MAINTAINING HISTORY: MUSEUM FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AT HISTORIC SITES
A Thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of 'Z® I & the requirements for U *T the Degree , w
Master of Arts
In
Museum Studies
by
Edward Michael Collins
San Francisco, California
May 2018 Copyright by Edward Michael Collins 2018 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
I certify that I have read Maintaining History: Museum Facilities Management at Historic
Sites by Edward Michael Collins, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree
Master of Arts in Museum Studies at San Francisco State University.
idward Luby, Ph.D. Professor of Museum Studies
Julie-Bly DeVere Lecturer of Museum Studies MAINTAINING HISTORY: MUSEUM FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AT HISTORIC SITES
Edward Michael Collins San Francisco, California 2018
Facilities management is vital to museums that are associated with historic sites, yet it is often overlooked by the museum community. Maintaining the most important asset of these museums, the site itself, is essential for the continued existence of these historically valuable locations. In this thesis, the role of the Facilities Manager is examined by defining the responsibilities of facilities management and characterizing the status of facilities management at historic sites. A survey of 150 historic sites in the United States was conducted, resulting in a response rate of 31%. After a discussion, a set of conclusions and recommendations are presented. It is concluded that facilities management at museums that are associated with historic sites is a complex responsibility, which is often not performed by dedicated staff, and that professionalizing facilities management requires more attention from the museum community, additional research, and the integration of useful resources.
I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis.
Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis could not have been completed without the unwavering support and guidance of Dr. Edward Luby, the wonderful feedback and support from Julie DeVere, as well as the irreplaceable guidance from Dr. Jean DeMouthe.
A special thank you to my mother, who’s proofreading skills are second to none, and my good friends Jesus Ramirez and Corrie Thompson who helped keep me on task.
Additional thanks go to my colleagues at the San Mateo County Historical Association:
Director Mitch Postel, Deputy Director Carmen Blair, Curator Dana Neitzel, and
Bookkeeper Susan Smith, who provided inspiration and support.
This thesis is dedicated to my wife, Julia Collins, who gave me unconditional love, support, inspiration, and put up with all the late nights and weekends.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables...... ix
List of Figures...... x
List of Appendices...... xii
Chapter 1: Maintaining History...... 1
Chapter 2: Historic Site: National, State, and Local Resources ...... 5
Introduction...... 5
Federal Laws...... 5
National Register of Historic Places...... 7
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines ...... 7
National Park Service ...... 9
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation...... 9
State Resources...... 10
Local Resources...... 10
Conclusion...... 12
Chapter 3: Facilities Management Responsibilities ...... 13
Introduction...... 13
Operations Overview...... 13
Integrated Pest Management...... 14
Fire...... 16
Security...... 19
Emergency Preparedness...... 21 Professionalization...... 22
Conclusion...... 24
Chapter 4: Historic Site Facilities Management Requirements...... 25
Introduction...... 25
What are Historic Structures/Sites...... 25
Historic Site-Specific Requirements...... 26
Accessibility...... 29
Conclusion...... 32
Chapter 5: Methods...... 33
Introduction...... 33
Literature Review Description...... 34
Survey Description...... 36
Summary...... 45
Chapter 6: Survey Results...... 46
Introduction...... 46
Survey Results...... 47
Demographics...... 48
Operations...... 54
Specific Duties...... 60
Documents & Policy...... 68
Conclusion...... 74
Chapter 7: Discussion...... 75
Introduction...... 75
vii Demographics of Respondents...... 75
Professional Memberships...... 76
Facilities Management Responsibilities...... 77
Policies and Documentation...... 78
Accessibility...... 80
Unfulfilled Facilities Needs...... 80
Summary...... 81
Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations...... 82
Introduction...... 82
Conclusions...... 82
Recommendations...... 87
Final Thoughts...... 90
References...... 92
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Survey Mailing list by State...... 38 2. Survey Response Rate...... 47
ix LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1. Survey Distribution by Region...... 39 2. Types of Historic S ites...... 48 3. Type of Organization Controlling the Historic Site...... 49 4. Size of Organization Based on Annual Budget...... 50 5. Status with the American Alliance of Museums...... 51 6. Status with the American Association of State and Local History...... 52 7. Category of Museum...... 53 8. Title of Person Whose Job it is to Maintain the Facility...... 54 9. Formal Facilities Management Training...... 55 10. Volunteer Facilities Maintenance Assistance ...... 56 11. Facilities Maintenance Budget Expense ...... 57 12. Staff Position Responsible for Managing Access for Those with Disabilities 58 13. Specific Facilities-Related Issues in Supplying Access to Those with Disabilities...... 59 14. HVAC Maintenance...... 61 15. Pest Management ...... 62 16. Fire and/or Burglar Alarm First Responder ...... 63 17. Exhibition/Gallery Space Maintenance...... 64 18. General Facilities Lighting...... 65 19. Fire/Life/Safety System Maintenance...... 66 20. Maintenance Needs Contracted to Outside Vendors ...... 67 21. Facilities Policies ...... 68 22. Formal Facilities Use Policy...... 69 23. Facilities-Related Documentation...... 70 24. Facilities Management and Maintenance Long-Term Planning ...... 71
x 25. Facilities-Related Needs That is Not Being Met at This Time, or Requires Additional Support...... 72 26. Plan to Address Facilities-Related Needs...... 73
xi LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1. Survey Letter...... 94 2. Survey...... 95 3. List of Survey Recipients...... 99 4. National Park Service Technical Preservation Services Webpage...... 106 5. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Website...... 107 6. California Office of Historic Preservation Website...... 108 7. NPS National Register of Historic Places List of SHPO Websites...... 112 8. City of Glendale Historic Preservation Website...... 113 9. American Alliance of Museums Accreditation Eligibility Criteria Webpage 114 10. American Alliance of Museums Accreditation Statistics Webpage...... 115 11. American Association for State and Local History StEPs Overview Webpage... 116 12. American Alliance of Museums Find a Museum Webpage...... 117 1
Chapter 1
Maintaining History
Historic places create connections to our heritage that help us understand our
past, appreciate our triumphs, and learn from our mistakes. Historic places help
define and distinguish our communities by building a strong sense of identity.
National Historic Trust, 2018
Historic sites physically encapsulate history, and through a range of programming and thoughtful interpretation, work to educate and serve our communities. Throughout the United States, historic sites have been established to preserve important history, locations, structures, landscapes, and districts. These sites are extremely valuable to the communities that surround them, as well as being part of our greater legacy. But how are these places maintained, given the diversity of challenges their physical structures pose?
Who on the staff is responsible for the maintenance of these important historic sites, so that programming can be offered, and communities served? What kind of training do those caring for such places possess, and what kinds of challenges do those responsible for maintaining facilities at these places face?
Arguably, Facilities Managers, and others who maintain America’s historic places have one of the most important positions at historic sites, yet more could be known about who performs specific maintenance duties at such places, and how standard maintenance- 2
related issues are addressed. As a result, this thesis will examine how professional facilities management is performed at historic sites. This complex and demanding responsibility has many facets which require knowledge of a wide variety of subjects.
To understand this role, several key questions are asked in this thesis: Which staff positions at historic sites are responsible for facilities maintenance? What areas of facilities management are such staff responsible for? What resources are available for information and assistance in the area of facilities management? Are those responsible for facilities management at historic sites trained, and if so, how? What types of facilities management training and education is available for staff that is specific for historic sites?
Finally, do facilities-related policies exist at most historic sites, and are those responsible for facilities management involved with senior management?
Facilities management is an important component of museums at historic sites and is an area deserving more attention. Museums that exist in historic sites have a very important asset, the site itself. Maintaining this asset should be one of the most important responsibilities of these museums. After all, without a well maintained, secure, and accessible facility, the visitor experience is negatively impacted, and the historic integrity of the site itself could be jeopardized.
To examine and answer the questions posed here, both a literature review and a national survey of historic sites were conducted as part of this thesis. First, to understand facilities management at historic sites, a literature review was completed, which 3
examined important sources related to historic sites in the areas of historic preservation, legal requirements, and general facilities maintenance responsibilities. To discover the current state of facilities management at historic sites, a survey of 150 museums across the United States was conducted. Museums in a variety of historic sites were surveyed to examine how facilities management is practiced at different types of historic sites. It was hoped that the results of this survey would be useful in understanding how facilities management is performed at historic sites and that those results could be used to provide recommendations for maintaining facilities in historic sites. Maintaining these sites is crucial to the museums that exist in them, and the information from this survey could be useful in developing more efficient methods of managing these unique facilities.
The review of literature is presented in chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this thesis. Chapter
2 discusses the resources available to historic sites at the national, state, and local levels;
Chapter 3 discusses important facilities management responsibilities; and Chapter 4 concentrates on the nature of the facilities management requirements at historic sites.
In Chapter 5, the methods in this thesis are described, including how the national survey was developed and conducted. Included here are each question asked and the rationale for why it was asked. Chapter 6 next presents the results of the survey in tables and charts. Chapter 7 then outlines several key themes identified from the survey that concern the current state of facilities management both at and in historic sites. Finally, 4
Chapter 8 presents conclusions drawn from the literature review and survey results, as well as recommendations regarding facilities management at historic sites.
Maintaining our historic sites is an important part of presenting, interpreting, and understanding our heritage. Museum professionals should be aware of facilities management and its importance to the maintenance of historic sites. The diverse nature of historic sites across the United States showcases the rich heritage these sites provide, while also offering a challenging environment for maintenance. It is important the museum sector understand the unique nature and maintenance needs of these sites, so that
America’s historic places can continue to preserve, educate, and serve their communities. 5
Chapter 2
Historic Site: National, State, and Local Resources
Introduction
This chapter will briefly present resources concerning historic site preservation provided by the government on a National, State, and Local level in the United States.
Local resources are often policies, ordinances, and laws passed by counties or cities.
States have a wider variety of resources, including; Offices for Historic Preservation, laws, codes, and guidelines for historic sites and structures. National resources consist of federal regulations, responsibilities, protections, programs, grants, and tax incentives, including; the National Register of Historic Places, the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties, the National Park Service, and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. As described below, Local, State, and Federal resources work together to create a system for historic preservation in the United States.
Federal Laws
Personnel at historic sites need to be aware of the following important federal laws and acts: The Antiquities Act of 1906; The Historic Sites and Buildings Act of
1935; The National Preservation Act of 1966; Executive Order #11593; and Title 54.
Each of these laws and acts contains the requirements of federal agencies as they pertain to historic sites, as discussed below. 6
In 1906, the Antiquities Act gave the President of the United States the ability to declare historic landmarks, historic “ruins,” and their objects on public lands to become
National Monuments (Murtagh 2006). These monuments are under the care of the United
States Department of the Interior (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431-433 1906). The Historic
Sites Act of 1935, otherwise known as Title 16, further delegated the preservation and maintenance of historic sites, buildings, and objects to the Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467 1935). The National
Preservation Act of 1966 set requirements for the protection of historic sites and structures, created the National Register of Historic Places, and outlined the criteria for the care and maintenance of historic places (Stipe 2003). Included in the Act is Section
106, which protects properties on the National Register and outlines the responsibilities of government agencies regarding properties which are either on or eligible to be on the
National Register of Historic Places (Public Law 89-665; U.S.C. 470 1966). In 1971,
Executive Order #11593 further defined part of the Secretary of the Interior’s role as creating and maintaining a list of recommendations for the care, and maintenance of historic sites owned, or maintained by the government (Murtagh 2006). In 2014, Title 54,
“National Park Service and Related Programs,” was enacted by Congress. Title 54 codified existing laws relevant to the National Park Service and replaced Title 16 (Public
Law 113-287 2014). Title 54 streamlined the responsibilities assigned to the National
Park Service and related government departments by earlier laws. In particular, Subtitle 7
III covers the following preservation programs (sections 3001-3203): historic preservation programs, grants, the Historic Preservation Fund, organizational responsibilities, the National Register of Historic Places, and other preservation related details (Public Law 113-287 2014).
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places is an important tool in protecting historic places. The National Register of Historic Places consists of a list of historically significant places such as districts, sites, buildings, and structures. This list is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior (Stipe 2003). Properties on this list are designated as
National Landmarks and are eligible for regulation. To be on the registry a property must meet the requirements regarding its historic significance and be nominated by a person, local government, state, or by review by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State Historic Preservation Offices (Murtagh 2006). A historic site or structure on the National Register of Historic Places has some considerable benefits regarding preservation, such as protections outlined in Section 106 and Section 110 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as well as tax benefits and access to grants and historic preservation funds (Stipe 2003).
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines
The Secretary of the Interior maintains a list of Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, which includes Guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring, 8
and reconstructing historic buildings (Grimmer 2017). The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines are comprehensive in nature and are extremely useful even if a site is not on the National Register. The standards outline the requirements which must be followed if the property is on the National Register and include: not changing the historic character of the property, maintaining specific key features of the property by using similar craftsmanship, using repair rather than replacement when possible; and using non damaging types of chemical or physical treatments (Grimmer 2017). Also covered are items such as modem additions and exterior alterations, which need to be compatible with the historic site, but different enough to be noticed as not part of the original property. These additions or alterations must not jeopardize the historic integrity of either the property or the environment where it is located (Grimmer 2017). The most important part of the standards is the comprehensive list of recommended and non-recommended procedures for each component of an historic site in exquisite detail. This list includes, but is not limited to: building exterior by material; roof by material; windows; entrances and porches; and the building’s interior structural system, interior spaces, features, and systems. This list of procedures not only includes recommendations for the whole site or property but also for the district and neighborhood, as well as accessibility considerations, health and safety concerns, and energy efficiency (Murtagh 2006). 9
National Park Service
The National Park Service offers a wide variety of information and resources. The
Historic Sites and Building Act of 1935 originally outlined the responsibilities the
National Park Service had to historic sites and structures under its control. These responsibilities included: restoring, reconstructing, rehabilitating, preserving, and maintaining historic objects and properties, as well as establishing and maintaining museums where applicable (Murtagh 2006). The National Park Service, following these responsibilities, has created a database dedicated for historic preservation on the National
Park Service’s website (National Park Service 2018). This online resource has information relevant to almost any type of site, and more technical publications are available for most types of historic buildings. In the Technical Preservation Services section, for example, there is information regarding standards, guidelines, education, training, cultural resources, and more (National Park Service 2018).
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is a federal agency independent from the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service. The
ACHP’s purpose is to advise Congress, the President, and heads of federal agencies regarding national historic preservation policies and historic resources (Stipe 2003). In addition, the ACHP provides services in education and outreach, preservation initiatives, and administers the National Historic Preservation Act’s Section 106 review process, as 10
well as other responsibilities (Stipe 2003). The ACHP is another federal resource that is focused on historic preservation.
State Resources
On a state level, different laws and codes apply according to each state. Under the
NHPA each state has created a State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (Stipe 2003).
