Evaluation of the Canadian Conservation Institute

Office of the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive

March 2012

Cette publication est également offerte en français.
This publication is available upon request in alternative formats.
This publication is available in PDF and HTML formats on the Internet at http://www.pch.gc.ca
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2012.
Catalogue No. CH7-12/2012E-PDF
ISBN: 978-1-100-20808-4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Evaluation and Methodology

3.0 Evaluation Findings

4.0 Conclusions

5.0 Recommendation

6.0 Evaluation recommendation and CCI Management Response and Action Plan
Appendix A – Evaluation Matrix
Appendix B – PCH Programs served by CCI
Appendix C – References
Appendix D – Data Tables

List of Abbreviations

CCI Canadian Conservation Institute
CCQ Centre de conservation du Québec
CTEIP Canada Travelling Exhibition Indemnification Program
ESD Evaluation Services Directorate
EST Expert services and training (clients)
ETS Exhibition Transportation Service
FTE Full-time equivalent
GBA Gender-based analysis
GCI Getty Conservation Institute
GIR General Information Request (clients)
ICCROM International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
ICOM International Council of Museums
ICOM-CC International Council of Museums—Conservation Committee
ICN Instituut Collectie Nederland (Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage)
MAP Museums Assistance Program
MCPP Moveable Cultural Property Program
O&M Operations and maintenance
OCAEE Office of the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive
OLMC Official Language Minority Community
PCH Department of Canadian Heritage
PMF Performance measurement framework
PIMS Preservation Information Management System
PWGSC Public Works and Government Services Canada
R&D Research and development
RBAF Risk-based audit framework
RMAF Results-based management and accountability framework
SMQ Société des musées québécois
TB Treasury Board
TBS Treasury Board Secretariat
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Executive Summary

The Evaluation

This report contains the results of the evaluation of the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI), which is part of the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH). In accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, all direct spending of the department is to be evaluated every five years. CCI has been in existence since 1972 and this is the first formal evaluation of the Institute.

The Evaluation Services Directorate (ESD) of the Office of the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive (OCAEE), PCH, was responsible for the evaluation. The evaluation covered the activities of the program for the period 2003-04 to 2008-09 and involved a survey in Canada of all past CCIclients as well as potential clients.

Major Findings

Relevance

CCI continues to address a need. Heritage institutions in Canada face major issues concerning the preservation of their collections. CCI has a mandate to serve all heritage institutions in Canada and does so through research and development, expert services, information, advice and training on proper conservation practices. CCI is part of a suite of PCH programs that assists heritage organizations to preserve heritage collections, provide public access to heritage collections, and improve professional knowledge, skills and practices.

There is no alternative to CCI in Canada. While some of the larger provincial heritage organizations have conservators on staff and provide advice to smaller museums and to the public, they rely on CCI for specialized expertise. Within the federal government, CCI plays an important role in supporting several programs administered by PCH, including the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, Museums Assistance Program, Movable Cultural Property Program and Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Program. CCI also assists federal organizations in implementing government policy with respect to the management of movable heritage assets.

In the absence of federal government involvement, the provinces/territories would be unlikely to invest in creating conservation institutions due to costs. Current provincial involvement is limited, with only Quebec having a conservation institute. The Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) does not carry out complex scientific research and relies on CCI for these services. In the absence of similar provincial organizations in most other provinces, it makes sense for the federal government to house a centralized conservation institute. Canadian heritage institutions are highly supportive of the continued existence of CCI.

CCI supports Government and Departmental priorities. While CCI itself has no direct basis in legislation, legislation affirms Government of Canada and PCH roles in the care and preservation of heritage collections. CCIdoes not duplicate the work of other provincial/territorial government organizations or the private sector.

Performance

Overall, CCI is achieving most of the planned outcomes, and its research and development program was given high accolades by stakeholders in Canada and around the world.

CCI has a considerable effect on the preservation of heritage collections and the knowledge of professionals working in Canada’s heritage organizations. When asked about the impact on their own organizations had CCI not existed in the past five years, many expert services and training clients responded that their organization’s staff would be less knowledgeable. The majority of key informants from the Canadian museum community emphasized that CCI’s professional development workshops are highly valued and would like to see CCI devote more resources to this activity.

Virtually all respondents to the survey of CCI clients agreed that CCI has had a positive impact in terms of preserving heritage collections in Canada. Expert services and training clients reported that they are better able to preserve their collections through specific project involvement with CCI. A majority of clients stated that their collections would be in a poorer state today had CCI not existed over the past 5 years. Objective evidence of these positive impacts is difficult to assess as the state of heritage collections in Canada or among CCI’s clients is not known. CCI clients are highly satisfied with the services they receive on expert services and training projects. Some key informants suggested that CCI ensure that its research results are translated into practical approaches and guidelines for heritage organizations’ care of collections strategies.

