By Elizabeth E. Merritt
This article was published in Museum News March/April 2005.
“It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”
The Red Queen, Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
There is a wonderful optimistic streak in American society that leads us to rely heavily on self-regulation. You may wonder, in the wake of Enron, WorldCom, and airline company failures whether this is a realistic expectation to apply to the for-profit sector. But what about the nonprofit sector? Historically society has trusted nonprofits to set appropriate standards and for the most part we have done so. Recent lapses (the United Way scandal, for example) have led to federal legislation regarding executive compensation, valuation of gifts, and conflict of interest. Retaining our freedom to self-regulate depends in large part on demonstrating that we continue to deserve society’s trust. To do this, the field needs to be rigorous in the development and application of its voluntary standards.
Some of the standards to which museums are held are imposed by society. “This reflects well on the visibility of museums as [public-service] organizations,” said Martin Sullivan, director of Historic St. Mary’s City in Maryland and chair of AAM’s Accreditation Commission. “The high expectations of us are recognition of the significant role we play in our communities.”
Of course, we impose many standards upon ourselves. We struggle to find a way to arrive at a common understanding in a field where 12 representatives are guaranteed to present 12 (if not 16 or 24) points of view. Here another great tradition of American society—forming associations—comes to the rescue. It is largely through associations that museums engage in a dialogue about standards. And it is largely through museum accreditation that the field promulgates the standards on which it agrees.
Unfortunately, like the Red Queen, we find this is a never-ending race. Our expectations of ourselves and those of society are continually changing. One hundred years ago there was no expectation that storage materials be acid-free or that museums repatriate material appropriated from other cultures. What changed? Knowledge and values. One hundred years of conservation research increased our knowledge, teaching us reams about how to preserve our collections for future generations. In this case, museums identified an appropriate new standard for collections care and applied it to their practices. As a society, the values we hold in common change over time. Now we believe that Native Americans, for example, have valid claims to grave goods, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony taken from them. In this example, museums’ performance lagged behind societal expectations, so change was imposed via legislation.
Because it is voluntary, AAM’s Accreditation Program leads by example rather than by enforcing compliance. It has proved to be amazingly effective in engaging a large and representative segment of the field in an ongoing discussion about standards. Because the program is cyclical, it is uniquely positioned to observe and respond to changes over time. The ongoing dialogue between museums undertaking accreditation, peer reviewers, and the Accreditation Commission is an exploration of standards—what they are and what they are becoming.
This year marks the first major revision in a decade of the standards applied in Accreditation (see “Characteristics of an Accreditable Museum” sidebar), the program’s Core Questions, and the Commission’s Expectation documents. (See the AAM website for all these documents as well as a detailed guide to the changes.) These revisions reflect a decade or more of evolution in the standards that society applies to nonprofits and that museums bring to bear on themselves. Some of the major trends reflected in these documents include:
An increased emphasis on nonprofit accountability. There is an increasing societal expectation that nonprofits make information about their finances, governance, and operations easily available to the public. This change has been fueled in part by a few notable and unfortunate lapses that demonstrate that the sins of a few erode trust in us all. In a time when much museum financial information is available via the Web courtesy of third parties (e.g., guidestar.org) and our financial performance is analyzed and rated (charitynavigator.org ), it is prudent for the field to present its own information and its own assessment of its performance.
Inclusiveness and community engagement. While we do not yet have consensus on what an inclusive or appropriately diverse museum staff or board looks like, we can all agree there should be no barriers to full participation by anyone who wants to become involved. Increasingly, museums identify inclusiveness and the ability to reach out to new audiences not just as a value, but as a strategy essential to their survival. This includes being aware of and responsive to the needs of the community we choose to serve, which may be a geographic community, a community of interest, or a certain segment of society. It also includes being a good neighbor, regardless of whether these neighbors are primary users of the museum’s services.
Physical and intellectual access to assets. Society has heightened expectations about access to the resources they support. A large portion of museum resources goes to activities that are “behind the scenes.” (According to 2003 Museum Financial Information, museums spend an average of 10 percent of their budget on collections care.) It used to be quite respectable to have 5 percent of the collections on exhibit, with the rest accessible to qualified researchers. Now there is increasing pressure to make data—if not objects—broadly available to the public. Some museums respond by creating open-study storage, online databases, or lending materials. Museums often have physical resources (auditoriums and other public space, technology, libraries) valued and needed by their neighbors. Museums are exploring how to use the Internet, partnerships, innovative architecture, and other methods to ensure the public derives maximum value from the support they provide these assets.