The SHPO is an excellent source of information and resources. For example, in
California the SHPO is called the California Office of Historic Preservation, and is administered by the Department of Parks & Recreation (State of California 2018). The
California SHPO has a vast number of resources available, which should be utilized by all preservation and maintenance projects in the state. Publications such as the Technical
Assistance Series on California State Law & Historic Preservation, covers all the laws, policies, and regulations regarding cultural and historic resources (State of California
2018). A complete list of SHPOs is available on the National Park Service: National
Register of Historic Places Program website (National Park Service 2017).
Local Resources
County and city governments may also have laws, regulations, and policies for historic preservation (Stipe 2003). The federal government offers a program called
Certified Local Government (CLG), which provides assistance in creating policies for historic preservation by funding staff and programs (Stipe 2003). Another resource for local governments is the National Alliance of Preservation Commission (NAPC), which 11
supports local preservation by providing research, and training (Stipe 2003). An example of a county with preservation policies is San Mateo County, in California, which describes its policies for Historical and Archaeological Resources in its general plan. The plan lists goals for protecting historic resources, rehabilitating historic structures, inventorying each of the counties known historic resources, planning historic preservation, and increasing public awareness (County of San Mateo, California 2017).
While the approach to historic preservation may vary on a local level, it is important to determine if the local jurisdictions have ordinances, guidelines, laws, or offices concerning the preservation of historic resources.
In particular, cities may also offer resources or requirements for historic preservation within their city limits. For example, the city of Glendale in California has a special historic preservation office which provides information regarding its historic districts, historic properties, and local preservation ordinances (City of Glendale CA
2018). Glendale’s ordinances specifically target demolition by neglect and require maintenance of historic resources in accordance with national and state standards (City of
Glendale CA 2018). If a historic site resides on city property, the city may wish to become involved in any project involving its care and preservation. Cities will vary in their attention to historic preservation, which is why it is important to check with local governments before starting a preservation project. 12
Conclusion
This chapter broadly presented the framework for protecting and working with historic sites and structures in the United States on Federal, State, and Local levels. On a federal level, laws, departments, organizations, and services are provided as required by law, and guidelines, standards, protections, funding, education, and information are offered. States possess SHPOs, which offer guidance and information regarding federal and state laws, regulations, codes and policies, as well as funding and education. On a local level, counties and cities can also have preservation offices and policies which can provide assistance with understanding local laws and ordinances as well as funding. The overall framework can be challenging to navigate, however, it is important to understand so organizations can comply with laws and regulations which help protect and manage historic places. 13
Chapter 3
Facilities Management Responsibilities
Introduction
This chapter will discuss core facilities management responsibilities in a museum that exists at a historic site or in a structure, as well as best practices. It will include a brief overview of operations and maintenance programs, a discussion on integrated pest management (IPM), responsibilities concerning fire preparedness, security concerns, disaster/emergency planning, and professional training.
Operations Overview
Museum operations is a component of facilities management that focuses on maintenance and identifying facilities-related issues. Historic structures and sites need upkeep and must have challenges addressed in a timely fashion. These needs could be as simple as a baseball breaking a window, or as large as installing a new roof. Using a long-term maintenance program, and understanding the needs of the historic site or structure, can help reduce resources spent on unforeseen maintenance costs.
A useful tool for analyzing the needs of a historic site is a historic structure report.
This report has an inventory of the site or structure and what makes the structure unique.
This is done by performing an inspection on the site or structures: hazards, electrical use, architectural design, conservation and preservation, and code compliance. Identifying 14
issues by performing an overall inspection, and documenting these issues, will allow for a targeted maintenance program (Catlin-Legutko and Klingler 2012).
Museum facilities at historic sites require constant maintenance. Developing a long-term maintenance program is essential to keeping the facility operating efficiently.
There are different types of maintenance programs such as: reactive, preventative, predictive, and reliability centered (Person-Harm and Cooper 2014). Reactive programs only repair things when they break or need attention, which can be costly. Preventative programs perform maintenance according to guidelines and can cost more or less in the long run depending on what types of maintenance is required. Predictive maintenance programs require training and knowledge of specific systems, as well as constant testing to predict what might require more maintenance or less, in the future. Reliability centered programs divide what systems and equipment are the most important and dedicate more resources to them, while restricting maintenance to other areas so that resources are spread to what needs attention compared to what does not (Person-Harm and Cooper
2014).
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, is one of the most important aspects of facilities management. Avoiding chemical use at historic sites and around museum collections is recommended, unless the pests prove resistant or there is a crisis requiring immediate attention (Patkus n.d.). Pests can, and will cause damage, not only to 15
structures, but also to collections and exhibits. A termite infestation can destroy wood supports as easily as it can destroy 19th century wooden furniture. A carefully constructed pest management plan is essential for any institution that wishes to protect its structures, collections, documents, and provide a clean and healthy environment (Merritt and Reilly
2010).
It is essential for locations to be monitored for signs of pests on an ongoing basis.
Along with regular schedule inspections, pest management requires appropriate documentation be kept to manage and monitor locations. If required, bait stations should be checked and refreshed monthly. Traps specific to the types of pests known to impact museum collections and those in the region should be installed and monitored. Possible environmental conditions which attract pests, such as brush and grass against building foundations and stagnant water should be removed. Policies for staff about the regular removal of garbage and food waste from structures should be created, as well as guidelines for restricting food in sensitive areas (Patkus n.d.).
Responding to a threat correctly is as important to containing the threat.
Responses must be applicable to the pest encountered and specific to the object/structure/environment afflicted. There are several types of treatments which can be consolidated into chemical or non-chemical. Non-chemical treatments are preferred when feasible; however, chemical treatments can be more effective and/or quicker (Patkus n.d.). Quick response is essential to managing possible further infestation. For example, if 16
moths are discovered inside curtains, then the curtains must be removed carefully and current containment and removal strategies must be implemented immediately. It is then important to check other locations for a possible spread of infestation such as checking all other curtains and cloth objects for more moths. Guidelines and recommendations for each type of pest are updated constantly and should be checked by going to the American
Alliance of Museums, the National Park Service, or other applicable resource.
Fire
Fire can happen to virtually any historic site or museum facility. Historic sites have issues not found in newer museums. These extra hazards can be: old wiring, challenging architecture, or uncommon construction materials (Merritt and Reilly 2010).
However, these challenges can be overcome with preparation. This preparation can be broken down into several components: fire prevention, life safety, passive fire protection, fire detection, and fire suppression. Having the appropriate protocols, methods, and training can make a significant impact on the aftermath of a fire.
Fire prevention is best categorized as identifying and limiting the chance of ignition. Fire requires three things to start: fuel, oxygen, and an ignition source (Wilson
2016). It is impractical to remove oxygen from anywhere, and fuel can be virtually anything capable of burning, therefore, preventing the ignition of a fire is the most effective way of preventing a fire. The most common causes of fires in cultural institutions are: heating and air conditioning equipment, cooking equipment, electrical 17
wiring, and arson. Policies can be put in place to manage the chance of these causing a fire by controlling fuel sources as well as ignition sources. Chief among these policies should be housekeeping and cleaning. Diligently following best practices, fire codes, and being aware of what could be hazardous is an important part of fire prevention (Wilson
2016).
Life safety systems safeguard the lives of visitors and staff in the event of a fire.
A facilities manager is responsible for maintaining these systems. A fire detection system is a vital component and depending on the site, can be either as small as a few smoke detectors, or a large complicated system with a computer-controlled, independently monitored, interface controlling multiple types of detectors, visual/audible alarms, and pull stations. Emergency egress systems are another key component composed of: accessible exit doors, lit exit signs, emergency lighting, gathering points, and clear egress paths. The last component of life safety systems is staff training; they should be trained in what to do in the event of an emergency and where to go. Life safety systems will save lives if properly maintained, monitored, and practiced (Wilson 2016).
Passive fire protection helps protect the building and determines how a fire spreads. The materials of the walls, doors, ceilings, floors, electrical systems, ducting, and furniture such as cabinets and containers, all influence the path of a fire. The integrity of these passive systems should be maintained and monitored (Wilson 2016). 18
Fire detection systems are an important part of the life safety systems. They are critical in detecting a fire and hopefully allow it to be suppressed before spreading.
Smoke ionization detectors are the most common detection system, but more complicated systems may also include heat detectors and photoelectric detectors. The human detecting component is also vitally important, as we can sometimes smell or see fire before it sets off the detectors, providing manual pull fire alarm stations allows for an added level of detection. These systems need to be maintained and tested regularly in accordance with local laws for maximum benefit (Wilson 2016).
Fire suppression systems are the last critical component in controlling a fire. The simplest form of fire suppression is the fire extinguisher. These should be readily available and located as local laws designate or as needed. Larger fire suppression systems are designed to manage fires beyond what an extinguisher can handle. Sprinklers systems are very effective but require constant maintenance and can cause supplemental damage to both structures and cultural property if engaged (Wilson 2016). Fire is a danger which can be prevented or managed by using as many of these systems as possible at historic sites and within museums. It is imperative that whoever oversees the facility maintains installed systems and manages the human component effectively.
Diligence and appropriate action can minimize damage and/or prevent the loss of life in the case of fire. 19
Security
Security at a historic site or structure needs to be taken seriously. While the nature of the historic site or structure may make implementing security measures challenging, whatever measures that are practical should be used. Security measures can be simple low-tech solutions such as using different types of fasteners, controlling who has access, basic training, or more high-tech with detectors, sensors, cameras, and alarms. Security is a complex subject, therefore, whatever is covered here is just the start of what an organization should consider.
Every organization has a duty to protect their structure, site, and/or collection from malfeasance. If an object or a site is under the control of an organization, they should implement whatever security methods are practical and effective to protect and preserve the object and/or site. These methods should be based on the foreseeability of crimes or actions which may affect the site or collection (American Association of
Museums 2008).
Using alarms and security electronics is an effective way of protecting a site or structure, as well as the objects on display. These can range from relatively simple entry/exit burglar alarms to sophisticated networks of sensors and cameras. A burglar alarm should be monitored 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, with vital information being passed to those with the authority to act as soon as possible. This system will allow museum staff to know if the building or monitored area has been breached. Any burglar 20
alarm installed needs to be in compliance with Underwriters Laboratories 827, Standard for Central Station Alarm Service (American Association of Museums 2008). However, a burglar alarm will not let you see what is going on, or who might be involved, so a secondary system of cameras is also recommended. These will allow vital information to be recorded during a security event that will be useful to resolving the problem. Other steps can be taken to protect individual assets such as installing and monitoring sensors on artwork, electronic curtains for sensitive areas, entry/exit alarm buzzers, motion sensors, and other tamper electronics. Once installed, these systems need to be monitored and responded to for the most effective result (American Association of Museums 2008).
A simple and effective way of securing objects, cases, or other material is to use tamper resistant fasteners (National Park Service 1995). These are simple screws that instead of having common head designs use uncommon designs which require different screwdrivers. When installing these, it is recommended to use at least two different types of tamper resistant fasteners, as well as covering the exposed heads. This combined with staff monitoring the locations where these are installed will deter tampering. (National
Park Service 1995).
Controlling access is another component of security that should be implemented.
Keys, keycards, and codes to vital areas should be secured and distributed only to those who require access. Controlled access should be organization-wide, including but is not 21
limited to: collections, site/structure access, records, or other sensitive areas. Limiting access is a simple way to increase security (American Association of Museums 2008).
Another way of increasing security is to train staff and volunteers. Training staff and volunteers to be security conscious in their responsibilities increases awareness of security in any historic site and or structure. Staff and/or volunteers should know how to operate whatever security device within their purview; for instance, openers should be aware of how to disarm the burglar alarm, while gallery monitors should know how to respond to tamper alarms. The human component is the most valuable part of any security system; and making sure staff and/or volunteers know how to respond is vital to a successful security policy (American Association of Museums 2008).
Emergency Preparedness
Any historic structure or site can and will encounter an emergency or disaster.
Whether natural or man-made, there are many types of emergencies and disasters, including: medical, fire, flood/water damage, earthquake, snow, hurricane, tornado, terrorism, and more. It is important there are plans in place for each of these unfortunate events (Merritt and Reilly 2010).
There are two different types of plans, emergency response plans and disaster plans. An emergency response plan covers what needs to be done in the event of an emergency. Emergencies are what needs to be done immediately, and impact your structure or locations, while disasters are local to your region or area and have larger 22
impacts. Disaster plans tend to have more long-term solutions regarding the facility and collection. Both plans outline the responsibilities of staff and cover as many possible threats and contingencies as possible (American Alliance of Museums 2012).
Disaster and emergency plans follow a basic format. An introduction outlines the organization of the plan and who is responsible for keeping it updated. A preparedness and prevention section is dedicated to outlining specific risks to the organization and how these risks are potentially minimized. A response procedures section defines staff duties in the event of an emergency or disaster. The clean-up/salvage procedure section will direct staff to what they need to do after the disaster or emergency. These plans must be organization-specific, as each site/structure/organization has specific needs which may not be applicable to others (American Alliance of Museums 2012).
Professionalization
Few certifications or training programs for facilities management specific to museums or to historic sites or structures exist. Therefore, two places stand out, the
International Facility Management Association (IFMA), and the Leadership in
Educational Facilities, also known as APPA (Person-Harm and Cooper 2014). While these sources provide valuable information in regard to maintenance and operations, it is important to note all of their information will need to be adapted to the historic site/structure and organization. Most of the information provided is specific to newer buildings and construction. 23
A good organization will train its staff to handle the specific requirements of their historic site or structure by utilizing a variety of methods. Other locations to look for specific information regarding facilities management at historic sites are the American
Alliance of Museums (AAM) and the American Association for State and Local History
(AASLH).
The AAM maintains an Accreditation program for museums, nonprofit organizations, and government entities (American Alliance of Museums 2005). This program, which assesses a museum, outlines specific responsibilities for eligibility. These requirements include a focus on core documentation, such as; mission statements, collections management plans, disaster and emergency preparedness plans, as well as other documents (American Alliance of Museums 2005). Undergoing the process of
Accreditation is often beneficial for the organizations which undertake the task.
Successful organizations are not only recognized as accredited, but accreditation in turn increases the professional status of their museum. However, with only 8% of the Historic
House/Site museums in the United States accredited by the AAM, many historic sites often lack these key documents and plans (American Alliance of Museums 2016).
The AASLH also maintains an assessment program called The Standards and
Excellence Program for History Organizations (StEPs). This self-study assessment program is designed for small- and medium-sized organizations (American Association for State and Local History 2017). StEPs is designed to help smaller organizations 24
become more professionalized by defining standards and helping them create core documents to fit the organization’s needs. The AASLH will then award certificates such as Bronze, Silver, or Gold, based upon the organization’s performance in each section’s levels. This program works on an honor system, and as such, does not have the same level of credibility, certification, or endorsement; however, it still helps organizations increase their professionalization and growth (American Association for State and Local
History 2017).
