This Is Not a Test:
Museums and Heritage Preservation
by Elizabeth Merritt
This article was published in Museum News
November/December 2006.
Do you remember when you were a kid, nervously awaiting the final report card of the year? You were sure you aced the English final and knew you were shaky on math, but there was always an element of tense uncertainty about what exactly would be on that card. What would your parents think?
Well, the museum field has an unprecedented opportunity this year to examine its grades on how well we take care of the collections we hold in the public trust and how we stack up against the other kids in the class. Be assured that these scores will receive close scrutiny from the communities that support our institutions. These are the people—members, voters, policy makers, funders—who closely track our progress and set our allowance!
In December 2005 Heritage Preservation of Washington, D.C., released the results of its Heritage Health Index, the first comprehensive survey of the condition and preservation needs of U.S. collections held in the public trust. The survey gathered information from 3,370 archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, archaeological repositories and scientific research collections, including 90 percent of the 500 organizations holding the nation’s largest and most significant collections. The results were weighted and used to extrapolate results for the entire national population of collecting institutions. Heritage Preservation estimates there are nearly 31,000 of these.
This epic project produced invaluable data on the number and types of collections held by these organizations, their condition, storage, environmental needs, emergency planning and staffing. Heritage Preservation and AAM hope that this will stimulate a lively dialogue on how to help museums do an even better job of filling their vital stewardship role. Are any museums being left behind? What assistance do they need to improve their “grades”?
As is so often the case with survey data, one of the greatest challenges is to figure out how to read them in a manner that meets the needs of a particular group of users—in this case, the museum community. Heritage Preservation considers all collecting institutions to be its audience; museums are only a part of this whole that also includes libraries, archives and scientific research organizations. In addition to reporting on the overall data, Heritage Preservation segmented the results into several categories, two of which were museums (over 1,000 respondents) and historical societies (almost 500 respondents). However, most of us would consider the participating historical societies to be museums, in the larger scheme of things. They have exhibits, are open to the public, have education as a core part of their mission, etc. This identification is reinforced by the fact that many of these historical societies have participated in AAM’s Museum Assessment Program, received IMLS grants or are accredited as museums by AAM.
To increase the usefulness of the Heritage Health Index to our field, AAM worked with Heritage Preservation to combine museums and historical societies as one category and analyze those data. This way the data paint a picture of the diverse museum field and enable us to see how we stack up compared to collecting institutions as a whole. In the remainder of this article, when we say “museums” we refer to the Heritage Health Index categories of museums and historical societies together.
Within this group of museums we also looked at how the accredited institutions perform compared to the non-accredited, testing our sincere hope that accreditation both fosters and recognizes superior performance in the realm of collections care.
The data suggest that museums in the U.S. hold roughly 1.1 billion items in the public trust (see “Collections Held in Museum and Historical Societies”). There is clearly room for improvement in many areas of conservation, intellectual access, policies, staffing and training (see “Summary of Key Findings for Museums and Historical Societies”). In general, the performance of museums regarding collections care and preservation closely mirrors that of the whole community of institutions that care for collections. However, there are a few notable areas in which museums perform differently from collections-holding institutions as a whole.
Museums are more likely to have a conservation/preservation program and to do at least some of this work in-house. They devote more money to conservation but also have greater needs when it comes to conservation treatment. They are far more likely to receive outside sources of funding for conservation/preservation. They do significantly more to promote conservation awareness to their donors, trustees and the general public.
Museums do less well than respondents as a whole, including libraries and archives, in cataloguing their collections and making them intellectually accessible.
Overall, museums are more likely than collecting institutions to have a conservation preservation program with preventive conservation (only 11 percent report this is “not done,” versus 18 percent in the whole sample). These museums are more likely to have their own staff do at least some of this work (73 percent versus 66 percent). A similar pattern holds for programs with preservation management (16 percent versus 24 percent “not done” and 63 percent versus 55 percent done in-house).
