This page defines and explains the deaccessioning process, including its importance for a healthy collection, how to start, and provides links to toolkits and additional readings.
Jump to a section:
- Do we need to keep all of our objects forever?
- What is a healthy collection?
- Why should I deaccession?
- How do I know something I deaccession won’t be important later?
- An outline of the reappraisal and deaccession process
- Ethical & legal considerations
- Community & donor outreach
- Resources & toolkits
- Additional readings & theory
Do we need to keep all of our collections Objects forever?
No! Nearly all institutional missions and collection practices evolve over time, so your collection should change with them. To maintain a healthy collection, you should regularly reappraise objects and deaccession them when they no longer align with your organization’s mission or collections policy.
What is a healthy collection?
A healthy collection is one that serves and supports its organization’s mission, staff, and audience. Serving these key groups means each item advances the mission of your organization in some way. Supporting these groups means the collection centers people, stories, and impact above the objects themselves.
Crucially, supporting your mission also means not hindering other activities. For example, if your collection creates a storage problem that makes it difficult to access objects needed for public programming, then your collection no longer serves or supports your organization.
A healthy collection includes active objects that are telling stories, educating the public, supporting research, or engaging audiences, not just being preserved.
Why should I deaccession objects? why is deaccessioning important to a healthy collection?
Deaccessioning is part of the life cycle of every collection. A collection should not be static and unchanging; rather, it should respond to changes at your institution and in your communities.
The Society of American Archivists provides guidelines for reappraisal and deaccessioning that summarize common reasons for the process: “Materials may be deaccessioned because the repository has changed its collections policy, and the material is no longer within its scope. Materials may be deaccessioned because they have been reappraised and found to be no longer suitable for continued inclusion in the holdings. Materials that are badly damaged and beyond repair may be deaccessioned.”
Regularly reappraising your collection is important for three reasons:
1. The process ensures your collection aligns with your collections policy and institutional mission.
2. Reappraisal and deaccessioning frees up space and resources that you can dedicate to the objects and work best aligned with your organization’s mission.
3. Deaccessioning can give unused (or under-used) objects a new life. Rather than simply being stored at your institution, they could become a key part of an engaging collection for a new audience somewhere else.
How do I know something I deaccession won’t be incredibly important later?
You can’t know, and that’s OK! It’s doubtful that your organization’s mission is to preserve every item forever, so revisit your mission and collections policy before starting this process.
Think about the communities your institution serves and consider if every item you hold truly serves those people right now. Think about whether items in your collection might better serve a different community.
Deaccessioning doesn’t always mean destroying or discarding the objects. There are several options for disposition, and the result often means finding an object a better home where it can actively engage audiences, whether at another institution or as part of a teaching or research collection.
Ready to start? An outline of the reappraisal and deaccession process.
Step 1 – Revisit your collections policy.
According to the National Park Service’s chapter on deaccessioning from its NPS Museum Handbook, the best deaccession policy is a good accession policy. The first step in reappraising and deaccessioning starts with a strong, clear, and specific collections policy. You should review your collections policy after any major organizational change and/or at regular intervals. Starting the deaccessioning process is a great opportunity to create, revise, or just review your collections policy. You can read more about collections policies in the section on collections management.
A strong collections policy will guide staff and donors about what items belong at your institution, ensuring that your collection serves and supports your organization; helping to avoid acquiring unsuitable items in the first place; informing reappraisal and deaccession decisions; and helping to ensure your process complies with applicable legal and ethical requirements.
Step 2 – Identify your committee, outline your process, and define your scope.
First, determine which objects are currently subject to reappraisal. Are you reappraising your entire collection? One distinct group of objects? Materials from one specific department or site? Making it clear which items are subject to review can help you define who should be included in the process.
Next, determine the members of your reappraisal and deaccession committee. A reappraisal and deaccession committee should include multiple perspectives from within, and possibly outside, your organization. Relevant contributors within an organization include, but are not limited to, curators, exhibition designers, interpreters, programmers, museum educators, visitor engagement, conservators, development staff, and leadership. For smaller organizations, many of these roles may overlap, so ask people to consider all the ways they use items are your organization.
Local leaders or community members may also participate depending on the scope of your organization or the collection under review. You should be sensitive to community feelings about your collection and include the community’s perspective where feasible.