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the general responsibilities of facilities management within a museum located at a historic site, or within a historic structure, including; operations and maintenance programs, training, disaster/emergency planning, integrated pest management, security, and fire preparedness. There are significant challenges in adapting known best practices for museums in historic sites and structures. Facilities management is not one-size-fits all. 25
Chapter 4
Historic Site Facilities Management Requirements
Introduction
This chapter will focus on the types of facilities maintenance and management required at historic sites and structures. These sites and structures can offer challenges different from what exists in other museums: environmental conditions are often far from ideal, lighting could be old and poor, there could be difficulty finding suitable locations to store objects, what happens when you need something large fixed or installed, and issues with accessibility. Below, issues that need to be considered when maintaining a historic site, are outlined.
What are Historic Structures/Sites
There are many different types of historic sites and structures. They can range from historic rooms to entire towns, or historic districts in cities or towns. They are often dedicated to showing a way of life or specific environment or experience. A historic site could be a house, lighthouse, courthouse, stable, or a complex of structures, each with its own unique valuable history. A historic site could also be a historic landscape which seeks to preserve historic views. Last, but not least, are archaeological sites, which preserve and protect a different level of history (Murtagh 2006).
Historic houses are the most prevalent form of historic site. They exist in virtually every community, county, and state. Founded initially as a method to enshrine where 26
important or influential people lived, they have shifted focus to be less about a person and more about an area or historic context (West 1999). Nonetheless, these houses have their own challenges for maintenance and preservation.
Historic Site-Specific Requirements
Museums at historic sites and their historic structures have unique requirements, as compared to other museums. Their lighting may be old and/or poor and may be damaging to the objects and finishes. Museum collections may be stored in cramped, overheated, dusty, pest-ridden attics or other inappropriate spaces. There may be little to no heating or cooling and no control over humidity, and the only fix may be install a very expensive system which will not fit into the maintenance budget. This section will address common problems and offer some practical solutions.
Lighting
Historic sites and structures have unique lighting needs. Old or historic fixtures limit lighting options. Maintaining the feel of the site or structure also requires maintaining similar types and colors of light. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) are the preferred method of lighting historic structures, when possible, from a preservation context. They emit similar quality light to standard incandescent bulbs, but do not produce ultraviolet or infrared radiation which cause damage. Where possible, LEDs should be used instead of alternative lighting (Druzik 2012). Switching to LEDs when, 27
and where possible will lower long-term costs, reduce electrical loads, and help preserve the site, structure, and collection objects.
Storage
Storage in historic sites may be required for a variety of needs; including: object or collection storage, archival storage, or even museum required storage for education, development, maintenance, events, or others. Collections storage in historic sites or structures is often in areas not specifically designed to store such sensitive material.
These storage areas are normally located in attics, basements, closets, small rooms, or other areas away from public access (Merritt and Reilly 2010). Such spaces are fraught with dangers not typically associated with standard museum storage areas. Care must be when adapting spaces for the preservation of specific collections material. The type of collections, and their materials should also be considered when choosing a storage space.
A routine cleaning program will help reduce dust and dirt and will prevent pests. Using security controls will help prevent unwarranted access and damage. Finally, the environmental conditions in the storage areas should be conducive for the type of collections and materials being stored (Merritt and Reilly 2010).
Temperature and Relative Humidity
In general, museums have very specific guidelines for both temperature and relative humidity. Museums in historic structures often have difficulty achieving these standards. Older structures should attempt to maintain constant temperature and humidity 28
to preserve the structure and its contents. The nature of the site or structure can make maintaining temperature and humidity difficult, if not impossible (Merritt and Reilly
2010). Older sites and structures could be burdened with thicker or thinner walls; poor or too much insulation; too many or too few windows; or any number of other challenging site- or structure-specific features.
Nonetheless, a Facilities Manager should endeavor to balance out the temperature and relative humidity as much as is practical and feasible. This can be done by following these steps: monitor and record data, identify issues, and install solutions. Monitoring and recording data can be done through several different approaches, such as: installing thermometers and hygrometers, or even all-in-one electronic environmental data loggers, although there are many other options available (Merritt and Reilly 2010). After monitoring environmental conditions, issues will present themselves, and the information gathered should be used to understand what areas need attention and what type of action is required, so solutions can be implemented, where applicable. For instance, installing a dehumidifier in a room with too much humidity, or installing a room level air-conditioner to lower temperature can be quite effective (Merritt and Reilly 2010). However, not all solutions will be small-scale; often a larger solution will require some planning or a capital expense. 29
Planning
When a facilities related program is large enough to warrant expense, then the organization should plan to address it. This is done through a few different methods.
Maintenance plans can address the most common issues and should include enough of a budget to address replacing required components, machines, or services as needed, such as alarm systems, broken parts, structural components like windows/doors, and more.
However, when a problem is large enough, a capital improvement plan or capital expense plan is an effective way of raising funds and implementing a large-scale change. To do this, the problem must be outlined effectively and solutions solicited from contractors or applicable experts, such as a construction firm with expertise installing HVAC systems in
Victorian houses. The solution to the problem should consider future needs and not just current requirements (Person-Harm and Cooper 2014). Once a plan has been developed the funds required must be raised or obtained. After fundraising, the solution can be implemented. It is vitally important to include cyclical maintenance costs when planning maintenance budgets (Person-Harm and Cooper 2014). If used correctly and wisely, capital planning for expenses is an effective form of fixing long-term, large-scale, problems.
Accessibility
Staff responsible for operating and maintaining historic sites and structures need to be aware of laws and requirements of providing access. This section will discuss 30
briefly the American Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), including its requirements for historic structures in both public and private sectors, the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (NHPA), as well as outlining a simple process of determining how, or if it is possible, to provide access.
American Disabilities Act
The American Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) outlines the requirements organizations must adhere to regarding providing access to those with disabilities.
Museums at historic sites must be aware of the ADA and what their responsibilities are.
The two most important sections to museums are Title II and Title III. Title II covers sites controlled by state or local governments, and Title III is for privately operated sites
(Donnelly 2002).
Title II dictates structures owned and/or controlled by state or local governments are required to provide access. They must make certain those with disabilities are not excluded because of inaccessible policies and/or buildings, except when doing so would result in changing the nature of the structure and/or program or be incredibly expensive in cost or administration (Donnelly 2002). Title II has several other requirements for new construction to be accessible, it requires all entities to conduct a self-evaluation to identify barriers to access (Donnelly 2002).
Title III is apropos to most museums at historic sites as it covers non-profits and other private organizations. Under Title III, organizations are required to provide access 31
whenever feasible to their location, programs, and to maintain that access. Other requirements include providing auxiliary aids and services, removing barriers (physical and communication), and making certain new facilities are in compliance with the ADA.
Most of the requirements hinge on feasibility being readily achievable without being too difficult or expensive (Donnelly 2002).
National Historic Preservation Act
Accessibility in historic sites follow a different set of rules; while Title II and
Title III of the ADA are applicable, they must follow the mandates outlined in the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Historic sites must follow the ADA unless the modifications change or destroy the historical significance of the site. Section 106 of the NHPA defines the process to determine eligibility and the correct procedure to follow
(Donnelly 2002). In essence, a historic site or structure must provide access unless providing access is detrimental to the historic significance of the location, or it simply costs more than is practical, or achievable to provide.
Providing Access
As access in historic sites can be tricky, and most were designed long before accessibility was commonly considered, integrating accessibility is not a straightforward process. Access to historic sites can be broken down into three steps: identify historical significance and features; assess current and desired level of access; and evaluate accessibility using a preservation lens (Jester and Park 1993). First, it is necessary to 32
understand what makes the historic structure historic. Next, ask what level of access needs to be installed or created. Finally, only make changes if it is possible to do so without damaging the character of the site or structure, and when it is cost effective to do
Conclusion
Maintaining and managing a historic site is fraught with unique and interesting challenges, from lighting to accessibility. While different from other museums, these challenges often have parallels and solutions that not are too different or challenging to address. A Facilities Manager needs to be adaptable and understand the historic site they oversee and find or identify solutions applicable to them. Each historic site is different, and what works for one will not necessarily work for another. However, a thoughtful and carefully planned solution will overcome most problems. 33
Chapter 5
Methods
Introduction
In this thesis, the role of the Facilities Manager in museums existing in historic sites is examined. Facilities management is vitally important to museums in historic sites but is not as well understood or written about as other museum professions. The professional Facilities Manager needs to balance the specific needs of the historic site, the collections, and the requirements of maintaining the site itself. This is a challenging position with a wide variety of responsibilities. The key questions examined in this thesis are: who at historic sites is taking care of the facility; what are the responsibilities and requirements of facilities staff at historic sites; what laws do facilities staff need to know; what resources are available to facilities staff; what type of training and education is available specifically for historic site facilities; what is the current role of facilities management and managers at historic sites; and how are those responsible for facilities trained; and do they interact with senior management.
Using information obtained by conducting a literature review and national survey, this thesis will define the responsibilities of facilities managers at historic sites and characterize the status of facilities management at historic sites. 34
Literature Review Description
The literature review is divided into three chapters to discuss: the legal framework pertinent to historic sites and preservation; core facilities management responsibilities, available training, and professional development; and the nature of, and challenges involved in, managing facilities at historic sites. Each chapter is briefly summarized below.
First, in Chapter 2, resources concerning historic site preservation provided by
National, State, and Local governments are reviewed. Full texts of relevant laws are reviewed, as well as relevant books on historic preservation, and official websites of government organizations were examined. The important sources used in this chapter were: William J. Murtagh’s Keeping Time: The History and Theory o f Preservation in
America (2006), which is covers the history of historic preservation; Robert E. Stipe’s^
Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century (2003), which investigated historic preservation; and Anne E. Grimmer’s The Secretary o f the Interiors
Standards for the Treatment o f Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017), which details the important guidelines and standards from the Secretary of the Interior.
Next, in Chapter 3, core facilities management responsibilities and best practices in museums existing in a historic site or structure are reviewed. The sources used in this chapter are primarily “how-to” and guidance books related to historic preservation, as 35
well as information and standards from the American Alliance of Museums and the
American Association of State and Local History. The core responsibilities and best practices discussed include: operations and maintenance programs; integrated pest management; fire preparedness and systems; security systems and procedures; emergency and disaster preparedness; as well as professionalization, training, and professional organization defined best practices and programs.
Important sources included: Cinnamon Catlin-Legutko and Stacy Klinger’s Small
Museum Toolkit (2012), which discussed stewardship in relation to historic preservation;
Jane Merritt and Julie A Reilly’s Preventive Conservation for Historic House Museums
(2010), which examined historic house museum preservation; Andrew J. Wilson’s Fire
Protection in Cultural Institutions Presentation (2016), which examined in detail fire protection and prevention in relation to museums and other cultural institutions; the
American Alliance of Museum’s Suggested Practices for Security (2008), which detailed security responsibilities for museums; and the American Alliance of Museum’s
Developing a Disaster Preparedness/Emergency Response Plan (2012), which is a reference guide for creating both a disaster plan and an emergency response plan for museums. Finally, the nature of training available for those responsible for managing facilities in historic sites were reviewed; important sources include: Angela Person-Harm and Judie Cooper’s The Care and Keeping o f Cultural Facilities: A Best Practice
Guidebook for Museum Facility Management (2014), which details facility management 36
best practices; the American Alliance of Museums, which has information regarding facilities and best practices, as well as having an accreditation program; and the
American Association for State and Local History, which provides information and an assessment program.
Chapter 4 concludes with a review of literature relevant to historic site facilities management, and the often specialized nature of managing these facilities. Important sources of information included: William J. Murtagh’s Keeping Time: The History and
Theory o f Preservation in America (2006), which is an assessment of the different types of historic sites; Jane Merritt and Julie A Reilly’s Preventive Conservation for Historic
House Museums (2010), which examined some of the unique historic preservation challenges faced by historic house museums; Angela Person-Harm and Judie Cooper’s
The Care and Keeping o f Cultural Facilities: A Best Practice Guidebook for Museum
Facility Management (2014), which described maintenance and planning; and Jessica
Foy Donnelly’s Interpreting Historic House Museums (2002), which describes the challenges historic sites face in creating access for those with disabilities.
Survey Description
The survey conducted for this thesis was entitled, “Museums in Historic Sites:
The Professionalization of the Facilities Manager.” It was comprised of 18 questions separated into four categories: demographics; operations; specific duties; and documents 37
& policy. This survey was sent to 150 historic sites in the United States, as outlined below.
After careful consideration and research, the survey was addressed to “Directors” with instructions to give it to their appropriate staff member. The reason of addressing the survey to the Director was to increase the probability of the survey being completed.
There is uncertainty whether smaller historic sites may, or may not, have a single position for facilities management, which means the Director, or similar position, would know who should complete the survey.
Overall, survey questions were designed to examine pertinent details of facilities management and maintenance, who performs the duties required, as well as demographic details such as the type of historic site and professional memberships associated with historic sites. The results of the survey could be used to identify and make recommendations about current trends in facilities management.
The 150 institutions surveyed were selected from the historic sites and historic landscapes listings maintained by the American Alliance of Museums (American
Alliance of Museums 2017). This list included 701 historic sites in the United States.
Two locations were removed from the list due to personal professional involvement, which lowered the list to 699 possible recipients. A random number generator was then used to select 150 historic sites from this list. Below in Table 1, is the distribution of the survey by state and by region (see also Figure 1). 38
Table 1: Survey Mailing List by State State Number of Survevs Alabama 1 Arizona 2 California 6 Colorado 2 Connecticut 7 District of Columbia 1 Delaware 2 Florida 2 Georgia 5 Iowa 3 Idaho 1 Illinois 7 Indiana 3 Kansas 1 Kentucky 1 Louisiana 1 Massachusetts 10 Maryland 6 Maine 2 Michigan 3 Minnesota 3 Missouri 5 Mississippi 1 North Carolina 3 North Dakota 4 New Hampshire 2 New Jersey 6 New Mexico 1 New York 12 Ohio 6 Oklahoma 1 Oregon 1 Pennsylvania 9 Rhode Island 5 South Carolina 1 Texas 2 Virginia 14 Vermont 3 Wisconsin 5 Total 150 39
Figure 1: Survey Distribution by Region
■ West ■ Midwest » Northeast ■ South
The formal survey was sent to 150 historic sites throughout the United States by first class mail on October 30, 2017; along with a cover letter introducing the survey, the survey itself, and a self-addressed-stamped envelope. The historic sites were given until
November 22, 2017 to complete and return the survey.
The survey was organized into four sections. Below, each section and its questions are listed.
Section 1: Demographics
The first section asked 6 questions relating to demographics information. The answers to these questions would supply an overall view the respondents.
