In the Accreditation Program, there is no single set of standards against which all museums are measured. There can’t be, because museums are so diverse. They run the gamut from art to zoo, from annual budgets of less than $100,000 to more than $100 million. Some are government-run; others are private, nonprofit organizations. Their collections may include drawers of mounted insects, artifacts from the civil rights movement, medieval panel paintings, or entire villages of historic structures. Or the museum may not own collections at all.

In addition, standards vary among museums. Art museums have standards specific to art museums; zoos have standards specific to zoos. Appropriate climate control will mean something different to a large history museum than it will to a small historic site. Different kinds of collections have different preservation needs. Exhibits for toddlers are designed differently than exhibits for adults. It was a major challenge to establish an accreditation system that not only encompasses practices of such diverse institution, but also standards that are continually evolving.

To meet these challenges, the Accreditation Program standards are organized into a framework of core questions, characteristics, and expectations that Visiting Committee members and Commissioners apply in a manner appropriate to each museum’s particular circumstances. These are collectively regarded as the “standards for accreditation.” In addition, museums are expected to abide by relevant discipline-specific standards that apply to institutions of their type. This framework provides the program the flexibility needed to encompass the museum field’s diversity and supports the principle that every museum can achieve excellence regardless of the size of its operating budget.

The Standards Framework

Core Questions

Two core questions guide every accreditation review:

• How well does the museum achieve its stated mission and goals?
• How well does the museum’s performance meet standards and best practices, as they are generally understood in the field, appropriate to its circumstances?

The core questions ensure that museums are measured against benchmarks they establish and in a context appropriate to their circumstances. A museum is evaluated against its own mission and the goals it has established in its institutional plan. This evaluation takes into account the museum’s resources for achieving its mission and goals. Small museums should not be concerned that they must live up to the same level of operations expected of large museums; they are expected to operate as an excellent small museum.

Characteristics of an Accreditable Museum

Based on the cumulative experience of more than 30 years of accrediting museums, the Accreditation Commission has established broad characteristics describing a professionally run, high-functioning museum. First released in 1996 and revised in 2005, the Characteristics of an Accreditable Museum are broadly stated outcomes that a museum is expected to achieve.” Each museum, depending on its particular type, resources, collections, mission, etc., will achieve them in a different way. The Accreditation Self-Study Questionnaire, the Visiting Committee’s site visit and report, and the Commission’s review are structured around the Characteristics.

However, the Characteristics are not just for museums seeking accreditation, but are outcomes that all museums can and should strive for, and achieve in some degree; they are not “extra work” or unattainable, but all things that any well run museum and nonprofit should be doing anyway.  See for yourself in the "plain English" translation of the Characteristics.

The Accreditation Commission’s Expectations

The Commission issues “Expectation” documents that provide more detail on how it interprets the Characteristics of an Accreditable Museum.  Expectations are issued and revised in response to evolving standards and best practices, trends in the field, and problem areas identified by the Commission in the course of accreditation reviews. They focus on presenting desired outcomes rather than on prescribing methods by which these outcomes must be achieved. The Expectations typically explain:

• why the Commission considers the topic to be important
• how they relate to relevant Characteristics and required supporting documentation
• what, specifically, the Commission looks for in assessing a museum against this Expectation
• how the museum provides evidence of meeting this Expectation (e.g., written policies, procedures, plans, other documentation)
• how the Expectation is applied in particular situations (e.g., university museums, museums that are part of a larger parent organization, etc.)

Discipline-Specific Standards

As stated in the core questions, accredited museums are expected to operate in accordance with “standards . . . as they are generally understood in the field.” Many standards are formally codified in statements issued by various professional organizations. To be applicable in the AAM Accreditation Program, standards statements must be formally adopted or endorsed by at least one nonprofit organization that is broadly representative either of the field or the segment of the field to which the standards apply.

For example, in the area of ethics, history organizations are expected to adhere to The Statement of Professional Standards and Ethics of the American Association for State and Local History. Members of professional associations are expected to abide by institutional standards specific to that membership, such as the Association of Art Museum Directors (Professional Practices in Art Museums) or the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA Code of Professional Ethics). When developing their codes of ethics, general museums (those that encompass two or more disciplines) must decide how these discipline-specific codes apply to their overall operations and make the reasoning behind those decisions clear.

How Accreditation Standards Are Applied

The accreditation process incorporates multiple perspectives to ensure balance and fairness in the application of these standards. Using the Self-Study Questionnaire, the museum demonstrates how it applies the standards of the field to its own operations. The Visiting Committee members usually come from museums of a type and size similar to the institution under review and have significant experience working in or reviewing other similar museums. They evaluate the museum in light of this experience, applying the program’s standards in a manner appropriate to the museum’s circumstances. At any given time the members of the Accreditation Commission represent, collectively, an average of 27 years of museum experience on the Commission (nine commissioners serve staggered six-year terms) and have more than 90 years’ collective experience in museum administration. As they review approximately 100 museums per year, the Commissioners apply this experience to ensure that museums are assessed in a consistent, equitable manner.

No accredited museum is perfect; at any given time it may fall short of meeting some standard of the field. The Accreditation Commission does expect, however, an accreditable museum to identify accurately areas where it needs improvement and incorporate these priorities into its planning. For this reason, accreditation gives a lot of weight to a museum’s institutional plan (see The Accreditation Commission’s Expectation on Institutional Planning).

How Accreditation Standards Evolve

Accreditation draws on the collective wisdom of the field, which is gathered from many sources. Information comes from the hundreds of museums under accreditation review at any given time (particularly from Self-Study Questionnaires and Visiting Committee reports); from museums participating in the Museum Assessment Program; and from ongoing discussions with the field via the AAM Standing Professional Committees, Council of Regions, Council of Affiliates, and participants in colloquia, workshops, and seminars. By gathering information from all these sources, the Accreditation Commission observes what is happening across the field, deliberates about standards and practices, and adjusts the program accordingly to advance the profession.

Exactly how have the standards evolved? The Characteristics were first issued in 1996 and the first Expectation was issued in 1999. Over the course of the next 5 years, several more Expectations were issued. And in 2005, after a comprehensive review and revision of all the program standards that included field-wide input, a new set of Characteristics and Expectations was issued. To see specifically what changes were made and why, read "Your Guide to the 2005 Accreditation Program Changes."

Back to Standards page

Program Philosophy and Principles