You should confirm who provides final approval of the committee’s decisions, which is often the executive director in conjunction with select members of the organization’s board. This final approval will be required for legal transfer of ownership during deaccession.
Once all committee members are in place, you should acknowledge that deaccessioning decisions often rely on a subjective judgment about an object’s appropriateness for a collection, an object’s value (historical, scientific, aesthetic, or otherwise), or an object’s condition. Reappraisal and deaccessioning decisions can be emotionally charged, so the rules and policies governing this process should be clear and accepted by all participants before beginning.
Step 3 – Reappraisal
Reappraisal is the process of regularly and systematically reviewing the objects in your collection to determine which ones no longer merit inclusion and should be candidates for deaccession.
Regularly means reviewing your collections at set periods. Every time your collections policy changes provides an opportunity to review your collection. In the absence of major policy changes, consider setting a regular interval for reviewing some or all of the collection.
Systematically means applying specific and clear rules to the review process. This process and its criteria must be understood by all participants and must be clearly defined for your organization and for the public.
The economic value of an object should never be a part of reappraisal or deaccession decisions. For more information about ethical considerations, scroll down to the next section on this page.
Instead, reappraisal rests primarily on whether the item aligns with your institution’s mission and collections policy. The International Council of Museums provides an outline of ten additional reasons you might consider when reappraising an object and considering deaccession:
- Poor physical condition
- Threats to staff or public health and safety
- Your institution is unable to adequately care for object.
- Duplication within collection
- Poor quality or low aesthetic, historical and/or scientific value
- False or fraudulent authenticity or attribution
- Another museum could more appropriately care for, display, or provide access to the object.
- Possession of the object is inconsistent with applicable law or violates museum ethics or policies.
- The object is no longer consistent with the mission or collections policy.
- The object’s sale will support renewal or improvement of the collection as regulated by the institutions collections policy and governance.
If you determine an object aligns with your mission and collections policy, update your records to reflect the completed review. Maintaining an accessible record of how and why you made the decision to keep an object is important both to expedite future reappraisal efforts and to ensure everyone involved understands the collections decisions.
If you identify an object as a candidate for deaccession, move on to the next step.
Step 4 – Deaccession
Deaccession is the legal and ethical process of permanently removing an accessioned object from a museum, library, or archive collection. Above all, deaccessioning is a legal process that changes the ownership status of an object in the collection. Deaccessioning decisions should be supported by the research and decision of the reappraisal committee.
Processing deaccessions will vary widely based on the object and your institution, but often includes documentation, justification, approval, and appraisals. Several professional organizations provide freely accessible and very detailed guidelines for developing a deaccessioning process, linked in the toolkits section below.
Step 5 – Disposition
Disposition is what happens to the object after deaccessioning from your institution. Most professional associations encourage keeping objects publicly accessible whenever possible. There are six primary options for disposition, each with their own benefits and considerations:
- Giving the object to another institution – Can someone else use or interpret this object? Most professionals prefer this option when asked about disposition preferences. It’s great to imagine the object can be used somewhere else to keep engaging the public.
- Creating study collections – Could the object be repurposed for hands-on study at your institution, whether as part of public programming, in the education department, or with academic programs? Whether included in a collection that children can handle or in a collection for graduate students, the object might serve the public better in a study collection.
- Sale – Depending on your institution type, the provenance of the object, the type of object, museum association ethical codes, and federal, state, or local laws, strict rules may govern the sale of an object and the use of any funds resulting from the sale. Although deaccession of highly valuable artwork often draws headlines, most museum objects are not worth enough money to make up for the time and resources needed to arrange a sale or participate in an auction. According the American Alliance of Museum guidelines, if a deaccessioned object is sold, museum professional ethics require the proceeds from the sale be used only to acquire new objects for the collection or provide direct care of the collection.
- Destruction, disposal, or donation of objects – In practice, this is the result of most deaccession decisions. Most candidates for deaccession are considered for a reason. Either they have low or no historical, educational, or scientific value, or the objects are in such poor condition that they couldn’t be used regardless of their value. Often, objects in poor condition also lack economic value and aren’t worth the effort needed to arrange a sale. Destruction might include destructive analysis, allowing for study of the object through testing and processes known to cause damage.
- Return to previous owner – When a donor, donor’s estate, or descendants can be identified, it may be appropriate to ask if they want the items back.
