ForumJournaldownload.aaslh.org/annual+meeting+material/2011/...Organizational Coach...

ForumJournal Spring 2008Vol. 22 No. 03

AMERICA’S HISTORIC SITESAT A CROSSROADS

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a nonprofit membershiporganization bringing people together to protect, enhance and enjoy theplaces that matter to them. By saving the places where great moments fromhistory — and the important moments of everyday life — took place, theNational Trust for Historic Preservation helps revitalize neighborhoods andcommunities, spark economic development and promote environmentalsustainability. With headquarters in Washington, DC, 9 regional and fieldoffices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in all 50 states, theNational Trust for Historic Preservation provides leadership, education,advocacy and resources to a national network of people, organizationsand local communities committed to saving places, connecting us to ourhistory and collectively shaping the future of America’s stories. For moreinformation visit www.PreservationNation.org.

Funding for this journal was provided by The 1772 Foundation. The mission

of The 1772 Foundation is to preserve and enhance American historical

entities for future generations to enjoy with particular interest in farming,

industrial development, transportation, and unusual historical buildings.

Cover photo: Brucemore, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Photo by Greg Billman, courtesy of Brucemore.

NATIONAL TRUST FORUMPETER H. BRINK Senior Vice President, Programs

KATHERINE ADAMS Director, Center for Preservation Leadership

ELIZABETH BYRD WOOD Editor

KERRI RUBMAN Assistant Editor

MAX A. VAN BALGOOY Guest Editor

JAMES VAUGHAN Guest Editor

RON WOODS Business Manager

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATIONRICHARD MOE President

DAVID J. BROWN Executive Vice President

PETER H. BRINK Senior Vice President, Programs

GREGORY A. COBLE Vice President, Business and Finance

DAVID COOPER Vice President, Development

PAUL EDMONDSON Vice President and General Counsel

LAURI MICHEL Vice President for Community Revitalization

DOLORES MCDONAGH Vice President, Membership

JAN ROTHSCHILD Vice President for Communications and Marketing

JAMES VAUGHAN Vice President, Stewardship of Historic Sites

EMILY WADHAMS Vice President, Public Policy

NATIONAL TRUST FORUM ADVISORY BOARDPAUL BRUHN Preservation Trust of Vermont

PRATT W. CASSITY University of Georgia

ALAN DOWNER National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers

E. RENEE INGRAM African American Heritage Preservation Foundation, Inc.

BRUCE D. JUDD, FAIA Architectural Resources Group

HEATHER MACINTOSH Preservation Action

ANN MCGLONE National Alliance of Preservation Commissions

DAVID MERTZ National Council for Preservation Education

DAVID MORGAN Former Kentucky State Historic Preservation Officer

MARCEL QUIMBY National Trust Board of Advisors

NANCY MILLER SCHAMU National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

DONNA J. SEIFERT Society for Historical Archaeology

JOHN SIMONE Connecticut Main Street Center

DE TEEL PATTERSON TILLER Goucher College

Forum Journal, a Journal of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, (ISSN 1536-1012) (USPS Publication Number 001-715)is published quarterly by the Center for Preservation Leadership at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 MassachusettsAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 as a benefit of National Trust Forum membership. Forum members also receivesix issues of Forum News, and six issues of Preservation magazine. Annual dues are $115. Periodicals paid at Washington,D.C. Postmaster: Send address changes to National Trust Forum, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Copy-right © 2008 National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. Printed in the United States. Of the total amount of basedues, $6.00 is for a subscription for Preservation magazine for one year. Support for the National Trust is provided by membershipdues; endowment funds; individual, corporate, and foundation contributions; and grants from state and federal agencies. National TrustForum Journal is a forum in which to express opinions, encourage debate, and convey information of importance and of generalinterest to Forum members of the National Trust. Inclusion of material or product references does not constitute an endorsement bythe National Trust for Historic Preservation.

ForumJournal

The National Trust, concerned about the responsible stewardship of the environment, has published this journal onrecycled paper that meets the EPA mandate of containing at least 50% waste paper.

ForumJournal Spring 2008 1

CONTENTSSpring 2008 Volume 22 Number 03

INTRODUCTION: THE CALL FORA NATIONAL CONVERSATIONJames Vaughan..................................................................5

HISTORIC HOUSE MUSEUMS:AN EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES?Marian A. Godfrey.............................................................9

CRISIS OR TRANSITION?Diagnosing Success at Historic SitesMax A. van Balgooy........................................................17

FUNDING THE FUNDAMENTALSDavid A. Donath..............................................................25

CULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISM TRENDSAFFECTING HISTORIC SITESAmy Webb and Carolyn Brackett..........................29

THE IMPACT OF STANDARDS ON THESUSTAINABILITY OF HISTORIC SITESKatherine Kane................................................................36

A GOLDEN AGE FORHISTORIC PROPERTIESJohn Durel and Anita Nowery Durel.....................43

THE NEXT CLIVEDEN: A NEW APPROACHTO THE HISTORIC SITE IN PHILADELPHIADavid W. Young................................................................51

BRUCEMORE: A CULTURALCENTER FOR CEDAR RAPIDSJames F. Kern...................................................................56


Photo opposite: At Drayton Hall, thousands of schoolchildren engage with the past in many ways,including hands-on activities such as the winnowing of rice. Photo courtesy of Drayton Hall.

The Forum on Historic Sites Stewardship in the 21st Century was held at the Pocantico

Conference Center at Kykuit, a National Trust Historic Site, April 23-25, 2007. The gathering

was hosted by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Program and planning partners included the American Architectural Foundation (AAF),

the American Association of Museums (AAM), the American Association for State and Local

History (AASLH), and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Financial support for the

conference was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the National Trust for Historic

Preservation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the American Architectural Foundation.

The articles that follow were written by conference participants and invited contributors

based on materials prepared for the meeting and on the discussions that took place there.

These articles reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily those of other conference

participants, the sponsors, or the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

INTRODUCTION: THE CALL FORA NATIONAL CONVERSATIONBy James Vaughan

The Forum on Historic Site Stewardshipin the 21st Century, held in April 2007 atKykuit, was a significant event for historicsite professionals, giving leaders in the fieldthe chance to air concerns and proposeresponses. This special issue of ForumJournal will first present the reportproduced after that conference. Then I’llintroduce the contributors to this issue ofForum Journal, who are adding their voicesto the ongoing conversation that meetinghas inspired.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HISTORICSITES IN THE 21ST CENTURY:THE CALL FOR A NATIONALCONVERSATION

Final Conference Report, April 2007

Over the past decade much has been writtenabout declining attendance at our nation’shistoric sites. At a time when the marketfor heritage tourism, cultural tourism, andeco-tourism is rapidly expanding, historicsites are drawing fewer and fewer visitors.At the very time when Americans are devel-oping historical amnesia and the need forimproved teaching of American history inthe schools is critical, historic sites seem tohave lost their way. How should the historicsite profession (that unique cross section ofpublic history and museum studies) respondto this situation?

In April 2007 a small group of experiencedhistoric site professionals and representa-tives of professional associations and

selected foundations that support historicsites gathered at the Pocantico ConferenceCenter at Kykuit near Tarrytown, N.Y., forseveral days of thoughtful discussion aboutthe issues confronting historic sites. For themost part we analyzed and debated how toenhance the sustainability and relevance ofhistoric sites in America’s future. The goalof this gathering was to initiate a seriousconversation throughout the historic sitecommunity of professionals and volunteersabout the choices we must make to ensurethat our sites provide maximum value to oursociety and thus remain relevant and usefulfor future generations. The outcome of theconference was a call for critical discussionthroughout the field, and a call for dramaticbut responsible changes in some of the mostbasic professional assumptions and practicesthat guide the way we do our business. Italso urged more experimentation with newmodels for historic sites and innovativepilots for new, more responsible standardsfor collections care.

The discussions were stimulating andthoughtful, and there was, in the end, a largedegree of consensus about the issues that arelimiting long-term sustainability. There wasnot quite as much agreement about howthese issues should be addressed, althougheven here, the differences were often mattersof degree rather than direction.

The assembled professionals recognized thatthey do not speak for a single associationor institution and were not authorized or


empowered by any organized body to issuefindings, but there was a strong consensusthat we need to communicate our delibera-tions to the larger historic site communityby issuing a “Call for Change” that wouldcarry these discussions to a wider audience.

Although these findings and recommenda-tions were submitted to all Kykuit partici-pants for comment and correction, this doesnot mean that every participant agrees withevery finding and recommendation.

A CALL FOR CHANGE

America’s historic sites offer unique oppor-tunities for learning, for reflection, forinspiration. At their best, they can bepowerful places that provide great value totheir communities. They can offer programs,services, and experiences that are relevant tomany of the most pressing issues of our day.America’s historic sites should be places tonurture the human spirit.

Despite this potential, however, many ofAmerica’s historic sites are experiencingdeclining attendance, financial instability,and poor stewardship, and they areincreasingly viewed by their communitiesas irrelevant and unresponsive to the societalchanges around them. Those of us who

gathered at Kykuit urge all of us who areengaged in this important work of historicsite stewardship to seriously consider thefollowing findings and recommendations.

FINDINGS

� Successful stewardship of the nation’s his-toric sites requires financial sustainability.

� Sustainability begins with each historicsite’s engagement with its community andits willingness to change its structure,programs, and services in response to thechanging needs of that community.

� The long-accepted heritage tourism busi-ness model is not a sustainable businessmodel for most historic sites.

� Serving the needs of the local community(not the tourist audience) is the mostvaluable and most sustainable goal formost historic sites.

� Attendance figures are not the most validmeasure of the positive value of the his-toric site experience or the site’s impact.

� Many professional standards andpractices in the historic site field wereborrowed from the museum communityand, in practice, often deter creativityand sustainability at historic sites.

� New standards of stewardship for historicsites should be modeled to reflect thedistinct nature of these places.

� Responsible site stewardship achieves asustainable balance between the needsof the buildings, landscapes, collections,and the visiting public.

The outcome of the conference

was a call for critical discussion

throughout the field, and a call for

dramatic but responsible changes in

some of the most basic professional

assumptions and practices that

guide the way we do our business.

6

� Caring for the buildings, landscapes, andcollections are the means but not the endsof the work of historic sites.

� Innovation, experimentation, collabora-tion, and a broad sharing of the resultinginformation are essential to achieving his-toric site sustainability on a broad scale.

� Undefined collecting coupled with a lackof professional standards and inconsistentpractices regarding deaccessioning are animpediment to change and sustainability.

� Over-reliance on program, challenge, andmatching grants can reduce long-termsustainability by shifting focus away fromoperating and endowment needs and byencouraging the growth of non-missionrelated programs.

� Returning sites to private ownership withproper easements can be a positive meansof assuring long-term stewardship.

RECOMMENDATIONS

� The AASLH Task Force on Standardsshould seek to establish an appropriatestewardship balance for the needs ofbuildings, landscapes, collections, andthe public.

� The AASLH Ethics Committee shouldprepare a positive statement to guide thetransitioning of historic sites from publicuse to private stewardship.

� The National Trust and others shouldexperiment with responsible situationalstandards for collections, buildings, andlandscapes at pilot sites that could serveas models for others, and they shouldpublish their findings as appropriate.

� Foundations and granting agencies shouldrefocus their philanthropy away fromshort-term program support to grantsthat assist sites in building their capacityto sustain themselves for the long term,including general operating support andendowment.

� Foundations should be supported intheir efforts to terminate repeated “dripsupport” to historic sites to focus theirsupport on sites taking positive steps toachieve long-term sustainability.

� Those who educate and develop theleadership of historic sites should amendtheir curricula to better equip studentsto deal successfully with rapidly changingrealities.

� The major professional associationsshould encourage, promote, publicize,and recognize experimental and successfulmodels of change and sustainablepractices.

� The profession must develop new meas-ures, beyond attendance, that documentthe quality of visitor engagement at sitesand the extent of community outreachbeyond the bounds of historic sites.

� Historic sites must no longer think of the“velvet rope tour” as their “basic breadand butter” program and must generatemore varied ways to utilize their remark-able resources to enrich people’s lives.

� The historic site community mustreaffirm the importance of these placesfor our nation’s future and redefine ourmission in terms of that future ratherthan the past.


8

� Selected sites should develop a pilotprocess to streamline deaccessioningand share their results with the field.

AFTER THE KYKUIT CONFERENCE:EXPANDING THE CONVERSATION

A primary objective of the Kykuit confer-ence was to continue and build upon theconversations about historic site sustain-ability through presentations at professionalmeetings and through the publication ofarticles illuminating the findings andrecommendations or suggesting newmodels and solutions. Eight such articlesare published here.

In “Historic House Museums: An Embar-rassment of Riches?,” Marian Godfrey fromThe Pew Charitable Trusts discusses the sit-uation of approximately 300 historic housemuseums in Greater Philadelphia from theperspective of a foundation that has beenengaged in assisting them in the search forsustainable solutions over several decades.

In “Crisis or Transition? Diagnosing Successat Historic Sites,” Max A. van Balgooy, thedirector of interpretation and education atthe National Trust, makes the case that weare too focused on admissions numbers asthe measure our success. Instead, he suggeststhat we need to refocus on more qualitativemeasures of visitor satisfaction and onmeasures of financial condition.

David Donath, president of The WoodstockFoundation, suggests in “Funding theFundamentals,” that many historic siteshave drifted far from their original corevalues and mission, leading to the costlyreality of deferred maintenance. He calls foran increased commitment to preservationand stewardship as central values that

should be adequately funded in our annualoperating budgets.

In “Cultural Heritage Tourism TrendsAffecting Historic Sites,” Amy Webb andCarolyn Brackett, director and seniorprogram associate for the National Trust’sheritage tourism program, attempt toexplain why attendance at historic sitesis declining even as the heritage tourismmarket grows. Informed by extensivemarket and demographic research, theyoffer their thoughts on how historic sitescould better serve the expanding heritagetourism market.

At the Kykuit conference there was consider-able discussion about how professionalstandards and practices appear to stiflecreativity and innovation. Katherine Kane,executive director of the Harriet BeecherStowe Center, in Hartford, Conn., whohas served on both AAM and AASLHcommittees on professional standards andbest practices, offers her perspective on“The Impact of Standards on the Sustain-ability of Historic Sites.” She also describesefforts now underway to reduce the impactof some of the unintended consequences ofprofessional standards.

Among those who see a prosperous futurefor historic sites — indeed, “A Golden Agefor Historic Properties” — are consultantsJohn and Anita Durel. Their article, whichwas distributed as a “thought-provoking”piece to kick off the Kykuit conference,argues that the cultural tourism businessmodel is not working for most historicsites. They recommend instead a businessmodel that is much more focused on thelocal community. A longer version of thearticle appeared in History News, Summer2007. It has generated as much attention in

the field as it did at Kykuit. It’s worth acareful read.

We close this special issue with articlesabout two National Trust Historic Sitesthat demonstrate two different community-focused business models.

David Young, in “The Next Cliveden: ANew Approach to the Historic Site inPhiladelphia,” describes the process by whichCliveden shifted its focus and mission fromthe traditional tourist-based model to one ofreal community engagement. Over a periodof several decades Cliveden’s neighborhoodhad changed dramatically but Cliveden hadnot, until the recent decision to alter itsmission, programs, and target audience.

Jim Kern, in “Brucemore: A Cultural Centerfor Cedar Rapids,” describes a site located

in an area not known for extensive tourismthat set out from the beginning to serve thelocal population. The variety of programs istruly remarkable and the site’s commitmentto its community has produced one of themost sustainable and most beloved historicsites of the National Trust.

We hope you will find this issue of ForumJournal to be informative and that itwill stimulate you to join this importantdiscussion about the future sustainabilityof historic sites. Join the conversationat http://blogs.nationaltrust.org/preservationnation/.

