Session 1: FOUNDATIONS FOR PARTNERSHIPS
Moderator, Ann Hitchcock, Chief Curator, Museum Management Program, NPS

Welcome and Opening Remarks
Ann Hitchcock, Chief Curator, Museum Management Program, NPS

To our knowledge this is the first conference to focus solely on managing the entire range of Federally associated collections---from collections of art, to archeology, archives, history, and ethnography, to biology, geology and paleontology.

What is meant by Federally-associated collections? These are collections that may be:

• Federally owned and managed by a Federal agency
• Federally owned and managed by a non-Federal partner
• Collected on Federal lands or with Federal funding or assistance but owned by a non-Federal partner
• Or some other combination of partnership relationships.

Who are we who are gathered for this conference to discuss our concerns, experience, plans, and desires for these Federally-associated collections?

• We are 200 participants.
• We are 55% from Federal institutions and 45% from non-Federal institutions
• We represent 26 states, Guam and the District of Columbia, 18 Federal agencies, 9 Tribal groups, 40 plus non-Federal institutions

Thanks to those who made the conference possible:

• Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California (Staff: Fritz Stern, Ed Luby, Leslie Freund)
• University of California
• Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary (Secretary Bruce Babbitt; Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, Bonnie Cohen; especially Betty Empson who played a key role in planning the conference)
• Interagency Federal Collections Working Group, especially the Steering Committee that planned the conference
• National Park Service, Museum Management Program, for planning the pre-conference workshops and especially to Ron Wilson who coordinates the Interior Museum Property Program and played a key role in planning the conference
• Conference volunteers and interns

Background on the Conference
Ann Hitchcock, Chief Curator, Museum Management Program, NPS

The following is a brief background on how the Department of the Interior came to establish the Interagency Federal Collections Working Group and undertake the 1994 survey of Federally-associated collections housed in non-Federal institutions which led to this conference.

• 1990-Inspector General audit revealed lack of accountability for DOI museum collections.
• 1991-DOI established the Interior Museum Property Program to respond to the audit findings and asked NPS to coordinate the effort. DOI internal survey revealed that nearly 50% of Interior collections are in non-Federal repositories.
• 1992-DOI invited all other Federal agencies and offices to join in forming the Interagency Federal Collections Working Group to survey all non-Federal institutions about their holdings of Federally-associated collections.
• 1994-National Survey of Federally-Associated Collections Housed in Non-Federal Institutions

Ian Carmichael, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of California, Berkeley

• management of collections and partnerships set up with help from federal government.
• reviewed importance of collections to various missions of the university including education, research and tribal relations.

Kent Lightfoot: Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology

• related problems in federal and non-federal institutions: crises from downsizing, shrinking public funding, increasing museum demands, budgets decreasing
• "do more with less"
• diverse kinds of repositories housing federal collections: public, private, military and state institutions and universities
• in 1901, the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology was founded with approximately 230,000 objects; today, over 3 million objects in a varied extant collection.
• Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology worked with diverse constituencies researching the collection, must balance activities while maintaining collections in a decreasing monetary and personnel market; cooperative programs and partnerships are required to overcome the crisis.

Paul Denett, Director, Office of Acquisition and Property Management, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior

• the only way to survive in today's world is through partnerships; a way to stretch our dollars by working together.
• as example: the Phoebe Hearst Museum staff continued planning for the Partnership Conference while the government agencies were on furlough.

Ann Hitchcock, Chief Curator, Museum Management Program, NPS

• 1990-Internal Audit revealed lack of accountability for DOI museum collections.
• 1991-Interior Museum Program began on authority by DOI; NPS was asked to coordinate the IMP;
• survey of DOI bureaus-found that almost 50% of DOI museum objects found in non-federal repositories.
• Interagency Federal Collections Working Group-created as partnership to coordinate a national survey and coordinate interagency actions.
• 1994-survey of federally-associated collections housed in non-federal institutions.

What We Learned From the 1994 Survey of Federally-Associated Collections Housed in Non-Federal Institutions
Ronald C. Wilson, Staff Curator, Interior Museum Property Program

The Interagency Federal Collections Working Group worked over a year to develop the Survey of Federally-Associated Collections Housed in Non-Federal Institutions. The American Association of Museums and Association of Systematic Collections advised us early on in the process. In 1994, the survey was distributed to 12,000 institutions including all museums on the Institute of Museum Services mailing list and selected academic departments. Nearly 3,000 institutions responded.

A random sample of the non-responding institutions were asked why they did not respond. Most stated that they felt like it didn't apply to them. A few stated that it was an impossible task given the available resources.

• All states were represented.
• All disciplines were represented with the largest being archeology.
• Percentages alone do not represent the significance of the collections (e.g. art is only 0.18%, yet includes 46,000 works of art)
• Natural History collections reported the least because the data were less accessible.

