One of the most common discussion topics around DEAI work in museums is that of money. As institutions, how do we diversify and also maintain our financial health? (Spoiler: these are not actually mutually exclusive.) How do we fund our DEAI efforts? How much does DEAI work cost? How do we prioritize funding for DEAI when we already don’t have enough money for everything we need to do? There are so many variations on these questions, and our roundtable participants had plenty to say regarding the sticky topic of money and DEAI work.

Resource Allocation

What needs to be financially supported to sustain DEAI efforts?

It is important to acknowledge that any effort or initiative requires resources, and DEAI work is no different. DEAI work is going to cost something. Based on the discussions across each of the roundtables, it can be helpful to break down expected or anticipated DEAI expenses into three categories: expertise, labor, and materials.

Expertise is essential for DEAI work to be effective. DEAI is a professional practice with particular skills, competencies, and experience, similar to any other role within a museum where one expects a certain level of expert knowledge, such as a curator or an accountant. Caring about DEAI and being a trained DEAI practitioner are two different things, just as caring about learning and being a skilled educator are two different things. Some museums will be able to bring on DEAI leadership and teams such as chief diversity officers and equity and inclusion directors to provide DEAI expertise to guide the institution’s efforts. Participants in the DEAI leader/CDO roundtable expressed that museums will need to budget for these positions and the support they require similar to other leadership-level roles. This article on the AAM Blog provides helpful tips for museum decision-makers to design budgets focused on top priorities, which can apply to allocating resources for a DEAI plan.

It is important to recognize, however, that not every museum will be able to hire dedicated DEAI staff. The average salary for a CDO in the United States ranges from $76,000 to $219,000. When the expertise cannot come from the museum staff, institutions will need to supplement it from elsewhere, usually through consultants. The cost for hiring a DEAI consultant or team varies widely depending on the services needed, length of engagement, and status of the consultant. Equity in the Center has provided a helpful resource, “So You Want to Hire an Equity Consultant” that includes information on budget and timeline for working with consultants, as well as how to select the right one for your organization.

While DEAI expertise is necessary, both the Excellence in DEAI report and roundtable participants expressed the sentiment that DEAI should be the work of everyone in the organization. But what does that actually mean? It means that everyone should be engaged in some level of DEAI efforts and contributing to department-specific DEAI goals. DEAI work often requires emotional labor in addition to intellectual and physical labor, and participants from each roundtable indicated that museum decision-makers might want to consider compensating all of these kinds of labor. If employees are doing additional work by participating on committees, leading new projects, building new relationships, or anything else that may have been added to their job description with the onset of DEAI efforts, institutions might consider ensuring their compensation reflects those changes. This could also mean making more time in employees’ schedules to allow for this work.

In order for all employees to engage in DEAI efforts effectively, there is likely going to be some level of training required. While there are certainly free resources and training available, museums may still need to budget for the time for staff to participate in that training. When considering paid professional development opportunities for staff, again, costs can vary widely. For example, one consulting firm can charge between $2,000 to $20,000 for monthly services or $8,000 to $50,000 for a one-time training; another scales pricing based on the length of a workshop, but museums can expect to pay up to $7000 for a two-day session.

It is also important to note that compensation for labor may extend beyond a museum’s staff; if institutional management is asking community members for input, as numerous roundtable participants shared, they may want to be prepared to compensate them for their time and labor as well. Asking people with marginalized identities to labor for free as part of DEAI efforts is not a good look. If someone wants to volunteer their time and labor, that is a decision they should be free to make, not expected to make.

Other important considerations include programmatic expenses and material costs, including anything from paying for trainings to resources, tools, and supplies. Planning for these expenses can follow a similar process to planning for material costs of other programs. Is catering for meetings or events needed? Will worksheets, notepads, post-its, pens, or other materials be needed? These programs and events could be internal or external depending on the type of DEAI work.

Financial Infrastructure

How are museums budgeting and fundraising for DEAI? How do internal financial policies support DEAI efforts?

In each of the roundtables, discussion not only included the costs of DEAI work, but also how DEAI intersects with development and finance departments. Participants discussed fundraising, accounting, and other internal financial practices. Development teams are being asked to prioritize DEAI funding, and DEAI efforts are being embedded into other projects and funding requests, including education, outreach, and collections care. Funding is being sought from foundations and private donors, with some noting that foundations have increased their support for DEAI and/or BIPOC-led and -centered institutions.