James Vaughan is the vice president for Steward-ship of Historic Sites at the National Trust forHistoric Preservation.

9ForumJournal Spring 2008

Participants at the 2007 Forum on Historic Site Stewardship in the 21st Century at Kykuit in Tarrytown,N.Y. Photo courtesy of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

10

HISTORIC SITE STEWARDSHIPIN THE 21st CENTURYParticipants

ANDREA ANDERSONFederal Preservation Officer/Senior Program OfficerOffice of Challenge GrantsNational Endowment for theHumanities

MARY ANTHONYExecutive DirectorThe 1772 Foundation

SHERRY BIRKHon. AIA, DirectorThe Octagon Museum

RON BOGLEPresident & CEOAmerican ArchitecturalFoundation

JEANNE BUTLERSenior AdvisorAmerican ArchitecturalFoundation

TONY CHAUVEAUXDeputy Chairman for Grants

and AwardsNational Endowment forthe Arts

JUDY CLARKAssociate DirectorPocantico ProgramsRockefeller Brothers Fund

TRUDY COXECEO and Executive DirectorPreservation Society ofNewport County

MONTA LEE DAKINExecutive DirectorMountain Plains MuseumsAssociation

TERRY DAVISPresident and CEOAmerican Association forState and Local History

DAVID DONATHPresidentThe Woodstock Foundation

JOHN DURELOrganizational CoachQm2: Durel Consulting Partners

RENEE EPPSExecutive Vice PresidentLower East Side TenementMuseum

MARIAN A. GODFREYManaging DirectorCulture & Civic InitiativesPew Charitable Trusts

CHARLES GRANQUISTDirectorPocantico ProgramsRockefeller Brothers Fund

DONNA HARRISHeritage Consulting, Inc.

BETHANY HAWKINSProgram AssociateAmerican Association forState and Local History

CHRISTINE HENRYSenior Museum Program OfficerInstitute of Museum andLibrary Services

DAVID JANSSENVice President for Internal

OperationsEdsel and Eleanor Ford House

KATHERINE KANEExecutive DirectorHarriet Beecher Stowe Center

CRAIG KENKELChief of Cultural ResourcesGolden Gate National Parks

MINDI LOVEDirectorJohnson County Museums

GEORGE MCDANIELExecutive DirectorDrayton Hall

ROBERT Z. MELNICKVisiting Senior Program OfficerThe Getty Foundation

DENNIS O’TOOLECoordinatorSeminar for HistoricalAdministration

BARBARA SILBERMANSenior Program AdvisorHeritage Philadelphia Program

GRETCHEN SORINDirector/DistinguishedProfessorCooperstown Graduate Program

KEN TURINOExhibition ManagerHistoric New England

MAX VAN BALGOOYDirector of Interpretation

and EducationNational Trust forHistoric Preservation

JAMES VAUGHANVice President, Stewardship

of Historic SitesNational Trust forHistoric Preservation

JANET VAUGHANKnowledge ManagerAmerican Association ofMuseums

JAY VOGTDirector & State Historic

Preservation OfficerSouth Dakota StateHistorical Society

AMY WEBBDirector, Heritage TourismNational Trust for HistoricPreservation


In 2002 Richard Moe wrote an article forthis journal titled “Are There Too ManyHouse Museums?” Back then some historicpreservation experts thought the answerwas “yes,” but most were too polite to sayso. The question was an urgent one for ThePew Charitable Trusts, which has a long-standing commitment to the preservationof historically and aesthetically importantbuildings and sites in the Philadelphiaregion, and has provided more than $17million in funds for preservation-relatedprojects over the past ten years alone.In 1998 Pew created the Heritage InvestmentProgram (now the Heritage PhiladelphiaProgram — HPP) with the objective ofdirecting our investments in a more focusedand effective manner. HPP, under the leader-ship of then program director BarbaraWarnick Silberman, took a systematic lookat historic preservation needs in thePhiladelphia region, particularly with regardto historic house museums. What HPPlearned is that many of these museums arein peril, and the situation in Philadelphiais representative of a looming national crisis.

There are approximately 300 historic housemuseums and sites in the Philadelphia area.They are a vital part of our community.They are the tangible reminders of ourhistory, where we came from, and who weonce were. Spanning centuries, these build-ings help us understand the people whomade Philadelphia and our country great,how they lived and how they experiencedmany of the same challenges and triumphswe face today. They are a legacy of thecommitment of earlier generations of

community-proud citizens who bandedtogether to save old homes, farms, andcountry estates from the wrecking ball.And their success in preserving the physicalfabric of our region’s history has enrichedthe landscape and enhanced Philadelphia’sreputation as a place where residents andvisitors alike can connect their present totheir country’s past.

But today most local house museumsconfront enormous challenges that threatentheir sustainability. Few have professionalstaff, and most of the volunteers who governand operate them are at or over retirementage, with no new leadership in sight. Only

a small fraction have annual visitation ofmore than 1,000; for many, holiday tours ortours by appointment are their only publicprogramming. At least 80 percent are facedwith $1 million or more in preservation anddeferred maintenance needs, yet their oper-ating budgets are typically $100,000 or less.How will choices be made about which ofthese organizations survive into the future,and who will make those decisions?

HISTORIC HOUSE MUSEUMS:AN EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES?By Marian A. Godfrey

[U]ntil now, most historic houses

have been preserved strictly for

the buildings’ sake. This has led

to a troubling surplus of sites that

are under-used and hopelessly

disconnected from the beating

hearts of their communities.

No question, historic homes are worthsaving. Preservation is vitally important ifwe as a nation hope to retain authenticexamples of history, culture, and place.But until now, most historic houses havebeen preserved strictly for the buildings’sake. This has led to a troubling surplusof sites that are under-used and hopelesslydisconnected from the beating hearts oftheir communities. Attendance is dwindling,operating costs are soaring, and devotedstewards are leaving without being replaced.These structures need to be re-purposed inorder to be revitalized. It is time to createalternatives to the museum model forpreserving at least some of our importantbut endangered historic houses, and totransform them into productive buildingsthat truly serve their communities. But howto go about this transformation?

HISTORIC HOUSE MUSEUMSIN THE 21ST CENTURY

It is important to note that the difficultiesfaced by many historic house museums aredue in large part to a rapidly changing artsand cultural environment. Consider, forexample, how much greater the opportuni-ties for cultural engagement are today thanthey were in the era when most historichouse museums and many other types ofhistory organizations were formed. Digitaltechnologies are creating new cultural

frontiers. Today members of the first genera-tion of “digital natives,” born in 1985 orlater, develop their own creative content anddistribute it online through social networks(see the Pew Internet and American LifeProject, www.pewinternet.org, for data onhow teens and others use the internet).These “millennials,” as market researchhas dubbed them, expect to have significantinvolvement with and capacity to shapecultural content.

Demographic shifts are also changing theenvironment for cultural programming. Theyare exacerbating the already problematiclack of alignment between available culturalofferings and the heritages and interests ofgrowing and diverse minority populations(which will no longer be in the minority inthe United States by 2050 or sooner). In thecity of Philadelphia, for example, few housemuseums interpret the history of AfricanAmericans, who make up 45 percent of ourpopulation. Their hunger for stories aboutPhiladelphia’s past with which they can iden-tify fueled a huge outcry over IndependenceNational Historical Park’s refusal to memori-alize the first president’s house, originallyoccupied by George Washington and ahousehold that included nine enslavedpersons, and subsequently by the anti-slaverypresident John Adams. (The house was torndown in 1832.) After five years of organizedeffort on the part of local activists, the sitehas been excavated and plans are now beingdeveloped for a memorial.

Many philanthropies and public charities,including Pew, are concerned about theaccelerating pace of change in the environ-ment for arts and culture, and are searchingfor answers about what philanthropy’s roleshould be in assisting cultural organizationsto respond to these turbulent times.

12

Digital technologies are creating

new cultural frontiers. Today

members of the first generation

of “digital natives,” born in 1985

or later, develop their own creative

content and distribute it online

through social networks.


RESPONDING TO FINANCIALVULNERABILITY

Undercapitalization of nonprofit culturalorganizations of all kinds is a pervasiveproblem. In Philadelphia, the cultural sectorhas grown exponentially in recent years. In2004 alone, 1,000 organizations received 12million visits. But also in that year, almosthalf of Philadelphia organizations had oper-ating deficits, and more than a quarter haddeficits of more than 10 percent of operatingrevenues. Many house museums and otherorganizations are in crisis, unable to do thevery thing most important to their abilityto serve their community: to respond tothe changing environment by reinventingthemselves programmatically.

Supporters and advocates who want tomake a positive difference face few options.They can make significantly more aggressiveinvestments in capitalizing the subset oforganizations deemed truly essential to agiven community. They can encourageorganizations to consider partial or com-plete mergers, or assist some in going outof business. Some combination of the twoapproaches would be optimal. The Darwin-ian alternative — changing nothing — willkeep many struggling organizations on theircurrent drip feed of small gifts and grants,insufficient to allow them to thrive yet oftenbinding them to untenable promises todeliver programming. But for transforma-tional change to be successful, community-wide efforts would need to be made toidentify the interventions most likely to besuccessful, to form collaborative partnerships,and to aggregate the necessary resources.

AMERICA’S CULTURAL VALUES

Perhaps most troubling of all, agreementabout what we value in our culture has

eroded. (See “Cultural Value and the Crisisof Legitimacy,” by John Holden, © 2006 atwww.demos.co.uk for useful discussion ofthis topic.) The arguments in favor of

providing access for all Americans to artsand cultural experiences, which led to thecreation of a system of public agency subsi-dies for the arts and humanities in the 1960sand 1970s, have ceased to be effective. Thecultural boom of the past 40 years hascreated a glut of both commercial and non-profit cultural offerings that now reach intoevery corner of our communities (thoughwhat is on offer is not necessarily what anygiven community most desires). Further-more, beginning in 1980, the “ReaganRevolution” has driven our society towardan ever more market-based definition ofcultural value. Until cultural organizationsget better at listening and responding to theneeds and desires of audiences and the gen-eral public, we will be unlikely to argueeffectively that what we are providing tothem has true value and should be supported.

PEW’S RESPONSE

Through its Heritage Philadelphia Program(HPP) The Pew Charitable Trusts has under-taken two initiatives to help historic housemuseums and other history organizationsrespond to the challenges and opportunities

Many house museums and other

organizations are in crisis, unable

to do the very thing most important

to their ability to serve their

community: to respond to the

changing environment by reinvent-

ing themselves programmatically.

of the 21st-century environment. FormerHPP director Barbara Silberman developedand led the Living Legacy AlternativeStewardship Project, jointly funded by HPPand the William Penn Foundation. As Ms.Silberman points out, stewardship of his-toric house museums and sites is no longersimply a matter of saving them from thewrecking ball. Today their supporters andthe general public expect regular access anda robust calendar of events and educationalprograms.

Clearly it is time to find alternative steward-ship arrangements for many of these houses,uses that will allow them to continue con-tributing to the visual, architectural, and his-toric fabric of their surroundings. Sincethese houses were originally built to be livedin by families, for many the most productiveuse is likely to be a return to private owner-

ship and residential use, with exterior ease-ments to protect the quality of life of the sur-rounding community, along with exteriorinterpretive panels that can capture theirstories. Such solutions allow historic housemuseums to return to the care of ownerswho are more invested both emotionally andfinancially in stewardship and preservationof these properties.

HPP also worked closely with preservationconsultant Donna Ann Harris, whose newbook New Solutions for House Museums(Alta Mira Press, 2007) chronicles how adozen sites in the U.S. and Canada con-verted into community-centered spaceswhile keeping preservation a top priority.Trustees of both rural and urban sitesrefitted and reopened them as art galleries,bed and breakfasts, and conference centers,used and appreciated by the public daily.

14

Mill Grove, the home of artist and conservationist John James Audubon from 1803 to 1806, has madethe transformation from a house museum to an exhibition space and a community cultural center.Photo courtesy of John James Audubon Center at Mill Grove.


In Philadelphia, the Living Legacy Projectworked with six house museums to developand implement strategies for reinvention.The most successful example is the MillGrove estate, the first American home offamed artist and conservationist John JamesAudubon. Owned by Philadelphia’s subur-ban Montgomery County government andmanaged by the National Audubon Society,Mill Grove is an 18th-century fieldstonefarmhouse perched on a leafy bluff over-looking Perkiomen Creek. The 175-acreestate includes the main house, a barn, andfive miles of walking trails. But the house’sinterior has not been historically accuratefor at least 40 years, and the cost of meticu-lously restoring the 1765 structure wouldbe astronomical.

As part of the HPP project, Mill Grove’sdirector, Jean Bochnowski, and boardmembers spent about five months visitingother historic house museums learningthe administrative details of alternativestewardship and weighing their options.“The tours convinced us we didn’t wantto be a museum any more, where peoplejust walk in and stand passively,”Bochnowski says. “We agreed that, givenJohn Audubon’s role as a conservationist,the interior of the house wasn’t as importantas the exterior. Especially since there’ssomething about how Mill Grove sits inthis environment that touches people; there’sa majesty about it.”

One part of the historic Mill Grove homethat visitors insist on seeing, she says, is there-creation of Audubon’s bedroom. Afterthat, their attention wanes. “So we decidedto keep the bedroom as it is and turn therest of the house into an art center,” shesays. “We want it to be a vibrant placewith art classes, visiting exhibits, and an

artist in residence. We think it speaks toAudubon’s legacy — learning about naturethrough art.” Plans call for the originalAudubon drawings and paintings owned bythe center, and currently displayed inside thehouse, to be permanently moved next doorto a three-story barn that will be remodeledinto a climate-controlled museum, tying theart into a larger story of nature conservancy.Mill Grove’s transformation from a housemuseum to a hybrid organization includingexhibition space and a community culturalcenter is an inspiring example of howthoughtful consideration of an organization’scuratorial and educational potentialcan result in positive transformation.

In 2006 Paula Marincola, the current direc-tor of Pew’s Heritage Philadelphia Program,seeking guidance on how Pew could supporthistory organizations in the region to bringtheir stories alive for today’s visitors, com-missioned Barbara Schaffer Bacon and PamKorza of Americans for the Arts’ AnimatingDemocracy project to study the interpretivepractice of history organizations, includinghistoric house museums, in Philadelphia andnationally.

It turns out that Philadelphia is reflectiveof the national picture: We have a smallnumber of exemplary organizations alongwith the many that struggle. In an internal

Clearly it is time to find alternative

stewardship arrangements for many

of these houses, uses that will allow

them to continue contributing to

the visual, architectural, and historic

fabric of their surroundings.

report prepared for the Heritage Philadel-phia Program, “Interpretive Practice inHistory Organizations: Philadelphia in aNational Context,” Schaffer Bacon andKorza conclude that exemplary practicesaim to build relationships and situatehistory organizations genuinely as civic and

community institutions by relating historyto personal experience and contemporaryissues; include multiple viewpoints andtruths; and share authority with communitymembers as advisors and co-developers ofprogramming.

Some history organizations are integratingart and artists into their programming, andthey have discovered that art is a potententry point for connecting personal experi-ence with historic events and contemporaryissues. Others have focused on institutionalreinvention, pursuing alliances and mergers

when there is congruence of mission, com-patibility of collections, and political willwithin their governing bodies. HPP has nowsignificantly revised its program strategy andguidelines to assist historic house museumsand other history organizations to identifyand pursue the innovative interpretive prac-tices and institutional reinventions mostappropriate to their situation and mission.

Extreme makeover? Or just a correctionin vision? Whichever path is followed,thoughtful, honest consideration aboutwhat constitutes appropriate stewardshipof our historic legacy in the 21st centurywill be the key to successful preservationefforts. The result will be the creation ofproductive facilities that once again workas vibrant components of their communities,and are places that people want to seeand be.