Museums have identified greater needs when it comes to conservation treatment (58 percent report “need” and 16 percent “urgent need,” compared to 50 percent and 11 percent respectively for all respondents). This is an interesting point for further discussion. Do museums have greater needs? Or do they do a better job of identifying the needs they have, due perhaps to more expertise or higher standards regarding condition?
Museums do significantly more than respondents as a whole in promoting conservation awareness: 47 percent educate donors and trustees on this important topic (34 percent for all respondents); 36 percent present related activities to members and groups (26 percent for all respondents); 33 percent highlight their preservation activities in exhibits or programs for the public (24 percent for all respondents); 51 percent serve as a source of conservation/preservation information to the public (42 percent for all respondents).
Museums devote more money to conservation than respondents as a whole: 30 percent have a specific line item for conservation or preservation activities in their budget (23 percent for the whole). Only 20 percent report having no annual conservation/preservation budget (30 percent for the whole).
Museums are far more likely to receive external sources of funding for conservation/preservation activities (75 percent receive funds, versus 60 percent of all respondents). This pattern holds true for funding from federal, state, municipal, corporate and foundation sources, as well as private philanthropy. The biggest differences are seen in foundation and private support. Museums are more likely to have applied for conservation or preservation funding in the past three years (44 percent versus 32 percent). If they did not apply, the reason is much less likely to be that conservation is a low priority (15 percent versus 30 percent).
Museums are doing less well than collecting institutions overall at making their collections intellectually accessible. Cataloguing collections is one of the top needs identified by museums, tying with the need for staff training, condition surveys and assessments and conservation treatment. Only 20 percent report “no need” in the area of making collections accessible through catalogues or finding aids, versus 26 percent of all respondents. In fact, 28 percent of museums report that none of their collections are accessible through a catalogue (versus 18 percent of all respondents). At some level this is to be expected, since they are being compared here to a group containing the uber-cataloguers, librarians.
Accredited and Non-Accredited Museums
One would hope that museums do a darn good job of caring for collections. For the 90 percent or so of museums that own, care for or use collections, according to data from 2006 Museum Financial Information, published by the American Association of Museums, collections stewardship is central to their mission. One would also hope that accredited museums do an even better job. After all, an entire section of the “Characteristics of an Accreditable Museum ” is devoted to collections stewardship, and these standards are explored in greater depth in the Accreditation Commission’s Expectations Regarding Collections Stewardship. The Heritage Health Index data gave Accreditation Program staff the chance to test this assumption. We approached this with some trepidation, since the possibility always existed that the answer might be “No, they don’t do a better job.” (We did not even breathe the unmentionable possibility that they would do worse.)
However, we should not have worried about our high-performing students. Their “report card” shows that accredited museums perform significantly better than non-accredited museums in all major areas.
We did two kinds of comparisons. For most of the survey, we tested the answers of accredited museums against non-accredited museums, question by question, performing a statistical test to see if there was a significant difference between the answers of the two groups, and if so, in what direction.
Accredited museums performed significantly better in:
- use of environmental controls for temperature, relative humidity and light
- storage of collections in adequate areas
- presence of preservation and emergency plans and surveys of collections condition
- adequate security
- preventive conservation programs and conservation treatment
- allocation of funds for conservation
- accessibility of the collection through a catalogue
This is not to say that accredited museums don’t feel they need to get better. Their assessment of the need for improvement in areas such as condition surveys, cataloguing, security and staff training is the same as that of non-accredited museums. Interestingly, when identifying the degree of improvement needed for inadequate storage areas and storage equipment, accredited museums rate themselves as having greater needs than non-accredited museums. This is not necessarily because they are in worse shape. Looking at these results overall, it is clear that accredited museums are indeed holding themselves to “a higher standard” (to quote the tag line of the Accreditation Program). In areas where they are outperforming non-accredited museums, they consistently still identify themselves as needing improvement.