A particular point of tension that arose during the roundtables was a debate among museum leaders about how DEAI expenses should be tracked by the accounting team. Some felt strongly that DEAI should show up as a distinct line item on the budget sheet, so that resources are clearly and specifically allocated to this work. Others felt strongly opposed and were even offended by this suggestion, instead insisting that DEAI allocations should be integrated throughout the budget. This was related to another discussion point about whether DEAI resources are coming from the museum general operating budget or if DEAI efforts are always funded by “special project” support. While there was no consensus on these particular debates, it may be helpful to employ a “both/and” approach here. In other words, funding for DEAI could come from general operating support as the work is embedded into the everyday functions of the museums, and also from special project support as particular, focused efforts are undertaken. Similarly for the budget, resources can be allocated throughout, as DEAI work is embedded into all function areas, and also as separate line items for targeted efforts.

Another topic that arose was whether internal financial practices reflected and supported an institution’s DEAI values. Are investment values aligned? Do financial policies consider equity? Are the organizations that provide funding to museums engaging in reputation laundering, doing so in order to draw attention away from less-than-savory activities or controversies? Does the museum practice salary transparency and conduct compensation equity audits? The answers to these questions could reveal the level of commitment to internal DEAI excellence an institution has undertaken. For example, when it comes to board members receiving gifts from granting bodies, nonprofit organizations, private donors, and other funding sources, many of the participants in the BTA roundtable recommended that museums have policies in place that ask sometimes uncomfortable, but necessary, questions. This can apply more broadly than just gifts, too; as one participant shared, financial support of any kind should ask the question, “Is this gift/donation/etc. in line with the museum’s policies, values, mission, or goals?”

Sociopolitical Climate

How is the current sociopolitical climate impacting funding and DEAI efforts for museums?

Another topic that arose during the roundtable discussions is the reality of fundraising in the current climate, where DEAI-related language is being increasingly weaponized in the public and political arena. Words and phrases such as “woke,” “antiracism,” “critical race theory,” “DEI,” and more are being co-opted and misconstrued by those opposed to DEAI in a targeted attempt to slow down progressive movements and erode public trust in DEAI efforts. In addition, more recent backlash against DEAI efforts—including the recent decision by the Supreme Court to strike down affirmative action in higher education, which will have ripple effects throughout American society—have museums feeling the impact, as some members, donors, and supporters voice their concerns over museums’ DEAI work and in some cases threaten to withdraw their support. In some states and communities, attacks on DEAI have escalated, with governors restricting funding for public universities and institutions that include DEAI training or teaching.

Faced with the scary reality that their DEAI efforts could also result in a loss of funding, roundtable participants raised a number of questions. How strongly do they need to adhere to the language that is becoming a lightning rod of divisiveness, such as antiracism and white supremacy? Is it acceptable, or even better, to use less controversial language in an effort to continue to do the real transformational work of DEAI? With museums still recovering from the financial impacts of the pandemic, how can they prepare for continued and increased backlash against DEAI progress? Should emergency funds be set aside to offset potential funding losses?

Funding: So now what?

Throughout the various roundtable discussions, the topic of financial commitment took on many forms; the above is just a summary of the main themes of resource allocation, financial infrastructure, and sociopolitical climate impacts that emerged. As with other aspects of DEAI work, funding these efforts and ensuring they have the material resources—financial, intellectual, etc.—are not one-and-done events. However, the unique position that funding inhabits within the museum field can give these issues a greater sense of urgency. As Dr. Cole shared during the first roundtable with emerging museum professionals, “when something is important, three things happen: it gets attention, data is collected about it, and some money is assigned to address it.”

Resources focused on the intersection of DEAI and a museum’s financial infrastructure are scarce, but examples and tools from other public-facing and nonprofit sectors can be a handy guide. For example, if your institution is considering engaging with community members for input on developing a DEAI plan, this article from Shelterforce lays out what that process might look like. Program and compliance training organization Traliant, along with Worldwide Business Research, developed a guide to “Building an Effective DEI Program,” which emphasizes the importance of an effective DEAI program having a dedicated leadership and budget. Additionally, the Predictive Index blog developed a short post detailing how organizations can further their DEAI efforts when faced with limited funding, reflecting a running theme throughout the roundtables that resource allocation does not have to start and end at money (although that is very important). As stated at the beginning of this essay, DEAI work is going to cost something, and ensuring that your museum’s goals and plans are not one-and-done events will require resource investment that is right for your institution.