Marian A. Godfrey has led the Culture programof The Pew Charitable Trusts since 1989 andhas developed and implemented several historyand preservation initiatives during that time.© 2008 The Pew Charitable Trusts.

16

Families gather around Mill Grove's bat house forthe popular Bat Night Program, one of the manyenvironmental education programs offered by theJohn James Audubon Center at Mill Grove. Photocourtesy of John James Audubon Center at MillGrove.

At the 2007 Forum on Historic Site Steward-ship in the 21st Century at Kykuit, we neverdetermined whether there is a crisis facinghistoric house museums. We shared lots ofanecdotes and strong opinions, but therewas no consensus. A few days later, GeorgeMcDaniel (executive director of DraytonHall in Charleston, S.C.) and I taught aworkshop on historic house museum man-agement in Massachusetts for the AmericanAssociation for State and Local History, so Iasked the group, “If you continued operatingin the same manner as you are today, wouldyour organization be in crisis in five to tenyears?” Of the 25 different historic housemuseums represented in the room, only oneperson raised her hand — and her site hadjust suffered a major fire. Some mightventure to guess that these groups refusedto recognize the serious situation that facedthem. Others might say this proves mosthistoric house museums aren’t in any danger,and obviously they’re working on improvingtheir situation because they’re engaged intraining. Despite the contradictory opinions,it does verify one of the major recommenda-tions from the Kykuit Forum — the need fordetailed examinations and more research.

In an attempt to suggest where we mightlook for answers, I’ve been reviewing theareas that many leaders in the field suggestare either symptoms or causes of the difficul-ties facing historic house museums. The crisisis different depending on where you lookand with whom you speak, but ultimatelyit focuses on two key areas — attendanceand finances — and raises a fundamentalquestion: How do we measure success?

ATTENDANCE REIGNS SUPREME

In its various forms, public participation isthe most frequently cited statistic to gaugesuccess, whether it’s magazine circulation,church membership, hotel occupancy, orwebsite visits. For a historic house museum,visitor attendance is a key factor in deter-mining its health. Newspapers have useddeclining attendance at Colonial Williams-burg, Old Sturbridge Village, and theNewport Mansions to imply failure, or thepredicted record-breaking crowds at MountVernon, Lindenwald, and Valley Forge tosignal progress.1 This puts most historic housemuseums in a tough spot because it suggeststhat if these hallowed sites are threatened, or

if success is possible only through magicalhigh-tech exhibits, stunning visitor centers,or painstaking restoration (and the mega-millions needed to complete them), it canonly spell doom for the rest of us.

But here’s the reality: Attendance shouldn’tbe the only measure of success and it isn’tthe most reliable.

First of all, if we put historic housemuseums in a larger context, we’ll seetheir experience isn’t so unusual. Accordingto Roger Putnam, professor of public policy

CRISIS OR TRANSITION? DIAGNOSINGSUCCESS AT HISTORIC SITESBy Max A. van Balgooy

Attendance shouldn’t be the only

measure of success and it isn’t the

most reliable.


at Harvard University, membership inmuseums, attendance at symphonies andoperas, playing on softball teams or inbowling leagues, and participation in serviceclubs and PTAs have been trending down-ward for decades. In Bowling Alone, hiscareful study of community life in theUnited States, Putnam states that

For the first two-thirds of the twentiethcentury a powerful tide bore Americansinto ever deeper engagement in the lifeof their communities, but a few decadeslater — silently, without warning — thattide reversed and we were overtaken bya treacherous rip current. Without at firstnoticing, we have been pulled apart fromone another and from our communitiesover the last third of the century.2

The causes cited by Putnam and othersare legion and seemingly insurmountable:influence of television, home entertainment,and the internet; changing demographics;increasing work demands and decreasingleisure time; expanding roles of women;and shift in mode of vacation travel fromautomobile to air.3

Perhaps there’s some reassurance that we’renot alone in our struggles, but we’re alsocaught in a dilemma. If attendance at historicsites is declining, it goes against other majortrends of growth. The National Endowmentfor the Arts’ decennial survey shows thatvisitation at historic sites has grown 6percent since 1982.4 According to the TravelIndustry Association, travel volume hasgrown by more than 10 percent over the pastdecade and most adults included a culturalor historic activity while traveling — thiscurrently represents nearly 120 millionpeople.5 A nationwide study showed thatAmericans have a broad interest in heritage

and regularly participate in historicalactivities.6 Even outdoor enthusiasts statedthat along with walking and jogging, theymost enjoyed visiting historic sites.7

Unfortunately, national statistics on atten-dance at historic sites aren’t widely avail-able, reliable, or consistent, so most ofour information is anecdotal.8 My study ofattendance at two dozen National TrustHistoric Sites shows that walk-in dailyattendance for 1998–2005 (which includes9/11) is flat overall. But like the stockmarket, when you examine performance atindividual sites, it’s a different story. Fortwo-thirds of the sites, attendance declinedfor five or more consecutive years. Con-versely, attendance at one-third of the siteshas increased for five or more consecutiveyears. There seems to be no obvious patternto explain these differences — not location,changes in management, catastrophic events,staffing, endowment, or assets.

It further demonstrates the inability of atten-dance figures by themselves to explain successor failure. Certainly having no visitors is abad situation, but having little knowledge ofour visitors may be even worse. It’s like arestaurant noticing that sales are down, butnot knowing whether it’s happening at break-fast, lunch, or dinner, or due to the food,service, price, or neighborhood. In order tomake any meaning out of attendance, weneed to refine our measurements by recordinga visitor’s demographics and behavior (e.g.,age, residence, repeat visit) against the site’sprogramming (e.g., tours, events, site rentals)consistently over several years.

Now if we really want to expand ourthinking, historic house museums shouldmove beyond quantitative measures toqualitative ones. The National Trust for

18

Historic Preservation has established“engaging one million people” as one ofits strategic goals. Although some havequibbled about the number, it is “engage-ment” that’s caused the greatest stir. Simplycounting attendance or membership num-bers isn’t sufficient. To be “engaged”with the National Trust, the activity mustadvance our mission and have occurredin the last 24 months, and participantsmust recognize they have engaged with theNational Trust for Historic Preservationand must provide their contact informationso we can continue the relationship. It’s amajor shift in thinking, because gettingpeople to become members or pay admissionis not the goal but a means to a larger one:the protection, enhancement, and enjoymentof places that matter to them.

Other qualitative measures includeexpanding the idea of preservation beyond

the buildings to include the visitor experi-ence. Although located on 47 acres, thevisibility into and out of the Philip JohnsonGlass House in New Canaan, Conn., is aparamount experience that can be spoiled byjust a handful of visitors. We at the NationalTrust have thus carefully orchestrated thetour schedule and reduced the group sizeso that the house is empty when it is firstencountered by visitors and the presenceof other people is minimized when inside.This self-imposed limit on capacity hasresulted in sold-out tours and lots of buzzfor the first two years but also createdfrustrations for people who are unable tovisit. In this instance, public access istrumped by visitor experience — not manyhistoric house museums are willing to takethat stand.

Moreover, research on our visitors is causingus to rethink assumptions about what

To enhance the visitor experience, tour groups visiting the Philip Johnson Glass House in New Canaan,Conn., are purposely kept small so that the house is empty when first encountered by visitors and thepresence of other people is minimalized when inside. Photo by Max A. van Balgooy.


is important to them. Surveys at DecaturHouse in Washington, D.C., suggest thatvisitors to historic sites are not the sameas those who visit other types of museums,

including history museums.9 This probablymeans that strategies adopted by thesecultural institutions may not succeed athistoric houses because they attract differentaudiences; thus museum-like activities, suchas films and exhibits, may not increaseattendance over the long term.

Interviews with visitors to James Madison’sMontpelier in Virginia show that touringthis rural historic site is not the sole activityfor the day but part of a longer itinerary thatincludes exploring Monticello, shopping in anearby town, eating in a local restaurant, andvisiting a winery.10 Visitors don’t wantto be at a historic site all day but justa couple hours, so they have time to doother things. Offering a menu of specializedactivities and expecting most visitors to stay

throughout the day is probably unrealistic,and it would be more productive to promotecomplementary local attractions.

Finally, we are also introducing other waysto measure success. At Lyndhurst, in Tarry-town, N.Y., each activity is now being evalu-ated afterward more broadly. In addition toattendance, the site tracks revenue, dona-tions, expenses, and profitability. It alsojudges its activities by qualitative factors ona scale of low to high, such as staff timerequired, mission relevance, cross-marketingopportunities, and local community appeal.This set of measures helps staff decide annu-ally which activities to pursue, how they canbe improved, and what to eliminate.

In addition to Lyndhurst, we are currentlyworking with Decatur House, Drayton Hall,and Shadows-on-the-Teche (La.) to developmeasurable objectives in advance for pro-gram planning and visitor experience. Thishas been a difficult process because boardmembers and staffs often disagree abouttheir mission and what visitors should learnand experience. We often could not gobeyond vague immeasurable statementsthat began with “discover,” “understand,”“appreciate,” and “enjoy.” At some sitesconsensus was reached with hesitation, andat others it was impossible. This exercisesuggests why so many historic sites thusrely on attendance — it’s hard to quibbleabout numbers and everyone assumes thatmore is better. As a result, we’ve paintedourselves into a corner, asking the publicto support us for work that can’t be judgedor evaluated except through the leastreliable method: attendance.

MONEY IN A NONPROFIT WORLD

As nonprofit organizations, historic housemuseums dislike talking about money and

National Trust sites, such as Lyndhurst picturedabove, are exploring other ways of measuringsuccess in addition to attendance, such as stafftime required, mission relevance, and localcommunity appeal. Photo by Max A. van Balgooy.

20

find discussing financial struggles difficult.Yet historic sites need funds to survive andgrow, and fundraising consumes most of aboard’s and site director’s time. At theKykuit Forum, we deliberately avoided aconversation about funding because wefeared it would devolve into endlessdiscussion on the lack of money and a meresharing of woes. We agreed that funding andcapitalization at historic house museumsis weak but more money wouldn’t solve ourmajor challenges. Indeed, an initial financialanalysis suggests that it may even makematters worse.

In order to gain a better understanding ofthe finances at historic house museums, Ianalyzed the annual financial reports of 27nonprofit organizations across the UnitedStates that manage historic houses andwhose assets range from $5,000 to $10million.11 One measure of a potential crisis

is a deficit — spending more than you earn.Surprisingly, more than half of the organiza-tions ended 2005 with a deficit.12 Even morestartling is that deficits are more prevalentfor those organizations with assets over$500,000 than for the smaller organizations.The situation doesn’t simply grow worse asthe assets increase; it’s the organizations in themiddle range that have the biggest struggle.

Organizations with assets between $500,000and $2.5 million not only face deficitsmore frequently but the magnitude is muchgreater. A worst-case example is the SusanB. Anthony House in Rochester, N.Y., (#16in the chart below) which had assets of $1.3million and annual revenues of $181,278in 2005, but had expenses of $464,484,leaving an operating deficit of $276,206 —more than 20 percent of its assets.13 That’s aserious financial situation that will requireyears of recovery, even if it’s a one-time inci-

Historic House Museums Financial Condition, 2005


($2,000,000)

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Total assets Excess (deficit)

($300,000)

$0

$250,000

$500,000

$750,000

$1,000,000

$1,250,000

Organization (ordered by total assets)

Tota

lA

sse

ts

Exce

ss(D

efi

cit

s)

dent and now fully under control. Althoughthis organization’s experience is extreme, itis not uncommon. The one glimmer of hopeis that in larger organizations (those withbudgets of over $2.5 million), the financialdeficits are much smaller in proportion totheir overall assets and thus deficits are notas threatening to the organization’s viability.

A closer analysis shows that the financial sit-uation changes as the organization’s assetsincrease.14 Small organizations (assets of lessthan $500,000) rely primarily on donationsrather than earned income and their finan-cial situation is fragile. Loss of a grant ormajor donor can seriously squeeze opera-tions, and a major emergency or expensecould mean bankruptcy. Yet they seem tobe extremely resourceful and better ablethan larger organizations to provide moreprogramming at lower cost, they rarely havedeficits, and they regularly place surplusfunds into reserve.

One could assume that large organizations(assets of more than $2.5 million) wouldhave overcome these challenges; however,they not only have many of these sameproblems but many more. Large organizationshave mastered some areas of financialmanagement. Financial deficits are commonbut are smaller in relation to overall assets,thus are not as threatening. Large organiza-tions also have diversified their incomesources and are better able to adapt tochanges in the economy. A greater propor-tion of their assets are difficult to liquidate,typically tied up in real estate or restrictedendowment funds. This lack of flexibilitycontributes to increased challenges in cashflow, which makes it more difficult to payongoing operational expenses, expands theuse of credit, and places a greater emphasison professional fundraising.

Medium-sized organizations (assets between$500,000 and $2.5 million) have complexfinances that require continual monitoring.They’ve increased income from admissionfees, retail sales, membership dues, rentals,and investments so that they are no longerprimarily supported by donations and nolonger subject to the whims of an individualdonor or the winds of politics. This diversityallows them to respond more flexibly toemergencies or changes in the economy,but it also makes financial managementmuch more complex and they seem tohave increasing difficulties in managingcash flow and protecting cash reserves.As a result, deficits become more common,the use of credit is expanded, and expensesare shifted from programming to adminis-tration and fundraising.

Which of these organizations are in financialcrisis? All of them would welcome moremoney and we could speculate how theywould handle an extra $1 million — butfor some, that probably would not solvethe crisis. I suspect that organizations ofmedium size would return to a state oftrouble because they appear to have themost difficulty in managing finances.Administering the finances of theseinstitutions is particularly complex becauseincome sources are so diverse and expensesso numerous that a single person can nolonger adequately monitor them. Mid-range organizations require more carefulmanagement by several experienced staffmembers, which requires uncommon skillsand expertise, the delegation of authority,good teamwork, and higher salaries. At thesame time, assets have grown to a point tomake staff and trustees more complacent.They may assume that daily cash shortfallscan be addressed by purchasing on creditor by quick fundraising and that any serious

22

problem can ultimately be solved by layingoff staff, digging into the endowment, orselling surplus assets.

Financial mismanagement can put an organ-ization into crisis; however, from my studiesof award-winning programs and consulta-tion with dozens of historic house museumsacross the country, no correlation existsbetween size of assets and professionalperformance. There are some organizationswith huge endowments that do little morethan dull guided tours of stagnant periodrooms. Others struggle to pay utility billsand yet manage to produce popular events,engaging websites, and outstanding schoolprograms. Wealth does not hold a monopolyon performance or success.

MEASURING SUCCESS

Attendance and financial assets are notthe best ways to measure success but we’reonly beginning to determine alternatives.As the Kykuit Forum recommended, we“must develop new measures, beyondattendance, that document the quality ofvisitor engagement at sites and the extentof community outreach beyond the boundsof historic sites.” This should include morefrequent and comprehensive visitor researchas well as a comparison of costs to benefits,attendance to capacity, and program partici-pation to market size. Furthermore, it mustinclude qualitative as well as quantitativemeasures to adequately evaluate perform-ance. Agreement on criteria other thanattendance will be a difficult task, but ifwe avoid the challenge of examining ourvalue and benefit to society, we do notdeserve its support.

The Kykuit Forum also recommended thatgrant-making organizations “focus theirsupport on sites taking positive steps to

achieve long-term sustainability” — andI hope that will include improved trainingfor staff and boards in strategic planningand financial management. Historic sitesare complex organizations and yet thereis little financial support for projects otherthan educational programs, new initiatives,and building restoration. Funders and

donors should examine organizationsmore holistically and ensure that they areaddressing all aspects of organizations’operations in some manner.Crisis is a frightening word because it canmean an unstable and uncertain situationthat can spell doom. In German, it’ssometimes called torschlusspanik, or thefear of being on the wrong side of a closingdoor. But perhaps we can adopt the alter-native usage from the medical profession,which means the turning point in a disease.Historic sites may be currently ill at easebut there is still hope for recovery andgood health if we make a good diagnosis.