The second way we analyzed the numbers was to create a combined score based on a museum’s responses to key questions in the survey. A museum might get two points, for example, for indicating that it controls temperature in all areas to preserve collections, only one point for some but not all areas and no points for no areas or “don’t know.” (We are not blissful about ignorance of such conditions.)
So here is the good news: The cumulative score for accredited museums is significantly better than that of non-accredited museums. The bad news? Out of a maximum potential score of 55, the mean score for accredited museums was only 29. The mean for non-accredited museums was a little under 26, giving accredited museums a slim, albeit meaningful lead. The highest score achieved was an impressive 53 (an accredited museum), and the lowest score was—hold on to your hats—2 (a non-accredited museum).
Why are accredited museums outperforming non-accredited museums? Some of it is inherent in the standards of the program. You have to have a written emergency plan to be accredited, for example. But most of it is less obvious, since the standards of accreditation tend to be stated in a general way (“the museum legally, ethically and effectively manages, documents, cares for and uses its collections”) and it is left to the Visiting Committee and the Accreditation Commission to decide whether a museum is fulfilling these standards appropriately, given its circumstances.
Peer pressure counts for a lot, though. If the Visiting Committee of peer reviewers or the Commission thinks a museum could be doing better in its storage conditions or cataloguing, they aren’t shy about bringing it up. This is where you get the personalized, handwritten comments at the bottom of the report card—and these comments get the attention of the administration, governing authority and key supporters. You tend to fix the problems you notice, and the detailed self-examination that museums put themselves through every 10 years is the equivalent of a Kaplan preparation course: They find out for themselves where they need improvement and work to get better before the final exam. And people who want the museum to get good grades (parent organizations, funders, the community) are highly likely to pay for that process of improvement. You show that you are in danger of flunking “Storage 101,” and there is a good chance that someone will come forward with a donation to help correct the problem. At least that is what many of our accredited museums report to AAM.
So what do we do with this information? Get resources to fix the problems, we hope. We need to emphasize the huge job we take on when we care for America ’s collections, make them accessible, and ensure they are there for our children and grandchildren. And while it might be a bit embarrassing that many of us are “C” students, the real message is that we are determined to work for “A” grades. But we need help. We need study partners (mentors, vital and active professional associations), we need tutors (consultants, professional development instructors, trainers) and we need someone to pay the tuition and help improve the crumbling infrastructure, for heaven’s sake.
Keeping quiet about where we have “room for improvement” isn’t going to help things. America has always respected the drive for self-improvement. Let’s take our report card to the people who care—our communities, policy makers and funders—and make them our partners in getting the grades up.
A Public at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s Collections is online in its entirety at www.heritagehealthindex.org along with detailed case studies and links to additional resources for preservation information and services. The report summary is available for $1.50 per copy to cover shipping and handling and may be ordered online.
AAM member museums can query AAM’s Information Center staff (infocenter@aam-us.org) about the data specific to museums and accreditation.
Collections Held in Museums and Historical Societies
57,530,495 Books
14,362,125 Unbound sheets (counted linear feet)
44,895,544 Unbound sheets (counted in items)
7,824,077 Microfilm/microfiche
202,709,382 Photographic materials
2,423,568 Moving image collections
2,189,992 Recorded sound collections
10,147,051 Digital materials (online only)
2,069,566 Digital materials (excluding online)
17,164,263 Art objects
41,145,860 Ethnographic objects
123,412,144 Archaeological collections individually catalogued
1,601,137 Bulk archaeological collections in cubic feet
527,817,230 Natural science specimens
Total: 1,055,292,433
Summary of Key Findings for Museums and Historical Societies
29% have no environmental controls for temperature
44% have no environmental controls for relative humidity
25% have no environmental controls for light
70% have the majority of their collections in inadequate storage
19% have insufficient security measures
81% have no emergency plan for collections or lack staff trained to carry the plan out
11% have no conservation/preservation staff
76% need additional training
55% have a significant backlog in cataloguing
67% have no current assessment of the condition of the entire collection
70% do not specifically allocate funds for preservation