- Repatriation – Sometimes items must be returned for ethical or legal reasons, including requests made under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) or as the result of a law-enforcement investigation. Repatriated items should be formally deaccessioned to ensure proper transference of legal ownership.
Ethical and Legal Considerations
Deaccession is primarily a legal process governing the formal removal of an object from the institution’s ownership and care responsibilities. As such, there are many ethical and legal issues that can arise during the process. Several common ethical considerations are highlighted below, but you are encouraged to consult your organization’s policies, ethical codes of your professional associations, and your institution’s legal representation before deaccession and disposition of an object.
- The economic value of an object should never be a part of reappraisal or deaccession decisions.
- The vast majority of institutions and professional associations firmly state that funds from a sale can only be used to purchase new objects for the collection or provide direct care of the collection. Most organizations define direct care very narrowly. For example, the Association of Art Museum Director’s guidance on direct care includes only direct costs associated with the storage or preservation of works of art such as conservation and restoration treatments, or specialized materials required for storage, and excludes staff salaries or wages and costs incurred for temporary exhibition display.
- You must confirm the legal title of all objects and confirm you meet all legal obligations assumed by accessioning before disposition of an object, including donor restrictions or requirements.
- Ensure the proposed use of funds from any sale strictly adheres to your institution’s legal and ethical obligations. Many policies stipulate that funds received from the disposal of a deaccessioned object cannot be used for operations or capital expenses .
- Employees of your institution or their relatives should never acquire deaccessioned objects or appear to benefit personally in any way from a deaccession decision.
Community & Donor Outreach
Because collecting institutions rely heavily on public trust, it is good practice to promote transparency in acquisitions, accessioning, deaccessioning, and disposition procedures. Ensure clear and consistent communication with donors and community stakeholders, especially if neither are not part of your reappraisal and deaccession committee. Although unlikely for most smaller institutions, you should be prepared that the necessary public disclosure of deaccessioning decisions will generate controversy. The toolkits below provide additional guidance for navigating communication with the general public and donors.
Resources & Toolkits
These resources are practical tools meant to help understand and guide the reappraisal and deaccession process.
“Chapter 6: Deaccessioning” In NPS Museum Handbook, Part II
An older but authoritative text, this chapter from the National Park Service’s handbook provides a thoroughly detailed and practical overview of deaccessioning processes, including decision-making, documentation, and disposal. The chapter provides flowcharts and resources to support deaccessioning in addition to answering questions about hazardous materials, donor notification, and legal requirements.
Collections Stewardship Standards from the American Alliance of Museums
These guidelines cover all aspects of collections management, including accessioning, care and deaccessioning. The website provides accessible links to ethical codes, a collections sustainability rubric, and an FAQ about selling deaccessioned objects among other useful guidance.
Association of Art Museum Directors Policy on Deaccessioning
This document outlines AAMD’s policy on deaccessioning. The guidelines specify that all member institutions must have a clear collecting policy and a deaccession process that aligns all removals of objects with that policy. The guidelines further require that any proceeds from the sale of an accessioned object “shall not be used for operations or capital expenses.” Member museums must adopt and adhere to these policies and procedures for deaccessioning or face sanctions from the organization, including a loss of accreditation and the suspension of loans and curatorial collaboration from other institutions. The organization modified the policy in September 2022 without issuing a new document, summarized in this press release. This update changed the permitted uses of funds from the sale of an object to allow for acquisition of new objects as outlined in the museum’s collection policy and direct care of the existing collection, defined narrowly.
Guidelines on Deaccessioning of the International Council of Museums
This document provides a broad international understanding of deaccessioning. Though less restrictive than the AAMD guidelines, this document likewise strongly discourages the sale of objects to support regular museum administration or maintenance. Short and broadly applicable, these guidelines reflect the organization’s membership reach well beyond the Anglo-American art museums that dominate most scholarship. Ultimately, these guidelines confirm the core of the AAMD framework, while providing more leeway for an institution to support deaccessioning decisions.
Guidelines for Reappraisal and Deaccessioning from the Society of American Archivists
These guidelines focus specifically on archival collections, acknowledging that “reappraisal and deaccessioning are part of a continuum of archival practice and principles.” Much like the guidelines provided for other types of collecting institutions, this document gives a detailed walkthrough of the process, addressing legal and practical considerations unique to archives, and providing template forms for documentation, public notice, and donor relations.