Max A. van Balgooy is director of interpretationand education at the National Trust for HistoricPreservation, serves on the Leadership Develop-ment Committee of the American Associationfor State and Local History, and is a memberof the Historic District Commission for the Cityof Rockville, Md.


If we avoid the challenge of

examining our value and benefit

to society, we do not deserve

its support.

1 Laura Tillman, “Thank the Museums for the Malls:Cultural Institutions Attract Companies, butStruggle for Visitors,” Brownsville Herald,December 8, 2007; Carlos Santos, “A view of thepast that’s more complex, inclusive: Museum toweave story about Africans, Indians in America’searly days,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, December3, 2007; Tracie Rozhon, “Homes Sell, and HistoryGoes Private,” New York Times, December 31,2006; Elizabeth Kolbert, “Van Buren’s House is aHome Once More,” New York Times, June 2, 1988;Edward Rothstein, “More of Washington, but StillMysterious,” New York Times, October 27, 2006;Brian MacQuarrie, “Living History Attraction inSturbridge, Mass., Falls on Hard Times,” BostonGlobe, November 2, 2003; Bill Van Siclen,“Newport’s Gems Lose a Bit of Their Shine: In its60th year, the Preservation Society of NewportCounty Struggles to Shore up Steady Erosionin the Number of Visitors to its Gilded AgeMansions,” Providence Journal, August 7, 2005;Annie Gowen, “Old Places, New Marketing; AsVisits to Historic Sites Approach Historic Lows,Officials Make Cuts and Look for Fresh Funding,”Washington Post, April 27, 2003.

2 Roger Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapseand Revival of American Community (New York:Simon and Schuster, 2000), page 27.

3 Putnam, Bowling Alone (2000); Juliet Schor, TheOverworked American: The Unexpected Declineof Leisure (Basic Books, 1991); Ron Crouch, “Rulesfor a New Demographic Ballgame” Museum News,May/June 2004, pp. 43 ff; and Bruce Courson,“Why Rural Museums are Becoming AncientHistory,” Opinion Journal, December 27, 2005.

4 2002 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts(National Endowment for the Arts, July 2003).Please note that “Historic Sites” includesparks, monuments, historic buildings, andneighborhoods and the data relies on theself-reporting of survey participants.

5 Historic/Cultural Traveler (Travel IndustryAssociation, 2003).

6 Roy Rosensweig and David Thelen, ThePresence of the Past: Popular Uses of Historyin American Life (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1998).

7 Think Outside: Promoting Natural Assets andExperiences in the Philadelphia Region, OsirisGroup, Inc. (Philadelphia: Greater PhiladelphiaTourism Marketing Corporation, 2005).

8 Museums not only differ on terms (e.g.,“children” is defined by differing age ranges) andactivities measured (e.g., tours, school programs,events, site rentals, off-site activities, websitevisitors) but the same organization will changethese over time. Furthermore, museums rarelyrelease detailed information and only reportaggregate numbers in their annual reports.

9 Randi Korn and Associates, “Audience Research:Visitor Survey Prepared for the Stephen DecaturHouse Museum,” (National Trust for HistoricPreservation, 2006).

10 Randi Korn and Associates, “AudienceResearch Results from In-depth Interviewswith Adults Prepared for James Madison’sMontpelier,” (Montpelier Foundation, 2006).

11 Financial data is based on IRS Form 990 for2005, the latest complete year available onlineat Guidestar.org. This analysis is not statisticallyvalid; however, this preliminary study suggestsissues that should be explored further.

12 Organizations with deficits may be difficultto identify in the chart at this scale, so forclarification they are numbers 1, 9, 10, 12, 13,14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 26.

13 For organizations that incurred deficits in 2005,the average rate was that deficits representedabout 5 percent of assets.

14 This analysis is intended solely as a broadcomparative overview rather than the evaluationof an individual organization. Furthermore,this analysis is based on a single year and acomparison over a longer period would uncoveridiosyncratic events and identify additionalpatterns.

15 Although the idea of strategic planning hasbeen widely adopted, it is typically poorlydesigned and executed. Randi Korn suggestsa better approach in her article, “The Casefor Holistic Intentionality” in Curator 50:2(2007), pp. 255 ff.

24

During the second half of the 20th century,historic house museums, historic sites, andoutdoor history museums proliferated acrossthe country. Most were founded on thepremise that transforming a historic buildinginto a historical museum would be a goodway of ensuring its preservation. Often itseemed that the best or even the only wayto rescue an endangered historic buildingwas to make a museum out of it. Not onlywould the building be under the controlof preservation-sensitive nonprofit museumpeople, some of them expert curators,but the historic place would become aneducational resource, open to the publicand to schoolchildren, and a celebratedpublic resource.

I built my career on this idea. Early on, I fledthe regulatory world of state historic preser-vation offices for the seemingly more fertilefield of historic sites and outdoor museums.Now after 30 years of laboring in thehistoric preservation and history museumvineyards, I am increasingly troubled bythe preservation fate of many historic sitemuseums. I remain fascinated and passion-ately drawn to these places, but my answerto the question of whether museum useis ideal preservation is, at best, “it alldepends.” At worst such marriages can leadto disaster, or, more commonly, gradualimpoverishment and deterioration, both forthe historic resource and for the museum.Often the difference between best and worsthas to do with the ability and the disciplineof a nonprofit organization to “fund thefundamentals” — fundamentals that areoften gritty, expensive, and in competition

with lofty educational goals and compellinghistorical programs.

Historic sites and outdoor history museumsare founded around the love of the placesand stuff of history and around the potentialof these places to contextualize our past —informing and inspiring us, and helpingus to educate our children. Often they arerooted in the vision and efforts of volunteersand amateurs, who, despite the additionof professional staffs of curators and edu-cators, must sustain ongoing governanceand fundraising efforts. Their missions andpurposes are rooted in museological idealsthat, in a nonprofit environment of fiscalscarcity, often compete with, and sometimeseven conflict with, business principles.

A FAMILIAR STORY

When a historic building becomes endangeredand a candidate for a preservation effort,it is often because the business-based condi-tions under which it was built and thrivedhave changed. Perhaps it has outlived itsoccupants, and its neighborhood has evolvedin a negative economic direction… or itsneighborhood’s prosperity has left it in thepath of new development… or its down-town is dying, strangled by peripheral malldevelopment… or the old school or library

FUNDING THE FUNDAMENTALSBy David A. Donath

[M]y answer to the question of

whether museum use is ideal

preservation is, at best, “it all

depends.”


has been abandoned for a shiny new subur-ban model. “The numbers” no longer makesense — often, they haven’t made sense for awhile. The cost of keeping up the old placealways was high, and lately money for main-tenance has been scarce. The old buildinghas seen better days.

In an upwelling of civic pride and genuinehistorical vision, leaders emerge saying,“We can save this important relic!” Andothers say, “We’ll help!” A new historic siteis launched, with the best of intentions.But the problems of the building and itsmaintenance backlog often remain. Still,the new nonprofit is energetic and creative,and it has passion for the potential of thehistoric place. It devotes heroic amountsof energy and raises cash to launch theproject. It often acquires collections ofhistorical objects to furnish the place or toexhibit in its seemingly abundant space. “Ifwe restore it, they will come — and they’llhelp pay for it!” they say and believe. And“they” do come, in numbers at least largeenough to inspire the faithful to create

worthwhile interpretive and educationalprograms. Their numbers are also largeenough to wear out the historic floorboardsthat have thus far survived more than acentury. They pay admission, althoughnot quite enough to fully support theworthwhile interpretive and educationalprograms, and never quite enough to replacethose worn-out floorboards, or the failingroof, or the rotting sill, or the….

After a few years, with the place reallybeginning to look shabby, the board ofdirectors mounts a heroic capital campaignthat enables the organization to spruce theplace up. They give it a fresh coat of paint,confident that with the place looking better,they’ll be even more successful in attractingfuture supporters. Meanwhile, donationsof historical objects keep pouring in.

The story has been told over and over againthroughout the country, in big institutionsand small community start-ups, in privateorganizations and in public institutions,at the local, state, and federal level. In 2004the General Accounting Office estimatedthe National Park System preservationmaintenance backlog at between $4.0 and$6.8 billion. Meanwhile, the historic barnat your local historical society is in imminentdanger of collapse from foundation failureand sill rot brought on by repeated flooding;the docents have removed most of its artifactsto temporary storage in the basementof the society’s historic farmhouse, whichis also in the flood plain but has a sumppump. In 2005 a nationwide study ofthe condition of America’s collections,many of which are housed in historicsites and museums, found a dismal situation:65 percent of collecting institutions havedamaged collections due to improperstorage, and 40 percent of institutions haveno funds allocated in their annual budgetfor preservation and conservation.1

Our historic sites and historic housemuseums are in trouble. Although Ameri-cans love history, our audiences are shrink-ing or distracted by leisure alternatives.Governmental support is scarce and oftenshrinking. Philanthropic support may bestable, but it is unlikely to grow enough tomeet the need. Concerned professionals are

Although Americans love history,

our audiences are shrinking or

distracted by leisure alternatives.

26

talking about alternatives: “Maybe thereare too many historic house museums.”“We certainly don’t need more of them.”“How can we help the unsustainable onesappropriately to transform themselves, oreven to go out of business?” But whatare we to do about the historic sites andmuseums that are worthwhile and can besustainable? What about the importantnew ones that truly ought to be created?In our concern for a field that may indeedbe overextended, should we close the dooron the possibility of new and brillianthistoric sites? I don’t think so.

MAKING A COMMITMENTTO STEWARDSHIP

To be a true preservation steward of ahistoric place, the institution that holdsit must achieve sustainability. To achievesustainability, a historic site or museummust realistically put its assets, opportunities,and obligations in balance, both for thepresent and long into the future. It mustprovide both for its current needs and forits long-term needs. Its historic propertyis often both its home base and the basis forits existence — it may at once be its greatestasset and its greatest liability. The obligationto preserve and conserve must be core to itspurpose and its mission. If this is true, thenthe site or museum must address fundamentalpreservation needs in fundamental ways.If preservation is core to its purpose, itmust be made core to its operation, itsbudget, and its strategic planning. Althoughnecessary and worthwhile, funding ofthis kind of sustainability can be a majorchallenge to a nonprofit institution. Thedegree to which an institution can meet thischallenge may be a touchstone for whetheror not acquisition or holding of a historicbuilding is a good idea, either for the build-

ing, for the institution, or for the publictrust upon which the institution depends.

Unfortunately, the physical needs of historicproperties generally are mundane. Theirproblems are often insidious, hiding behindpanels and walls, lurking in attics and mustybasements, and concealed all around thelandscape. And they are seemingly endless.In the environment of financial scarcity

and programmatic urgency in which manyhistoric sites and museums operate, majorpreservation maintenance lacks the excite-ment of an innovative new exhibit orprogram, and it lacks the appeal of staffand operating needs. By default, it’s alltoo easy to defer. Too often, it is an earlycasualty in budget cutting — if it makes itinto the budget at all. After all, the buildingis not going anywhere; its problems willstill be around next year (and the year after).Sometimes, physical preservation needsare so big as to overwhelm an annualoperating budget. With fatalistic sighs ofrelief and desperation the board and staffconsign them to once-and-future capitalcampaign plans.

But if historic sites and museums are tobe sustainable preservation stewards, theymust address their ongoing (indeed endless)historic preservation and conservation obli-gations in their annual operations and their

... the site or museum must address

fundamental preservation needs in

fundamental ways. If preservation is

core to its purpose, it must be made

core to its operation, its budget, and

its strategic planning.


strategic (and opportunistic) planning, aswell as in their capital fundraising. Annualoperating budgets should include renewaland replacement allowances that realisticallyaddress major cyclic (i.e., predictable) main-tenance needs. Capital campaigns shouldinclude endowment allowances that willprovide for ongoing preservation long afterthe current round of restoration work iscomplete. Boards and staffs should adopta philosophy of prudence: “If we cannotrealistically fund it, let’s not acquire it.”

None of this is rocket science, and noneof these ideas are new. The concept is asvenerable as the etymology of the OldEnglish term steward, which means “keeperof the hall.” It is grounded in an honestand comprehensive understanding of thephysical needs of the historic place anda disciplined approach to caring for it thatincludes raising and endowing the substan-tial funds required for ongoing preservationwork. This honesty and discipline can pres-ent a sobering, sometimes deflating burdenfor the staffs, boards, and funders alike.Like a salutary bucket of cold water in theface, it says that the ordinary preservationneeds of the historic place are at least asimportant as the exciting opportunities ofnew programs and staff operations. It saysthat if we ignore or defer these physicalneeds, they will accumulate, eventuallyoverwhelming and undercutting our corepurposes and missions, and destroying thesustainability of our institutions. It remindshistoric sites and museums to balanceprogram and audience development withserious attention to their historic infra-structures. And it reminds donors and grant-makers not to overlook fundamental needsin the excitement of encouraging innovation.

Fortunately, the business of historic sitesand museums does not operate according tozero-sum rules. Stewardship and innovationare not opposites, and the attention topreservation needs does not need to be atodds with program development. Withoutstewardship, innovative programming isjust a flash in the pan. Without innovation,stewardship becomes care of an increasinglyirrelevant place. But tied together in amutually reinforcing system, innovativeprogramming and preservation stewardshipcan become a formula for sustainability,which in the end should be the most fund-able fundamental of all.

David A. Donath is the president of TheWoodstock Foundation in Woodstock, Vt.

1 National Parks Conservation Association,“The Burgeoning Backlog: A Report on theMaintenance Backlog in America’s NationalParks” (May 2004). Heritage Preservation, Inc.,A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health IndexReport on the State of America’s Collections(Washington, 2005).

28

CULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISMTRENDS AFFECTING HISTORIC SITESBy Amy Webb and Carolyn Brackett

A baby boomer couple decides to takea getaway trip to experience some ofAmerica’s heritage in a quaint smalltown. They begin by checking into arestored early-20th-century bed andbreakfast. After chatting with theowners about the building’s history andthe owners’ restoration efforts, theyventure downtown to an old warehousethat has been converted into a restau-rant serving locally grown foods andfeaturing traditional live bluegrassmusic. The next day, they enjoy aguided neighborhood walking tourby interpreters portraying historicalcharacters. After the tour, they drivethrough the countryside to view thescenery and to shop at local artists’studios for mementos of their visit.

This couple has enjoyed what the travelindustry defines as a “cultural heritagetravel experience” — without ever visitinga traditional historic site museum. Whilenot too long ago a preserved “historic site”almost always meant “museum,” the fieldof preservation has broadened to addressa range of historic sites that are still in usefor their original purpose as well as historicsites adaptively used to meet today’s needs.

GROWING INTEREST INCULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISM

Numerous studies show that interestin cultural heritage travel experiencesis increasing. A national study of culturalheritage travelers completed in 1998 andupdated in 2001 showed that interest incultural heritage tourism grew 13 percent,more than twice the increase of tourism inthe United States overall. More than 43percent of all U.S. travelers included a visitto a heritage site, battlefield, or historiccommunity (Travel Industry Association ofAmerica: Historic/Cultural Traveler 2002).A 2007 survey indicates these numbers con-tinue to grow: 51.1 percent of respondentssaid they visited a historic place in the pastyear (Destination Analysts, Inc.: The Stateof the American Traveler, January 2007).

THE CONUNDRUM

While interest in cultural heritage travel isreaching new heights, many historic sitemuseum managers report that visitation atthe sites they operate is either flat or declining.This apparent contradiction raises a numberof questions. If cultural heritage tourism istruly on the rise, shouldn’t historic site muse-ums be seeing more visitors? Are the nationalstudies on cultural heritage tourism flawed? Iscultural heritage tourism an outmoded idea?Are historic sites somehow failing to capturethe interest of cultural heritage travelers?