Question 1 asked, “What type o f historic site do you operate? ” This was a check- all-that-apply question with possible responses being: Historic House; City Historic Site; 40
County Historic Site; State Historic Site; National Historic Site; Historic District;
Historic Landscape; Other Historic Site with a space for a write in answer. This question was influenced by information asked by the Heritage Health Index (Heritage Preservation and Institute of Museum and Library Services 2005). The question was asked to determine what types of historic sites responded, as well as attempting to understand if historic sites consisted of multiple categories.
Question 2 asked, “What type o f organization controls the historic site you operate? ” This was a check-all-that-apply question with possible responses being:
Private Non-Profit; City; County; State; Private; Mixed; Other. The responses for Mixed and Other allowed respondents to supply information. This question was asked to understand what types of organizations run historic sites.
Question 3 asked, “What is the size o f your organization based on your annual budget?” The possible responses were: Large (More than $1,500,000); Medium
($500,000 - $1,500,000); Small (Under $500,000). This question was asked to analyze responses by organizational size.
Question 4 asked, “Please select your status with the American Alliance o f
Museums. ” This check-all-that-apply question had the following possible responses:
Member; Not a Member; Accredited; Not Accredited; or In Process of Accreditation or
Re-Accreditation. This question was asked to understand the status survey recipients have with the A AM to help analyze survey responses. 41
Question 5 asked, “Please select your status with the American Association for
State and Local History. ” This check-all-that-apply question had the following possible responses: Member; Non-Member; StEPs in process; Not part of StEPs; StEPs Bronze;
StEPs Silver; StEPs Gold. This question was asked to understand the involvement of survey recipients with the AASLH and its StEPs program.
Question 6 asked, “ What category o f museums does your organization represent? ” This select-all-that-apply question had the following possible responses:
History; Natural History; Children; Art; Science; Other with space to define. This question was asked so survey responses could be analyzed by type of museum.
Section 2: Operations
The operations section consisted of 5 questions, which were designed to examine how sites operate.
Question 7 asked, “What is the title o f the person whose job it is to maintain the facility? ” This write-in question was asked to understand who performs the role of
Facilities Manager.
Question 8 asked, “Does the person whose main job it is the manage your facility have any formal facilities management training? ” This question had the following possible responses: Yes; No; Other (Please explain). This was asked to assess how many facilities have staff with relevant professional training.
\ 42
Question 9 asked, “Does your museum have volunteers who assist or contribute to the maintenance o f your facilities? ” This question had two possible responses: Yes; or
No. The question was asked to understand how volunteers are involved in facilities management.
Question 10 asked, “What percentage o f your budget goes to facilities maintenance? ” The possible responses for this question were: Less than 10%; 10-20%;
20-30%; 30-40%; 40-50%; More than 50%. This question was asked to identify levels of facilities-related maintenance expenses.
Question 11 asked, “Please answer a few questions on how your organization provides access to those with disabilities. ” This question had two parts, A and B. Part A asked, “What staffposition (title) is responsible for managing access to your facility for those with disabilities? ” The answer to this question will be used to examine who has what responsibilities in facilities management. Part B asked, “Does your site face specific facilities-related issues in supplying access to those with disabilities? I f so, what are the issues?” This question had the following possible responses: Yes; No; an open-ended response to possible issues. The question was asked in order to explore accessibility in historic sites. 43
Section 3: Specific Duties
The Specific Duties section asked two multi-part questions. These questions were asked to better understand who is performing the role of the Facilities Manager at historic sites.
Question 12 asked, “Please answer a few questions about staff responsibilities
(Titles only please). ” This question had 6 parts, A-F; each question was open-ended and requested the professional title as an answer. Part A asked, “What staff member is responsible for maintaining the HVAC? ” Part B asked, “Which staff member is responsible for Pest Management? ” Part C asked, “Which staff member is the primary responder to the Fire or Burglar Alarms? ” Part D asked, “Which staff member maintains the exhibition spaces and their contents (if applicable)? ” Part E asked, “Which staff member maintains the general facilities lighting? ” Part F asked, “Which staff member is responsible for maintaining the Fire/Life/Safety Systems? ” These questions were asked to define who is performing these vital facilities roles at historic sites.
Question 13 asked, “Which o f your maintenance needs is contracted to outside vendors?” This select-all-that-apply question had the following possible responses:
Lighting; HVAC; Fire/Life/Safety Systems and Equipment; Integrated Pest Management;
Exhibit/Gallery Maintenance; Other, (Please explain). This question was asked to determine how much of their facilities maintenance is performed by outside vendors versus in-house staff. 44
Section 4: Documents & Policy
The Documents & Policy section asked 5 questions, which were asked to define the professional documentation and policies found at each historic site.
Question 14 asked, “ What staffposition develops policies concerning facilities? ”
This write-in question was asked to learn who is involved in the development of policies at historic sites.
Question 15 asked, “Does your museum have a formal policy for facilities use? ”
This question had the following possible responses: Yes, Formal; Yes, Informal; No
Policy; In Development; Other (Please explain). This question was asked to assess the level of facilities use policies at historic sites.
Question 16 asked, ‘‘Does your organization use any o f the following facilities- related documents. ” This select-all-that-apply question had the following possible responses: Emergency Response Plan; Disaster Plan; Facilities Report; Historic Structure
Report; Other (Please explain). This question was asked to understand what professional facilities-related documentation is used at historic sites.
Question 17 asked, “Is the management and maintenance o f your facilities included in any of your organizations long-term management plans? ” The possible responses were: Yes; or No. This question was asked to understand how historic site facilities management and maintenance relates to organizational long-term planning. 45
Question 18 asked, “Please answer the following questions on your organizations facilities needs. ” This question was comprised of two parts. Part A asked, “Does your organization have a facilities-related need that is not being met at this time, or requires additional support? If so, what are these needs? ” The possible responses to this question were: Yes; or No; with a write in description to define the needs if applicable. Part B asked, “Is your organization planning to address these needs? If so, how are you addressing these needs? ” The possible responses to this question were: Yes; No; N/A; with a write in description to define how the needs are being addressed, if applicable.
This question was asked to assess organizational facility related needs and how, or if, they are being addressed.
Summary
For this thesis a literature review and a national survey were conducted. The literature review was performed first to understand the responsibilities of the Facilities
Managers at historic sites, to define what historic sites are, and what resources and laws are applicable to them. The national survey was intended to understand the current state of, and trends in, facilities management at and in historic sites. In Chapter 6, the results of the survey are presented. 46
Chapter 6
Survey Results
Introduction
In this chapter the results of the national survey will be presented. This survey was sent to 150 historic sites in the United States. As outlined in the previous chapter, the survey consisted of 18 questions, and utilized multiple choice, check box, and short answer formats. This survey was designed to obtain information on the current state of facilities management at historic sites.
As outlined in the methods chapter, the survey first asked demographic questions, such as what type of historic site was responding, the size of the organization by budget, membership and status in the American Alliance of Museums (AAM), membership and status in the American Association of State and Local History (AASLH), as well as the type of museum the organization represented. Other questions related to specific aspects of facilities management, such as staff responsibilities, access for those with disabilities, policies and documentation, and facilities related issues.
The formal survey was mailed on October 30, 2017, and respondents were given until November 23, 2017, to return the survey. Each packet contained a cover letter, a survey, and a self-addressed stamped envelope. The self-addressed stamped envelope was included to facilitate a higher response rate. 47
Survey Results
Of the 150 historic sites surveyed, 46 responded, resulting in an acceptable response rate of 31% (Table 2). All surveys received prior to February 1, 2018 were processed, however, four additional surveys were received after this date and were not included in the results. With just under a third of recipients responding, the results are considered to be representative of facilities management practices at historic sites throughout the United States. The results of each question are listed below.
Table 2: Survey Response Rate
Number of Surveys Number of Survey Survey Response Rate Participants
150 46 31% 48
Demographics
Question 1 asked, “What type o f historic site do you operate?” This was a check- all-that-apply question, with possible responses being: Historic House (HH); City
Historic Site (Ci); County Historic Site (Co); State Historic Site(S); National Historic Site
(N); Historic District (HD); Historic Landscape (HL); and Other Historic Site with fill in response area. Of the organizations that responded, the two most common answers were
Historic House at 43% (or 19) responses and Historic Site at 23% (or 10); however, many organizations checked multiple boxes with 20% (or 15) for Historic House and Historic
Site, and 14% (or 6) for Historic House and Historic Site, and another category. Overall, most respondents, 77% (or 36), could be characterized as variants of Historic Houses.
The data is presented in the chart (Figure 2) below.
Figure 2: Types of Historic Sites Historic House + Historic Site + Other 14% Historic House 43% Historic House + Historic Site 20%
Historic Site (National, State, Local) 23% 49
Question 2 asked, “ What type o f organization controls the historic site you operate? ” This was a check-all-that-apply question, with possible responses consisting of: Private Non-Profit; City; County; State; Private; Mixed; Other. The responses for
“Mixed” and “Other” allowed a blank space to answer. Many mixed responses were received, as shown below (Figure 3), and only a few respondents filled out the “other” category. The most common response to the question was Private Non-Profit at 59% (or
27). Next, Federal/State/County/City and Federal/State/County/City + Private Non-Profit both counted at 18% (or 8) responses each. Finally, responses to Public/Private Non-
Profit Partnership consisted of 4% (or 2) and State + University at 2% (or 1) had the least number of responses.
Figure 3: Type of Organization Controlling the Historic 50
Question 3 asked, “What is the size o f your organization based on your annual budget? ” The possible responses were: Large (More than $1,500,000); Medium
($500,000 - $1,500,000); Small (Under $500,000). This question was asked to categorize responses by organization size. As illustrated in Figure 4, the most common response was
Small (Under $500k) at 54% (or 24), then Large (More than $1.5m) at 26% (or 12), and finally Medium ($500k-$1.5m) at 20% (or 9).
Figure 4: Size of Organization Based on Annual Budget 51
Question 4 asked, “Please select your status with the American Alliance o f
Museums. ” This check-all-that-apply question had the following possible responses:
Member; Not a Member; Accredited; Not Accredited; In Process of Accreditation or Re-
Accreditation. As shown in Figure 5, most respondents, 81% (or 42) were associated with the American Alliance of Museums: 50% (or 23) of respondents were members, 22% (or
10) were members and accredited, 11% (or 5) were members and not accredited, 9% (or
4) were in the process of either accreditation or re-accreditation, and only 9% (or 4) were not members.
Figure 5: Status with the American Alliance of Museums.
Member + Accredited + In Process of Re- m Accreditation *
Member + In Process of Accreditation H M j 3
Member + Accredited 10
Member + Not Accredited 5
Not a Member 4
Member 23
0 5 10 15 20 25 52
Question 5 asked, “Please select your status with the American Association for
State and Local History. ” This check-all-that-apply question had the following possible responses: Member; Non-Member; StEPs in process; Not part of StEPs; StEPs Bronze;
StEPs Silver; and StEPs Gold. As illustrated in Figure 6, most respondents, 76% (or 35) were associated with the AASLH, 54% (or 25) were members, and 24% (or 11) were not members. In relation to the StEPs program, 9% (or 4) were not part of the StEPs program, while 9% (or 4) were in process of getting a StEPs certification, and 4% (or 2) had a certification.
Figure 6: Status with the American Association of State and Local History
Member + StEPs Certificatio- 4%
Member + Not part of StEPs 9%
Member + StEPs in Process Member 9% 54%
Non-Member 24% 53
Question 6 asked, “What category o f museums does your organization represent? ” This select-all-that-apply question had the following possible responses:
History; Natural History; Children; Art; Science; Other with space to define. As shown in
Figure 7, most respondents, 98% (or 42) were associated with History in some way, with
64% (or 29) being solely history related, 18% (or 8) were associated with History and
Art, and 16% (or 7) were associated with History and at least one other discipline. Only
2% (or 1) were not associated with History.
Figure 7: Category of Museum Other - Architecture 2%
History + Other Discplines 16%
History + Art (or more) History 18% 64% 54
Operations
Question 7 asked, “What is the title o f the person whose job it is to maintain the facility? ” This write-in question allowed respondents to write in the title of who performs the role of Facilities Manager. Due to the nature of a write in, answers have been categorized. As shown in Figure 8, the most common response was the Director or similar with 30% (or 14) responses, followed by 17% (or 8) for the Facilities Manager or similar, 15% (or 7) for the Director of Operations or similar, 11% (or 5) for the Site
Manager or similar, 11% (or 5) for Outside Staff/Partner/Government, 9% (or 4) for
Board and Director and/or Staff, 4% (or 2) for the Curator, and finally, 2% (or 1) for no title provided.
Figure 8: Title of the Person Whose Job it is to Maintain the Facility
No Title H i 1 Outside Staff/Partner/Govemment Board + Director and/or Staff Curator Site Manager or similar Director of Operations or similar Facilities Manager or similar Director or similar \ 4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 55
Question 8 asked, “Does the person whose main job it is the manage your facility have any formal facilities management training? ” This question had the following possible responses: Yes; No; Other (Please explain). As shown in Figure 9, the most common response was, Yes, with 61% (or 28), followed by, No, with 33% (or 15), and finally, Other (Certifications, Workshops, etc.) with 6% (or 3).
Figure 9: Formal Facilities Management Training 56
Question 9 asked, “Does your museum have volunteers who assist or contribute to the maintenance o f your facilities? ” This question had two possible responses: Yes; or
No. As shown in Figure 10, the most common response was, Yes, with 70% (or 32) responses, followed by, No, with 28% (or 13) responses. However, 2% (or 1) chose not to answer the question.
Figure 10: Volunteer Facilities Maintenance Assistance
No answer 2%
No 28%
Yes 70% 57
Question 10 asked, “What percentage o f your budget goes to facilities maintenance? ” The possible responses for this question were: Less than 10%; 10-20%;
20-30%; 30-40%; 40-50%; and More than 50%. All survey respondents answered this question. As illustrated in Figure 11, the most common response was 10-20% with 39%
(or 18), then 20-30% with 20% (or 9), followed by Less than 10% with 17% (or 8), and
30-40% with 13% (or 6), then 40-50% with 7% (or 3), and finally, only 4% (or 2) spent more than 50%.
Figure 11: Facilities Maintenance Budget Expense 58
Question 11 asked, “Please answer a few questions on how your organization provides access to those with disabilities. ” This question had two parts, part A and a part
B.
Part A asked, “What staff position (title) is responsible for managing access to your facility for those with disabilities? ” The answers to this question contained write in titles which have been categorized. As shown in Figure 12, the most common response was the Director or similar with 24% (or 11), followed by no answer with 15% (or 7), then Facilities Manager with 13% (or 7), Education staff with 13% (or 7), Curator with
7% (or 3), Site Manager or similar with 7% (or 3), followed by Visitor Experience staff with 4% (or 2), Board with 2% (or 1), and finally, no title given with 2% (or 1).