Off the Shelf: A Toolkit for Ethical Transfer, Reuse and Disposal
A toolkit from the London-based Museums Association, this website provides flow charts, criteria, and guidance for the process from the perspective of the United Kingdom and its unique legal climate around heritage preservation. However, the clear graphics and links to other resources will be helpful for institutions around the world, including ethical and legal considerations for museums facing closure.
Additional Readings & Theory
These more theoretical readings focus on the lively contemporary debate about deaccessioning and changing collections practices. Some articles may require log-in credentials from an academic institution or purchase.
Active Collections
Edited by Elizabeth Wood, Rainey Tisdale, and Trevor Jones, Active Collections (New York: Routledge, 2018) is a manifesto for a new vision of collecting practices. This essay declares that objects must either advance the mission of the institution or they must go, as objects in storage serve no one. The essays assert that the need to center people, stories, and impact above the objects themselves. The essays touch on a variety of topics, including anti-racist collecting, incorporating public feelings into interpretation, addressing hoarding, and imagining an object’s future outside the museum. More conceptual than practical, these essays are thought-provoking but are not written to provide clear guidelines for deaccessioning. This collection serves as a foundation for changing thought on collections management and deaccessioning, arguing that the only purpose of a collection is activation, and an overabundance of objects directly inhibits the use of their use. You can read more at the Active Collections website.
Forgetting to Remember, Remembering to Forget: Late Modern Heritage Practices, Sustainability and the ‘Crisis’ of Accumulation of the Past
Rodney Harrison’s article (International Journal of Heritage Studies 19, no. 6 (May 3, 2012): 579–595) provides an insightful commentary on the theoretical value of deaccessioning, illuminating a part of the debate lying beyond practical considerations like storage or financial issues. Harrison advocates for deaccessioning and disposal of objects and even entire heritage sites as part of active and continuous memory-making processes. Conscious and thoughtful reevaluation, he argues, leaves more space for both what remains in the present and what will be preserved in the future, helping to ensure sustainability for heritage production.
De-Growing Museum Collections for New Heritage Futures
Written by Jennie Morgan and Sharon Macdonald, this article (International Journal of Heritage Studies 26, no. 1 (October 25, 2018): 56–70) outlines challenges from contemporary museum curators to the movement toward deaccessioning. The authors argue that the tension between curators’ frustration with unwieldy collections and an institutional drive for unlimited collecting can only be resolved with slowed, stopped, and reassessed collecting practices. Based on interviews with working curators, the article delves deeply into the complications, both emotional and practical, of deaccession and disposal, importing ideas of ‘de-growth’ into museum settings, define broadly as slowing collecting activity, pushing back against the indefinite expansion of collections, and incorporating “planned loss in order to enable new collecting within sustainable limits.” They situate the deaccessioning debate in a broader cultural shift questioning unchecked growth and accumulation and moving toward a more sustainable future.
Investigating the Potential of Deaccessioning as avTool for Public Archaeology Education: An Example from New Mexico
A case study of deaccessioning outside of art museums, this journal article argues that deaccessioning from underutilized archeological collections can provide materials for teaching collections, making better use of the objects for public education. The authors, Jenna Domeischel and Tawnya Waggle, offer a case study of a trunk program implemented at their institutions and guidelines for establishing similar initiatives at other archeological collections. They conclude that thoughtful deaccessioning addresses two problems at smaller collections: 1. issues of redundancy and the limitations of storage and 2. activating more objects to drive public education and engagement initiatives by removing the requirements of care for an accessioned object. The article provides a unique and practical perspective on deaccessioning from professionals currently working in the museum field. The concise exploration of their process, including suggestions for others and lessons learned, is a valuable resource for professionals looking to design or implement similar programs.
Deaccessioning and Its Discontents: A Critical History
A broadly written history of museum deaccessioning, Martin Gammon’s 2018 book (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2018) highlights several case studies of prominent museum deaccessioning decisions from the seventeenth century to the present. The author also provides an appendix listing notable deaccessions across the same historical period. Gammon uses these examples to argue that deaccessioning is a necessary tool and process for any museum and that all collecting institutions must embrace change, loss, and reinvention as part of their lifecycles, and that deaccessioning may ultimately benefit both the institution and the objects.
Sustaining Places 