The way our local museums are managed is changing, but in the absence of the vociferous public campaigns we have seen with public libraries and forests, these changes are largely taking place under the radar. As local government finances are squeezed, local museum services are forced to adapt. Here I explain what’s happening, and answer some key questions.
What is a local authority museum?
It’s a museum run by a local authority not, alas, a museum about local authorities. To the casual visitor, a local authority museum is no different from any other type of museum. The difference is ownership, management, funding sources – and perhaps a tendency to contain an abundance of taxidermy.
Until recently, of the 700 local authority museums in England, the majority were managed directly by the council and largely funded by state subsidy. There’s also the small matter of their history: the collections housed in these buildings, and in many cases the buildings themselves, were donated by benefactors for the benefit of the public. This means that these museums often have a particular character, a certain idiosyncrasy to the objects they contain.
How big is the funding challenge?
Life for a local authority museum is only set to get harder. Since 2010, museums have seen an unprecedented level of cuts to their public funding and these will continue as the Conservative government reduces the size of the state. Unlike the statutory requirement to provide a library service, local government spending on museums has always been optional, placing them in a precarious position when it comes to budget cuts.
How widespread is the problem?
We don’t know the full picture, but the Museums Association has compiled a map of museum closures across the UK, demonstrating that 42 museums, galleries and heritage sites have closed their doors over the past decade, most of them since 2010.
Unsurprisingly, risk-adverse local authorities want to avoid being responsible for the decision to board up a museum so behind the scenes they’re desperately trying to make efficiency savings, reduce staff numbers and shave hours off opening times. Museum trusts are popping up across the country as councils move entire services to make savings on rates and gain tax exemptions. So far, so standard.
Meanwhile, going unnoticed are an increasing number of local authorities who are exploring a more nuanced, subtle and curious approach: asking someone else to take on responsibility for a museum.
How does that work?
The rationale for shifting responsibility for the operation of a museum service from a council-owned building to, for example, a community not-for-profit organisation, is positioned as pragmatic – but in many ways is highly political.
It can be a lengthy process, as the current issues facing Whitstable Museum demonstrate. This term “community management” is a useful obfuscation; referring at once to a broad variety of approaches to the management of a museum from a social enterprise or mutual organisation to a community interest company (CIC).
In Rossendale, Lancashire, a group of three individuals have formed a CIC and are now responsible for the management of the Whitaker (formerly Rossendale museum and art gallery) while the council retains ownership of the building and funds renovation.
However, in Smallthorne, Stoke-on-Trent, a stretched pair of community members have found themselves responsible for the operation, ownership and maintenance of Ford Green Hall, a 17th-century timber-framed farmhouse museum. Busy with their own plans to move to a museum trust, staff from Stoke Museums are unable to provide the level of support the group needs.
What other problems are there with community management?
Involving the community in decisions about museums is not new. Asking them to take full responsibility for the management of a public space is, especially when that space houses a collection that is still owned by the council on behalf of the public. Despite the practical difficulties, many councils consider this unproblematic in theory as local people and organisations are assumed to be better placed to meet local needs.
Call it outsourcing, spinning out or devolution, this move raises wider questions about the future of local authority museum services: who should be responsible for museum service provision? Is it part of our civic duty to step in when councils can no longer afford to run them? How accountable are new organisations? Does a building owned and managed by an organisation outside of the council still retain a public character?
What should happen next?
We don’t know how many local authorities are considering the move to community management, nor whether museums that have been transferred will continue to operate outside of local authority control. These arrangements are often precarious: leases with complex claw-back provisions, short-term licences to operate and no commitment to long-term funding.
There is not enough public engagement or understanding of the issue. Arts Council England will publish a report on the challenges facing local authority museums later this year. What is paramount is that we start talking about what’s happening, what it means and whether we are OK with it.
Bethany Rex is a doctoral researcher at the International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies at Newcastle University. Her current research examines the management of local authority museums
Talk to us on Twitter via @Guardianpublic and sign up for your free weekly Guardian Public Leaders newsletter with news and analysis sent direct to you every Thursday.