Figure 12: Staff Position Responsible for Managing Access for Those with Disabilities
No Answer ■■■■■■■■■■■ 7 No Title ■■■ 1 Board ■■■ I Director of Operations or similar m m m m m m m m m 5 Visitor Experience related staff ■■■■hi 2 Education related staff 6 Curator ■■■■■■■■ 3 Site Manager or similar BaiaHMHHHaH| 3 Facilities Manager or similar 6 Director or similar 11
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 59
Part B asked, “Does your site face specific facilities-related issues in supplying access to those with disabilities? I f so, what are the issues? This question had the following possible responses: Yes; No; and an open-ended response to possible issues.
As shown in Figure 13, the most common response was, Yes, with 70% (or 32), followed by, No, with 24% (or 11), and finally, No Answer, with 6% (or 3). The issues listed in the write in section talked about the following access problems: no access, problems due to stairs, a lack of or problems with elevators, ramps, as well as trails and pathways.
Figure 13: Specific Facilities-Related Issues in Supplying Access to Those with Disabilities 60
Specific Duties
Question 12 asked, “Please answer a few questions about staff responsibilities
(Titles only please). ” This question had 6 parts, A-F, each part was opened ended and requested the professional title as an answer. Due to the nature of the write in question, answers have been grouped together. One survey respondent failed to follow directions and wrote in the name of the person responsible without titles, therefore their response has been represented as, No Title. Several respondents also did not answer some parts of the question; these responses are represented as, No Answer. The responses to each part follow below. 61
Part A asked, ( Outside Staff/Contractor with 13% (or 6), and Operations with 7% (or 3). No Answer, Site Manager, and the Board each had 4% (or 2). Finally, the Facilities Manager and Curator, Curator, Volunteer, and No Title each had 2% (or 1). Figure 14: HVAC Maintenance No Answer v m m m 2 No Title ■■■ 1 Outside Staff/Contractor 6 Volunteer ■■■ 1 Facilities Manager and Curator ■■■ 1 Curator ■■■ 1 Board MHMMi 2 Director mmmmmmm 12 Maintenance staff 7 Operations or similar ■■■■■■■■ 3 Facilities Manager or similar 7 Site Manager or similar ■■■■■■ 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 62 Part B asked, “Which staff member is responsible for Pest Management? ” One survey respondent failed to follow directions and wrote in the name of the person responsible without their title, therefore their response has been represented as, No Title. Several respondents also did not answer some parts of the question, these responses are represented as, No Answer. As shown in Figure 15, the most common response was Director, with 33% (or 15), then Outside Staff/Contractor, Curator and/or Collections Staff. Responses to Facilities Manager or similar each consisted of 13% (or 6), followed by Dedicated Pest Management staff and Maintenance staff, each with 7% (or 3), followed by Curator and Facilities Manager, and Site Manager, each with 4% (or 2), finally, the Board, Director of Operations, and No Title each had 2% (or 1). Figure 15: Pest Management No Title Outside Staff/Contractor Board Director 15 Curator and/or Collections Staff wmtmmmmmmmmmm 6 Curator and Facilities Manager ■ ■ ■ ■ 2 Director of Operations ■ ■ 1 Dedicated Pest Management Staff Maintenance Staff Site Manager or similar Facilities Manager or similar ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 63 Part C asked, ‘Which staff member is the primary responder to the Fire or Burglar Alarms? ” One survey respondent failed to follow directions and wrote in the name of the person responsible without their title, therefore their response has been represented as, No Title. Several respondents also did not answer some parts of the question; these responses are represented as No Answer. As shown in Figure 16, the most common response was the Director, with 35% (or 16), followed by Facilities Manager with 13% (or 6), and Site Manager with 11% (or 5). Responses to Visitor Experience staff consisted of 9% (or 4), followed by Outside Staff/Contractor, Dedicated Security staff, and Assistant staff at 7% (or 3) each, and finally, Facilities Manager and Curator, Curator, Tour Guide, Board, Whoever is there, and No Title, each with 2% (or 1). Figure 16: Fire and/or Burglar Alarm First Responder No Title ■■ 1 Whoever is there ■■ 1 Outside Staff/Contractor mmmmmm 3 Board ■■ 1 Visitor Experience Staff ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 4 Dedicated Security Staff ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 3 Director ■■■■■■■■■■■■ 16 Facilites Manager and Curator ■■ 1 Curator m m l Tour Guide ■■ 1 Assistant Staff ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 3 Site Manager or similar ■■■■■■■■■■■■ 5 Facilites Manager or similar ■■ ■■ 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 64 Part D asked, “Which staff member maintains the exhibition spaces and their contents (if applicable)? ” One survey respondent failed to follow directions and wrote in the name of the person responsible without their title, therefore, their response has been represented as No Title. Several respondents also did not answer some parts of the question, so these responses are represented as No Answer. As shown in Figure 17, the most common response was Curator and/or Collections staff with 41% (or 19), followed by the Director with 26% (or 12), and the Site Manager with 13% (or 6), the Facilities Manager and No Answer/None at 4% (or 2), and finally, Supervised Custodial Staff, Assistant Director, Outside Staff/Contractor, Board, and No Title at 2% (or 1). Figure 17: Exhibition/Gallery Space Maintenance No Answer/None No Title Board Outside Staff/Contractor Assistant Director Supervised Custodial Staff Curator and/or Collections Staff 19 Director 12 Site Manager or similar Facilites Manager or similar ■ 2 2 4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 65 Part E asked, “Which staff member maintains the general facilities lighting? ” One survey respondent failed to follow directions and wrote in the name of the person responsible without their title, therefore, their response has been represented as No Title. Several respondents also did not answer some parts of the question; these responses are represented as No Answer. As shown in Figure 18, the most common response was the Director, with 26% (or 12), followed by the Facilities Manager with 24% (or 11), Maintenance Staff with 15% (or 7), Outside Staff/Contractor with 9% (or 4), Curator or Site Manager, each at 7% (or 3), the Board and No Answer, each at 4% (or 2), and finally, Everyone and No Title, each at 2% (or 1). Figure 18: General Facilities Lighting No Answer ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 2 No Title ■■■ Everyone Director 12 Site Manager or similar ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I 3 Maintenance Staff ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 7 Facilites Manager or similar ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I 11 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 66 Part F asked, “ Which staff member is responsible for maintaining the Fire/Life/Safety Systems? ” One survey respondent failed to follow directions and wrote in the name of the person responsible without their title; therefore, their response has been represented as, No Title. Several respondents also did not answer some parts of the question; these responses are represented as, No Answer. As shown in Figure 19, the most common response was, the Director, with 35% (or 16), then the Facilities Manager and/or Maintenance Staff with 30% (or 14), followed by Dedicated Security staff with 13% (or 6), and Outside Staff/Contractor with 9% (or 4), and the Site Manager with 4% (or 2), finally the Visitor Experience staff, Curator, No Title, and No Answer each had 2% (or 1). Figure 19: Fire/Life/Safety System Maintenance No Answer Hi 1 No Title M 1 Director 16 Site Manager or similar ■ ■ ■ 2 Curator H ] Visitor Experience Staff ■§ 1 Facilities Manager and/or Maintenance Staff 14 Outside Staff/Contractor ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 4 Dedicated Security Staff ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 67 Question 13 asked, “Which o f your maintenance needs is contracted to outside vendors?” This select-all-that-apply question had the following possible responses: Lighting; HVAC; Fire/Life/Safety Systems and Equipment (FLSS); Integrated Pest Management (IPM); Exhibit/Gallery Maintenance; and Other, Please Explain. Due to the nature of the question, respondents selected multiple answers; in this case, acronyms have been used to represent their answers for convenience. The one answer to the “Other” answer was external maintenance and has been represented as such. As shown in Figure 20, the most common answer was HVAC + FLSS+IPM with 26% (or 12), followed by HVAC + FLASS with 17% (or 8), Lighting + HVAC + FLSS + IPM with 13% (or 6), IPM + FLSS with 11% (or 5), FLSS with 9% (or 4), HVAC with 4% (or 2), and finally, the categories All, No Answer, and Other - Exterior Maintenance at 2% (or 1) each. Figure 20: Maintenance Needs Contracted to Outside Vendors No Answer mm l All ■■ 1 HVAC + FLSS + IPM mmm— m 12 Lighting + HVAC + FLSS + 1PM w— — m 6 1PM + FLSS mmmmmm 5 HVAC + FLSS — 8 Other - Exterior Maintenance “ ■ ] Exhibit/Gallery Maintenance 0 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 0 Fire/Life/Safety Systems and Equipment (FLSS) ■■■■“ ■ ■ 4 HVAC — 2 Lighting 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 68 Documents & Policy Question 14 asked, “What staff position develops policies concerning facilities?” This write-in question had a variety of responses categorized as shown below. As seen in Figure 21, the most common answer was Director, with 39% (or 18), followed by Facilities Manager with 11% (or 5), Committee, and Director and Board, each with 9% (or 4), the Board, Director and Facilities Manager, Site Manager, and Multiple Staff (Not Board/Director/Committee) with 7% (or 3) each, Curator with 4% (or 2), and finally, the Director and Curator at 2% (or 1). Figure 21: Facilities Policies Multiple Staff (Not Board/Director/Committee) WHRKM 3 Committee m k KKKKRM 4 Board 3 Director and Board i h h 4 Director and Facilities Manager WKKKM 3 Director and Curator h 1 Director 18 Curator m 2 Facilities Manager or similar ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 5 Site Manager or similar WKKKM 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 69 Question 15 asked, “Does your museum have a formal policy for facilities use? ” This question had the following possible responses: Yes, Formal; Yes, Informal; No Policy; In Development; and Other (Please explain). One respondent selected multiple answers and has been represented below as such. Two respondents selected the “Other” option, one specified “Rentals Only,” the other did not understand the question. As illustrated in Figure 22, the most common response was, Yes, Formal, with 59% (or 27), followed by Yes, Informal, with 20% (or 9), No Policy with 13% (or 6), finally, In Development, Yes, Informal + In Development, Other - Rentals Only, and Other - Did Not Understand the Question at 2% (or 1) each. Figure 22: Formal Facilities Use Policy No Policy Other- Did 13% not understand Other - Rentals Only Yes, Informal + In Development 2% In Development Yes, Formal 2% 59% Yes, Informal 20% 70 Question 16 asked, “Does your organization use any o f the following facilities related documents. ” This Select-all-that-apply question had the following possible responses: Emergency Response Plan (ERP); Disaster Plan (DP); Facilities Report (FR); Historic Structure Report (HSR); and Other (Please explain). Respondents often had and selected multiple documents; therefore, to simply presentation, acronyms have been used. Five respondents did not answer or did not have any of the documentation listed. As shown in Figure 23, the most common response was, All, with 28% (or 13), ERG + DP + HSR, ERP + DP, and No Answer/None each at 11% (or 5), ERP at 9% (or 4), ERP + DP + FR, HSR + DP, and ERP + HSR at 7% (or 3) each, HSR, and HSR + FR at 4% (or 2) each, and finally, FR at 2% (or 1). Figure 23: Facilities-Related Documentation No Answer/None wmmmmmmmmmmmm 5 All 13 ERP + DP + FR HSR + FR HSR + DP ERP + HSR ERP + DP + HSR mmmmmmmmmmmmm 5 ERP + DP 5 Historic Structure Report (HSR) *■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 2 Facilities Report (FR) ■■■ 1 Disaster Plan (DP) 0 Emergency Response Plan (ERP) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ mmmm 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 71 Question 17 asked, “Is the management and maintenance o f your facilities included in any o f your organization’s long-term management plans? ” The possible responses were: Yes, or No. One respondent wrote in, “In Process” and has been represented below as such. One respondent did not respond to the question. As shown in Figure 24, the most common answer was, Yes, with 87% (or 40), followed by, No, with 9% (or 4), In Process with 2% (or 1), and finally, No Answer, with 2% (or 1). Figure 24: Facility Management and Maintenance Long-Term Planning In Process 2% No 9% 87% 72 Question 18 asked, “Please answer the following questions on your organization’s facilities needs. ” This question was comprised of two parts. Respondents were not required to answer Part B if they answered No to Part A. Part A asked, “Does your organization have a facilities-related need that is not being met at this time, or requires additional support? If so, what are these needs? ” The possible responses to this question were: Yes, or No, with a write in description to define their needs, if applicable. Write in responses included: general maintenance; collections storage; exhibit space; capital projects such as HVAC and heating; funding; disaster repairs; as well as organizational problems. Figure 25 shows the most common answer was; Yes, with 61% (or 21); followed by, No, with 37% (or 17); and lastly, No Answer, at 2% (or 1). Figure 25: Facilities-Related Need That is not Being Met at This Time, or Requires Additional Support No Answer 2% No 37% 73 Part B asked, “Is your organization planning to address these needs? I f so, how are you addressing these needs? ” The possible responses to this question were: Yes, No, Not Applicable (N/A), with a write in description to define how the needs were being addressed, if applicable. The write in responses included: Creating reports; working with outside agencies; applying for grants; locating funding; fundraising; capital fundraising; and the most common, as the budget and/or funding allows. As shown in Figure 26, the most common answer was, Yes, with 61% (or 28), followed by No Answer, with 17% (or 8), and N/A with 15% (or 7), and finally, No, at 7% (or 3). Figure 26: Plan to Address Facilities-Related Needs No Answer 17% N/A 15% Yes 61% No 7% 74 Conclusion In sum, this chapter presented the results of the survey completed by survey respondents at 46 historic sites. These results give a snapshot of current facilities management practices at historic sites across the United States. In the next chapter, the results will be discussed in relation to information from the literature review (Chapters 2- 75 Chapter 7 Discussion Introduction Managing facilities in historic sites is a challenging task. In this chapter, the results of the national survey are discussed in detail, and several points about the current state of facilities management at historic sites are presented. Significant topics discussed are: the demographics of survey respondents; professional organization memberships; specific facilities management responsibilities, such as, who is performing the required tasks and if they are trained; policies and documentation; accessibility; and unfulfilled facilities-related needs. Demographics of Respondents Interestingly, of the historic sites that responded to the survey, the majority, more than three-fourths, were variants of Historic Houses. At the same time, almost all respondents, more than 80%, were Private Non-Profit organizations, and more than half were small organizations with annual budgets less than $500,000. Finally, almost all respondents identified as a history based organization, though one-third of all respondents reported another subject area and type of museum, such as Art or Natural History. In sum, the average respondent to this survey was a history museum in a historic house operated by a small private non-profit organization. However, a representative 76 segment of medium and larger historic houses and sites running differing types of museums was also present. Professional Memberships Professional organizations such as the American Alliance of Museums and the American Association of State and Local History provide valuable information and resources to museums and historic sites. Understanding the relationship historic sites have with these organizations was one of the goals of this survey. Membership in the professional organization, the American Alliance of Museums (AAM), was overwhelming, with more than four-fifths of respondents being associated to the AAM in some way. However, only roughly one-third were accredited or in the process of accreditation/re-accreditation. Only a few were not members of the AAM. Similarly, membership to the American Alliance of State and Local History (AASLH) was also overwhelming, with more than three-fourths being associated with the AASLH in some way. However, only 13% participated in the StEPs program offered by the AASLH, and only 4% of those had certifications. Approximately one-fourth of all respondents were not associated with the AASLH. Refreshingly, most survey respondents did have clear associations with these professional organizations. The average survey respondent was a member of both the AAM and the AASLH, though was not accredited or certified by either body. It is disappointing that more are not certified or accredited. 