Opportunities exist to improve the CCI service delivery strategy. CCI adds value to other PCH programs and only few areas for improvement were identified. The main barrier that may be limiting access to CCI’s services is a lack of awareness among the Canadian heritage community. While CCI clients are very familiar with the range of CCI services, non-clients are less familiar with CCI. An analysis of the CCI website revealed that while there are many visitors to the site, a much smaller number of visitors move beyond the initial page. Heritage organizations called on CCI to enhance its communication efforts.

Internationally, CCI is viewed as having a unique business model, and seen as being in a small class of leading government institutions. In many countries, the leading conservation institute is housed within a national museum and has a mandate to serve their museum’s collection and not the heritage community at large. A number of CCI scientists are viewed as being among the leaders in their fields internationally; succession planning is a concern as CCI conservators and scientific staff retire or are nearing retirement. Overall, the evaluation concluded that CCI’s organizational model is appropriate.

Economy and Efficiency

Overall, stakeholders believe that CCI offers good value for money. The alternative of devolving responsibility for conservation to the provinces/territories would likely require a much greater total investment.

The evaluation provides limited objective evidence with respect economy and efficiency.  However, it appears that investments in conservation are not well tracked in any country and that there are no clear indicators for measuring conservation. Although CCI supplied some basic information on its activities, and the number of heritage institutions it serves, more information would have facilitated the conduct of such in-depth analysis.

If resources and appropriate measurement standards are available, CCI could contemplate the possibility of completing a cost-effectiveness analysis that would include a review of a wide range of factors, the development of suitable methodologies as well as collecting comparable information on other countries. Such a capacity assessment would assess whether CCIhas the appropriate level of resources required to carry out its mandate, and whether resources should be re-allocated internally to ensure they are aligned with client needs.

Other Issues

The Canadian heritage community is facing a variety of conservation-related challenges, due to the continued growth of their collections, the aging of these collections and the new challenges posed from objects made from modern materials and the growing use of digital media. Demands for CCI services are likely to grow over the next few years.

Recommendation

CCI should develop and implement a strategic business plan to guide its service delivery, and to do so in consultation and communication with heritage institutions and associations in Canada. Important initiatives in the plan should include:

  • Exploring an integrated approach with  PCH Heritage programs to serve mutual clients;
  • Identifying issues and challenges facing heritage institutions including the types of research, training and knowledge dissemination needed to support institutions;
  • A long-term research plan that is responsive to and aligns with the needs of the Canadian heritage institutions;
  • Adapting and diversifying efforts in training, information dissemination and professional development to respond to the needs of heritage professionals; and
  • Ensuring continuity of excellence and preparing for tomorrow’s challenges by developing a succession and talent management approach for conservators and conservation scientists. This approach should also take into account the needs for recruiting bilingual experts.

________________________________
Richard Willan
Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive
Department of Canadian Heritage

1.0 Introduction

1.1 1.1 The Canadian Conservation Institute

1.1.1 History

The Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) was created in 1972 after Canada became a signatory to the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970).1 Canada set up a system to protect cultural property, and establish structures to support the preservation of cultural property such as national inventories of protected property, conservation institutions and a cultural property export control system. Other related programs and policies that were created were the Canadian Heritage Information Network and the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.

CCI became a Special Operating Agency on November 19, 1992. This status gives CCI the authority and responsibility to achieve results for Canadians in heritage conservation with a business-oriented corporate culture focused on service delivery.

Between 2002 and early 2008, most of CCI’s scientific research projects were interrupted while the main facility on Innes Road in Ottawa underwent major renovations. During that time, treatments of artifacts and works of art along with scientific research projects requiring specialized laboratory facilities could not be carried out.

1.1.2 Mission and Mandate

CCI’s mission is:

“Through conservation science, treatment, and preventive conservation, CCI supports the heritage community in preserving Canada’s heritage collections so they can be accessed by current and future generations. This mission is achieved through research and development, expert services and knowledge dissemination.2


CCI’s mandate is to:

  • Promote the care and preservation of Canada’s heritage collections.
  • Advance the practice, science and technology of conservation.

1.1.3 Organization

CCI has an international profile and is an integral member of the international conservation community. It is based on a centralized model for research, similar to a university or government research model. At the onset of the evaluation in 2009-2010, CCI employed 42 multi-disciplinary conservation scientists and conservators, and had 21 scientific and conservation laboratories, housing specialized equipment. There is an in-house training facility and a library, as well as a separate storage facility. It is one of the only facilities in Canada that is able to treat large, complex artefacts, as well as those of particular fragility and significance.

CCI has three primary business lines which are briefly described below:

  • Research and Development,
  • Expert Services, and
  • Knowledge Dissemination,

Research and Development

As a centre for conservation excellence, CCI contributes to research in Canada and internationally by investing in expertise, scientific equipment and state of the art laboratories. To maximize the impact of its activities, CCI seeks out and identifies partnerships to collaborate with international experts in the field of conservation research.