WHO ARE CULTURAL HERITAGETRAVELERS AND WHAT DOTHEY WANT?

A good place to begin is by understandingwho cultural heritage travelers are andwhat they are looking for in their travelexperiences. The Travel Industry Association’s2002 Historic/Cultural Traveler Reportshows that 4 in 10 cultural heritage travelersare from baby boomer households (44–62years old). A 2006 survey of visitors to his-toric house museums found a similar profile;36 percent of those saying they plannedto visit a historic house museum werebetween the ages of 55 and 64 (SynovateTravel and Leisure/DataPath Systemsweekly travel survey).

By 2020 more than one-third of Americanswill be over age 50. Because baby boomers

generate more travel than any other agegroup and intend to continue this activelifestyle as they retire, they are already creat-ing new demands on the travel industry,such as for experience-based travel andaccessibility for those with limited mobility.Baby boomers are redefining leisure travel byseeking out high-quality, authentic, and inter-

active experiences. This comes as no surpriseto the travel industry. A 1998 National TourAssociation study accurately predicted thistrend, stating “because boomers are moreexperienced travelers, they will expect morefrom their experiences, and terms such ascultural tourism, heritage tourism, sportstourism, active tourism, adventure travel,and ecotourism will be commonly usedwithin the next decade.”

HISTORIC SITE MUSEUMS FACEUNIQUE TOURISM CHALLENGES

With studies consistently showing thatcultural heritage travel is thriving and withcommunities across the country activelydeveloping heritage tourism programs, thedecline in historic site museum visitationneeds careful analysis to understand thedilemma — and to identify opportunitiesto reverse this trend. These are somefactors to consider:

There are a growing number ofhistoric site museums in America.The number of historic site museums contin-ues to grow without a strategic rethinkingof the collection as a whole. In some cases,this has meant having several historic housemuseums in close proximity that offeressentially duplicate experiences. In othercases, new historic site museums are openingthat represent America’s changing demo-graphics or a broader story of everyday life,yet we still hold on to older sites that aresignificant to a shrinking demographic.However, the idea of closing a historic sitemuseum or converting it to another use hasuntil recently been considered a failure.

“Historic site” is no longersynonymous with “museum.”In the early days of preservation, referring

30

Because baby boomers generate

more travel than any other age

group and intend to continue this

active lifestyle as they retire, they

are already creating new demands

on the travel industry, such as for

experience-based travel and

accessibility for those with limited

mobility.

to a “historic site” inevitably meant ahistoric site museum. Indeed, what mightbe called the beginning of heritage tourismwas the preservation of George Washington’sMount Vernon in 1859 and Andrew Jack-son’s Hermitage in 1889. These sites andothers were saved to make them availablefor visitors to tour.

Today, while historic site museums remaina significant part of the preservationmovement, the concept of preservation hasexpanded to encompass a broader spectrumof America’s historic fabric. As in the case ofthe baby boomer couple’s weekend trip, theresult is a heritage tourism experience thatfeatures a packed itinerary without includinga traditional historic house museum. Historymay be conveyed through a brochure placedin a B&B guest room, in a narrative on therestaurant menu, on interpretive signagedowntown, or with audio tours. Thushistoric site museums may also competeagainst other historic sites — some ofwhich may offer visitors a more engaging orunique experience.

Historic site museum tours don’talways fit into hectic schedules.Research clearly reflects changing travelpatterns — more than 50 percent of travel ison the weekend, and 55 percent of travelersplan their trip one month or less in advance.In addition, 26 percent of tourists makedecisions about museum tours after arrivingat a destination. Tourists also may wantto fit many different activities into their trip,including shopping, recreational activities,or visiting friends and family.

For many historic site museums, limitedhours, days, and months of operation arethe norm. The result is that visitors who

may want to tour a historic site museummay not be able to simply because it is notopen when they are available. At the sametime, other attractions — such as zoos ortheme parks — usually offer regular hoursand days of operation and are able toaccommodate tourists’ schedules.

Partnerships with the travel industrymay not have been established.The travel industry is fast paced andfrequently requires an investment of timeand funds that many historic site museumsdo not have. Often the responsibility formarketing falls to the executive directoror a volunteer committee with little tourism

Founded in 1996, Classics at Brucemore annuallyattracts thousands of patrons from aroundEastern Iowa and beyond. Held outdoors, it’san example of programming that makes use ofmore than just the historic building and attractsdifferent audiences besides the usual historichouse visitor. Photo by Greg Billman, courtesyof Brucemore.


experience and minimal funds to directtoward marketing. Promotions arefrequently limited to printing a brochureor purchasing an occasional advertisementinstead of developing a marketing plan andestablishing partnerships with the tourismbureau and other attractions. Historicsite museum managers must also decidewhere to direct limited resources as theytry to attract and serve not only touristsbut also local residents, schoolchildren,and members.

HOW CAN HISTORIC SITEMUSEUMS BENEFIT FROMCULTURAL HERITAGE TRAVEL?

Although these challenges might createa bleak picture, historic site museums canbenefit from the growth of cultural heritagetravel with new strategies that respondto the changing needs of today’s travelers.Many historic site museum staff and volun-teers are taking steps to attract more visitorsand to position sites as a key component ofa destination. Successful strategies shared bymany historic site museums include:

Design tours that will engage today’svisitors.In finding the balance between caring forcollections and providing meaningful andinteractive visitor experiences, historicsite museums have tended to emphasize

collections care. While collections areindisputably important, it is time for thependulum to swing toward a strongerfocus on the visitor experience. The authorsof Great Tours! Thematic Tours and GuideTraining for Historic Sites1 identify two keyquestions: “What does our site illustrate bestabout the past?” and “How can we use ourresources to amplify and communicate oursite’s historical messages?” The authors notethat understanding a historic site’s storyand making the best use of all its resourcesincluding buildings, landscape, collections— and people — are the “essential founda-tion for creating informative, memorableguided tours at historic sites.”

For example, at the Lower East SideTenement Museum in Manhattan, a rangeof guided tours focus on the stories of realimmigrant families, and tour guides connectthose past experiences to immigrationexperiences amongst the present-daytour-goers. Kate Stober, public relationscoordinator for the tenement museum,explains that the museum is “one of theonly places in the world that tells the storyof the laboring class, of poor immigrantsand migrants.” This unique experienceconveys a sense of the challenging condi-tions that many immigrants faced uponarrival in America and speaks to a broadsegment of America’s changing population.This may help to explain why the museumhas seen annual attendance figures steadilyincreasing from 16,000 in 1994 whenguided tours were first offered to 128,513in 2007. Attendance has grown every yearexcept for the year around 9/11 whenvisitation remained at the same level as theprevious year.

While collections are indisputably

important, it is time for the

pendulum to swing toward a

stronger focus on the visitor

experience.

32

Offer unique and innovativespecial programs.In addition to offering tours, consider waysto use the site creatively during hours ordays when regular tours are not given.Creating unique programs and activitiescan attract targeted niche audiences of bothtourists and local residents. Opportunitiescan range from programs with knowledgeablespeakers to behind-the-scenes tours, hands-on activities, or even classes. Because theseprograms are usually limited to a smallgroup and they require special planning,they can also command an admission pricethat not only covers the cost of producingthe program but provides a profit. Forexample, the Frank Lloyd Wright Preserva-tion Trust offers a quarterly evening work-shop series called the “Architecture FantasyCamp” at the Frank Lloyd Wright Homeand Studio in Oak Park, Ill., that allowsnon-architect participants to work on adesign project in Wright’s architecturalstudio under the direction of trained architects.

Recruit more involvement by thelocal community.Forty-three percent of people who volunteersay they became involved because they wereasked by someone in the organization (U.S.Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Sta-tistics, September 2004-2005). Historic sitemuseums often look to community leadersto serve on boards or to head fundraisingcampaigns. But there are many opportuni-ties to involve local residents that will fulfilltheir enjoyment of volunteer service andbenefit the historic site.

Consider ways that local volunteers can beinvolved in developing programs or tours orhelp with tasks ranging from landscaping tohosting events. Recruit volunteers by becom-ing visible in the community — speak to

civic and school groups, place notices in thelocal newspaper, confer with other historicsites about possibly sharing volunteers, andwork with community volunteer placementorganizations.

Don’t rely only on a tourismaudience or only on a localcommunity audience.The most successful historic site museumsappeal to diverse audiences of both out-of-town visitors and residents. Diversifying hasthe dual advantage of expanding marketpotential and at the same time buffering his-toric sites in the event of a downturn in anyone target market. For example, the historicHardesty-Higgins House in Harrisonburg,Va., has been renovated as a multi-use facil-ity and provides a combination of offerings

The Lower East Side Tenement Museum in NewYork City offers a variety of different programsto attract both visitors and local residents. Photocourtesy of the Lower East Side Tenement Museum.


including a visitors center, tea house/restau-rant, and the Valley Turnpike Museum,appealing to both locals and visitors.

Take advantage of tourism marketingvenues.There are many ways that historic sitemuseums can work with local and statetourism bureaus to promote their sites atlittle or no cost. Cost-effective opportunitiescan include keeping event and tourannouncements up-to-date on tourismwebsites; participating in familiarizationtours for travel writers or tour operators;providing free admission to tourism bureau

and frontline travel industry staff; hostinglocal tourism industry meetings at the site;and participating in cooperative advertisingpurchases. In addition, all historic sitemuseums should maintain a website that iskept current and linked to other attractionsas well as tourism bureaus. Placing informa-tion on the website in a downloadable for-mat can keep down the costs of printing anddistributing brochures.

Don’t get stuck in the status quo;be open to and embrace change.The best approach for a historic site in1968 or 1988 may not be the best approachin 2008. If it is not possible to adapt tomeet today’s needs, it may be necessary tomake the difficult decision to transition toa new use. In some cases, allowing onemuseum to go away may make room for anew historic site museum that reflects thestories of greatest relevance to today’schanging American population. For thosehistoric sites that have reached the end oftheir viable lifespan as museums, responsiblestewards will need to guide the site througha transition to an appropriate alternativeuse. This is a natural evolutionary processthat will ensure the sustainability of themost important item in the museum’scollection — the historic site itself.

HISTORIC SITE MUSEUMSAT A CROSSROADS

In analyzing the trends at historic sitemuseums, it is important to consider changesto the demand as well as the supply side ofthe equation. While there are more culturalheritage travelers now than perhaps everbefore, traditional historic site museumsdon’t necessarily always offer what today’stravelers are looking for. The bar has beenraised, and historic site museums that do not

Unique programs such as behind-the-scene toursor classes can help tourists and local residentsbecome more deeply involved with a site. At theFrank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio in Oak Park,Ill., an architecture Fantasy Camp participant andarchitect work on house design. Photo courtesyof Frank Lloyd Wright Preservation Trust.

34


adapt will continue to experience decliningvisitation. Competition is increasing, notonly from new historic site museums butalso from other heritage and non-heritageattractions and experiences that are vyingfor visitors’ time.

For some historic site museums, shifting theprimary focus to the visitor experience willdraw sufficient visitation to justify existenceas a museum. Other historic site museumsmay need to reevaluate their core mission.It may not be possible to support an ever-expanding number of historic site museums,the majority of which require underwritingfrom governmental or private sources. Ifthere are other historic site museums thatprovide similar experiences nearby, or if themuseum’s focus is less relevant to audiencestoday, it may be time to reconsider thesite’s function.

If in the coming years we create innovativevisitor experiences at our historic sitemuseums, we will see these sites benefitfrom the growth of cultural heritage travelas they become part of well-preservedhistoric communities that offer a varietyof engaging opportunities to learn valuablelessons about our heritage.

Amy Webb is the director of the National Trust’sHeritage Tourism program. Carolyn Brackett is thesenior program associate for the program.

1 Barbara Abramoff Levy, Sandra MacKenzieLloyd, and Susan Porter Schreiber (Alta MiraPress, American Association for State andLocal History, National Trust for Historic Preserva-tion, 2001).

THE IMPACT OF STANDARDS ON THESUSTAINABILITY OF HISTORIC SITESBy Katherine Kane

At the Kykuit conference on Historic SiteStewardship in the 21st Century in April2007, attendees discussed the standards andbest practices affecting historic sites andthe impact of those standards and bestpractices on sustainability. By reviewingand summarizing those discussions, I hopeto prompt further thought and public dia-logue on the issues and on what I think arenecessary changes in attitude and action.

It is clear that the museum field is in themidst of evaluating and revising standards.Formal accreditation programs exist at theAmerican Association of Museums, zoos,gardens, and art museums, or are beingdeveloped. Though standards programshave long been in place, public perceptionof museums has been affected by the falloutfrom misdeeds, accidental and purposeful,in both nonprofits and for-profits. In theU.S., museums are nonprofits, responsibleto the public trust. Lapses of that trust havebrought heightened government scrutinyand new legal oversight.

There is also clearly a gap between whatthe standards actually are and what somemuseum professionals believe they are —leading to unnecessary rigidity or othernegative effects. These are some of theissues this article highlights.

STANDARDSANDBEST PRACTICESTHAT AFFECT HISTORIC SITES

Two well-known organizations offer stan-dards programs for historic sites: the Ameri-

can Association of Museums (AAM) andthe American Association for State andLocal History (AASLH). Historic sites arealso expected to meet the requirements ofmultiple other programs. Some examples arethe National Park Service, the Secretary ofthe Interior’s Standards, and, perhaps mostimportant or influential, collection manage-ment standards established by the AmericanInstitute for Conservation of Historic andArtistic Works (AIC).

AAM STANDARDS

AAM’s standards and best practices havebeen approved by the AAM board of direc-tors after being developed by the Accredita-tion Program and the AAM board’s EthicsCommittee with extensive input from thefield. They apply to all museums, whetheror not they are AAM members, or whetheror not they are accredited. Given the manytypes of museums (zoos; botanic gardens;children’s museums; history, science, andart museums; and historic sites) theaccreditation standards are necessarilybroad in scope.

The AAM Accreditation Program is nowalmost 40 years old. The number ofmuseums has grown explosively since theprogram was developed in the early 1970s;in recent years the Institute of Museum andLibrary Services (IMLS) estimated thereare 18,000 museums. The accreditationprogram’s systematic effort to describemuseum standards and provide a methodto review and measure individual museum

36

performance against the standards hashelped raise the professionalism of theentire museum field.

Accreditation is based on two core questions:How well does the museum achieve itsmission? and Does the museum meet stan-dards and best practices as they are gener-ally understood and as appropriate to itscircumstances? The “characteristics of anaccreditable museum” are described inAAM handbooks and on the websitewww.aam-us.org. The characteristics fallinto seven broad categories:

� public trust and accountability,

� mission and planning,

� leadership and organizational structure,

� collections stewardship,

� education and interpretation,

� financial stability,

� facilities and risk management.

Because standards change over time,describing and reaching them is a movingtarget. Thus, an accredited museum under-goes a subsequent review every 10 years.Some museums are going through their thirdor fourth accreditation review. The othercritical element is peer review. A museumundergoing accreditation review or partici-pating in AAM’s Museum AssessmentProgram (MAP) benefits from an on-sitevisit by peer professionals.

Of the estimated 18,000 museums, 800 areaccredited at any one time. Out of theseaccredited museums, 33 percent are historymuseums and historic sites. Though historymuseums and historic sites are the most

numerous museums, they are under-represented in the program.

The accreditation program has beenconducting sessions around the countryfor input from the field and is pilotinga shortened subsequent review process.Preliminary feedback shows that for theprogram to grow significantly it wouldneed to be less labor intensive formuseum participants.