77 Facilities Management Responsibilities Managing the facilities at a historic site has many components. This survey sought to understand who is responsible for each of the most important parts of facilities management; such as HVAC, IPM, FLSS, general lighting, and exhibit/gallery maintenance. Another important goal of this survey was to understand if the person responsible for facilities management was professionally trained, and to understand how much of an organization’s budget was being spent on maintaining their facilities. The position ultimately responsible for the management of facilities at historic sites in respondents was surprising. Most often the Director, or similar position, was in charge for nearly one-third of respondents; meanwhile, less than one-fifth of respondents reported that they employed a Facilities Manager; and fewer still, around one-tenth, reported that they employed a Director of Operations or a Site Manager. Surprisingly, some sites indicated their facilities management was performed by an Outside Staff/Partners/Govemment, while the Board and Director and/or Staff was responsible at even fewer respondents, and finally, only a couple of respondents used their Curator. When it came to specific facilities management duties, it was clear that the Director was consistently involved. From HVAC and IPM to FLSS, alarms, and lighting, the Director was responsible from one-tenth to one-third of the time, followed by a Facilities Manager; the only exception to this pattern was Exhibition/Gallery Space 78 Maintenance, which was performed by the Curator/Collections Staff in about two-fifths of respondents, while the Director performed this duty about one-fourth of the time. This does not mean Directors were performing these maintenance tasks. The survey results indicated most of the actual maintenance work is being performed by outside contractors/vendors. Management of the HVAC systems, Fire/Life/Safety Systems, and Pest Management performed by outside contractors/vendors was also reported by a high percentage of respondents. Historic sites also rely on volunteers to assist in maintenance; indeed, close to three-quarter of respondents have volunteers who contribute to facilities maintenance. This means that a significant portion of historic site maintenance needs are performed by outside contractors/vendors, or volunteers, under supervision. The fact that outside contractors perform maintenance in a high percentage of historic houses is not a problem if whoever is responsible for ensuring the maintenance is performed has knowledge and training in facilities management. Fortunately, almost two- thirds of respondents reported the person in charge of facilities management had formal facilities management training. Policies and Documentation Formal policies and documentation related to facilities management are useful tools for historic sites. Understanding who develops these documents was another goal of this survey. Interestingly, survey respondents followed the same pattern as seen with 79 maintenance needs. The Director was responsible for developing policies for almost two- fifths of respondents, while the Facilities Manager was responsible at only around one- tenth of respondents. However, the Board, or a committee, was reported as involved at nearly one-quarter of respondents. This means that whoever oversees facilities maintenance is likely to be involved in the development of facilities related documentation. One of the most important policies is the Facilities Use Policy, which outlines rules and regulations relating to how the facility is used. Almost all survey respondents reported having some sort of policy relating to facilities use, including almost two-thirds with formal policies, and about one-fifth with an informal policy. Other facilities-related documentation was common as well, with almost all respondents having at least one of the following documents: Facilities Report; Historic Structure Report; Emergency Response Plan; or Disaster Plan. Only about a quarter of respondents had all these documents; however, almost three-quarters had an Emergency Response Plan, two-thirds had a Disaster Plan, more than half had a Historic Structure Report, and about two-fifths had a Facilities Report. Even though most sites do not have all of these documents, about three fourths had at least some combination of documentation, as mentioned above, which is important not only for preserving the site by having plans and policies in place which protect and detail responsibility, but also for the professional credibility of the organization. 80 Accessibility Access for those with disabilities is important, and may be required by law, as discussed earlier. Historic sites need to have someone who knows what their requirements are for managing access to their facilities, and for about one-fourth of survey respondents, this person was the Director. Interestingly, Education Staff and Facilities Managers were reported as responsible in small numbers; however, knowing what the requirements are is not the same as implementing them. In addition, almost three fourths of respondents reported having issues in supplying access to those with disabilities. The reasons stated primarily concerned stairs, ramps, and elevators. Older structures, particularly Historic Houses, were not built with ADA compliance in mind. As discussed earlier in Chapter 4, while access may not be legally required at a particular historic site, it is a desired goal. Unfulfilled Facilities Needs Accessibility is not the only issue historic sites face. This survey sought to identify facilities related needs that were not being met at historic sites. Not surprisingly, more than half of respondents had some sort of facility-related need not being met. These needs varied from general maintenance, collections storage, and exhibit spaces, to larger projects such as HVAC, heating, and disaster repairs. The majority of respondents reported they were planning to address these needs, with the biggest hurdle being funding. The most common response written in to address these needs was related to 81 raising or locating funds. Maintaining historic sites does require adequate funding and budgeting, however, there are no apparent guidelines or standards for facilities-related expenses available. Nonetheless, funding for facilities-related expenses appear to be a challenge, as over half of respondents spend less than 20% of their annual budget on maintenance. Summary In this chapter, several observations can be made. The most common survey respondent was a small, private non-profit, Historic House museum. The organization is likely a member of the AAM and the AASLH, but is not part of any certification or accreditation program. The Director of this organization, most likely, is responsible for most of the important facilities-related decisions, and thankfully, has the necessary training to know what is needed. To accomplish facilities-related tasks, the Director uses outside contractors/vendors and volunteers for certain duties. In addition, the Director of this organization has also created some professional documentation for the organization. Meanwhile, the Historic House itself is not entirely accessible to those with disabilities, most likely due to stairs. Finally, this organization has some sort of facilities-related need requiring significant funding to resolve outside their normal budget. Several conclusions will be presented in the next chapter based on these observations. 82 Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations Introduction Historic sites are places of significance located in small towns, rural areas, and urban areas, all throughout the United States. These sites preserve and interpret unique, important, or interesting history, architecture, and locations. Museums in historic sites have the challenging task of not only interpreting history, locations, and, if applicable, their collections, but also maintaining and preserving the site itself. This is a sobering responsibility, with many complex components that require specific knowledge and training to navigate, perform and execute consistently, especially since each historic site has its own requirements and challenges. In this thesis, how facilities management is performed at historic sites in the United States was examined, including investigating core facilities management responsibilities, what resources are available in the area of facilities management, and the current state of facilities management practices in historic sites. Conclusions Below, six conclusions regarding facilities management at historic sites are presented: first, relevant literature needs to be more available; second, Directors play a surprising role in managing facilities at historic sites; third, personnel responsible for 83 facilities management generally possess facilities management training; fourth, many historic sites are still not participating in accreditation or certification programs; fifth, most respondents to the survey had professional documents and policies related to facilities management; and sixth, most survey respondents reported facing important facilities-related challenges at or within their historic site. Four recommendations for the future of facilities management in historic sites are then outlined, followed by some final thoughts to end the thesis. Conclusion #1: Facilities management is the foundation of which successful museum operations are based, however, relevant literature, specifically on laws and regulations, needs to be more accessible, and better integrated with basics on facilities management. Information on laws and regulations is often not included with basic guidance on important facilities responsibilities such as HVAC, FLSS, or security plans, making it challenging for historic site museums, and particularly small organizations, to know what laws and regulations apply to their sites. This situation is problematic because sites may, unknowingly, have facilities issues which create potentially hazardous situations which may endanger the site, its contents, and its staff and visitors. Guidance that takes a more integrative approach to discussing the legal and compliance framework for facilities management would be very helpful. Conclusion #2: Directors perform most facilities management responsibilities. 84 The survey results indicated that facilities management at small historic sites is most often the responsibility of the Director, although a Facilities Manager was also reported as responsible, as were outside contractors. With the often very small staff sizes of most historic houses and sites in the United States, this suggests that Directors at many small historic houses are also performing core facilities management duties. While it is understandable that staff must sometimes perform responsibilities outside their normal job descriptions, it is problematic that the Director, whose duties often include an emphasis on oversight for museum programing, exhibits, and community interactions, is also responsible for day-to-day facilities management. However, it is also important to note the next most common response was a Facilities Manager, or similar position. This suggests that even in a sector of the museum community with often small staff sizes, management and governing authorities appear to recognize the value of professionalizing facilities-related duties; either through the hiring of a Facilities Manager or contracting out these tasks, though this may be challenging for museums to financially sustain in the long-term. Conclusion #3: Most survey respondents did have professional facilities management training. One of the most important goals for the survey was to determine if those in charge of facilities management at historic sites had professional training. Significantly, most of the respondents did indeed have some kind of professional training in facilities 85 management. This is noteworthy, because whether these facilities-related tasks were performed by employees, or were outsourced, the survey results suggest that much of the actual maintenance of museums at historic sites today is performed or overseen by those with the appropriate knowledge. While the correct performance of facilities-related tasks is vital to historic sites, learning that untrained individuals are not involved in facilities-related tasks, despite small staff numbers in this sector of museums, is significant. Such a result suggests facilities management at historic sites has taken important steps towards professionalization in recent years. Conclusion #4: Most historic sites are not participating in accreditation or certification programs. While it was refreshing to see that most of the survey respondents were members of the AAM and AASLH, because these organizations provide information and resources for historic sites, it was worrisome that most survey respondents were not participants in either the AAM’s Accreditation Program or the AASLH’s StEPs certification program. Both programs provide information and methods which are important to improving professional organizations. Accreditation and certification efforts are normally coordinated by senior managers. In addition to performing facilities-related duties, it may be that Directors at historic sites are spread too thin to participate in these important programs, despite their 86 utility. In museums with very small staffs, it may be necessary to consider expanding the range of personnel who can participate and help lead accreditation and certification programs, whether they are experts in education, visitor services, or facilities management. Conclusion #5: Most respondents have professional documents and policies related to facilities management. Documents and policies related to facilities management provide vital information in relation to the site and facilities management. Although not all respondents had developed all recommended documentation, most had drafted disaster plans, emergency response plans, historic structure reports, and facilities use policies. The presence of these documents suggests facilities management across the historic site sector is professionalizing, as policy development is key indicator that organizations understand standards and best practices. Conclusion #6: Most survey respondents reported facing a facilities related challenge. It was unsurprising to see most survey respondents faced some sort of facilities related challenge or issue. The unique nature of historic sites, and specifically, of historic houses, means that most are in-part inaccessible to those with disabilities, mostly due to stairs and other design features. However, additional challenges such as heating, collections storage areas, exhibition spaces, and even disaster repairs were identified. 87 Fortunately, most survey respondents are in the process of resolving their challenges, though addressing them is limited by funding. Simply knowing the challenges historic sites continue to face is important, as similar issues are likely present in the many historic sites which were not part of the survey group. Recommendations Below, four recommendations concerning facilities management in historic sites are described: first, facilities management should not be the responsibility of the Director; second, historic sites should participate in certification programs; third, funding for facilities-related expenses should be increased; and finally, creating professional literature dedicated specifically to facilities management in historic sites needs to be a priority. Recommendation #1: Facilities management should not the responsibility of the Director Facilities management is a significant responsibility which should be performed by someone dedicated to the task. Sharing responsibilities, although sometimes necessary, is not ideal, especially for a Director, who has oversight of the organization. Moving forward, historic sites should endeavor to place this important responsibility of completing facilities-related tasks on dedicated staff, when possible. Recommendation #2: Historic sites should participate in certification programs 88 The certification programs offered by the AAM and the AASLH are exceptionally useful for organizations. Most respondents were already members of these organizations; the process of implementing these certification programs would increase the professionalization of the organizations. At the same time, those with oversight for the organization, including senior managers and governing authorities, would be further educated about standards that should be in place across all areas of the organization. Significantly, participation in the professional certification process would result in the development of additional facilities-related professional documentation, and this would undoubtedly be beneficial, as the survey results indicated few organizations currently have all the facilities-related documentation in place that they should. Recommendation #3: Funding for facilities related expenses should be increased Facilities-related expenses can be significant, and most respondents to the survey reported they had an issue they needed to resolve which required additional funding to address. Although there is currently no point of reference regarding budget standards for facilities-related expenses, with most of the respondents spending less than 20% of their budget on facilities, it is not surprising that funding is an apparent issue. Historic sites often require more intensive ongoing maintenance and care; identifying adequate funding is not only important, but necessary. A possible solution would be to increase the percentage of the budget dedicated to facilities. This, however, is not always an option. The National Trust for Historic 89 Preservation recently dealt with this issue in an interesting