CCI disseminates the results of its research with the goal of furthering knowledge and understanding on challenges related to a wide range of care and conservation issues.

Decisions on priority areas of research are based on criteria such as: the positive impact of the research results on the preservation of heritage collections in Canada; and on access to, and understanding of, Canadian collections as well as corporate concerns such as CCI capacity. CCI Management carries out a review of all research projects annually, validating progress, and approving new research projects.

Research is carried out in three specific areas:

  • Foundation research results in new knowledge or techniques that contribute to the basic understanding of conservation and may lead to other research questions. Foundation research usually involves the study of materials or the refinement of scientific techniques or methods that contribute to other research.
  • Applied scientific research is undertaken to answer specific conservation and preservation questions, and to contribute new knowledge and treatment techniques to the field. Treatment and methods development is focused on developing practical solutions to conservation, treatment or artifact preservation challenges.
  • Collections preservation research enables organizations to minimize the deterioration of their heritage collections, through improved decision-making and cost-effective management.
The results of its research are directly disseminated by CCIstaff through presentations at technical and conservation conferences and symposia and articles in professional journals, in Canada and internationally. They are also integrated into new or improved services for Canadian clients and are shared in Canada and internationally through training, publications, and on-line learning resources.

Expert Services

CCI provides expert services in three main areas: scientific services, conservation treatments and preventive conservation. These services are provided on request to the heritage community within Canada, and to a limited extent, to international clients.

  • Scientific ServicesCCI is the only source in Canada of services that provides analytical radiographic and photographic services to study the materials and structure of artefacts and works of art. Equally important, the CCI undertakes scientific assessments related to questions of attribution, authenticity and fraud either in the context of acquisitions by museums or investigations by law enforcement agencies.
  • Conservation TreatmentsCCI provides conservation and restoration treatments of unique and significant Canadian artefacts, works of art, and archival materials, as well as heritage interiors. Treatments might include the prevention of further deterioration, aiding the interpretation of cultural artefacts, or re-establishing their culturally significant qualities.
  • Preventive Conservation – Preventive conservation services are designed to prevent deterioration, damage or loss to the heritage collections on display, in storage and in transit. On request, CCI undertakes surveys of collections and technical assessments of heritage facilities and their environmental, security and fire suppression systems. The objective is to identify risks to objects and collections and to provide impartial, independent expert advice on mitigation strategies such as emergency planning.

Expert services and training are subject to assessment criteria as well as CCI’s capacity for undertaking the work. In some areas, demand exceeds capacity to deliver. When requests for service are received, CCI first determines that:

  • the client is eligible for the service;
  • the service cannot be provided by the private sector;
  • the request fits within the CCI mandate and objectives; and,
  • CCI has the capacity within the requested timeframe to undertake the work.

Requests for treatment of artefacts and works of art are then further assessed against criteria related to the significance of the object or collections, the broader benefits to the heritage community, and the equitable distribution of services across Canada.

CCI has a public good mandate, but does recover some costs, depending on the type of service and the type of client. The majority of expert services and training are provided at no charge to CCI’s primary clients which include public museums, art galleries, archives, libraries and historic sites whose primary role is to acquire, conserve, research, communicate and exhibit permanent heritage collections. Museum clients are charged a modest fee for on-site conservation services and facility assessments. For example, the fee for a standard survey is $750 per person for up to 2 days and includes a comprehensive report. CCIprovides services to other clients such as government departments, at a rate of $100 an hour. The fees that are recovered contribute to maintaining current levels of service and to developing new services based on emerging issues in care and conservation.

Knowledge Dissemination

The goal of this business line is to provide conservators, heritage professionals, and workers in Canada with the tools, skills and information needed to care for their collections, thereby ensuring Canadians have access to their heritage.

The knowledge gained through research and practice is shared through basic training for Canadian heritage professionals, workers and volunteers within institutions, advanced professional development for Canadian and foreign conservators, fellowship programs for mid-career professionals, internships for recent graduates in conservation, and lectures and workshops for conservation students.

Knowledge is shared through a variety of media, including online resources, face to face training and information sessions, both at CCI and at external locations across Canada. CCI offers a range of publications from technical and scientific articles to books on particular care and conservation issues. The materials and sessions offered are designed to be accessible and affordable to the widest possible range of CCI clientele.

Knowledge dissemination also includes lectures and conference presentations related to particular conservation issues. CCI hosts an international symposium every three or four years. Workshops and professional development courses are an important tool for information sharing and for assisting with the training of conservation professionals from a wide range of institutions. Topics for these activities over the years have range from assessing and managing risk to collections to teaching an invisible tear repair method for canvases.

CCI has one of the largest conservation and preservation libraries in the world. Its collection is related primarily to conservation, and includes additional museum topics such as development, education, administration, and museum management. The library’s catalogue is available online to facilitate user’s research, and interlibrary loans are available.

