standards (in %) - Text version

The graph shows how participants in the Private Archives staff survey responded to the question about their ability to meet the donor-related service standards.

Ability to meet donor-related service standards (in %)
At all times	0
Most of the time	42
Some of the time	16
Not at all	11
Not aware of service standards	26
Not applicable	5

Figure 18 - Factors affecting ability to meet donor-related service donor standards (in %)

Figure 18 - Factors affecting ability to meet donor-related service donor standards (in %) - Text version

The graph shows how participants in the Private Archives staff survey responded to the question about the factors affecting their ability to meet donor related service standards.

Factors affecting ability to meet donor-related service donor standards (in %)
Competing priorities	84
Unrealistic deadlines	58
High workload	89
Approval delays	32
Not applicable	0
Other	42

Appendix E: Private archives acquisitions examples

Table 6: Examples of private archives acquisitions
Fiscal year	New acquisitions	Additions of new records to existing fonds in LAC’s collections
2019–2020	The archives of Arlette Cousture, including her manuscripts of the novel Les Filles de Caleb The archives of Canadian journalist Rosemary Speirs The archives of Robert W. Jackson, a pioneer of Paralympic sport in Canada and internationally The archives of Leslie Hossack, including her photographic work on buildings where events related to the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War took place	The archives of famous Canadian dancer Veronica Tennant The archives of Oscar Peterson, the great Canadian jazz pianist
2020–2021	Acquisition of one of the first documents informing the Allies of the existence of the Holocaust during the Second World War (contains a note written by Edward Bernard Raczyński, exiled Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, sent to Allied governments on December 10, 1942) Four rare British legislative documents that are important in the constitutional history of Canada: Habeas Corpus Act (1679), Bill of Rights (1689), Slavery Abolition Act (1833) and Interpretation Act (1850) Documents from John Garo, a portrait photographer of Armenian descent with whom photographer Yousuf Karsh did his apprenticeship in Boston The fonds of Desmarais and Robitaille, a Montréal company founded in 1909 that specialized in the liturgical arts and the sale of religious items	The archives of interdisciplinary artists Alma Duncan and Audrey McLaren The archives of The Right Honourable Adrienne L. Clarkson, 26th Governor General of Canada The archives of Roderick George Robbie, the Canadian architect who designed the Canadian Pavilion at the 1967 World’s Fair in Montréal and the SkyDome (now the Rogers Centre) Toronto’s main stadium The archives of former Crown corporation Ridley Terminals Inc.
2021–2022	Photographic documents from Mia Poulin and Klaus Matthes, including photographs of Indigenous communities in northern Quebec and portraits of French-Canadian artists from the 1970s and 1980s The work “Truth to Power,” based on a photograph by Nêhiyaw (Plains Cree), British and Dutch artist Meryl McMaster, a rising star on the Canadian art scene Four original drawings by Inuit artist Malaya Akulukjuk (1915–1995) Archives of director, artistic director and actor John Palmer (1943–2020), who wrote and produced a number of plays that focused on sexual orientation and themes related to LGBTQ+ communities Four portraits of the Honourable Jean Augustine, the first Black woman elected to the House of Commons (1993), by photographer Althea Thauberger Personal papers of politician and senator Pierre de Bané, the first person of Arab descent elected to the House of Commons, whose political career spanned more than 40 years (1968–2013)	The archives of activist Bonnie Robichaud
2022–2023	Fonds of Yvette Nolan, a Saskatchewan-born actress, playwright, director and educator with Algonquin and Irish ancestry Fonds of Ka Nin Chan, a music teacher and composer of Chinese descent A series of 100 in-depth interviews and six documentaries entitled The Green Interview that address environmental issues from Canadian and Indigenous perspectives	No information
2023–2024	The archives of Chinese Canadian composer Alice Ping Yee Ho The archives of Jewish composer, conductor and jazz drummer, Milton Barnes Photographs by Janice Reid, Diane Liverpool and Al Peabody, purchased through a collaboration with the Black Artists’ Networks in Dialogue Two prints by Inuit artist Padloo Samayualie Two artworks by Métis artist Rosalie Favell The journal and letters of Kanyen’kehá:ka (Mohawk) Chief John Norton/Teyoninhokarawen	No information

Appendix F: Bibliography

Carbajal, Itza A. 2021. “The Politics of Being an Archival Donor: Defining the Affective Relationship between Archival Donors and Archivists,” in Radical Empathy in Archival Practice, eds. Elvia Arroyo-Ramirez, Jasmine Jones, Shannon O’Neill and Holly Smith. Special issue, Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies 3, no. 2.

Couture, Carol. 2005. Archival Appraisal: A Status Report. Archivaria 59, spring.

Hunter, G.S. 2020. Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives: A How-To-Do-It Manual, 3rd ed. ALA Neal-Schuman.

Library and Archives Canada. 2020. Departmental Performance Report (DPR) 2019–2020. Gatineau, QC.

Library and Archives Canada. 2021. Departmental Performance Report (DPR) 2020–2021. Gatineau, QC.

Library and Archives Canada. 2022. Departmental Performance Report (DPR) 2021–2022. Gatineau, QC.

Library and Archives Canada. 2023. Departmental Performance Report (DPR) 2022–2023. Gatineau, QC.

Library and Archives Canada. 2023. Directive on Monetary Appraisals for Private Archives. . Gatineau, QC.

Library and Archives Canada. 2016. Evaluation and Acquisition Policy Framework. Gatineau, QC.

Library and Archives Canada. 2019. Private Archives Acquisition Orientation 2019–2024. 2019. Gatineau, QC.

National Archives of Australia. 2021. Indigenous People Protocols: “Our way: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander protocols.” . https://www.naa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/Our-Way-Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-Protocols-210606_0.pdf.