Evaluation and the effective use of evaluation data. What is the most appropriate measure of museum excellence? Whether a museum has accomplished what it set out to do, whether it has fulfilled its mission effectively. As museums become better at measuring and assessing their own accomplishments, we can rely more on these meaningful measures and less on indirect indicators, such as written plans, policies, and procedures. Up to this point few museums have incorporated evaluation into the way they do their work. Yet funders increasingly expect that museums not only measure performance but that they choose meaningful measures. “Outcome Based Evaluation,” for example, the evaluation framework chosen by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, defines “outcomes” as “changed or improved skills, attitudes, knowledge, behaviors, status, or life condition” of the people served by the museum. This is a pretty tall order for a field that has yet to agree on a common method for counting visitors.
Why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we keep raising the bar? “With regard to excellence, it is not enough to know, but we must try to have and use it,” President and CEO of the Senator John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center Andy Masich said, quoting Aristotle. “We continually expect more of ourselves because of our passion for what we do. People who work in museums feel that as keepers of the past, the future depends on us, and that is a big responsibility.”
Standards also change because the environment in which we operate is not constant. As American society matures and becomes more complex, as it responds to current events, it views museums with different eyes and comes to them with different expectations. The changes in accreditation mirror the field’s responses to these forces over the past 10 years. They will form the basis for the next round of discussion about where we should go next and what we want to be.
Accreditation Program Standards:
Characteristics of an Accreditable Museum
Public Trust and Accountability
The museum is a good steward of its resources held in the public trust.
The museum identifies the communities it serves, and makes appropriate decisions in how it serves them.
Regardless of its self-identified communities, the museum strives to be a good neighbor in its geographic area.
The museum strives to be inclusive and offers opportunities for diverse participation.
The museum asserts its public service role and places education at the center of that role.
The museum demonstrates a commitment to providing the public with physical and intellectual access to the museum and its resources.
The museum is committed to public accountability and is transparent in its mission and its operations.
The museum complies with local, state, and federal laws, codes, and regulations applicable to its facilities, operations, and administration.
Mission & Planning
The museum has a clear understanding of its mission and communicates why it exists and who benefits as a result of its efforts.
All aspects of the museum’s operations are integrated and focused on meeting its mission.
The museum’s governing authority and staff think and act strategically to acquire, develop, and allocate resources to advance the mission of the museum.
The museum engages in ongoing and reflective institutional planning that includes involvement of its audiences and community.
The museum establishes measures of success and uses them to evaluate and adjust its activities.
Leadership & Organizational Structure
The governance, staff, and volunteer structures and processes effectively advance the museum’s mission.
The governing authority, staff, and volunteers have a clear and shared understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
The governing authority, staff, and volunteers legally, ethically, and effectively carry out their responsibilities.
The composition, qualifications, and diversity of the museum’s leadership, staff, and volunteers enable it to carry out the museum’s mission and goals.
There is a clear and formal division of responsibilities between the governing authority and any group that supports the museum, whether separately incorporated or operating within the museum or its parent organization.
Collections Stewardship
The museum owns, exhibits, or uses collections that are appropriate to its mission.
The museum legally, ethically, and effectively manages, documents, cares for, and uses the collections.
The museum’s collections-related research is conducted according to appropriate scholarly standards.
The museum strategically plans for the use and development of its collections.
Guided by its mission, the museum provides public access to its collections while ensuring their preservation.
Education and Interpretation
The museum clearly states its overall educational goals, philosophy, and messages, and demonstrates that its activities are in alignment with them.
The museum understands the characteristics and needs of its existing and potential audiences and uses this understanding to inform its interpretation.
The museum’s interpretative content is based on appropriate research.
Museums conducting primary research do so according to scholarly standards.
The museum uses techniques, technologies, and methods appropriate to its educational goals, content, audiences, and resources.
The museum presents accurate and appropriate content for each of its audiences.
The museum demonstrates consistent high quality in its interpretive activities.
The museum assesses the effectiveness of its interpretive activities and uses those results to plan and improve its activities.
Financial Stability
The museum legally, ethically, and responsibly acquires, manages, and allocates its financial resources in a way that advances its mission.
The museum operates in a fiscally responsible manner that promotes its long-term sustainability.
Facilities & Risk Management
The museum allocates its space and uses its facilities to meet the needs of the collections, audience, and staff.
The museum has appropriate measures to ensure the safety and security of people, its collections and/or objects, and the facilities it owns or uses.
The museum has an effective program for the care and long-term maintenance of its facilities.
The museum is clean and well-maintained, and provides for the visitors’ needs.
The museum takes appropriate measures to protect itself against potential risk and loss.
Approved by the Accreditation Commission on December 3, 2004
Effective January 1, 2005
Elizabeth E. Merritt is director of AAM’s Museum Advancement and Excellence department.