Interns entered the survey information into a database developed by the Department of Agriculture. The data was sorted by individual agencies and provided to agency representatives on the Interagency Federal Collections Working Group. It was up to each agency to decide how to use the information for follow-up. General Services Administration is the best example of how the survey results were used; GSA produced an inventory of its 1933-1943 Works Progress Administration art collections.

The survey resulted in:

• increased awareness among federal and non-federal agencies
• increased dialogue
• increased access to information on federally-associated collections; and
• initiated the partnership with Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology that resulted in this conference

There is no plan to repeat the survey.

Summary of Data. The following tables reflect the total number of responses as of May 9, 1996.

Table 1: Answer to Question C, "Does the institution house collections associated with Federal lands and/or Federally funded projects on a more than temporary basis?"

	Total # of Responses	% of Responses
Yes	629	22
No	2,120	76
Unknown	55	2
Total	2,804	100

Table 2: Total number of objects reported for each collection type. Note: Table 2 is for the total number of objects reported only, collections reported according to "lot size" are not included.

Collections Type	Total # of Objects	% of Objects
Archaeology	18,783,953	73.0
Ethnography	7,606	0.03
Art	46,191	0.18
Historical and/or Scientific Doc.	4,028,783	16.0
History	468,885	1.8
Vertebrate Paleontology	311,290	1.2
Other	547,951	2.0
Unknown	30,491	0.12
Botany	1,193,708	5.0
Geology	22,630	0.09
Paleobotany	1,325	0.01
Invertebrate Paleontology	8,070	0.03
Zoology	328,983	1.3
Total	25,779,866	100.0

Significant Museum-Federal Government Partnerships
Jason Y. Hall, Director, Government Affairs Program, American Association of Museums

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) repatriation - NPS, museums, and tribes cooperating is leading to new knowledge in explaining cultures
  NPS vital to NAGPRA through Review Committee and grant program;
• Museum Assessment Program (MAP) - to help museums do self-assessments through: a) questionnaire; b) on-site visits; and c) confidential report of recommendation
  MAP I: institutional assessment - to assess entire institution's strategic planning; MAP II: collections management assessment-documentation and preservation; MAP III: public dimension assessment-public perception and involvement -- all to create baseline to improve service. MAP is administered by AAM, in partnership with the Institutions of Museum Services, which provides the funds
• Charter schools (Dept. of Education, AAM, IMS, and museums)
  -- Charter schools are not magnet schools, which are subject
  -- based and run by the normal public school bureaucracy. Charters are run by another body but still public schools do not have to respond to bureaucracy-room for experimentation. Charter schools are a bi-partisan idea
  -- non-threatening to public schools because they are public - locally oriented with fewer bureaucratic rules.

Funding Collections Care
Diane B. Frankel, Director, Institute of Museum Services

In 1989 the Institute of Museum Services (IMS) performed the National Museum Survey. The following information was reported:

• 700 million objects
• 82% of the objects have been inventoried
• 76% of the objects have been cataloged

The IMS is an independent federal agency, therefore, it cannot fund federal institutions. Non-federal institutions holding federal collections are eligible for funding.

Federal institutions may obtain IMS services by paying a fee for the services.

IMS encourages museums to plan for collections conservation. Three grant programs IMS provides:

• Conservation Program Support (CPS), 1984
  - encourages institute to start conservation
  - encourages education for the staff and public
  - provides a method for museum surveys, collections treatment, research and training
• Museum Assessment Program II (MAP II), 1985
  - matches museum with professional help
  - provides help with risk management, inventories, etc.
• Conservation Assessment Program (CAP), 1990
  - provides general conservation consultation
  - for smaller institutions it can provide an overview of entire museum collections and care
  - provides recommendations and priorities
  - helps with long range plans for care and preservation
  - helps with fund raising plan for future

IMS tries to communicate across disciplines in order to increase awareness, activity and conservation. Funding is down in conservation programs from $3.5 million to $2.7 million.

IMS phone number (202) 606-8536

Answers to Questions:

• Conservation Support Program covers living and non-living collections identified as the highest priority.
• Cooperating associations cannot apply on behalf of federal agencies.
• The fee for service allows federal agencies access to professional help.

NEH Funding for Collections Care and Management
Laura Word, Senior Program Officer, Division of Preservation and Access, National Endowment for the Humanities

1. History of NEH's support for preservation:

• 1980: first two preservation grants made, which focused on education and training. Preservation education and training remains a priority for the Division of Preservation and Access today because of its impact on the ability of staff in libraries, archives, museum and historical organizations to provide day-to-day care and management of collections.
• 1985: the Office of Preservation was created at NEH; grants continued for education and training and preservation of library and archival collections.
• 1990: the National Heritage Preservation Program was launched with additional funding from Congress to support the preservation of material culture collections held in museums. Improvements in storage and environmental conditions are funded in this program.
• 1991: the Office of Preservation grew into the Division of Preservation and Access and the Endowment's support for preservation activities and projects to create intellectual access to humanities collections was consolidated in one division.