way; in an effort to increase spending on the preservation of their historic structures, the organization accessioned interpreted historic structures as part of their collection. This allowed them to spend funds dedicated for preserving collections on preserving their key historic structures (National Trust for Historic Preservation 2014). In an era of limited funding, it is necessary to develop such creative approaches; moreover, individuals with professional training in facilities management may be well- suited to contribute to such efforts. Recommendation #4: Creating professional literature dedicated specifically to facilities management in historic sites needs to be a priority. Professionalizing facilities management for museums in historic sites needs to be a priority, and a key part of this is supplying integrated information on facilities management basics. The current model, where useful how-to information, is somewhat separated from vital information concerning laws and regulations, can lead to situations at historic sites where important actions are taken to address facilities issues without appropriate attention paid to ensuring that compliance occurs with recent regulations and standards. Although resources and information are plentiful, knowing where and what to look for can be a daunting process, especially from a legal standpoint. At the same time, there is a tendency for resources concerning smaller “portable” objects in collections to 90 be separated from those dealing with large “objects,” such as structures. To improve this situation, museum professionals and professional organizations should endeavor to create more complete documentation and access to relevant literature dedicated to facilities management for museums, and specifically for museums at historic sites. A state-by- state, web-based guide aimed specifically at smaller historic sites would be especially useful. The emphasis needs to be on supplying resources which will help maintain and preserve historic sites, not just what is contained inside them. Final Thoughts There can be a tendency within the museum profession to think of facilities management as a support activity secondary to collections and interpretation, and one that can be completed by other staff members who possess “more mission-based” positions. However, it is the facility itself at historic sites which should be at the forefront of concerns. Without the historic site itself, there would be no interpretation or collection. Maintaining and preserving historic places is a challenging but worthwhile endeavor. Facilities management is a core responsibility for all museums, requiring an understanding of information ranging from how to operate complex equipment, the latest standards, accessibility, the legal framework, finances, management, to performing duties on a daily basis that require vigilance and constant attention, all in order to ensure visitor and site safety. With its many complexities, understanding what facilities management entails in museums is essential, and it is a subject that requires and deserves additional 91 attention, integrated resources, and further research. Professionalizing facilities management for museums in historic sites will ensure that our historic sites will be maintained and preserved for future generations. 92 References 34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431-433. (1906, June 8). Antiquities Act of 1906. United States Government. 49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467. (1935, August 21). Historic Sites Act of 1935. United States Government. American Alliance of Museums. (2005, Jan 1). Eligibility Criteria. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from American Alliance of Museums: http://www.aam- us.org/resources/assessment-programs/accreditation/eligibility American Alliance of Museums. (2012). Developing a Disaster Preparedness/Emergency Response Plan. Arlington: American Alliance of Museums. American Alliance of Museums. (2016). Accreditation Statistics. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from American Alliance of Museums: http://www.aam- us.org/resources/assessment-programs/accreditation/statistics American Alliance of Museums. (2017). Find a Museum. Retrieved August 11, 2017, from http://www.aam-us.org/about-museums/fmd-a-museum American Association for State and Local History. (2017). StEPs Overview. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from American Association for State and Local History: http://tools.aaslh.org/what-is-steps/ American Association of Museums. (2008). Suggested Practices For Museum Security. Catlin-Legutko, C., & Klingler, S. (2012). Small Museum Toolkit 6: Stewardship: Collections and Historic Preservation. Lanham: AltaMira Press. City of Glendale CA. (2018). City o f Glendale: Historic Preservation. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from http://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/historic-preservation County of San Mateo, California. (2017). General Plan: Historical and Archaeological Resources Policies. Redwood City: San Mateo County. 93 Donnelly, J. F. (2002). Interpreting Historic House Museums. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Druzik, J. (2012, May/June). LED Lighting. Museum. Grimmer, A. E. (2017). The Secretary o f the Interior's Standards for the Treatment o f Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior: National Park Service. Heritage Preservation and Institute of Museum and Library Services. (2005). A Public Trust At Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State o f America's Collections. Washington D.C.: Heritage Preservation Inc. Jester, T. C., & Park, S. C. (1993, September). Making Historic Properties Accessible. Presevation Briefs(32). Merritt, J., & Reilly, J. A. (2010). Preventive Conservation for Historic House Museums. Ranham: Rowman & Littlefield. Murtagh, W. J. (2006). Keeping Time: The History and Theory o f Preservation in America. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. National Park Service. (1995, July). Tamper-Resistant Fastners for Museum Exhibit Cases. Conserve O Gram, 2(9). National Park Service. (2017). National Register o f Historic Places Program: State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO). Retrieved January 18, 2018, from https://www.nps.gov/nr/shpolist.htm National Park Service. (2018). National Park Service: Technical Preservation Services. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from https://www.nps.gov/tps/index.htm National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2014). When Buildings and Landscapes Are the Collection. (P. L. Forum, Ed.) Forum Journal, 28(4), 1-7. 94 Patkus, B. L. (n.d.). 3.10 Integrated Pest Management. Retrieved August 18, 2017, from Northeast Document Conservation Center: https://www.nedcc.org/free- resources/preservation-leaflets/3 .-emergency-management/3.10-integrated-pest- management Person-Harm, A., & Cooper, J. (2014). The Care and Keeping o f Cultural Facitilies: A Best Practice Guidebook for Museum Facility Management. Lanham, Maryland, United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield. Public Law 113-287. (2014, December 19). Enactment of Title 54 - National Park Service and Related Programs. United States Government. Public Law 89-665; U.S.C. 470. (1966, October 15). National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Washington D.C.: United States Government. State of California. (2018). California State Parks: Office o f Historic Preservation. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ Stipe, R. E. (2003). A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation In The Twenty-First Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. West, P. (1999). Domesticating History: The Political Origins of America's House Museums. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Wilson, J. A. (2016, August 15). Fire Protection In Cultural Institutions - Presentation. Retrieved August 18, 2017, from National Archives: https:// www. archives. gov/preservation/emergency-prep/fire-prevention.html 95 Appendices Appendix 1: Survey Letter San Francisco State University Museum Studies Program 1600 Holloway Avenue San Francisco, CA 94132 [email protected] Dear Director, My name is Edward Collins, and I am conducting a project on Museum Facilities Management. The information gathered will be used to analyze museum policy and practice concerning Museum Facilities in Historic Sites. 1 am hoping that I might have approximately ten minutes of your time to complete the enclosed survey. The data collected from this interview will be used for the completion of a Master of Arts degree in Museum Studies at San Francisco State University. You have been contacted because your museum is located in, or controls a historic site and because you are an expert in the operations of your museum. If you agree to complete the survey, please understand that any information provided by you may appear in the final written thesis. However, note that you need not supply any information on the response that links your museum to the survey. If you are not the most appropriate person in the museum to answer the survey, it would be most appreciated if you would forward it along to someone in the museum who can respond. A self-addressed-stamped envelope has been supplied. I would greatly appreciate the return of the survey by November 22nd, 2017. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please contact my research advisor, Professor Edward Luby at [email protected]. The title of my thesis is Museums in Historic Sites: The Professionalization of the Facilities Manager. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Edward Collins 96 Appendix 2: Survey Edward Collins San Francisco State University Museum Studies Program 1600 Holloway Avenue San Francisco, CA 94132 Survey Questions Museums in Historic Sites: The Professionalization of the Facilities Manager Section 1: Demographics 1. What type of historic site do you operate (Check all that apply)? _ Historic House City Historic Site County Historic Site _ State Historic Site National Historic Site Historic District Historic Landscape Other Historic Site (Define)______2. What type of organization controls the historic site you operate (Check all that apply)? _ Private Non-Profit City County State _ Private Mixed (Please explain) Other (Please explain) 3. What is the size of your organization based on your annual budget? Large (More than $1,500,000) Medium ($500,000-$l,500,00) _ Small (Under $500,000) 4. Please select your status with the American Alliance of Museums below (Check all that apply). _ Member Not a Member _ Accredited Not Accredited _ In Process of Accreditation or Re-Accreditation 5. Please select your status with the American Association for State and Local History (Check all that apply). _ Member Non- Member StEPs in process Not part of StEPs StEPs Bronze StEPs Silver StEPs Gold 6. What category of museums does your organization represent (Select all that apply)? _ History Natural History Children Art Science _ Other (Please Define) 97 Section 2: Operations 7. What is the title of the person whose job it is to maintain the facility? 8. Does the person whose main job it is to manage your facility have any formal facilities management training? _ Yes No Other (Please explain) 9. Does your museum have volunteers who assist or contribute to the maintenance of your facilities? Y e s No 10. What percentage of your budget goes to facilities maintenance (Check one)? _ Less than 10% _ 10-20% _20-30% _30-40% _40-50% More than 50% 11. Please answer a few questions on how your organization provides access to those with disabilities, a. What staff position (title) is responsible for managing access to your facility for those with disabilities? b. Does your site face specific facilities-related issues in supplying access to those with disabilities? Y e s No If so, what are the issues?______ Section 3: Specific Duties 12. Please answer a few questions about staff responsibilities and assignments. (Titles only please) a. What staff member is responsible for maintaining the HVAC? b. Which staff member is responsible for Pest Management? c. Which staff member is the primary responder to the Fire or Burglar Alarms? d. Which staff member maintains the exhibition spaces and their contents (if applicable)? 98 e. Which staff member maintains the general facilities lighting? f. Which staff member is responsible for maintaining the Fire/Life/Safety Systems? 13. Which of your maintenance needs is contracted to outside vendors (Select all that apply)? _ Lighting HVAC Fire/Life Safety Systems and Equipment _ Integrated Pest Management Exhibit/Gallery Maintenance Other Please Explain______ Section 4: Documents & Policy 14. What staff position develops policies concerning facilities? 15. Does your museum have a formal policy for facilities use? Yes, Formal Yes, Informal No Policy _ In Development Other (Please explain)______16. Does your organization use any of the following facilities-related documents: (Select all that apply) _ Emergency Response Plan Disaster Plan Facilities Report _ Historic Structure Report Other (Please explain)______17. Is the management and maintenance of your facilities included in any of your organizations long-term management plans? _ Yes No 18. Please answer the following questions on your organizations facilities needs, a. Does your organization have a facilities-related need that is not being met at this time, or requires additional support? _ Yes No If so, what are these needs?______b. Is your organization planning to address these needs? Yes No N/A _ If so, how are you addressing these needs? 99 Appendix 3: List of Survey Recipients Historic Site Name State Rosenbaum House AL Fort Lowell Museum AZ Sosa-Carillo-Fremont House Museum AZ Agua Mansa Pioneer Cemetery & Museum CA Camp Pendleton Historical Society CA John Muir National Historic Site CA Johnston House Foundation Inc. CA Rancho Los Cerritos CA Yucaipa Adobe CA Fort Vasquez Museum CO South Park City Museum CO Buttolph-Williams CT Danbury Museum & Historical Society CT Authority Hempstead Houses CT Phelps-Hatheway House & Garden CT The Mark Twain House CT The Webb Bam CT Wilton Heritage Museum CT White House Historical Association DC New Castle Court House Museum DE Old First Presbyterian Church DE House of Refuge at Gilbert's Bar FL 100 Historic Site Name State Pensacola Lighthouse and Museum FL Allman Brothers Band Museum at the Big GA House Anderson National Cemetery GA Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic GA Site St Simons Island Lighthouse GA The Andrew Low House GA Plum Grove Historic Site IA Snowden House IA Toolesboro Indian Mounds & Museum IA Old Idaho Penitentiary ID Butterworth Center and Deere-Wiman IL House Chamley-Persky House IL Clarke House Museum IL Niles Historical Society IL Robert R. McCormick Museum at Cantigny IL Stewart House Museum IL Unity Temple IL Corydon Capitol State Historic Site IN Historic New Harmony IN Levi Coffin House State Historic Site IN Evah C. Cray Historical Home Museum KS Old State Capitol KY Kent Plantation House LA Browne House MA Dole-Little House MA 101 Historic Site Name State Fairbanks House MA Gedney Flouse MA Greater Light MA Gropius House MA Lowell National Historic Park MA Old Sturbridge Villiage MA The Bidwell House Museum MA The Quaker Meeting House MA Clara Barton National Historic Site MD Hammond-Harwood House MD Historic Annapolis Foundation MD Homewood House Museum MD Mount Clare Museum House MD Star Spangled Banner Flag House and 1812 MD Museum Marrett House ME The General Henry Knox Museum ME Father Marquette National Memorial MI Historic Ford Estates MI Liberty Hyde Bailey Museum MI Julian H Sleeper House MN Linden Hill MN Sam Brown Log House MN Eugene Field House and St. Louis Toy MO Museum 102 Historic Site Name State Friends of Arrow Rock MO Jesse James Farm and Museum MO Shoal Creek Living History Museum MO Wyeth-Tootle Mansion MO Old Capitol Museum MS Haywood Hall House & Gardens NC President James K. Polk State Historic Site NC Wake Forest Historical Museum NC Chateau de Mores Historic Site ND Fort Abercrombie Historic Site ND Gingras Trading Post ND Stonefield Historic Site ND Governor John Langdon House NH Jackson House NH Abescon Lighthouse NJ Bamegat Lighthouse NJ Hamilton-Van Wagoner House NJ John F Peto Studio Museum NJ Morven Museum & Garden NJ The Old School House NJ Coronado State Monument NM Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum NY East Hampton Town Marine Museum NY Italian American Museum NY Knapp House NY 103 Historic Site Name State Kykuit & Pocantico Center NY Morris-Jumel Mansion NY Oneida Community Mansion House NY Philipsburg Manor NY St. Lawrence County Historical Association NY Stepping Stones NY Van Cortlandt House Museum NY Women's Rights National Historic Park NY Betts House OH Buckeye Furnace OH Butler County Historical Society & Museum OH Handby House OH Rankin House OH Robbins Hunter Museum OH Frank Phillips Home OK Umatilla County Historical Society Museum OR Drake Well Museum and Park PA Fallingwater, Western Pennsylvania PA Conservancy Historic Warrior Run Church PA Hope Lidge and Mather Mill PA Independence National Historic Park PA Landis House - Creative Commons PA Morton Homestead PA Pennsbury Manor PA Shofuso Japanese House and Garden PA 104 Historic Site Name State Hearthside House Museum RI Kingscote RI Preservation Society of Newport County RI Rosecliff RI The Breakers RI Joseph Manigault House SC Earle-Napier-Kinnard House TX The W.H. Stark House TX Agecrofit Hall VA Colonial Williamsburg Foundation VA Endview Plantation VA Historic Blandford Church & Cemetery VA Hunter House Victorian Museum VA Jamestown Settlement VA Lee Fendall House VA Lightship Portsmouth Museum VA Mary Washington House VA Moses Myers House VA St. James House VA Stonewall Jackson House VA Thoroughgood House VA Yorktown Victory Center VA Kent Tavern Museum VT Mount Independence VT Old Stone House Museum VT 105 Historic Site Name State Black Point Estate Historic Site WI Hearthstone Historic House Museum WI Historic Indian Agency House WI Villa Louis Historic Site WI Waldemar Ager Museum WI 106 Appendix 4: National Park Service Technical Preservation Services Website https://www.nps.gov/tps/index.htm Technical Preservation Services '21 Preserving our nation's historic buildings. Technical Preservation Services develops historic preservation standards and guidance on preserving and rehabilitating historic bulkSings, administers the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program for rehabilitating historic buildings, and sets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Latest Headlines FufaiifcUmJfa; JL1S-37 ifrcccmfrcf 22. 