AASLH HISTORYSTANDARDS PROJECT

In the AAM Accreditation Program, someareas important for history museumsare secondary or not included, such aslibrary/archives or historic buildings. Duringthe first Kykuit conference in 2002 onhistoric houses, participants discussed thetypes of standards needed for small andmid-sized history museums and the desirefor a tailored standards program that couldbe completed in phases and that includesarchives and special collections, historiclandscapes, and buildings. In response,AASLH is conducting a pilot project todevelop a standards program and a frame-work of assistance, funded by IMLS. Theproject is being closely coordinated withAAM Accreditation and Museum Assess-ment programs, and builds on the frame-work of AAM standards, adding specificsas needed to address issues particular tohistory museums and historic houses/sites.Volunteer teams across the country havedrafted a self-assessment tool which is beingreviewed this spring and will be piloted in2008 and implemented in 2009. It will bean incremental program, by which amuseum can work to meet standards onearea at a time.


The pilot project has the following objectives:

� Provide museums and historicalorganizations with standards andresources for a step-by-step approachfor improvement.

� Build a program that encouragesimprovement and rewards progress.

� Allow institutional participants to worktoward excellence one operational areaat a time.

� Complement rather than compete withguidelines and/or standards issuedby other associations and/or agencieswithin the museum community includingAAM’s Accreditation and MuseumAssessment programs.

� Invite state, regional, and national serviceproviders to help deliver program servicesto their constituents. (Service providersare groups like regional and state museumassociations and state historical societyfield service offices organized to delivertraining programs to museums.)

A museum will be able to work on thisself-assessment section by section, buildingaccomplishment and capacity and gettingrecognition for progress.

ADDITIONAL STANDARDS

Successful history museums and sites alsoimplement standards from outside themuseum world. Kykuit attendees mentionedseveral of these such as standards of theNational Park Service, the Secretary of theInterior’s Standards, the Association of ArtMuseum Directors, and the American Insti-tute for Conservation.

Funders apply their own filters in makingdecisions; these filters, then, effectively

function as standards. During this Kykuitconference, attendees — including repre-sentatives from the funding community —listed some of the filters that influence fund-ing decisions: impact numbers (on- and off-site attendance, web hits); managementcapacity and staff levels; capacity to raisematching money; overall fundraising capac-ity; the funder’s interest areas; the museum’spartners; impact by location, mission, andpartner; regulations (when government orlaw set the standards); geographic diversity;and public access. Museums think funderswant innovation (i.e., new), though thefunders at the meeting said they want“good” more than “new.”

Awards programs also apply evaluativecriteria. In the AASLH awards program,for example, the core question is “Is itgood history?”

WHY STANDARDS ARE NEEDED

Conference participants agreed that stan-dards help museums survive, because they:

� Encourage improvement.

� Protect collections frominappropriate treatment.

� Give the public, media, donors, andgrantors a way to identify places thatare doing things according currentprofessional standards.

� Present benchmarks and externalmeasures of performance for themuseum and the public.

38

THE NEED TO CORRECTMISPERCEPTIONS ABOUTSTANDARDS

Kykuit discussants thought that standardscan hinder museum sustainability. It washere that the gap between actual standardsand perceptions of them was most obvious.

Perceptions of standards are affected byoverlapping professions (historians and con-servators, for example) and reflect attitudesthat change more slowly than standards. Forexample, it was once acceptable to loancollection items to trustees for their homesor routinely use costume collections in fash-ion shows. And commonly held beliefs —such as HVAC must be installed in historichouses to protect the collections, that youcan’t let people touch objects, that allobjects are of equal value — are in factthe perceptions of the field, rather than anaccurate reflection of the actual standards.

Such misperceptions can havedetrimental effects:

� Professional staff can reinforce therigidity of standards to the detrimentof mission-based program delivery.A focus on collections care can inhibitinteractive opportunities for thevisitor experience.

� Some standards that protect collectionscan damage historic sites. For example,installing climate control systems mightcompromise historic fabric of a building.

� Perceptions of standards affect costof implementation: The perception thatstandards dictate that every object is as“precious” as another affects reasonablyprioritizing care.

� “Do not touch” environments inhibit

creativity, learning, and innovation— by the institutions and by the public.Reproductions are one option to allowvisitor use without endangering originalartifacts, yet the high cost of qualityreproductions can make this prohibitive.And using tactile learning also necessitatesteaching visitors why some artifacts maybe touched but not others.

CURRENT THINKING ANDCHALLENGES

For sustainability and survival of museums,it could be argued that the most importantstandards are the public’s standards. Historicsites and museums need to meet audienceneeds, and visitors and users have differentstandards than the profession. They wantconvenience, entertainment, and sociallearning experiences. They want thingsto do and touch. They want materialsto take away. They want to be stimulatedand even provoked. They want the sitesto be physically and intellectually accessible.Successful visiting experiences change thevisitor’s perspective and attitude; suchexperiences lead to a healthy human spirit.Relevance to the audience is the fundamen-tal standard.

ObservationsThe discussion of standards at Kykuit waslively and elicited the following ideas andobservations relevant for the whole fieldof historic sites:

“Muse” in museum means poetry andinspiration yet the word “museum” canbe a slur, representing stodgy, hands-off,static, or elitist. Standards don’t help toreach the soul of the visitor (and bring anaffective response); the highest levelexperience effects experiential change.


Collections are a means, a tool — not thecore of the institution, which is its mission.The mission is the nexus of place, audience,and experience.

Each activity and program a museum under-takes should have multiple benefits ratherthan being one-off’s. How can we be clearerabout the multiple benefits from standardsprograms? From all we do?

Discussants agreed that museums havebecome too rigid in site use; historic sitesare not just about history, rather theyshould educate and inspire.

The question of whether historic sites andmuseums are in crisis was intensely argued.Some believe museums are struggling withfinances and audience connection. Otherspointed out that an aging population meansboards, volunteers, and staffs are older andthere may not be replacements when theyleave their positions. And, if your museum ison life support, it’s too late to do standards.

ChallengesAs a field, historic sites don’t keep trackof innovations very well. The result is thatsuccesses — as well as lessons learned —aren’t widely shared to motivate and guideothers. There is no formal or informal data-base of such information.

Potential upcoming changes in public policywill affect areas we care about. The structureof the federal No Child Left Behind Law,enacted in 2002 and now up for renewal,leaves history and social studies out of themix and is deeply affecting the future ofthe history audience — now and as thoseschoolchildren age, creating a generationwithout an affinity or even a basic knowl-edge of history.

Kykuit participants considered why muse-ums don’t partner and collaborate morethan they do and observed that beyondcompeting for dollars and leadership,museums can be insular and protective;sharing isn’t part of the culture. This canaffect audience interactions, reputation,and community involvement.

CALL TO ACTION ANDSOLUTIONS

The discussions at Kykuit generated someof the following recommendations:

� Historic sites need to break out of the“museum” box and assert that theyare a “different species” (as zoos andbotanical gardens have done).

� We should create “situational standards”rather than one-size-fits-all standardsto find an acceptable balance betweenresponsible stewardship of collections andproviding a meaningful visitor experience.Or, as some of the discussants said,we need “guidelines” not “standards,”and “tools” not “rules.”

� Sites should promote history as a coreAmerican value and standardsshould help.

� Standards programs should delivermeasurable value and impact.

� Sites should accept less rigid, moreflexible site use.

� There should be more discussion anddecisions about when and how it isacceptable to adapt collections standardsso that each site can provide a bettervisitor experience. The balance shouldshift from preserving collectionsto a focus on people.

40

� We should distribute examples and casestudies so sites can test “situationalstandards.” These should be direct, publicsharing of success stories and lessonslearned. These examples and case studiesshould feed into the standards for historicsites being developed by AASLH. We needarticles that discuss deviating from thetraditional model with balancedconversation about what’s not okay.

� Colleague consultations and advisorysupport can help staff think differentlyand validate decisions that stray fromtraditional museum standards.

� Designate “tiers” of value for collectionitems. Identify, for example, what isirreplaceable and what is still availableor replaceable. Many museums have“permanent collection” and “usecollection” designations and the latterincludes items that have been identifiedas being acceptable to use rather thanjust display.

� Educate boards and staffs of historic sitesto be more open to new possibilities.Rethink professional training to includemore discussion of flexible standards andfight the specialized museum staff’s“tunnel vision” so that everyone hasa sense of responsibility for the entireorganization. Involve universities inimplementing changes to museum studies.

� Be open to alternative uses for historicsites beyond museums.

� Broaden the definition of museum to bea community resource with communityinvolvement and engagement.

Katherine Kane is the executive directorof the Harriet Beecher Stowe Center.

THE AAM ACCREDITATIONPROGRAM PRESENTS:

The Characteristics of an AccreditableMuseum… in Plain English

This “translation” of the Characteristics

of an Accreditable Museum from program-

speak into “plain English” is intended

as a lighthearted way to demystify

Accreditation Program standards by

showing that they are not “extra work”

or unattainable, but all things that any well-

run museum and nonprofit should be doing

anyway. Please visit www.aam-us.org/accred

for the official version of the Characteristics

and to learn more about accreditation stan-

dards. Reprinted with permission from the

American Association of Museums.

Public Trust & AccountabilityAccountability

� Be good

� No really — not only be legal,

but be ethical

� Show everyone how good and ethical

you are (don’t wait for them to ask)

Community engagement

� Do good for people

� Know which people

� And to be on the safe side

– Be nice to everyone else, too

– Especially if they live next door

Diversity and Inclusiveness

� Avoid cloning

� Look something like the people you are

doing good for

� And maybe a bit like your neighbors

� Let other people help decide what

games to play

� And what the rules are

� Share your toys


Mission and PlanningMission

� Know what you want to do

� And why it makes a difference to anyone

� Then put it in writing

� Stick to it

Planning

� Decide what you want to do next

� When you are deciding what to do,

ask lots of people for their opinion

� Put it in writing

� Then do it

� If it didn’t work, don’t do it again

� If it did work, do

Leadership and OrganizationalStructure� Make sure everyone is clear about

who is doing what

– The board knows it is governing

– The director knows she is directing

(and the board knows it too)

– The staff know they are doing

everything else

� And have it in writing

Collections Stewardship� Know what stuff you have

� Know what stuff you need

� Know where it is

� Take good care of it

� Make sure someone gets some good

out of it

– Especially people you care about

– And your neighbors

Education and Interpretation� Know who you are talking to

� Ask them what they want to know

� Know what you want to say

� (and what you are talking about)

� Use appropriate language (or images,

or music)

� Make sure people understood you

� And ask them if they liked it

� If not, change it

Financial Stability� Put your money where your mission is

� Is it enough money?

� Will it be there next year, too?

� Know when you will need more $

� Know where you are going to get it from

� Don’t diddle the books

Facilities and Risk Management� Don’t crowd people

� Or things

� Make it safe to visit your museum

� Or work there

� Keep it clean

� Keep the toilet paper stocked

� And if all else fails, know where the exit is

� (and make sure it is clearly marked)

42


A GOLDEN AGE FORHISTORIC PROPERTIESBy John Durel and Anita Nowery Durel

Historic properties are on the verge of agolden age. Over the next two decadesAmericans will turn to historic houses andsites as a source of learning, enjoyment, andfulfillment. Increasingly, people will chooseto spend time in places that connect themto their past, to nature, and to beauty. Inreturn, they will provide financial supportto help sustain the properties.

This future will occur only for organizationsthat abandon the thinking of the 1980s.Specifically, the leaders of historic propertiesthat enter the golden age will:

� Focus on members and affinity groups,not visitors.

� Emphasize the spiritual as well as theintellectual and social dimensionsof the site.

� Have an effective individual givingprogram in place.

CULTURAL TOURISM

Since the 1970s the dominant businessmodel for historic properties has beencultural tourism, in which the organizationprovides an experience for a visiting publicin exchange for admission fees and museumshop sales. The model became dominantat a time when nonprofits were expectedto be run like businesses, with “customers”paying for services received. This diagramdepicts the model.

External Factors� Large boomer population

of families with children� Popularity of history,

spurred by the Bicentennial� Leisure time used

for family vacations� Motor coach tours

for senior citizens� In schools a desire for educa-

tional enrichment throughfieldtrips

Internal Capacity

Historic sites offered:� “Living” history� The “new” social history:

the stories of ordinary people� Historical “interpretation”� Interdisciplinary research:

archeology, oral history� Museum education: hands-on

activities for children

Revenue� Admission fees� Program fees� Gift shop sales


44

Colonial Williamsburg has been thegranddaddy of the cultural tourism model.Remember those 1-800-HISTORY commer-cials with the happy families walking alongDuke of Gloucester Street. Now there arefar fewer families. Visitation has droppedfrom 1.1 million in 1985 to 710,000 in2005, “despite two decades of investingmillions of dollars to try to make themuseum relevant to a younger, morediverse group of tourists.”1 This declinein tourism is widespread, with many otherhistoric sites reporting comparable figures.

What has changed? American families stilltake vacations, but the competition is stiff.Cultural sites must compete with DisneyWorld, Las Vegas, Europe, and othervacation destinations. Additionally, thelack of transportation funding for school

fieldtrips is a chronic issue, and seniorcitizens now appear to be taking theirbus trips mainly to casinos.

In reality, the model never worked com-pletely. Most historical organizations havesupplemented earned revenue with fundrais-ing, usually in the form of grant writing andfundraising events. The problem has beenthat we have focused most of our attentionon the cultural tourist, an audience now indecline. Renewed efforts to attract themwith novel programs or better marketingmay succeed briefly, but ultimately will fail.Unless something changes dramatically wewill see more historic properties close.

The question is: What is the new businessmodel to replace cultural tourism? We haveentered a period of uncertainty as we try

Historic Propertiesthat don’t change

?

Cultural Tourism1970s – 1990s

44


to figure out what will work next. It isa time to experiment, learn from mistakes,recover quickly, and build on successes.With strategic thinking and disciplinean organization should be able to makethe transition successfully.2

BOOMERS WITH TIMEAND MONEY

We have a friend who has just retiredfrom a career as a clinical psychologist.In retirement he plans to get more involvedwith music. Over the years he has beenan audiophile, acquiring instruments andequipment, and playing occasionally withfriends. Now he will have a studio in hishouse and play regular gigs at clubs intown. He will spend lots of money andtime on this pursuit. It will give himgreat satisfaction.

Another friend, a retired manager fromShell Oil Company, has had a lifelonginterest in World War II, stemming fromstories he heard from his father. Now hespends his days at the library researchingparticular army units or military engage-ments, and presents what he learnsto a “roundtable” of others who sharehis interests. He travels and is a memberof several museums that have WWIIcollections. Through oral historieshe is preserving the stories of veteransin his community. He sees this as bothhis passion and his responsibility.

As boomers enter retirement, with time andmoney to spend, historic properties havea remarkable opportunity. A site can becomeboth the venue and the organization throughwhich like-minded individuals pursue theircommon interests. Many retirementactivities will involve nature and beingoutdoors; many historic properties have

land, gardens, and trails to serve thesepurposes. Many retirees will wantto deepen their knowledge or perfecta skill; many sites have collections,libraries, work spaces, equipment,and expertise to enable them to do so.

SMALL AFFINITY GROUPS

When people no longer have a workplaceto go to every day, they seek camaraderieelsewhere. The need to associate with othersis basic to human nature. McDonald’srestaurants have long tapped into this need.From an obituary in the CharlestownDaily Mail, in West Virginia: “He wasa member of the Judson Baptist Churchand McDonald’s Breakfast Club and wasan Army veteran of World War II.”3

There is likely to be a surge in small affinitygroups as boomers retire. Most won’t behanging out at McDonald’s. They will joinexisting groups or form new ones centeredon their interests. They will plan their ownprograms, trips, events, and gatherings.Historical organizations can potentiallyprovide venues, resources, and overarchingstructures for these groups. Small affinitygroups could become the primary audiencefor historic properties in a new model.