CCI has an in-house publishing program that publishes technical bulletins, books, wall charts and other products. An online bookstore enables clients from around the world to access CCI publications for purchase.

In 2009, CCI disseminated information and tools through two websites. The main website was dedicated to CCI clients and international partners, and had corporate information (e.g. services, fee structure, training opportunities, etc.). It was also the source of expert conservation and scientific information and tools developed by CCI staff. The Preserving My Heritagewebsite had basic information on care of collections and, while it was originally directed to the general public, it was used by museums to train staff and volunteers.

1.1.4 Logic Model

The main expected results or outcomes for CCI are illustrated in the logic model in Figure 1 below. The outputs depicted in the logic model summarize the means and tools used by the CCI to complete its work as summarized above.

The model identifies a single immediate outcome that reflects the importance of research as a foundation for CCI’s services and knowledge dissemination:

  • The Canadian and international heritage community has access to the results of CCI’s research and development activities.

This immediate outcome, in turn, leads to two intermediate outcomes that highlight CCI’s emphasis on training and expert services:

  • Canadian and international heritage institutions and workers use CCI’s learning opportunities.
  • CCI’s expert services are used by heritage institutions to preserve their collections.

The logic model’s ultimate outcomes describe the highest purpose that the CCI and the other heritage programs at PCH are intended to serve:

  • Heritage institutions and heritage workers have improved their professional knowledge skills and practices; and
  • Heritage collections are preserved by heritage institutions for current and future generations.

Finally, CCI is expected to contribute to the achievement of the Departmental strategic outcome:

  • Canadian artistic expressions and cultural content are created and accessible at home and abroad.

1.1.5 Clients

CCI’s primary clients are Canadian public museums, art galleries, archives, libraries and historic sites whose role is to acquire, conserve, research, communicate, and exhibit (for purposes of study, education, and enjoyment) permanent heritage collections that are accessible to the Canadian public. These public museums are eligible for all of CCI’s services, and receive most of them free of charge or for a small fee (i.e., partial cost recovery). CCI charges a basic fee ($750) to partially recover travel costs for expert services delivered on-site; a fee of $500 for 14 subsidized regional workshops delivered annually.

CCI also provides services, at full cost recovery, to municipal, provincial and federal government institutions responsible for heritage collections, including the PWGSC Heritage Conservation Directorate, the Department of National Defence and Agriculture Canada.

Some services are provided to the RCMP and Interpol for artifact authentication. Increasingly CCI is called upon by other government departments that are now required to comply with Treasury Board policies related to management of moveable heritage assets.

Within PCH, CCI supports programs that fall under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act (1977) and the Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act (1999), thereby helping to protect substantial financial investments made by PCH in Canadian museums. CCI also provides expertise to museums applying for, or receiving support from, the Museums Assistance Program and the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund.

Incorporated, not-for-profit community-based organizations representing Aboriginal, ethno-cultural or religious communities are eligible for services at full cost-recovery. Another client group is the educational institutions with conservation and heritage programs, such as Queens University and Sir Sanford Fleming College. Private sector and international clients are eligible for some services under certain conditions and only on a cost-recovery basis.

Heritage workers are the primary participants for CCI’s regional training workshops that are hosted, on behalf of CCI, by provincial and national organizations. Advanced professional development courses are directed at professional conservators and collections managers.

Figure 1: CCI Logic Model3

figure 1

1.1.6 Resources

CCI is financed mainly through appropriations received via PCH and also through cost-recovery.

In 2008-09, CCI had a total budget of approximately $11.7 million, which included an estimated $764K in earned revenue. CCI employed about 90 full-time equivalents (FTEs). A summary of CCI’s funding over the years is presented in Table 1.

CCI
Table 1:Budget Summary, 2003-04 to 2008-09 ($)

 

FTEs

Salaries

O&M

Earned Netted Revenue

Total

2003-04

88

4,732,533

3,872,563

1,547,603

10,152,699

2004-05

89

4,757,198

3,214,466

1,421,601

9,393,265

2005-06

88

5,772,417

2,104,466

1,489,280

9,366,163

2006-07

89

6,160,703

2,204,466

1,217,243

9,582,412

2007-08

89

6,220,499

2,204,466

1,801,464

10,226,429

2008-09

90

6,291,938

4,600,8704

764,1105

11,656,918

2.0 2.0 Evaluation and Methodology

2.1 Evaluation

This section details the approach, data collection and limitations of the evaluation. The Evaluation Services Directorate (ESD) of the Office of the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive (OCAEE), PCH, was responsible for the evaluation. The study was partially conducted by an external consulting firm. The evaluation was supported by an Evaluation Working Group chaired by an ESD Project Manager and included representatives from CCI to provide advice. The evaluation covered the activities of the program for the period 2003-04 to 2008-096 and was conducted from April 2010 to February 2012.