2Q17K amending the Internal Revenue L ace. tt*>c 20% Hte-tonc Rehabilitation Tax Credit (wrtth certain transition rules) and repealsi the 10% nan-historic tax credit. Two New Preservation Briefs Read the new Bnefs on historic deep rat iv& metat ceilings and XLSdhJ- *** Uohtnma protection ■?. Keep in touch wfth TPS Stan ua toe.new* updates s fife np5.gov tXftHltr.Ck VOwk AMiRiCA* 107 Appendix 5: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Website http://www.achp.gov/aboutachp.htmI step specie nav sms Home About ACHP General Information About the ACHP: General Information Mission statement introduction ACHP Activities Section 106 For More information About ACHP ACHP News Mission statement National Historic The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation promotes the Preservation preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use o f our nation’s diverse Program historic resources, and advises the President and the Congress on national historic preservation policy* Working with —adopted by ACHP memberi&p January 2011 Section 106 Federal, State, & Introduction Tribal Programs Training & The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an Education independent federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our nation's historic resources, and Publications advises the President and Congress on national historic preservation Search policy The goal of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which established the ACHP in 1966. is to have federal agencies act as responsible stewards of our nation's resources when their actions affect historic properties The ACHP is the only entity with the legal responsibility to encourage federal agencies to factor historic preserv ation into federal project requirements As directed by NHPA. the ACHP serv es as the primary federal policy advisor to the President and Congress; recommends administrative and legislative improvements for protecting our nation’s heritage; adv ocates full consideration of historic values in federal decisionmaking; and reviews federal programs and policies to promote effectiveness, coordination and consistency with national preservation policies ACHP Activities The ACHFs 24 statutonly designated members, including the Chairman who beads the agency, address policy issues, direct program initiatives, and make recommendations regarding historic preservation to the President. Congress, and heads of other federal agencies. Members meet three times per year to conduct business 108 Appendix 6: California Office of Historic Preservation Website http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ I d © OFFICE OF HISTORIC Pf X ; +• 0 ohp.parks.caxjov OHP Home About OH P PROGRAMS TOOLS PARTNERS CHRIS COMMISSION Welcome! The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) invites you to Join us in preserving, protecting, and honoring the cultural, historical, and archaeological resources of California! The OHP Is responsible for administering federaBy and state manoated historic preservation orograms to further the identification. evaluation, registration, and projection of California s irreplaceable rescurces. Explore c u r webpages and learn more about the OH P and about preserving California's heritage: The mission of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) is to provide leadership and Get the Latest News and Updates: 109 S *3 © OFFICE OF HISTORtC PF X | + v/ O ( a ) (!■ ohpjparks.cajgov ☆ Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) is to provide leadership and Get the Latest News and Updates: promote the preservation of ►Accessory Dwelling U nits and Historic Preservation California's irreplaceable and diverse ►President Nom inates N ew Chairperson for the ACKP cultural heritage. ►Accepting Nom inations for 2018 Governor's Historic Preservation Awards! ►NPS Grants Awarded to OHP and Pala Band of Mission Indians ►and more at News from the OHP..... Contact Us Staff Directory Programs to support the mission and work of histoHc preservation: ►California Environm ental Quality Act (CEQA) Main Address: ►Certified Local Governm ent Office of Historic Preservation ►Registration 1725 23rd Street Suite 100 ►Historic Preservation T a x Credit Sacramento, CA 95816 ►Section 106 Review and Compliance I S l f i L M i a m fax (916} 445-7053 ►and m ore.... calsnpcxripSparks.ca.fov Subscribe to o ur em ail list! Tools to support historic preservation efforts and projects: ►Disasters and Historic Resources ►Forms Disaster Response ►Secretary of the Interior Standards Click Here to access the OHP s ►Section 106 Subm ittal Checklist information and resources related to ►Training and W orkshops f ie protecticr* and preservation of historical, archaecfogica!, and cultural resources in times of disaster and emergency. Preservation News Get Involved! Volunteer with HistoriCorps or California State Parks; Experience history through the every Kid in a Park program; and more. Get involved! OHP ePost Archive 110 | € O OFFiCE OF HISTORIC PF X + v - □ X O (nf (T> ohp.park5.ca,goy ☆ £= L - iKft- OHP ePost Archive Tribal Historic Preservation Programs. T ie s a te Office c* Historic Preservation works closey w th federally and non-feoeray recognteed tribes to ensure The preservation and orotearon of cultural Frequently Asked Questions sites., ancestral lands, and trtbai traditions. o For Landmark Questers. Do you Skse to track oown and visit California Historic* Landmarks? You Preservation are ro t atone, and with over 1.050 la n d w a rd and tount-ng. you w il have a tot of great stes to M atters is the discover The OHP oversees this highly popular program. Visit our California Historical Landmarks newsletter of the pages to team more.™ 1 OHP. Read up on tne most current topics in preservation today. Sustainable Preservation: I California's ' Statewide Historic [y | Many of the documents available on this web site are orovidee in Preservation Plan Adobe Portable Document Format (PDf) 2013-2017, offers a and require Acrobat Lanier to view and print tines* fries. bold vision for preservation in tne You may download .Acrobat deader f*ee by dieting on the above Sink. Golden State The OHP Brochure: who we are, what we do, why we do it - all of this in the pairr of your hand! Ill ® « a 0 OFFICE OF HISTORIC PF X + V O (ill (T> ohpparks.cajgov Sustainable Preservation: I California’s ’ Statewide Historic j*jg| Many c f the documents available cn this web site are provided in Preservation Plan Adobe Portabie Document Format (PDF) 2013-2017, offers a and require Acrobat Reader to view and print these files. bold vision for preservation in the You may download Acrobat Reader free by clicking on the above link Golden State. The OWP Brochure: who we are, what we do, why we do ft - ai*< of this in the palm of your hand! Preservatkm50.org Latest Tweet 9 Address: 177* 23rd Srreet, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA <55816 o o © Today Copyright © 2018 State of California Conditions of Use Privacy Policy Accessibility Accessible Parks Site Map 112 Appendix 7: NPS National Register of Historic Places List of SHPO Websites https://www.nps.gov/nr/shpolist.htm Find a Part mrms fftr, MATtQKAL RE018TER Xatsoaai Register of Hsstonc Places Program: W JU tU S * State Historic Preservation O ncers (SHPO) SP: cuwMmnas * The Hrs*>nm< Register of Historic Places tstne omciH mstofme Mutton's htxtortc piaces mtrthy of ore servaoon A uthortzed by the NshoruH Hltaartc Pr**ervat*>n Act of f OM , the Nxtton*) f»mt* Sendee's National neetster of H a w feUat a * Historic Places ts part of a national program to coorttsvoe arxt support puomc ana prtvtte em xs to Oertafy, t w t t l r , and protect Am erica's MsSortc and archeoto&ca} resources weeny uat * Dwtabeoe y Rwtafrr? • =Teset>saor omcers CSHPO • pt** a awc*i n t« cwrjtno out m n v r e s p o n s e fttrs n ^ste n c evauattnj and rsynana irg ngrsrtrant wstorc tHtftfmgs, s irs. s&Mrtures, atslnct* an<* cfciects to me *»wc« » Reamer t* erne sucm key To <**sp i*ws owe t a Nstnec pace meea me fcatton* how the rtomrmsDn process wonts n yo*r ssaae contact r * a p erc*r»e 3HPO w o « tor B*eiw ®“eafcres / Whars New * NrwTssta Artertean 8B*naa Sample ^tfvniratlom » •vfeassas NewMe* HamesryntJersey Pneserwattm Links * CaMIMM* New Me«?-c^ CoiarjwJa Me* VOrtt Contact us * O o n m d U t Oeiawar* Norm Catena OMIM Of Cmir’ttfa Northern Manana ^-arvaa. >*or Travelers Can^-wonweaah e* the * Oecrgw Qftto f* *w4n»r Q m ck lia ks nwTilriMt Search the NafHana; Rea'sse*1 Database jhjsWhaTs wnat. »e New tssest / PeatonsRs flNs paa wee*. 113 Appendix 8: City of Glendale Historic Preservation Website http://www.glendaleca.gov/govemment/depaitments/community-development/planning- division/historic-preservation Historic Preservation The City of Glendale is committed to the preservation of its historic buildings, neighborhoods, and sites as part of its overall goal of planning for the future. By looking back and preserving key places that contribute to the shared history of all city residents - past, present, and future - we establish a framework that allows the city to develop, grow, and prosper without erasing the heritage that helps define Glendale and its people. Sffg Listing of Historic Prouertigs Listing of historically important sites in Glendale. Learn how to get your property listed, possibly receive a significant property tax reduction through the Mills Act, and conduct historic research. Historic Districts Information about Glendale's beautiful historic districts how to nominate your neighborhood, and the design guidelines used to review projects in the districts. Historic Preservation Cam mis sign fHPC) HPC agendas, minutes, video archive of meetings, and commissioner information. Historic Preservation Ordinances. Community Plan Historic Contexts, and Preservation Element Legal and policy documents that support and define the city's historic preservation program. Incentives! Find out how to make historic preservation pay! Glendale History Browse through time m our ever-growmg collection of materials relating to the city's history. Historic Preservation links Other preservation resources at the local, state, and national levels. If you have questions or would like more information, please contact the City’s Historic Preservation Planner, Jay Platt, at either (818) 937*8*55 or ick ttil gfoadftteta.ggY Quick links Is Mv Property Historic?? Find Historic Districts Caal. &£giac£.2Ii.IViada,i^? 114 Appendix 9: American Alliance of Museums Accreditation Eligibility Criteria Webpage http://www.aam-us.org/resources/assessment-programs/accreditation/eligibility f t < American ///j Alliance of f J f M u s e u m s Eligibility Criteria List of Accredited Museums Approved sy the- Accreditation Commiss&or or Decen^ser 3, 20C*«; effective January 1. 2SN3&. Eligibility T o parttetpa&e m ®*e AJiiarroe's Ac«are«*t»moKi Program a miasesim 'TTsusa: * be a legally organized nonprofit institution or part of a nonprofit organization or Process and Timeline government entity. Cost - t>e essentially educational in nature * have a format?) &tat«a ana aoproveo mt&*^on Apply * use and nfierpfet selects ard*w a s«e tor sr»e pufcrte. pffesentaaion *af r*§Mtas%' Benefits stfafMMtiSHfrO program?* a m eamit&us. Statistics * nave a format ana appropriate program of document art*an, catre. ana use of ooWecSSons and/or oOjects Accreditation Commission - carry out tfte aoove functions pnmarsy at a physic* facility/site. * nave tseen open to fine public for at feast two years Contact - t>e c «e r to use pettite at east t.ooc maur* a year Accreditation Staff * nave arscessiored so percent of its, permanent eetiecfion. ► nave as least one paid professional staff rne*m museum im w e o p ana experience * nave a fun-time director to wnom autnorsty is delegated tor day-to-day operations * nave me financial resources sufficient to operate effectively. * demonstrate n meets the characteristics of Excellence tor U S Museums * successatily completed tfc* Core Documents Verification Program American AJtanoe of Museums 2451 Crystal Drive, suie 1005. Arlington VA 22202 202-289-1818 115 Appendix 10: American Alliance of Museums Accreditation Statistics Webpage http://www.aam-us.org/resources/assessment-programs/accreditation/statistics // 1 * * A m e ric a n f f i j Alliance of M u se u m s list of Accredited Statistics Museums Jim Ammmm utimmmXBam m Use acstvme* Ass®i*dt8i#S®is »rc*gram. tntiuK»r>g m anatys* cff mocm&BatBm Gtxitfm m a m a aw^k-aowin of accpedtaed m w m m m fir* m m m m sype, Eligibility Widget gommamm t$pe. staff Uz* ana region. Process and Timeline Demographic information Cost ?n# statistics Miow are oased on SO© sefr-repomng accredited m u tw m s For tn* fuss list or Accredited museum* cite* here Apply Museum Type Benefits Primary Museum Type % Of Accredited Statistics M u se u m s Art M useunvC enter 41% Accreditation Commission History Museum 22% G eneral f MuHs-d *sc*pfmary) 10% Historic House/Site 8% Contact Madura* History** An£hropolofiy M useum 8% Accreditation Starr Sp^&lalized M m m m t ra#roa«f, ■mwmG, a v a tc m i 4% Scfem:*' fFMsraesu^'Cewter fmdtaNdfes 3% PiaB*Mafeari%aPBS|: Arboretum/ Botanical Garden 3% Chtkjrehs/Youth Museum Less than t% Zoological Fart Less than t % Nature Center Less than 1 % Acjuanum Less than 1% Budget A n n u a l B u d g e t % Of Accredited M u se u m s $360,000 and under 8% $350.Q 00~$48S SQ9 8% $5GO.OOO~$9Q8.999 18% S 1.0 0 0 ,0 0 0 -5 2.9M 30% S3M-~$4.9M 12% fSWMM4..8M f T% 51 5f*f arw3 ew er t0% Governance Type Governance Type % Of A c cre d ite d M u se u m s CdSKs^jft0%^nmeitw^f-P n v a te Nan-f**©ft. ra* State T% M untcj^a: m» F ed eral 4% 116 Appendix 11: American Association for State and Local History StEPs Overview Webpage http://tools.aaslh.org/what-is-steps/ OVERVIEW DETAILS READY FOR STEPS? CERTIFICATES TESTIMONIALS ENROLL What i*St£P*? The Standards and Excellence Program tor History Organizations (StEPs) is AASLHTs setf-study assessment program designed specifically for small- to mid-sized organizations, including all-volunteer groups. Using a workbook, an online community, and a three-tiered achievement system with certificates. StEPs enables your organization to assess its policies and practices, manage daily operations, and plan for the future— all at your ow n pace! T h e program has helped us restructure a faffing organization with less than 5 months finances remaining into a successful frnanckxtiy stable organization wrth a fulfy funrtktning board " - StEPs Member W hy Create a New Standards Program? Assessment can be a daunting task, especially for small museums, historic houses and sites with limited staff and time: For many years, small organizations struggled without a roadmap for planning and improvement. In 2009. after four years of grassroots work by more than 130 volunteers and generous grant funding from I MLS. AASLH created StEPs to offer an entry level assessment program suitable for even the smallest of organizations Assessment and achieving national standards are crucial aspects to healthy, effective history organizations StEPs takes these important tasks and breaks them down into manageable sections and levels, so that your organization no matter how small or busy , can make real, meaningful progress towards meeting national standards and operating as a professionally run museum or site T h e StEPs program has been a valuable tool for our organization. We used it conjunction with recommendations from the M AP program and found that the two program complemented each other very well * - StEPs Member W h a t D o W e M ean b y Standards? In this program a standard is defined as “a generally accepted level of attainment that all organizations are expected to achieve.’* For m ore on standards see the Continuum Of Dfcejteflfce "StEPs has really hdped us to pull together as a team. It has let us look at our strengths and our weaknesses We have grown stronger and our museum has gained a clearer vision of our goals and our mission statement “ -StEPs Member The StEPs Workbook *7 LOVE the StEPs program' /Ve been devouring the workbook - it's very helpful. * -StEPs Member 117 Appendix 12: American Alliance of Museums Find a Museum Webpage http://www.aam-us.org/about-museums/find-a-museum Commit Find a Member Museum u*e m r mem&w amzt&r* fflras a mmmmm m youe aw start p-iarcftfr'g Vob car tttapat py a fled m multiple atas*. The Amencan Aisanee of Museum* doesn't nave a reciprocal program or a formas agreement mm any museum regarding admission. Some memoers provide free or discounted admission to otfver AAM memOers as a professional courtesy, osiers do not and are under no oowgaoon to do so ft is Oest to cftecfc witft the museum that you are interested tn vtsfOng. mcorrect tnfofmatron for a museum? Contact our memoersnip staff If y m ars staff of a nstmtwsr museum, paw can apdtxtie itSwroaStof?' tn *»* cfflgararaeon*: tab off yom m ftm pmm*. S e a rc h b y M u se u m Museum Name j ' ... "'".. "'."' | Museum Acronym ( ...... "' ""'".....' '..."' ' "...... ] Search by Location Cfty | ~] scat* | ^ | OaerrB>- f«HS«pt 'ifS) [united Staaes ^"] S e a rc h b y T y p e Museum Type- | Select | iifc^mrn'l | efear mmM Amertoar3A5t Crystal AJtaroe Bs*e. cff Stffie Mum 1905 uit* Artnglan VA222GC 20228^-1818