AASLH will submit a planning grant to the Institute of Museum and Library Services in March 2004. Funding will be requested to plan and pilot assumptions for a graduated professional standards program for history organizations. During the months of September and October, 2003, AASLH is inviting comments from the field on the proposed PSP plan outline. Please send your comments to Terry Davis, AASLH’s CEO by FAX, mail, or Email ([log in to unmask]). This program was originally conceived as part of AASLH’s assessment of needs for the field, and your comments continue to be essential to the development of a first-rate program.

Among other things, the grant will include funding to convene a national Task Force, including representatives invited from the AAM Accreditation Commission, Museum Assessment Program, AAM Historic House Professional Interest Committee, AAM Small Museum Committee, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Tri-State Coalition, Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, Association of Living History Farms and Museums, Field Services Alliance, and members of the AASLH Historic House and Professional Development Committees. These representatives will serve as a Task Force for oversight of the planning grant.

• Many history institutions are not ready for accreditation by AAM. Accreditation is an "all or nothing" venture, calling for the highest of professional standards. History institutions have a need for graduated standards to set as benchmarks for improvement.
• MAP is a self-assessment within three broad areas with "implied" standards. However, MAP is, again, an all or nothing venture within those three areas; not designed with progressive levels of achievement and not designed for national recognition. In addition to the need for progressive, graduated standards, history institutions need a program that will recognize them nationally for their progress in achieving those standards.

Here is a summary of how standards are handled around the world. AASLH would like to thank the consultants working on a program for New Zealand for the use of this research.

• United Kingdom – Museum Registration Scheme conducted by Museum Association of Great Britain. Introduced in late 1970s and early 1980s. Early plan abandoned because only 7 museums had resources and energy to participate. Simpler program introduced in 1988 by Museums and Galleries Commission, funded by central government. MGC provides initial grant aid and advice to enable museums to reach standards and qualify as a Registered Museum. MGC can plan strategically to improve the effectiveness of museums and target delivery of training, technical advice, and support. Now, most museums in the UK are registered, and are re-registered every 5 years with a less laborious process.
• Australia has three state systems and a national system. The Victoria branch of Museums Australia has registered Victoria museums since 1993. Museums do a self-review, which is subjected to a desk review before an on-site assessment by peers. Museums which meet higher standards achieve accreditation, but to date only one museum has achieved this status. South Australia Museum accreditation is done by the History Trust and funded by the state. The system’s focus is on small, historical society museums staffed by volunteers. The Trust’s standards are deliberately quite unsophisticated, but have raised awareness of basic levels of museum practice. Eighty museums have been accredited to date. The system is NOT tied to funding. The national standards program is one of guidelines for accepted basic practices, which museums can use as a checklist against which to measure their own programs.

• Canada has four systems in different provinces. Ontario produced a standards document support by a series of technical publications, which all community museums are expected to follow. There is no formal policing or monitoring and some funding is available. Alberta museums address three levels of standards – basic, intermediate, and advanced/specialist. There is a manual and full checklist for each level, which museums can use annually as a self-assessment tool to guide their planning. No formal external assessment overview is done. The British Columbia Museums Association produced standards in 1993, but they are not implemented. Nova Scotia administers a grant program requiring museums to present a self-assessment of all aspects of performance as a pre-requisite for eligibility. A peer review is part of the process.
• South Africa has run a complex accreditation program since early in the 1980’s. There are currently major problems with the system.
• Netherlands adopted a version of the British scheme, which it is about to launch.

• New Zealand is now piloting a program that has graduated standards by operational "department." Their recommended system includes a self-assessment, and a peer review.

• Enable history organizations to work toward excellence one operational area at a time in order to achieve incremental improvement in professional standards. Organizations may opt to increase their capacity in a single operational area and work toward the highest level of achievement (Certificate of Excellence) in that operational area before moving on to another area.
• Provide history organizations with a self-assessment program of graduated standards, beginning with "good" standards, progressing through "better," and hopefully being awarded a Certificate of Excellence (best!) by a national review committee.
• Develop an outcome-based system. Since history organizations need to attract and keep a constituency that is supportive and giving, it’s not enough any more to simply take care of things, have them in good order, have well managed finances, etc. An outcome-based system would consist of pre-determined, measurable goals to help institutions with issues of sustainability through strategic decision making.
• Provide a national recognition program for professional standards that provides "good-better-best" graduated standards for history organizations, recognizes excellence, and fills the gaps for those organizations working toward accreditation.
• Provide a professional development program that feeds directly into AASLH professional development offerings (e.g., workshops, publications, etc.) and the awards program.

• Collections (collections care, archives at history organizations)
• Interpretation (general public programming, school programs, group programs, exhibits, evaluation)
• Historic Preservation
• Finance and Fundraising
• Mission, Vision, & Management (mission, planning, human resources, governance and leadership)
• Audience (marketing and public relations, audience evaluation and visitor research, community outreach, visitor services and amenities)

• "Good and better" graduated standards are self-assessed by the organization using criteria and materials provided by AASLH, one operational area at a time. Standards are provided on a grid in order for organizations to determine where they currently stand on any given operational area. Organizations can use the grid in planning to help move up the grid from the "good" to the "better" category, and ultimately best which is achieved by earning a Certificate of Excellence.
• Certificate of Excellence Organizations that have assessed themselves beyond the "better" standards category must complete a nomination form and provide documentation of excellence in the given operational area. That information is reviewed by a national panel in order for the organization to be awarded the Certificate of Excellence.