The TB Policy on Evaluationspecifies the core issues that are to be addressed by evaluation studies. The planning phase of the evaluation study involved interviews with PCHmanagers that discussed and confirmed some additional issues to be examined. The complete list of TBcore issues as well as the additional issues examined can be found in the Evaluation Matrix in Appendix A.

2.2 Data Collection Methods

2.2.1 Key Informant Interviews

A total of 44 interviews were conducted with PCH representatives and with key stakeholders knowledgeable about CCI from across Canada and around the world. They represented many different groups, including the following (number of interviews in parentheses):

  • conservators in the public sector in Canada (11);
  • museum directors in Canada (5);
  • conservation and museum associations in Canada (3);
  • client programs within PCH and the Heritage portfolio (7); and
  • other federal government clients private sector conservators in Canada, leading conservation experts, organizational partners and educational institutions outside Canada, CCI interns, international associations and research partners outside Canada (18).

In the report, the following technique was used to highlight the relative importance of the results of interviews with key stakeholders who agreed to speak. The following determinants are used when an opinion on a subject comes from:

  • A minority of key stakeholders: "a few";
  • About half of the key stakeholders: "the" or "some";
  • The majority of key stakeholders: "most" or "the majority";
  • All or nearly all key stakeholders: "the majority", "almost all" or "all".

2.2.2 Document and Literature Review

Documents on the history and activities of CCI were reviewed as part of the evaluation, as were literature on previous studies on conservation, trends and issues on conservation, and information on other conservation institutes. This information helped analyze such issues as the relevance of CCI.

2.2.3 Database Review

CCI provided the evaluation team with data extracted from its main database, PIMS, which tracks CCI’s business activities. The database was also used to provide the data for the survey of CCI clients which includes year of service, type of service provided, contact information, and other data. CCI also provided the evaluation team with access to Google Analytics data that tracks traffic on the CCI website.

2.2.4 Survey of Clients and Non-clients

An online survey of CCI Canadian clients for the period 2003-04 to 2008-09 was completed as well as a separate survey of non-CCI clients in Canada.

Survey of clients: PIMS was used to extract the list of clients in Canada. This generated a targeted sample of 1,737 records, consisting of 1,212 “general information request” (GIR) clients and 525 clients that had received an expert service or participated in training (EST). The EST category consisted of several types of services: conservation and treatment; preventive conservation; scientific services; professional development; and, “other service” (e.g., equipment loan). The online survey of clients was conducted during November and December 2010. The overall response rate for EST clients was 36%. The response rate for GIR clients was lower (19%), which was expected given many of these interactions with CCI were very brief and many took place several years ago.

Survey of non-clients:CCI assembled a list of museums, galleries and archives in Canada that according to its records had not used CCI’s services in recent years. The main purpose of the non-client survey was to assess the potential for CCI services among the non-client population. The individuals contacted had not been formal CCI clients (i.e., they had not received a formal EST service), they could have accessed other services, such as downloading materials from the CCI website or attending a CCItraining workshop. The database consisted of 1,243 e-mail addresses. This survey was conducted in February and March 2011. A total of 169 individuals responded, for a response rate of 14%.

2.2.5 Analysis of Literature Citations

The purpose of the citation analysis was to assess the reach and possible impact of CCI-authored research publications. CCI provided a data set containing 1,795 records (articles) that included the type of publication, title of work, journal title, publication date, language, whether internally or externally published, CCI author, and whether peer reviewed.

From this list, 304 articles were identified that had been published during the period covered by the evaluation, with complete information. Google Scholar was used to search all 304 titles and to identify the number of citations for each article. Google Scholar is a free search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across disciplines.

2.2.6 Case Studies of CCI Selected Projects

The aim of the case study method was to provide a deeper understanding of how the work of CCI affects the heritage community. Based on a set of criteria (coverage of business lines, geography, language as well as suggestions identified by key informants), a list of fourteen potential cases was generated, from which the evaluation team selected six cases for analysis. The case studies are as follows:

  • Preventive Conservation: Development of methodology and tools for risk assessment. This is a partnership with ICCROM, ICN and CCI;
  • Preventive Conservation: Environmental guidelines for museums – temperature and relative humidity;
  • Research: Analysis of the materials and techniques used by Jean-Paul Riopelle, as part of a broader Canadian Materials Artists Program that examines paintings from prominent Canadian artists;
  • Archaeology Conservation: Treatment of a child’s fur and bird skin parka and other artifacts from a collection of 125 Thule artifacts uncovered in 2007 at Sannirajaq (Hall Beach), Nunavut;
  • Paper Conservation: Conservation treatment of the Daverne Journal, Perth Museum, which is an entry book that was kept by Ensign Daverne at the Perth Military Settlement in eastern Ontario between 1816 and 1822; and
  • Professional Development: Workshops on emergency preparedness.
Each case study involved reviewing CCI documentation and conducting interviews with CCIrepresentatives and stakeholders in the heritage community.