2. NEH cannot make grants to other federal agencies for preservation and access activities.

3. The staff of other federal agencies responsible for the care of collections may, however, benefit from projects supported by NEH. Workshops, technical information, and preservation surveys are offered by four regional preservation field services supported by NEH (SOLINET in Atlanta, AMIGOS in Dallas, Center for Art and Historic Artifacts in Philadelphia and Northeast Document Conservation Center in Andover, Massachusetts). Services are offered on a fee basis. Collections care training opportunities are available on the same basis at three programs currently funded by NEH: Campbell Center in Mt. Carroll, IL; Mid-Atlantic Association of Museums in Newark; and the Heritage League of Greater Kansas City. Research and demonstration grants supported by NEH also benefit everyone interested in preservation by increasing our understanding of preservation issues and best practices.

4. For more information about the Endowment's support for preservation and access projects, call the division at 202-606-8570 or E-mail to preservation@neh.fed.us

Beyond the 1994 Survey--What We Learned from Six Case Study Institutions
Ronald C. Wilson, Staff Curator, Interior Museum Property Program

Specific issues were examined at six case study institutions as a follow-up to the 1994 Survey of federally-associated collections housed in non-federal institutions. The institutions were selected for diversity among the following:

- geographic distribution
- governance
- size
- discipline
- multiple agencies represented

The six case study institutions were:

1. University of Kentucky Art Museum, Lexington, KY
2. William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology, Lexington, KY
3. University of Denver Anthropology Department, Denver, CO
4. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO
5. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, AZ
6. Newark Museum, Newark, NJ

The following things were found:

1. Discipline
- Art is the best documented discipline due to the relatively low number of objects.
- Archeology is the largest component and had the strongest legal foundation for federal involvement and acquisition.
- Natural History has the least consensus regarding the role of federal involvement and also the least accessible data.

2. Size
There was no strong pattern regarding large and small institutions except that large institutions have more diverse sources of funding.

3. Governance
Museums governed by parent institutions with broader or unrelated missions often do not receive strong support.

4. Geographic
- Issues are very similar throughout the country
- The individual players change

Issues:

1. Who owns what?
There is no simple answer.
Reasons:
- changing land status and boundaries
- origin of collections is often not precisely recorded
- multiple agency associations
- permit granting agency
- funding agency
- land managing agency
- agency doing the work
- multiple funding sources

Who owns the collection if 80% is federally funded and 20% is non-federally funded?

The focus needs to be on access and stewardship of the collection rather than determining who owns what. We need to share resources rather than fight over ownership.

2. Communication between agencies and non-federal institutions varies from good to poor to no relations at all; agencies are sometimes not aware that collections exist.

Some relationships are clearly defined, some are vaguely defined, and some are not defined at all.

It is important to encourage formal cooperative agreements that clearly define the responsibilities of the institutions and of the agencies.

3. Regulatory impacts
-Fish and Wildlife Service regulations govern management of migratory birds, eagles, and endangered species.
-Do guidelines of funding agencies define responsibilities for curating objects generated by particular projects?

4. Whose standards are we trying to meet?
- American Association of Museums?
- Federal (36CFR79)?
- Individual agencies?
- Institutions?

Can we define common standards for inventory requirements or data processing?

Are there common elements for authority granting access to collections?

Who is responsible for approving loans and destructive sampling analysis?

These things are often undefined.

5. What qualifies as a federal repository?
- Formal designations of federal repositories seen as threatening by smaller museums - "Regional" focus is not practical if "regions" are too large; arbitrary transfers may take collections far from their place of origin.

6. What is meant by "in perpetuity"?

7. Do agencies and institution boards understand ongoing maintenance?

What We Learned:

1. Most institutions are doing a good job within the context of available resources.
2. Most institutions could do a better job if additional resources were available.
3. Many different kinds of "federal associations" exist
4. Response of federal agencies toward curatorial care of their associated collections ranges from excellent to non-existent.
5. We need to avoid mutually-contradictory agency policies and to work toward common standards.
6. Simple single-source solutions probably will not succeed. Solutions need to exist at a local and regional level with the national level as the umbrella of support and guidance.
7. Issues vary among the disciplines
8. Responsibilities of agencies and institutions are often not well defined
9. Attitude is the most important factor: Those with a "can-do attitude" will find a way, find resources, initiate partnerships, and get the job done.
10. "Partnership" is a two-way street:
    - Neither partner has absolute authority
    - Each partner needs freedom to act within defined parameters