National Library of New Zealand. Te mauri o te mātauranga: purihia, tiakina! | Principles for the care and preservation of Māori materials. 2021. https://natlib.govt.nz/about-us/strategy-and-policy/principles-for-the-care-and-preservation-of-maori-materials.

Note, Margot. 2021. “Acquisition Strategies for Archives.” Margot Note Consulting LLC (blog). Jan. 25, . https://lucidea.com/blog/acquisition-strategies-for-archives/.

Note, Margot. 2021. “Acquisition and Appraisal for More Representative Archival Collections.” Margot Note Consulting LLC (blog). Feb. 1, . https://www.margotnote.com/blog/acquisition-and-appraisal.

Purcell, Aaron D. 2015. Donors and Archives: A Guidebook for Successful Programs. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Skeem, Dainan M. 2018 “Donor Relations in the Twenty-First Century,” Journal of Western Archives: Vol. 9: Iss. 1 , Article 9.

Weber Scott, Chela et al. 2021. Total Cost of Stewardship: Responsible Collection Building in Archives and Special Collections. OCLC.

Younging, Gregory. 2025. Elements of Indigenous Style: A Guide for Writing By and About Indigenous Peoples, 2nd ed. Brush Education.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Hereafter referred to as the Program

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Following an internal reorganization in 2022, the Private Archives Division merged with the Published Heritage Branch. Previously LAC had a separate Archives Branch, which encompassed both Government Records and Private Archives.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

The description of the workflow is based on management interview data, staff survey data and program documentation.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

Society of American Archivists https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/acquisition.html.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

Canadian Council of Archives https://archivescanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CAAIS_2019May15_EN.pdf, p. 46; Society of American Archivists https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/appraisal.html.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

Canadian Council of Archives https://archivescanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CAAIS_2019May15_EN.pdf, p. 5

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

LAC, Donate your archival material, How to offer, https://library-archives.canada.ca/eng/corporate/donations/archival-material/Pages/archival-material.asp

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

Certain types of material, such as personal income tax records, are not considered as having archival value, and in such cases no referral will be provided.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

Approvals are based on the financial delegation authorities.

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

Please note that the actual acquisition process concludes with the signing of the Deed of Gift. The issuing of the tax receipt is a separate, adjacent process; it is described here for the sake of clarity.

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

LAC can carry out in-house monetary appraisals for documentary heritage of up to $14,999.99. LAC’s Directive on Monetary Appraisals for Private Archives, April 1, 2023.

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

Note that CCPERB does not permit submissions of monetary appraisals prepared internally by employees of the submitting institution or public authority, CCPERB Apply for Certification, Section 7 Appraisals, https://www.ccperb-cceebc.gc.ca/en/certification-of-cultural-property/apply-certification.html. It should also be noted that NAAB and CCPERB have limited fixed calendars of meetings for appraisals per year.

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13

The reference here is to the instruments in general. A new Private Archives Acquisition Orientation is developed every five years. The specific period covered by the respective instrument is indicated in the title to distinguish between versions.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

National Library of New Zealand (2021) Te mauri o te mātauranga: purihia, tiakina! | Principles for the care and preservation of Māori materials, https://natlib.govt.nz/about-us/strategy-and-policy/principles-for-the-care-and-preservation-of-maori-material

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

National Archives of Australia (2021), Our Way: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Protocols, https://www.naa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/Our-Way-Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-Protocols-210606_0.pdf

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

“Extractive" in this context implies a one-sided approach where data is taken without proper consent, respect for sovereignty or fair benefit-sharing

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

Accrual: an addition of records to an existing collection or fonds already in the custody of an archival institution.

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18

LAC, Private Archives Acquisition Orientation 2019–2024, https://library-archives.canada.ca/eng/corporate/about-us/strategies-initiatives/Pages/private-archives-acquisition-2019-2024.aspx

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

Such as Indigenous political leaders, organizations, writers, intellectuals, artists, lobbyists and activists

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

Such as Arab, Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Iranian, Pakistani, Somalian, Taiwanese and Vietnamese communities

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

See section 4.2.5 for more details

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

The increase of funds in 2023–2024 is related to the acquisition of the Norton Fonds; 83% of financing came from supplementary budget requests and 17% was provided by the LAC Foundation. The amount spent in 2014–2015 was for a dozen art and photographic fonds.

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

Please note that the survey participation rate was below 30%, which limits judgments about the prevalence and the severity of issues with the donation process raised by respondents. Nevertheless, the survey results provided valuable insights into donor experiences and areas for improvement.

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

BANQ, https://www.banq.qc.ca/notre-institution/banq/donner-des-archives-ou-des-documents-publies

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

Archives of Ontario, https://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/donating/index.asp

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

BANQ Donor Guide, https://www.banq.qc.ca/sites/default/files/2022-11/DGAN_FR_DonArchivePrivee_DocDonateur_Oct2021_NveauGab_EG_FD.pd

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27

War Museum Donation form, https://www.warmuseum.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/form-donating-objects-archival-material.doc

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28

BANQ, https://www2.banq.qc.ca/formulaires/pistard/

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29

Source: Acquisition Case Tracking Syste

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30

Refer to the Program’s Logic Model in Appendix B

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31

Aaron D. Purcell, Donors and Archives: A Guidebook for Successful Programs (2015)

Return to footnote 31 referrer

Footnote 32

Dainan M. Skeem, “Donor Relations in the Twenty-First Century,” Journal of Western Archives: Vol. 9: Iss. 1 (2018): Article 9

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33

Ibi

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34

NARA, National Archives Genealogy Fairs & Series, https://www.archives.gov/calendar/genealogy-series

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Page details

2025-09-29