2.3 Constraints and limitations

Measuring Results: As this is the first evaluation of CCI, the study and its methodology design did not have the benefit of drawing on the experience gained from previous evaluations. All of the performance indicators and data collection tools were developed for this evaluation. The majority of indicators listed in CCI RMAF relate to activities and outputs (e.g., number of conferences, publications, training sessions, artifacts treated). As required by Treasury Board, CCI began reporting in 2009-10 on strategic outcomes: the number of heritage collections and objects preserved and the percentage of heritage institutions and workers who reported improved professional knowledge, skills and practices. These are tracked in the PIMS database system, also launched in 2009-2010.

Efficiency and Economy: Information on whether the appropriate level of resources is devoted to a program is obtained through cost-effectiveness analysis studies. Such studies determine the resources required to deliver a program by analyzing a wide range of factors, including workload demands, time and costs to carry out specific activities, staff skills and competencies; tools and systems. Detailed information was not available from the program, given the uniqueness of the business model and the lack of international standards for this type of analysis of conservation institutions.

CCI’s facilities underwent a major renovation between 2002 and 2008 – During that time, most treatments of artifacts and scientific research projects requiring access to laboratory facilities were not able to be carried out. This closure of the laboratories affected CCI’s productivity during those years. Examples of where this may have occurred are noted in the report.

3.0 Evaluation Findings

This section presents the findings from the evaluation study, organized by the evaluation issues and questions (listed in section 2).

3.1 Relevance

3.1.1 CCI Relevance and Continued Need

CCI continues to serve a need.

A central conservation institute provides advice to Canadian heritage institutions on proper conservation practices.

A key factor underpinning the creation of CCI in 1972 was that Canada’s cultural heritage was said to be in a state of neglect.7 In Canada, many museums were created during the 1960s and 1970s and quickly amassed major collections. Today, these collections continue to grow and to include new materials and types of objects. These new materials raise new questions about conservation and existing collections continue to face deterioration.

CCI advises museums on proper conservation practices for a variety of heritage objects and works of art, including those made with modern materials and audio-visual and digital media. For some of these newer media, a 2008 international summit of preservation research scientists organized by the Library of Congress noted that there are few pockets of research internationally and thus few alternative centres of expertise exist.8A majority of key informants from Canadian museums, galleries and heritage centres stated that they lack the capacity internally to treat artifacts or works of art that require specialized care. CCIis able to provide a range of highly specialized services in these cases, enabling the heritage community’s artefacts and collections to be preserved and made accessible to Canadians through display, research materials and exhibition. They emphasized that the preservation and conservation function within museums continues to be vulnerable – a trend that began in the 1990s given budget pressures. Museums are not able to generate fundraising for backroom functions such as preservation and conservation, as corporate sponsors prefer to support exhibitions or the construction of new facilities.

CCI plays a leadership role in the national network of preservation and conservation specialists.

Key informants in all of the major provincial heritage organizations commented that they rely on CCI for its expertise in preservation and conservation. While larger museum/archives may have a conservation department, staff rely on CCIfor advice in specialized areas and want a national institute to provide leadership (e.g., in the development and dissemination of guidelines).

CCI is a major player in the world’s conservation community.

CCI conservation scientists and conservators are active participants in international research and frequently participate in international conferences and workshops to exchange knowledge with the world’s conservation community and to bring the latest developments back to Canada. Other leading conservation organizations around the world, including ICCROM, the Getty Conservation Institute as well as the conservation departments of leading universities view CCI as a vital and integral component of the international community. A major theme of all of the interviews with the international community, also confirmed in the literature review, was that CCI is highly regarded internationally and is considered an excellent ambassador for Canada.

CCI plays an important role in developing conservation guidelines and disseminating them to the Canadian conservation community.

All of the international key informants stressed that Canada continues to need a single national conservation institute that is a major player in the world preservation community, and that Canadian heritage organizations must have access to the latest research and solutions for preservation and conservation. CCI’s work in guidelines development and dissemination is viewed as highly important.

Survey respondents were asked to rate the relevance of various issues to their organizations on a five-point scale (where 1 = not at all relevant and 5 = very relevant). The items included a mix of conservation-related and other topics (see Table 2 below). Over 50% of EST and GIR respondents rated several conservation-related issues as highly or very relevant, including: “insufficient room and inadequate conditions to house collections”; “difficulty or challenges in caring for collections over the long term”; and, “insufficient resources to develop staff competencies in collections care and conservation.” These items were closely followed by “aging facilities and infrastructure”, rated as highly or very relevant by 48% of EST clients and 51% of GIR clients. Considering the mandate of CCI, these answers are supporting evidence of its continued need.

Table 2: Importance of Issues Facing Heritage Organizations

Percentage of respondents stating that the issue was highly or very relevant in response to the question: “How relevant is each of the following issues to your organization?”

