In the past, the answer was obvious: the Area Museums Councils (AMCs). These bodies had a good reputation for providing the kind of hand-holding support small museums sometimes need. They had experts in funding, conservation, collections management and training, ready and available to talk.
But since the demise of the AMCs and their replacement by Regional Agencies (RAs), the question of where to turn is not so easily answered. Do you go to the museum development officer, the regional agencies, the regional museum hubs, the accreditation curatorial adviser, or the subject specialist networks?
Despite this apparent plethora of advice-giving bodies and individuals, the knowledge gap still exists. This was recently acknowledged in a report produced on behalf of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) and the Association of Independent Museums.
The Mapping of Museum Development Officers in England report gives a comprehensive picture of the support available to museums in the nine English regions.
It paints a picture of fragmented and patchy provision. The RAs have a strategic role and, in some cases, discourage direct requests for advice. The hubs have to deliver on national priorities and have been hampered in developing a wider role by the phasing in of the Renaissance in the Regions cash, and the curatorial advisers and the new subject specialist networks have limited remits.
So that leaves the museum development officers (MDOs). While the report found that MDOs are crucial for providing advice and support to small museums it also found that they are overstretched, sometimes with huge geographical remits and an unmanageable number of museums to cover - one person for 112 museums in one case - and their funding is fragmented and unsustainable.
Despite the great job that they do, there is a limit to what can be achieved: not all MDOs spend all their time on museum development and many have little or no budget.
So what can be done? The valuable role of the MDOs has been recognised by the MLA. In April 2003, it set up the Museum Development Fund, a ring-fenced amount of cash that, among other things, funds MDO posts.
The mapping report recommends sustained funding for existing posts and creating new posts where necessary and the MLA intends to act on this - depending on what it gets in the next Comprehensive Spending Review. We can only hope the next bid is successful.
What is clear is that there is still confusion about who to turn to for advice and that there is a level below which the hubs and the regional agencies can't reach.
There is a place for MDOs, but their role must be clearly defined, consistently funded and evaluated - especially by the people they aim to serve. Small museums have not yet been asked what they want or need in terms of support and advice. This must be the next step.
But since the demise of the AMCs and their replacement by Regional Agencies (RAs), the question of where to turn is not so easily answered. Do you go to the museum development officer, the regional agencies, the regional museum hubs, the accreditation curatorial adviser, or the subject specialist networks?
Despite this apparent plethora of advice-giving bodies and individuals, the knowledge gap still exists. This was recently acknowledged in a report produced on behalf of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) and the Association of Independent Museums.
The Mapping of Museum Development Officers in England report gives a comprehensive picture of the support available to museums in the nine English regions.
It paints a picture of fragmented and patchy provision. The RAs have a strategic role and, in some cases, discourage direct requests for advice. The hubs have to deliver on national priorities and have been hampered in developing a wider role by the phasing in of the Renaissance in the Regions cash, and the curatorial advisers and the new subject specialist networks have limited remits.
So that leaves the museum development officers (MDOs). While the report found that MDOs are crucial for providing advice and support to small museums it also found that they are overstretched, sometimes with huge geographical remits and an unmanageable number of museums to cover - one person for 112 museums in one case - and their funding is fragmented and unsustainable.
Despite the great job that they do, there is a limit to what can be achieved: not all MDOs spend all their time on museum development and many have little or no budget.
So what can be done? The valuable role of the MDOs has been recognised by the MLA. In April 2003, it set up the Museum Development Fund, a ring-fenced amount of cash that, among other things, funds MDO posts.
The mapping report recommends sustained funding for existing posts and creating new posts where necessary and the MLA intends to act on this - depending on what it gets in the next Comprehensive Spending Review. We can only hope the next bid is successful.
What is clear is that there is still confusion about who to turn to for advice and that there is a level below which the hubs and the regional agencies can't reach.
There is a place for MDOs, but their role must be clearly defined, consistently funded and evaluated - especially by the people they aim to serve. Small museums have not yet been asked what they want or need in terms of support and advice. This must be the next step.
