Victorian Auditor-General's Report 
24 October 2012 
Collections Management in Cultural Agencies
Audit summary
The National Gallery of Victoria, Museum Victoria, State Library of Victoria, Public Record Office Victoria, Arts Centre Melbourne and the Australian Centre for the Moving Image are custodians of important state collections acquired and developed over nearly 160 years. These collections have natural history, scientific, historical, artistic and cultural significance, and were valued at around $5 billion at 30 June 2012. The collections are a valuable resource to the people of Victoria and include items that cannot be replaced if lost, damaged or stolen.
While only a small proportion of collections are on public display at any one time, collections are increasingly being made accessible to the public through a range of online and other digital strategies. This brings with it some significant challenges, not the least of which is how to determine what should be available in a digital format from collections that range in number from 70 000 to nearly 17 million items.  
Storage space is a perennial challenge for the agencies. In addition to adequate capacity, facilities need to be designed so that items are easily accessible and allow for their safe handling and transfer. Furthermore, storage environments need to be controlled to maximise the preservation of each collection.
Arts Victoria, a division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, is responsible for advising and supporting the Minister for the Arts on arts policy, and for providing support and oversight of state-owned arts and cultural agencies. 
This audit examined whether state collections of natural history, scientific, historical, and cultural significance are adequately managed, including whether:
·	agencies holding key collections have adequate collection management policies, systems and practices, and can demonstrate performance against relevant statutory obligations—three cultural agencies, Museum Victoria, the National Gallery of Victoria and the Public Record Office Victoria, were examined in detail 
·	Arts Victoria adequately supports the delivery of relevant government priorities and oversees the collection management practices of agencies.
Conclusions
Museum Victoria, the National Gallery of Victoria and the Public Record Office Victoria, are managing the collections well despite none of them having a comprehensive collection management policy and procedure framework. However, there are systemic issues related to storage pressures, gaps in collection documentation, inadequate performance reporting on collection management and the need to make collections more accessible online that require attention.
Arts Victoria needs to more purposefully lead and oversight the agencies to address these systemic issues and realise government priorities.
Agency collection storage facilities are at or near capacity. This is compromising collections management and creates a significant risk for the future development and preservation of the collections. The lack of active deaccessioning by agencies has exacerbated storage pressures.
The agencies need accurate, comprehensive and current information about their collections to enable effective management and to facilitate access. There are gaps in the documentation of collections due to their size, the long periods over which they have been gathered, and record keeping systems and practices that have varied in quality and completeness over time. The lack of comprehensive condition information for all collection items limits the capacity of agencies to strategically target their conservation activities.
The rigour and scope of publicly reported performance information on the adequacy of collection management requires improvement. Currently reported performance information on the adequacy of collection storage is not reliable.
Direct access to the collections is well managed with active exhibition and public programs aimed at using them to engage the community. The agencies have extended online access to the state collections in line with government priorities, but progress varies and has not been guided by adequate strategies. Online access to the collections is relatively small and significant opportunities exist to make Victoria’s cultural heritage more accessible for all. 
Findings
Leadership and oversight by Arts Victoria
Arts Victoria has the primary leadership role in advising and supporting the Minister for the Arts on policy, and oversighting agencies managing the state collections. However, it has not sufficiently leveraged its oversight mechanisms and the information at its disposal to realise government priorities and address systemic collection management challenges. 
In 2005–06 Arts Victoria introduced service level agreements with all agencies except the Public Record Office Victoria. These agreements include funding details, agreed service outputs and extensive reporting requirements. 
There is clear evidence that Arts Victoria reviews and assesses the information and documents provided by agencies under the service level agreements and information from the Public Record Office Victoria, including monthly reports. However, these assessments are undertaken on a serial, agency-by-agency basis with few examples of cross-portfolio analysis on performance and emerging issues and risks. Further, this performance data is not annually collated and compared across agencies and over time. As a consequence, it is not used effectively to inform the minister, the agencies, or the community on agency performance, or to drive the management of common collection management issues and challenges.
Government priority areas have been communicated to agencies each year since the introduction of service level agreements in 2005–06. Government priority areas are areas of interest, influence or activity that the state has chosen, as a matter of policy, to give priority, importance or prominence to. They have consistently included a focus on storage, shared services and extending digital access to collections. Arts Victoria does not effectively assess, monitor or advise the minister on agency progress in implementing the government priority areas. It collates individual agency statements of progress on implementing them but does not extend this analysis to an overall assessment of the extent to which they have been achieved or addressed. 
Arts Victoria has facilitated some collaboration between agencies in relation to collections management issues including digitisation and storage but there are opportunities to use agency collaboration more purposefully to improve performance measurement and benchmarking, and share resources across agencies.
Arts Victoria has not actively addressed longstanding inconsistencies across the agencies in measuring performance and collection management costs. Further, its publicly reported performance information on the adequacy of collection storage is not based on complete and reliable evidence.
Access to the collections
Access to the collections is well managed with active exhibition programs, rotation of collection items on display, and extensive public programs aimed at using the collections to engage both broad and specific audience segments from school-aged children through to older community members. 
