My reflections on the Mendoza Review

Last week I was asked to join a panel discussion at the Museums Association Conference about the Mendoza Review. On the whole I think the review is a positive and it’s great that it paints a positive image of the sector, but I worry that it could lead to us becoming complacent.

 

There has been a lot of talk about whether as a sector there is a crisis? I don't believe the whole sector is in a crisis and that we need to run around shouting about it, and absolutely there is evidence of museums in the sector thriving, but I do believe there is a crisis in the sector. Crisis is a big word, but the dictionary definition of crisis is this -

 

"A time when a difficult or important decision must be made"

 

On this definition then yes I think we are at this point and whilst I think the review touches on the main areas of “Crisis” I worry that it doesn't make enough of the seriousness and the need for change.

 

There are 4 main areas for me where I believe we are "at a time when important decisions need to be made" and they all interlink with each other. Any major change in one will have an impact on the others and overall has an impact on the sector.

 

Firstly, funding is certainly the first and whilst the review does mention the impact and ‘hollowing out’ of reduced funding in terms of reduced hours and loss of expertise as well as some closures I think it under plays the impact of not just where the reduction in LA funding is now but where it might be in 5 years’ time. I say this fully acknowledging the position in Bristol is much better than in some other local authorities, Bristol has absolutely back its Museums to date and I hope will continue to do so but it tough for every authority and we are not immune to the pressure.

 

The review has a whole section on identifying the public funding sources which support the sector and it concludes that over the past 10 years funding for Museums has been nominally maintained, although it does accept this is actually a 13% reduction in real terms. However, I don’t believe it’s right to say it has been “nominally maintained”, this relies on the fact that whilst Local Authority funding has gone down other funding such as HLF funding has gone up. We are simply not measuring like with like here, HLF funding doesn’t help museums cover their gas bills or fund their front of house to open its doors and nor should it in my opinion. It should be about additionality, although I welcome the recommendation in the review which suggests the HLF funding should look at back of house projects as well, but I will talk more about Collections management and storage in a minute. My point is we shouldn’t mask a significant reduction in funding by suggesting different funding sources are covering this gap.

 

The main problem for me about the gap this has created is that we are left with one of two options. It’s true to say we haven’t seen mass closures but we have seen some and as more potentially go this way we will be left with a very odd looking and uneven sector in years to come. The loss of the 5 Museums in Lancashire should be a warning to us all here and particularly the loss of Queen St and Helmshore Mills, which in my opinion is criminal.

 

However in many cases the gap in funding isn’t leading to closure instead it is leading to either a reduction in opening hours or and more critically the “hollowing out” of the industry in terms of expertise. We are seeing a reduction in the amount of curatorial posts now available in our regional museums and this loss of expertise makes our ability as a sector to deal with what I believe is our next “crisis” point ever more difficult. ‘Hollowing out’ affects us all. It is easy to see for example how the independent sector (66% of UK museums) remains dependent on the health of the wider sector – for on its own it cannot train, nurture, recruit and retain the expert curatorial staff that it needs for accreditation.

 

Secondly, Collections Management is a major issue for the sector and as I said the loss of expertise due to funding reduction is making this more and more difficult. We all fill in our accreditation returns and state we have a 10 year documentation back log, a 10 year backlog that we have had for at least the last 30 years and which we will still have in the next 30 years. We are certainly at a point when a difficult or important decision needs to made and I believe that decision is that we need to start again with our collection management standards. We can’t as a sector keep lying to ourselves that one day everything we own will be beautifully documented, digitised and in the right place on the shelf, so we need to find a way of managing the collection we have more effectively and ensuring we are giving as much access to what we have as possible.

 

Most of us have storage issues, but are in a vicious circle that collections cost a lot to store, we would like to rationalise the collection but need time and expertise to do it, time and expertise costs money and our budget covers the status quo. Here I absolutely support the recommendation around HLF supporting back of house projects. However more than that as a sector we need to review our collections management standards and disposal guidance, we need to be more radical and in some cases just more realistic. Curators shouldn’t be scared to dispose, it has to be part of what we do, mainly because as a sector we have a role to collect in order to ensure we are relevant and representative of the communities we belong to and to do that we need space and expertise, but we also need a workforce which is representative of our communities.

 

Which brings me on to the third area where I believe there’s not a museum in the country who could say that they aren’t at a time when important decisions need to be made or in a “crisis”. Workforce diversity. From our boards to our volunteers we are simply not representative of the communities we belong to and that isn't good enough. The review highlights the issues and gives some great examples of best practice but we as a sector have to do better here and I don’t think there is any concrete recommendation in the review as to how we are going to do this.

 

And finally, I think we are at a moment in time when an important decision needs to be made about how Museums are articulating their relevance in 21^st Century Britain. The review highlights the role of museums in terms of place making and cultural identity and the role we play in meeting social objectives and supporting partners such as Public Health and the NHS but we are still not articulating our relevance clearly enough.

 

A colleague here in Bristol was talking the other day about Museums entering the 3^rd age, she described the time when Museums were set up as keepers of treasure and knowledge as the 1^st age and then we moved into the 2^nd age when our focus was on engagement and audiences but now we need to move into the 3^rd age where Museums are an integral part of civic and cultural life.

 

To do this we have to have a workforce which is representative of the communities we work within, who have the expertise and understanding of what we need to collect and display to be relevant today and ensure in the future we are giving a view of the society we live in now, we need space and good collections management to hold these ever-growing collections, and ultimately we need the money or other wherewithal to support that.

 

I think what the review absolutely highlights is the amazing work my colleagues in independent and LA / ex LA museums are doings to increase income and be more sustainable and cover the gap in investment, but it's hard work and there is only so far we can go. To say, “broadly speaking museums do need to increase and diversify their income further” may well be true but is it achievable and is it achievable in a time frame that can make a difference? The Review has drawn back even from raising the nagging problem of unfair Business Rates for museums. And I sit in regular meetings with my senior management team within the council when they say “your commercialisation agenda is going well Laura, how much more can you save next year” and I have to remind them that yes my team have done an amazing job but in many cases we have taken income streams from a performance level of ‘crap’ to one of ‘average’, and at the end of the day I run a few museum shops: it’s not Harrods and is never going to make us millions.

 

In conclusion it’s great that the report is so positive but the danger is that that local authorities read it and believe that everything is great and it simply isn’t, the sector is working hard to stay away from that cliff edge and will continue to do so but if we don’t address the 4 areas I outlined here and address them quickly we won’t have the thriving and successful sector the Mendoza Review outlines.