Issues

EST9(n=188)

GIR(n=226)

 

Non-Clients (n=169)

Insufficient room and inadequate conditions to house collections

72 %

72 %

76 %

Difficulty or challenges in caring for collections over the long term

69 %

70 %

72 %

Difficulty in financing core functions that do not generate revenue, such as utilities or administrative support

66 %

66 %

76 %

Insufficient revenues

65 %

70 %

73 %

Insufficient resources to develop staff professional competencies in collections care and conservation

53 %

55 %

58 %

Aging facilities or infrastructure

48 %

51 %

58 %

Insufficient capacity to reflect the diversity/range of your collections in your exhibitions and programs

48 %

47 %

57 %

Lack of technical expertise to treat artifacts and works of art (e.g., for exhibition or loan purposes)

40 %

42 %

51 %

Lack of technical expertise to preserve collections

39 %

39 %

45 %

Lack of information about the provenance/significance of objects in your collection

33 %

35 %

39 %

Lack of information about the risks to your collections and how to mitigate these risks

25 %

34 %

32 %

Declining number of volunteers

24 %

26 %

37 %

Declining audiences or visitors

23 %

29 %

34 %

3.1.2 Justification for Federal Government Intervention

The federal government intervention is justified.

This section examines the issue of whether it is appropriate for the federal government to be involved in providing the types of services offered by CCI, or if they might be delivered provincially / territorially, or through the private or not-for-profit sectors. Assessing this evaluation issue includes answering the question: What would happen if CCI no longer existed?

The evidence indicates that it makes sense for the federal government to house a central conservation institute.

The majority of key informants from museums stated that they could not afford the cost of specialized treatments of their artifacts; in fact, in the absence of CCI, most artifacts likely would not be treated at all, and Canada could lose valuable pieces of its cultural heritage. While the provincial museums and other groups do provide training (they host CCI regional workshops and may also provide their own training), CCI offers advanced professional development workshops on the latest scientific and technical information on subjects pertaining to preventive conservation and conservation treatments. A few k informants indicated that in some cases, comparable training may be available from sources in the United States and other countries, and that it may be possible for the private sector to carry out the facility design/advisory services provided by CCI– although at a higher cost to museums.

As noted earlier, Canada needs to have a single national institute to connect with the world’s international community and to ensure Canada stays abreast of the latest development in conservation practices, so that they can in turn be disseminated to the Canadian conservation community.

CCI also plays an important role in supporting several of the other programs administered by PCH, including: the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, Museums Assistance Program, Movable Cultural Property and Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Program. From consultations with these programs, CCI’s support could not be replaced for at least one of these programs.

3.1.3 CCI, Departmental, and Government Priorities

CCI supports government and departmental priorities.

While CCI itself has no direct basis in legislation, several related legislative instruments affirm the Government of Canada’s role, and in particular PCH’s role, in the care and preservation of heritage collections:

  • The Canadian Heritage Act10 recognizes the Heritage Minister’s jurisdiction over “conservation, exportation and importation of cultural property.”
  • The Museums Act11 declares that “the heritage of Canada and all its peoples is an important part of the world heritage and must be preserved for present and future generations.”
  • The Library and Archives of Canada Act12 states that “it is necessary that the documentary heritage of Canada be preserved for the benefit of present and future generations”.
Within the federal government, CCI assists departments and agencies in implementing the Treasury Board Policy on Management of Materiel(2006) as it applies to the management of moveable heritage assets. Under this policy, deputy heads are required to ensure that heritage collections are identified and protected. CCIis identified in the policy as a centre of excellence in heritage preservation and a resource for advice, assistance and information on preservation and conservation.

Within PCH, CCI is one of five program sub-activities under the Heritage program activity that helps the department meet its strategic outcome: “Canadian artistic expressions and cultural content are created and accessible at home and abroad.” CCI develops and disseminates the knowledge, techniques, tools and information necessary for preservation of collections, thus ensuring their long-term accessibility to Canadians.

Preservation is also reflected in two departmental priorities in the PCH 2010-11 Report on Plans and Priorities: 1) Promote the creation, preservation and dissemination of Canadian cultural content to domestic and international audiences; and 2) Ensure that Canada’s heritage is accessible to Canadians now and in the future.13

3.1.4 Extent to Which CCI Duplicates or Complements Offerings of Other Provincial or Federal Organizations or the Private Sector

CCI does not duplicate the work of other provincial/territorial government organizations or the private sector.

At the provincial/territorial level, Quebec is the only province with a conservation lab, the Centre de Conservation de Québec (CCQ). Its clientele is comprised exclusively of heritage and cultural institutions in the province. The CCQ treats artifacts (including public art collections, heritage objects, fine art, and religious artifacts and interiors) and provides advice to clients. CCQ does not carry out scientific research, nor is it able to provide the more complex scientific services provided by CCI.

