At the end of April 2015, the survey was submitted to the 51 parties that received a grant from the 2015 Museum Fund. A total of 39 parties responded, giving a response rate of 761%, which is considered acceptable.
The results show that the fund's clients generally find it easy to fill out an application to the fund and understand the instructions with the application form.
The dissemination of information about the status of applications after they have been submitted needs to be improved, as more than half of respondents believe that access to information is difficult or average.
As things stand now, applicants receive an email stating when the proposal for allocation will be processed from the Museum Council to the Minister of Education and Culture at the latest. News could be published on the Museum Council's website and on the museum members' mailing list or on a special mailing list for applicants about the progress of the evaluation process, along with information about when the proposal will go from the council to the minister.
Project grants.
Fifty-nine percent consider the Museum Council's evaluation system to be sufficiently transparent, while 331% consider it not sufficiently transparent, suggesting that the evaluation process needs to be better publicized. This could be done, for example, by sending out informational emails to applicants about the evaluation process or by changing the Fund's promotional materials, giving more weight to evaluation and grading than is currently the case.
The question was whether it would be preferable to award fewer but higher grants or more and lower ones. About 50% believe that the grants should be fewer and higher, while 25% believe that they should be more and lower. The respondents' comments indicate that the respondents are satisfied with the current arrangement, where both high and low grants are awarded from the fund.
Nearly 601% of respondents believe that there should be a cap on the number of applications per applicant. Most of those who believe that there should be a cap on the number of applications believe that each applicant should only be able to submit 2-4 applications.
Twenty-six percent of respondents believe that the museum fund should utilize the provisions in Article 2 of the fund's allocation rules, which states: The museum board may decide whether the fund emphasizes certain aspects of museum work in the allocation of project grants each year, and such a decision shall be announced by advertisement in newspapers or in other verifiable manner. Of the ten respondents who believe that this provision of the allocation rules should be applied, half believe that the proportion should be between 20-40% of the allocation funds intended for project grants.
The question was asked what proportion of grants from the fund should go to non-accredited museums. Seventy-three percent of those surveyed believed that the proportion should be less than 20% of the total amount of project grants. It is worth noting that 87% of the respondents were representatives of accredited museums. Eighteen percent believed that only the quality of applications should be assessed. In the last two years, only the quality of applications has been assessed, and the result is that in 2014, when 13% grant recipients were members of museums that are not considered accredited museums, 10% of the amount allocated in project grants went to them. In 2015, the proportion was 16% grant recipients to 17% of the amount allocated in project grants.
In general comments, one party stated that they wanted more space for explanations in applications and found it difficult to be brief. One party wanted to know why an application was rejected and another wanted the museums to decide for themselves which projects they would use the grant for instead of the museum council making a proposal, based on a coordinated quality assessment of applications, on which projects should be funded.
Operating expenses
The recognized museums that participated in the survey were asked about their attitudes towards operating grants from the museum fund. Just under 60% consider the arrangement good while over 40% consider it bad. The same proportion of small and large museums, or around 65%, consider the arrangement good as it is. However, it should be borne in mind that the large museums, with operating funds over 40 million per year, are only six, while the small museums, with operating funds under 20 million, are 17. This does indicate that the museums are generally satisfied with the current arrangement.
Almost 80% believe that it is desirable to negotiate operating grants for a period longer than one year at a time, and 60% believe that the amount of the operating grant should be based on the scope of the activities. Then 80% believe that operating grants should increase in line with increased operating income, that the fund should increase donations in line with increased operating income of the museum in question. When these questions are examined based on the size of the museum, it becomes clear that there is more support for this methodology the larger the museum. About 50% of small museums believe that the scope of the activities should be based on the scope of the activities, while over 80% of larger museums are of that opinion. Fifty-seven percent of small museums believe that the operating grant should increase in line with increased operating income, while all larger museums are of that opinion.
It is surprising how little respondents had to say about the operating grant arrangements, given that they were given the opportunity to express their opinions anonymously.
Conclusion
In general, the fund's clients seem satisfied with the application process and the allocation. Accredited museums are interested in being able to make comparisons about operating grants for the long term, and half of the smaller museums and all of the larger museums believe that the scope of operations should be taken into account when determining the amount of operating grants. In general, applicants are not in favor of the museum fund emphasizing certain aspects of museum work in the allocation of project grants.
Overall, the fund is acceptable, changes can be made to increase transparency and disclosure, as well as continuing work on changes to the allocation of operating grants from the fund.