Each affinity group would be relativelysmall, to build strong interpersonalrelationships. There could be a gardeners’guild, a history study group, a collectors’club, a cooking group, a music group, anastronomy group, a travel group, a hikinggroup — whatever any group of individualsmight want that makes legitimate use ofthe organization’s resources. Each affinitygroup would plan and implement its ownprograms and activities, for its ownmembers, as well as for others. Each ofthe groups would be a subset of the general


46

membership. Through dues the groupwould support the whole organization.

In this approach it will be necessaryto counter a tendency for small groupsto become insular. Everyone should bewelcome to join a group. The determinantshould be interest, not wealth, age, or socialstanding. Indeed, this approach offers anopportunity for learning across generationsand cultures. One can envision a collectors’group where young and old of differentbackgrounds sit together to compare whatthey have and share what they know.

THE FUTURE STAFF

Retirees already volunteer at historic sites,helping to weed gardens, give tours, or carefor collections. They are seen as extra helpfor the staff, whose primary concern is to

serve the public. In the future, retirees maybe both staff and the primary audience.

The New York Times reports that “withthe bulging post-war generation nearingits retirement years, statisticians forecasta growing gap of unfilled executive andmanagerial jobs.”4 As boomers retire fromhistoric sites, their jobs may be filledby volunteers, or they may continueon in a part-time capacity. In any event,the number of full-time paid staff probablywill shrink.5

With fewer staff, the organization could useaffinity groups to fill the gap. For example,a single paid staff person might work withthe history study group and the exhibitsgroup to produce exhibits; with the gardenersand the nature club to care for the grounds;and with the drama society and the

Nelly's Needlers, a group of volunteers at Woodlawn, have organized a popular juried exhibition ofcontemporary needlework since 1975 to both promote this craft and support the site. These types ofaffinity groups can replace tourists as a primary audience but it requires a fundamental shift in the wayhistoric sites operate. Photo by Max A. van Balgooy.

46


musicians to create performances forthe community. To do this job effectively,this staff person would need the abilityto sustain strong relationships andcoordinate the work of others. Indeed,this is the way many small historicalorganizations already work.

Ebay offers a model for this kind oforganization. The internet-based marketplacedoes not actually buy and sell anything.Rather it provides a structure so that anyonecan buy and sell. In this sense, historicalorganizations would not have to plan andimplement activities. They simply wouldprovide a structure so that members coulddo things for themselves.

Systems that distribute both the workand authority to make decisions functioneffectively only if everyone shares certainvalues and if there are mechanisms forresolving disputes. This model might workfor historic properties if all affinity groupsand individuals share a strong preservationethic and recognize the ultimate authorityof the organization’s governing board.6

LESSONS FROM PHILANTHROPY

Many successful businesses remain small,foregoing growth in favor of intimacy.They prefer loyal customers whom theysee often, rather than many more customerswhom they see infrequently. Historic siteshave pursued growth, often at the expenseof intimacy. We seek large numbersof visitors who come once, rather thanfocusing on a smaller number of memberswho participate regularly.7

In the long run an investment in membershipwill have a greater payoff than a comparableinvestment in cultural tourism. Members

active in affinity groups will becomecommitted not only to the organizationbut also to their friends, and in time manywill become donors. This is the heartof philanthropy: people giving to people.Donors give to organizations that meansomething to them, and where they haveclose relationships.

The vast majority of giving in the U.S.— more than 83 percent each year —comes from individuals.8 These donorsgive primarily to churches, schools, andhospitals. Such organizations recognizethe importance of personal relationships— with a minister, a doctor, a teacher,or former classmates — and sustainthose relationships through frequentcommunication and involvement.

A recent trend in philanthropy is theformation of giving circles composed ofindividuals who share a particular interest,such as children’s issues or the environment.Giving circles permit people of ordinarymeans to have a greater charitable impactby combining money and making grantscollectively. Twenty members in a circle,each contributing $500, can providea single grant of $10,000 and makea genuine difference.

The tourism model does not produce theequivalent of parishioners, alumni, gratefulpatients, or giving circles. Fundraising forhistoric properties has been largely a matterof writing grant proposals and organizingevents, with little attention given to cultivat-ing individual donors, except during capitalcampaigns.

The lesson is clear. Several hundred loyalmembers active in affinity groups are far


4848

more likely to make financial contributionsthan the thousands of visitors you mightotherwise attract. If you want to builda strong financial base for the future,membership is a better way to go. Theprimary fundraising job is to cultivatethese individuals and turn them intodonors, just as major gift officers doat hospitals and universities.9

THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSIONOF HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Historic sites are physical places with strongspiritual qualities. In 2005 Drayton Hallreceived an unexpected donation, with a let-ter explaining that the donor had attendedan evening event on the property and fondlyrecalled seeing the moon shining on theAshley River. A person’s most meaningfulhistoric site experience can be a time alone,or with a small group, when one is able toreally be in the place, sense its beauty, andfeel the presence of the past.

Americans have begun to take spiritualityseriously. Moving beyond the materialismthat has dominated American life for thepast half century, people are looking formeaning and purpose in their lives.10 Formany boomers, entering this next stage willbe a time to reflect on what is most impor-tant. Some will have heightened interests intheir roots and in history. Many will lookahead and wonder what legacy they willleave their children and grandchildren.

Historic properties, beyond being placesto pursue interests and friendships, canoffer boomers an opportunity to makea lasting difference. Involvement can makeone’s last decades of life especially rewarding,fulfilling basic human needs to honorone’s ancestors and to leave somethingof enduring value for those who follow.

Individual bequests — a person’s ultimategift — accounted for 9 percent of all moneydonated in 2003. This is the way individualsmake a final contribution to the well-beingof those they love, and to the success ofinstitutions they value. If toward the endof life an individual has a meaningfulrelationship with your historic site, and hasmade good friends there, and if you havean active planned giving program, then thereis a strong probability that your institutionwill receive a bequest.

A NEW BUSINESS MODEL:AFFINITY GROUPS

The following diagram combines theforegoing observations into a newbusiness model for historic properties.Affinity groups replace tourists as theprimary audience, internal capacityshifts from historical interpretationto support of group activities, andrevenue comes from individual givingrather than admission fees and sales.

This new model will require a fundamentalshift in the way historic properties function.Instead of creating activities for visitors,staff will provide expertise and logisticalsupport for affinity groups. Rather thancontrolling the groups directly, staff willestablish standards and policies, educate thegroups, and empower them to act. Insteadof being a leader in charge of an activity,staff will have to learn to lead indirectlythrough support and facilitation.

For years the staff has functioned asinterpreters of the past. They do research,select artifacts, arrange rooms, and givetours. Some tours are highly engaging andinformative. More often, they are simply


adequate, providing visitors with a satisfyingbut unremarkable experience.

The future primary audience — affinitygroups — will already be knowledgeable.They will want to discover new informationand share what they know. A gatheringof such a group in a historic housewill not be one in which an interpretertells about the place. Rather, it will bea facilitated group discussion exploringdifferent interpretations, encouraging newquestions, and generating fresh insights.

A CALL TO ACTION

Most historic properties operate with verytight budgets. Some have downsized anddepleted reserves. In this climate, it is hardto be hopeful. Yet we, the authors, areoptimistic because we understand that thecurrent situation reflects neither the inherentvalue of historic sites nor the competencyof those who lead them.

Now is the time to abandon the assumptionsof the old model and begin to test the watersof the new. Success will not come overnight.But if changes are not initiated now, it maysoon be too late. We recommend:

� Focus on members instead of visitorsas the key indicator of success. Treatmembership as a strategic rather thanan administrative function, staffedby someone who understands the processof building relationships.

� Experiment and test ways to supportand share authority with affinity groups.For example, the Brooklyn HistoricalSociety has opened one of its galleries tocommunity groups to produce exhibitsof their own.

� With an existing group of volunteersexplore a new structure, wherein theybecome an affinity group as a part of themembership program. Examine the prosand cons, and run a pilot program.


External Factors� Boomers with time

and money to spend� Their desire to pursue inter-

ests with like-minded people� A desire to find

meaning in one’s life� A desire to make

a difference; to leavea legacy

Internal Capacity� Membership organized

into affinity groups� Resources to support

group activities� Staff skilled in coordination,

facilitation, and smallgroup dynamics

� Active nurturingof relationshipsamong individuals,and between individualsand the institution

Revenue� Membership Dues� Major Gifts� Legacy Gifts

50

� Start a major gift/planned giving programto cultivate members and turn theminto donors. Make this the primary roleof development.

� Produce more opportunities for peopleto experience the spiritual dimensionof your site, offering times when theycan be alone or in small groups.

John Durel has a Ph.D. in American History fromthe University of New Hampshire. He has workedin and consulted with historic sites and museumssince the 1970s. Anita Nowery Durel is a CertifiedFund Raising Executive with more than 30 yearsexperience in the nonprofit sector. Together theywork as Durel Consulting Partners, an affiliate ofQm2 — Quality Management to a Higher Power.

A longer version of this article appeared in theSummer 2007 issue of History News. For a pdfof the longer article go to www.aaslh.org/documents/GoldenAgeHNSummer07.pdf

1 “Homes Sell, and History Goes Private,” New YorkTimes, December 31, 2006.

2 Will Phillips, The “S” Curve: Causality and Viscos-ity — Concepts for Understanding Your Organiza-tion, www.qm2.org. Many of our thoughts about anew business model parallel those of John H. Falkand Beverly K. Sheppard in Thriving in the Knowl-edge Age: New Business Models for Museums andOther Cultural Institutions (AltaMira Press, 2006).

3 Quoted in “Retirees Take It Slow Amid the FastFood,” Baltimore Sun, February 7, 2007.

4New York Times, January 11, 2007, page A1.

5 For more on these trends, see John Durel,“Museum Work Is Changing” in History News,Summer 2002.

6 Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom describeopen organizations in The Starfish and the Spider(Penguin Group, 2006).

7 Bo Burlingham, Small Giants: CompaniesThat Choose to Be Great Instead of Big(Portfolio, 2005).

8 Giving USA Foundation — AAFRC Trust forPhilanthropy/Giving USA 2004.

9 We are not suggesting that individual givingwill totally replace support from government,foundations, and corporations. Indeed, family andprivate foundations have grown significantly inthe past few years. Many wealthy individuals arechoosing this means to support the causes thatinterest them. As with individual donors, founda-tions and corporations have to be cultivated. Thenew business model can be helpful in this regard,by making it easy for an organization to demon-strate active community participation. The keypoint is that a true major gifts cultivation programis crucial to future financial success.

10 Daniel H. Pink, A Whole New Mind: Movingfrom the Information Age to the Conceptual Age,(Allen and Unwin, 2005) pp 207–222. Pink identi-fies the search for meaning as a key characteristicof American culture in the next half century.

50

Allow visitors to watch and ask questions aboutactual restoration work or archeological researchto provide them with a more in-depth experienceat a historic site. Photo by Max A. van Balgooy.

THE NEXT CLIVEDEN: A NEW APPROACHTO THE HISTORIC SITE IN PHILADELPHIAByDavidW. Young


A few years ago in the Germantownsection of Philadelphia, Upsala, one of theneighborhood’s 13 historic house museums,watched its attendance dwindle along withits endowment as it worked to addressdeferred maintenance and rising costs.With the difficulties it was facing, theUpsala Foundation sought a merger withits larger neighbor across the street, Cliveden,a Georgian mansion that is a co-stewardshipsite of the National Trust for HistoricPreservation. Yet Cliveden was facingattendance problems of its own. In spiteof its remarkable history, Cliveden hasaveraged just 3,000 visitors a year.

During discussions about the merger,Cliveden proposed turning Upsala into avisitor center for the historic Germantownneighborhood which is known for itscolonial history. But a critical question wasposed late in the process, “Why a multi-million dollar visitor center for only 3,000visitors?” At that moment Clivedenembarked on a period of organizationalplanning that has resulted in a new missionand a renewed sense of purpose in thecommunity, which now suffers from acutepoverty and crime. The effort has involvedplanning, collaboration, new approaches,and staff changes. It has also involvedcoordination among staff and board, withsister institutions and other communitypartners, and across different departmentsof the National Trust.

BACKGROUND: A TALE OF TWOHOUSE MUSEUMS

Cliveden, a National Historic Landmark,was built as a summer home by prominentcolonial jurist Benjamin Chew in 1767.Located on six acres in the heart ofPhiladelphia’s densely populated Germantownneighborhood, Cliveden was the site of theRevolutionary War Battle of Germantown,and home to the Chew family until 1972.During the 1777 battle Cliveden withstoodan onslaught, and bullet holes and scarsfrom cannon fire are still visible on thewalls. A co-stewardship site of NationalTrust, Cliveden is managed by a localboard of directors. Two floors of exhibitrooms display furnishings, paintings,and decorative arts owned by the Chews,including masterpieces of 18th-centuryPhiladelphia craftsmanship. The museumbuilding also houses additional offices andstorage space for its 4 full-time and 22part-time employees and guides, as wellas hosts the Northeast Field Office of theNational Trust.

By 2000 declining attendance anddwindling resources had forced Cliveden’sneighbor, Upsala, to seek alternativeforms of stewardship. In 2004 Upsala(c. 1798) merged with Cliveden followinga planning process. Today Upsala is usedon a limited basis for Cliveden’s educationinitiatives, such as an after-school programand adult education classes, while Clivedenmanages the site’s maintenance.


52

The merger served as a catalyst for changeand sparked a long-range planning processwhich has helped to define Cliveden’s currentmission, which emphasizes community revi-talization, education, and preservation action.

THE PLANNING PROCESS

In 2003 Cliveden commissioned a sitemaster-planning process conducted by thelandscape planning firm Olin Partnershipand the architectural firm of Atkin OlshinLawson-Bell, and funded by the HeritagePhiladelphia Program of The Pew Charitable

Trusts. This plan began to assess andarticulate the options for the expandedphysical capacity of the site. Simultaneousexploration of possible programmingdirections for the Cliveden/Upsala propertyinvolved representatives from the NationalTrust for Historic Preservation, the McNeilCenter for Early American Studies, Cliveden’sstaff and board members, funders, anddirectors of other historic sites.

A two-day planning meeting held in January2004 and facilitated by museum consultantChris Mekal, yielded five potential program-ming models. The Strategic Planning Com-mittee of the Cliveden board spent the springand summer months of 2004 crafting a planthat pulled the strongest elements from thefive models to create a vision for the future.The resulting document, The Next Cliveden:Moving Forward with Our Communityand The National Trust for Historic Preser-vation, approved in December of 2004,charts a dramatically new direction forCliveden:

“Cliveden sees its future in buildinga closer relationship with its communityand with the National Trust for HistoricPreservation drawing on the strengthsand resources of both to provide leader-ship to save our diverse historic placesand revitalize our community. We believethat allying Cliveden more closely withour community is vital to ensure our ownlong-term viability and vitality andwe hope to provide a model for thedevelopment of community revitalizationactivities for the National Trust.”

In April 2006 Cliveden’s new missionwas formally approved: “to help peopleunderstand our shared history and motivatethem to preserve it by providing access to

Cliveden, a National Trust Historic Site in Philadel-phia, Pa., is trying new approaches to traditionalprogramming and adding new programs designedto involve community members. Photo by RonBlunt, courtesy of the National Trust for HistoricPreservation.

52


the rich continuity of history and preservationin one community and family over time,and by offering direction and knowledgeabout preserving our built heritage andits value.”

CLIVEDEN’S NEW DIRECTION:THE SETTING

The new direction came about partlyfrom Cliveden’s own experience, partlyfrom its community context, and partlyfrom planning underway at the NationalTrust. Cliveden had attempted to capturetourists who come to Philadelphia, yet thesite’s location in northwest Philadelphia,some six miles away from the downtownarea and the city’s most popular attractions,have made heritage tourism less than anideal growth market. Furthermore, a majortourism marketing study for Philadelphia’sHistoric Northwest in 2001 indicatedthat Germantown’s historic house commu-nity should focus on more-recent historyrather than on the revolutionaryand colonial heritage.