Around eight million people visit the six agencies each year. The museum and the gallery use touring ‘blockbuster exhibitions’ to increase the number of visitors they attract each year. However, only limited analysis has been done on the extent to which these exhibitions have led to sustained increases in interest in and exposure to the state collections.
A very low proportion of collections are ever on public display and the rotation of material into the public arena in each agency varies due to the differing nature of each collection and respective agency exhibition programming approaches.
Extending access to state collections via digital media featured as a government priority for the arts portfolio between 2006–07 and 2011–12. During this period online visitation increased, approaching or exceeding physical visitation levels for agencies. 
Agencies have made progress in increasing online access to their collections, but digitisation activity has not been guided by adequate strategies. The accessibility of collections using digital technologies varies considerably across agencies, reflecting the differing size and nature of their collections. Despite the challenges created by this task, there is a clear imperative for the agencies to respond to growth in online collections access and increase the development of rich online content to engage the community in their collections.
Collections management
Agencies have sound collection management practices with acquisition, storage, conservation and loans generally well managed. Notwithstanding this, the supporting collection management policies and procedure documents require improvement.
The collection storage facilities are at or near capacity and this is compromising the development, management and preservation of collection items. The National Gallery of Victoria reports only 66 per cent of its collection is stored to an acceptable industry standard. The remaining 34 per cent of the collection is held in overcrowded storage conditions and is valued at around $630 million, representing around 17 per cent of  the value of the gallery’s collection. Storage issues also exist at Museum Victoria where an important part of its collection is kept in the basement of the Royal Exhibition Building which is prone to water inundation.
Ongoing growth in collections and a lack of purposeful deaccessioning by agencies has led to further pressures on collection storage facilities. 
In 2006 the state purchased a property that could be used to build a shared collection storage facility. Site works and decontamination have been carried out but Arts Victoria has not been able to secure further funding to complete the project. Funding approved in 2012 to address pressing storage issues at some of the agencies is not intended for the shared storage solution and will not resolve agency storage capacity issues. 
Agencies generally manage the physical and environmental conditions in storage facilities and key risks around fire, security, and pest control well. In the instances where this is not the case the agencies are taking adequate steps to address identified deficiencies.
The initial documentation and recording of information about newly acquired items is a key step in managing a collection. The agencies are adequately documenting and registering newly acquired collection items. However, they face significant legacy data issues with the documentation of their collections as they seek to transfer information on large collections developed over nearly 160 years from pre-existing paper records and multiple databases into a single electronic system.
Addressing these issues is a long-term, resource intensive process but crucial to the facilitation of knowledge of, and access to, each collection. At their current rate of progress the agencies will take decades to address legacy data issues.
Conservation activity is largely driven by the need to access items in each collection for exhibition, loans or for some other use. Surveys of the condition of collections to proactively identify issues requiring attention are only done on a limited basis. The lack of comprehensive condition information on all collection items limits the capacity of agencies to target conservation resources.
Internal agency arrangements for oversight and reporting on collections management performance include regular reporting to senior management and their governing bodies. However, the performance indicators used by agencies need to be improved to better measure key aspects of collection management.
The only publicly reported performance measure on collection management relates to the percentage of collections stored at industry standard. Agency performance against this measure is not based on complete and reliable evidence. Agencies have commenced work to address this issue and it is expected a revised and consistent approach will be in place for the 2013–14 reporting period. 

Recommendations
Number	Recommendation	Page	
1.	Arts Victoria should more purposefully lead action to address systemic issues with the management of the state collections by:
·	more rigorously advocating for the necessary resources to increase collection storage capacity
·	more assertively facilitating collaboration between its portfolio agencies
·	improving the rigour and scope of performance measurement and benchmarking 
·	actively coordinating a plan to address legacy data issues.	17	
2.	The agencies should:
·	expedite finalisation of strategies to guide digitisation activity
·	track and report the total investment of staff and other resources into digitisation activity and the level of access to online collection material.	28	
3.	Museum Victoria and the National Gallery of Victoria should undertake a targeted analysis on the extent to which ‘blockbuster exhibitions’ of collections from elsewhere in the world lead to sustained increases in visitation to the state collections.	28	
4.	The agencies should:
·	gather comprehensive condition information to better inform the allocation of conservation resources
·	implement active collection stocktake programs
·	purposefully review collections for deaccessioning opportunities
·	give greater priority to addressing gaps in the policies and procedures guiding collection management activities.	44	

Submissions and comments received
In addition to progressive engagement during the course of the audit, in accordance with section 16(3) of the Audit Act 1994 a copy of this report was provided to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Australian Centre for the Moving Image, Museum Victoria, National Gallery of Victoria, Public Record Office Victoria, State Library of Victoria, and the Arts Centre Melbourne with a request for submissions or comments.
Agency views have been considered in reaching our audit conclusions and are represented to the extent relevant and warranted in preparing this report. Their full section 16(3) submissions and comments are included in Appendix B.