Additional Takeaways & Closing Thoughts

The preceding four essays represent just a fraction of the complexity of voices that read, ingested, reflected on, and formed opinions about the Excellence in DEAI report. Ours is a large and varied field, and multiple organizations may arrive at similar findings when surveying practitioners and professionals.

Acknowledging that caveat, there are a number of takeaways from these roundtable discussions that, while not a directive to the museum field on what to do or not do when developing, structuring, or implementing your museum’s DEAI plan, may still provide a baseline for further ideation on how your institution can go about the process. Some high-level takeaways from the roundtables include:

• Planning, developing, ideating on, implementing, revisiting, and revising a museum’s DEAI plan can feel like a lopsided process, with non-decision-making staff usually tasked with carrying it out and less often in a position to help shape it. A more equitable and inclusive process for distributing the opportunities to shape and take action on a DEAI plan can help not only lessen that lopsidedness, but create new opportunities for leadership throughout the institution.
• Evaluating a museum’s progress on its DEAI goals should go beyond tracking external measures of success, such as number of participants in a public program or the number of Title I schools that visited the museum. That is not to discount the immense value of this data—collecting and disaggregating survey results, focus groups responses, and other forms of data collection can be critical to advancing DEAI goals at your institution. Rather, assessing DEAI-related needs and areas for improvement within institutions should be undertaken with the same level of resource allocation and importance.
• Effectively communicating your museum’s DEAI plan, goals, and progress can help eliminate uncertainty and confusion within your institution and in sharing progress with different stakeholders. Progress is not always linear, but your institution’s DEAI journey is one “without a fixed endpoint,” to borrow from the Excellence in DEAI report. Every step taken is a step in the right direction. One tangible example of this is ensuring there is a defined reporting structure that is appropriate for your institution, a critical key to creating and implementing a DEAI plan.
• The Core Concept “DEAI is the responsibility of the entire organization” generated a significant amount of conversation across each roundtable, and what that means for your institution will depend on the priorities and goals that are set. Setting those goals and priorities may start at the decision-making level, among board members and senior management, but implementing a different structure—where staff from across the museum have the opportunity and ability to get the ball rolling—can lead to a more equitable and inclusive overall process.
• At the risk of repeating an idea stated numerous times in numerous forms throughout these essays, each institution’s DEAI journey will not look the same, nor will all staff be “on the same page”! This is a tension point in the process; however, at the same time it provides opportunities to imagine what your institution’s journey looks like.
• DEAI work, like all museum work, requires emotional, physical, intellectual, financial, etc. resources to reach its full potential! How, where, and for what purposes those resources are allocated will depend on the institution, but decision makers should consider how resource allocation reflects the museum’s goals, mission, values, and policies.
• With a changing sociopolitical climate, especially regarding DEAI work, museums may want to strongly consider how their DEAI plans can withstand potential backlash from government, organizations, individuals, or groups that seek to weaponize this vital aspect of our work as a field.

The above takeaways are the result of a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to begin answering questions and addressing challenges that, while not new or recent, are front-of-mind for many museum staff, communities, board members, and other stakeholders in our field. The AAM staff and leadership hope that these essays are valuable resources for professionals across the field. This is the case whether your institution is beginning its DEAI journey, has gone through multiple iterations and wants to try a new path, or any point in between.

Transformational change for the museum field requires the work of museum professionals and workers across the sector to ask questions, contemplate answers, gather data, conduct research, and most of all, invest in actions to make real change. This work requires creativity and courage, especially during a time when misinformation about DEAI is being used as political strategy. As AAM moves forward with integrating DEAI values and goals across its institutional, programmatic, organizational, etc. goals, and in the spirit of the Core Concept “DEAI is an ongoing journey without a fixed end point,” our team will be continuing these roundtable discussions along with other activities and sharings-out related to the Excellence in DEAI report. New resources will continue to be available through aam-us.org as we continue our Excellence in DEAI initiative. Additionally, we invite our colleagues across the museum field to share their knowledge, insights, feedback, and input regarding the report via this link.