Cliveden’s immediate neighborhoodis challenged economically. Germantown,founded in 1683 and incorporated intothe city in 1854, went through a majorpopulation shift in the 1950s. Censusrecords from 2000 show more than20 percent of the population of 46,000is below poverty level. Germantownis very historic, with important landmarksin America’s political, industrial, and socialhistory. The history of the communityis evident even beyond its 13 historic sites,as many churches, neighborhoods, andschools are centuries old. The 2000 censuslisted more than 10,000 homes that werebuilt before 1930. While there is a greatinterest in history within the region, theeconomic revitalization of the community

has been hampered by lack of jobs orinvestment. Germantown needs moreactive approaches to economic revitalizationwithin historic preservation.

Since the 1980s the National Trust hasbuilt community revitalization programsto leverage resources for creative re-use ofneighborhood assets, most notably throughthe Main Street program. In the late 1990s,the Preservation Development Initiativeinvolved a lot of activity within Philadelphiaand seven other cities. Within this climate,the discussions during the Cliveden/Upsalamerger wrestled with how to avoid the pitfallsof declining attendance or dwindling interestin colonial history. The consideration ofthe community’s needs began to emergemore formally, resulting in discussionsof how Cliveden/Upsala could becomea site that provided resources and focusto the National Trust’s activities, not justin the realm of historic sites but in termsof community revitalization as well.

CLIVEDEN’S NEWDIRECTION UNDERWAY

Cliveden has moved ahead accordingly,trying new approaches to traditional pro-grams and adding entirely new programsas well. Curriculum-specific programmingtargets fourth- and fifth-grade students inPhiladelphia’s public schools; an after-schoolprogram in creative writing attracts middle-and high-school age students from the cityand nearby suburbs who are self-selected toparticipate. Local community organizationsuse Cliveden’s Carriage House for eveningmeetings and events for their members.

A partnership with the Preservation Alliancefor Greater Philadelphia has attractedhundreds of local residents to workshopson preservation techniques for older houses.


54

Thousands of visitors participate in annualevents such as the summer Jazz Fest andthe community-wide RevolutionaryGermantown Festival. On-site surveys haveshown that these are predominantly localresidents, reflecting a range of economicand racial backgrounds. Many attendeesat these events have never toured Clivedenor attended other programs at the site. AndCliveden has been prominently involvedwith the business community; its directoris a founder of the Germantown Avenuebusiness improvement district.

Cliveden has also employed the resourcesof the National Trust, actively workingwith the community revitalization departmentand with the Northeast Field Office. Clivedenis working with the National Trust’s Depart-ment of Community Revitalization and aneighboring community development corpo-

ration to implement a revitalization plantwo blocks away from Cliveden.

Cliveden has moved forward by collaboratingwith partners both traditional (other historicsites) and non-traditional (community devel-opment corporations). Its new approach hasmeant providing the community with use ofthe site for everything from meeting spacefor youth programs of the local police districtto storage space for the sidewalk sweepingequipment of the business improvement dis-trict. Bringing National Trust resources whereappropriate has been the rule, such as withboard development consultants and commu-nity revitalization planners. In many waysthe synergy among the departments of theNational Trust uniquely positions Clivedento put more of the Trust’s programs intoaction in the Germantown Community.

Faced with declining membership, Upsala merged with Cliveden in 2004. The site is now used forCliveden’s education initiatives, such as after-school programs and adult education classes. Photocourtesy of Cliveden.

54


PROGRESS AND LESSONSLEARNED, SO FAR

The full support of Cliveden’s boardof directors has been essential in bringingabout this change of direction. Clivedenwas well prepared to make substantivechanges, and the board was able to movefrom the planning process to communityfocus in a manner engaged by boardmembers, staff, and committees alike.Conducting a search for a new directormade the board articulate its new visionand hire accordingly. Community supporthas been strong, with three differentcommunity development corporationsassisting on Cliveden projects. Theother historic sites of Germantown havecontributed with a 2007 planning grantfor the consortium of sites (called HistoricGermantown Preserved), which hasprovided excellent input from thelocal community.

There are several other encouraging signsof success. While museum visitation hasremained consistent at 3,000, the numberof people served has increased by over40 percent in the last two years. Donations,grants, and memberships in Cliveden haveincreased, with sponsorships and businessmemberships indicating the support of somecommunity partners. Ongoing evaluationwill continue to be important, particularlysince attendance will not tell the full storyof Cliveden’s activities.

One surprise from Cliveden’s first yearsunder the new long-range plan is the“as well” factor. Cliveden’s role in thecommunity is not simply one of either-or:Cliveden cannot be either a traditionalhouse museum or doing more communityprogramming. Cliveden has to be both.

It still has to perform the traditional dutiesat a high level, such as scientificallypreserving the buildings and offering themost up-to-date interpretation on tours.The work plans and priorities each yearreflect movement on both the traditionalmuseum as well as the communityinitiatives.

Cliveden’s new approach is building anorganization that transcends the traditionalhouse museum model of the “velvet ropetour” for visitors. The plan is based on thebelief that long-term sustainability forCliveden lies more in community engage-ment than in tourism. Four years into thelong-range plan, the response has beenencouraging, and, given the issues facinghistoric house museums across the country,the experiences of Cliveden and Upsala maybe helpful for other historic sites findingtraditional approaches challenged bydaunting contemporary concerns.

David W. Young has been executive directorof Cliveden since 2006. Before that he wasdirector of the Johnson House Historic Site,also in the Germantown section of Philadelphia,Pa. Mr. Young attended the National Trust’sPreservation Leadership Training in 2006.


BRUCEMORE: A CULTURALCENTER FOR CEDAR RAPIDSBy James F. Kern

Brucemore tells the story of three wealthyfamilies: industrialists, entrepreneurs,philanthropists, boosters, neighbors, andfriends. The men created great fortunes:Thomas Sinclair in meatpacking; GeorgeBruce Douglas in starch processing; andHoward Hall in manufacturing. However,the women of Brucemore are at the heartof the story: Caroline Sinclair built themansion; Irene Douglas transformedit to a country estate; and Margaret Hallgave it to the National Trust for HistoricPreservation. Now honoring the fortunes,legacies, and influence of the families,Brucemore has also become thecommunity’s home.

Set on a scenic 26-acre estate with 9 buildings,the 21-room Queen Anne–style mansion isthe centerpiece of an active historic site andcultural center. Brucemore has positioneditself as one model for many house museumsworking to extend their missions to new andbroader audiences. Capitalizing on the sizeof the estate, its central location in the city,and the prestige of being the only NationalTrust Historic Site in the state of Iowa,Brucemore is dedicated to offering anambitious line-up of events and programsfor the benefit of the community. Althoughthe vitality of the site is a source of pride forthe community, protecting and preservingthe buildings and grounds for the educationand enjoyment of generations to comeis equally essential. Careful planning,constant vigilance, ongoing evaluation,and a sound preservation ethic are at the

core of Brucemore’s dual mission to serve as ahistoric site and community cultural center.

These goals are spelled out in the site’smission and vision statements:

Mission: To engage the public in thehistory, traditions, resources, and ongoingpreservation of Brucemore for theenrichment of the community.

Vision: To be a premier National TrustSite through excellence in stewardship,education, preservation, and programmingfor the benefit of the community.

ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENTAS A COMMUNITY CULTURALCENTER

Cedar Rapids has always had a love affairwith Brucemore. Throughout its historyas a private residence, the families ofBrucemore engaged the community in manyways. Brucemore has been a magnet fora variety of activities — including hostingthe first Cedar Rapids Garden Show,fundraisers, cotillions, recitals, andreceptions for United States presidents,as well as providing the gathering placefor Howard Hall’s eclectic group of fellowentrepreneurs affectionately named “theSunday School.” When Margaret Halldeeded Brucemore to the National Trust,she stipulated her desire to see her homeused as a community cultural center.Clearly, Mrs. Hall’s wishes have guided theinterpretation and function of Brucemore

56

since becoming part of the National Trustcollection in 1981.

Originally the National Trust determinedthat Mrs. Hall’s assessment of her homeas a community cultural center was anappropriate use of the site and did notdesignate it as a museum. The community,however, thought otherwise. The allureof the Brucemore mansion generatedtremendous interest from residents andvisitors. More than 3,000 curious peopleattended the first open house in September1981. Mrs. Hall’s home was coming to lifein ways she could not have envisioned,and, without question, the communitywas eager to show its interest in andappreciation for her gift of the estate.

Within the first several years, holidayparties, corporate functions, interpretivetours, theater and concert performances,staff offices, and the museum store all con-tributed to non-stop activity in the mansion.Although all of the activity was welcomedand encouraged, articulating appropriateguidelines and policies for use of the historicbuildings became a priority. Now that thepublic spaces on the main floor have beenrestored to the interpretive period of 1910–1925, activities in the mansion benefit fromthe grand setting. Even so, the guidelines foruse stipulate appropriate capacity and carefor the mansion.

EXPANDING VENUESAND OFFERINGS

Brucemore hosts a variety of communityactivities which have grown as the estatehas transformed. In 1982 the site becamethe home of the Cedar Rapids/MarionArts Council’s annual Fathers Day event,Celebration of the Arts, a festival of art

and performances on the grounds. By 1986Brucemore hosted its own large-scale eventwith Dixieland on the Green and beganan eight-year partnership with TheatreCedar Rapids to produce live theater inthe Great Hall of the mansion. Brucemore’srole as a community cultural center wasincreasingly vibrant.

The adaptive use of the carriage houseas the visitor center in 1999 allowed accessto a second historic building on the propertyand eased the level of activity in the mansion.The museum store, staff offices, andinterpretive exhibits now had a new home.This expansion also invited the communityto view Brucemore as a complete countryestate. With the addition of the visitorcenter, the staff began to explore thepossibilities inherent in multiple venueson the property. Today programs andevents occur in seven venues in additionto the mansion: the visitor center for

With only a few significant architectural modifica-tions since its construction in 1884-86, Brucemorestands today as a striking example of the QueenAnne style. The mansion is the site of non-stopactivity that includes holiday parties, corporatefunctions, intepretive tours, and theater and con-cert performances. Photo by Ron Blunt, courtesyof the National Trust for Historic Preservation.


meetings, lectures, small events, booksignings, and hands-on workshops; thecourtyard of the visitor center for largeparties and Cabaret in the Courtyard; thenatural amphitheatre by the pond forClassics at Brucemore, Cedar Rapids OperaTheatre, and Outdoor Children’s Theatre;the formal gardens and surrounding greenspace for tours, presentations, luncheons,and the Brucemore Garden and Art Show;the swimming pool area for receptionsand parties; the Garden House for meetings,lectures, art shows, and retreats; and theFirst Avenue lawn for Balloon Glow andBluesmore. By deliberately moving programsand events around the estate there is lesspotential for wear and tear at any onelocation and visitors can experience moreof the site.

The public treats the estate with tremendousrespect and pride. Each summer 10,000people attend Balloon Glow, and within24 hours the grounds are cleaned up withrarely more than a few tire marks on thegrass as evidence of the activity. Occasionallythere are reports of people cutting flowersfrom the gardens, taking fruit from theorchard, swimming in the pool, andtrespassing when the estate is closed.Even so, Brucemore is blessed with tensof thousands of courteous and respectfulvisitors each year. The accessibility andwelcoming image of the site has made

Brucemore a treasured landmark inthe community.

MORE CREATIVE PROGRAMMING

In July 2007 Brucemore hosted the JoffreyBallet for one of the most ambitiouscollaborative undertakings in the historyof the area. Commemorating the 50thanniversary of the Joffrey and the 35thanniversary of Hancher Auditorium in IowaCity, the free performance on the Brucemorelawn attracted more than 7,500 balletenthusiasts and curiosity-seekers from theregion. The full-scale production involvedeleven semi-trailers, two cranes, two motorcoaches, nearly one dozen support vehicles,more than 100 technicians, the full Joffreycompany of dancers and artistic personnel,and the entire Brucemore staff. The gloriousevening offered the finest artistry underthe stars in a historic setting, and wasa consummate testament to Brucemore’sability to host monumental andmemorable events.

Education and entertainment are notmutually exclusive at Brucemore. In fact,many of the well-received educationalprograms have been presented in uncon-ventional, entertainment formats. DearSweetheart: the Letters of Howard andMargaret Hall became a readers’ theaterdramatization of the relationship betweenthe Halls, presented through their lettersand diary entries when they were apart.Humorous, poignant, sorrowful, and trivial,Dear Sweetheart included more than 200images from the archives projected ona large screen behind the performers.This educational program became a perfectValentines Day event, with champagne,roses, and chocolates included in theticket price.

58

“This is the story of a special place

actively preserved and actively

participating in the continuing

story of its community.”

Perhaps the best example of sharingBrucemore’s history in unconventional wayswas the 25th anniversary Uncommon Kingsproject. Local creative director, musician,and recording artist Gerard Estella hadbeen contracted for a weekend of Cabaretin the Courtyard performances. The firsthalf of Estella’s show featured originalmusic, lyrics, and images that celebrated theinspiration of place — this place, Brucemore.According to Estella, “The production wasnot a historical retrospective or a tour of theBrucemore story. It utilized the uniquenessof Brucemore as a living, breathingtestament to generations of human spiritand endeavor as the foundation for an artisticinterpretation of Brucemore’s environmentand the emotional impact it can have ifgiven the opportunity to be witnessed.This is the story of a special place actively

preserved and actively participating inthe continuing story of its community.”

In addition to the Cabaret performance,Estella produced a commemorative “coffeetable” book filled with images and wordsinspired by Brucemore and created byprofessional photographers and writers. Thebook came with a CD of 14 original songsfirst performed in the Cabaret production,with lyrics drawn from archival material.Brucemore provided access to the site,collections, and archives to six professionalphotographers, two composers, four writers,and more than one dozen performersto develop Uncommon Kings.

The ongoing preservation, restoration,and conservation activities at the site servean educational function for the community.

Brucemore serves as an active historic site and community cultural center. Here a band plays to a largecrowd at the “Bluesmore,” a popular outdoor concert. Photo courtesy of Brucemore.


60

Teaching about tuck-pointing, book conser-vation, architectural restoration, and manyongoing maintenance projects provides anopportunity for Brucemore to serve as a

laboratory for local artisans and trades-people to improve craftsmanship withhistoric materials. Whenever there is anenrichment experience for citizensto learn valuable preservation skillsthrough Brucemore projects, everyonewins, and the Brucemore mission isfulfilled in unique ways. Strengtheningthe community’s investment in thepreservation and utilization of the siteis critical to Brucemore’s sustainability.

A MODEL FOR CONTINUINGRELEVANCE

In the last 30 years there has been anexplosion of house museums across thecountry. Even with the expansion ofcultural tourism and the desire for authenticexperiences, many house museums and

historic sites have experienced a drop invisitation. Brucemore has bucked the trendand stands today as a shining example of amodel historic site. By thinking beyond thetraditional models, by opening the doorsfor unconventional experiences, and bywelcoming the entire community, Brucemorehas positioned itself to continue its relevanceinto the foreseeable future.

James F. Kern became executive directorof Brucemore in 2007 after serving six yearsas the assistant director. In 1996 he co-foundedthe popular outdoor theatre series Classicsat Brucemore.

Brucemore’s Cabaret in the Courtyard is ashowcase for professional performers with rootsin Cedar Rapids. Photo by Greg Billman, courtesyof Brucemore.

PeriodicalsPostage PaidWashington, DC

1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20036

Return Postage Guaranteed

Address Correction Requested

ForumJournaldownload.aaslh.org/annual+meeting+material/2011/...Organizational Coach...

Documents

Transcript of ForumJournaldownload.aaslh.org/annual+meeting+material/2011/...Organizational Coach...