The CCQ relies on CCI for complex scientific services and for advanced research in conservation. CCQ does author publications but on an ad hoc basis to address specific needs, where CCI has a more structured, multi-year publications program that produces series of technical bulletins, CCI Notes and books. If an artifact requires analysis beyond what is possible at CCQ, it will be referred to CCI for further examination. Any report produced by CCI then becomes part of the final report that the CCQ in turn submits to its client.

Museums in Quebec receive treatment services from both organizations, in part because CCQ has a quota system. There was a sense based on the interviews with the key informants in Quebec that there are indeed two conservation services available to Quebec clients – CCI and CCQ – and that a Quebec client could apply to CCI for a service and the CCQ would not be aware of the request.

The client survey asked whether clients could have received similar preservation/conservation services or training from other service providers had CCInot existed over the past five years. A majority of ESTclients (72%) stated that they could not have obtained similar preservation / conservation training services; similarly, 67% stated that they could not have obtained similar preservation / conservation services.

3.2 Performance

CCI’s outputs, immediate and intermediate outcomes are shown in the logic model presented earlier (Figure 1). This section presents findings on CCI’s outputs; the attainment of CCI’s immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes; its delivery strategy; and how CCI model compares to other model of conservation organizations. Assessing CCI outputs

Clients are highly satisfied with all aspects of CCI’s service on specific projects. Opportunities exist for CCI in the making all potential clients aware of their services. Website analysis reveals that while the site has many visitors, they do not explore the site fully.

3.2.1 Activities and Outputs

This section provides information on CCI’s activities and outputs including training events, publications, and expert services. The client survey captured information on issues such as awareness, importance, and use of CCI services. If appropriate, results of the client survey are compared to the non-client survey.

Workload

Trends in workload for the three main categories of CCI activities (expert services, R&D and professional development) are detailed in Table 3, Appendix D. Observations are as follows:

  • The number of general information requests decreased from a high of 1,601 requests in 2003-04 to a low of 414 requests in 2008-09.
  • The number of R&D projects declined from a high of 32 projects in the initial year, 2003-04. This was caused by the closure of CCI’s laboratories between 2002 and 2008.
  • The number of research articles published in external journals declined in the last three years prior to 2008-09, due in part to the closure of the labs (there is a time lag between the conduct of research and the eventual publication of research results). As well there has been a gradual shift from publishing scientific and technical articles in professional journals to publishing the practical results of research on the CCI website.
  • The number of professional development workshops and courses has remained stable.

Awareness

Clients were asked about their awareness of specific CCI services (Table 4 in Appendix D). EST clients are familiar with almost all of CCI’s services. Eighty percent (80%) of EST clients were aware of all but three CCI services (attend symposia; borrow specialized equipment; and mid-career learning or CCI internship). A slightly lower percentage of GIR clients were aware of each CCI service.

Non-client awareness of services is lower. Key informants suspected that smaller community museums would be less familiar with CCI’s services; as they typically do not have a conservator on staff. Provincial museum representatives commented that local community museums would likely call them first, as their museums are more visible in the province.

Importance of services

A majority of EST clients rated all but two of CCI’s services as important (Table 5 in Appendix D). The two services rated as the most important were “contact a CCI preservation and conservation expert by telephone or email who can respond to technical questions” and “online access to free electronic reference material from CCI’s website.” The two lowest-rated services (specialized services that apply to relatively few organizations) were rated as important by close to 50% of respondents.

Past use of Services

Clients were asked which CCI services they had used during the five years prior to 2008-09. The list of services included telephone or email contact to ask a question; expert service; obtained publication from the website; and participated in a professional development workshop.

A majority of EST clients had used these four services, with the most popular being contacting CCI by telephone or email to ask a specific question (Table 6, Appendix D). This was the main service used by GIR clients as well. Forty-two percent (42%) of GIR clients answered that they had participated in a professional development workshop.

Thirty-one percent (31%) of non-clients reported that they had contacted CCI by telephone or email over the five years prior to 2008-09 to ask a question about conservation. A similar percentage, 68%, stated that they had visited the CCIwebsite.

Project Experience with CCI

EST clients were asked to rate their experience with a particular project (this question was not posed to GIR clients as their requests for information would not be considered to be projects). Clients were asked to comment on a specific project with which they had been involved. Projects represented five categories of services: conservation and treatment; preventive conservation; scientific services; professional development; and other professional service. Ninety-four (94%) agreed that “CCI staff were available when needed” and eighty-one percent (81%) of clients agreed that “CCI staff were experts on the subject matter” (Table 7 in Appendix D).

All of the key informants from Canadian museums indicated that they were generally pleased with CCI’s treatment services. A few of these informants suggested that CCI needs to improve its project management, particularly for treatments. Examples were provided of treatments that were viewed as taking much too long to complete or that insufficient feedback was being provided on the status of treatment projects. CCI noted that one factor may have been the closure of the CCI labs between 2002 and 2008, a period when treatments and scientific analysis of artifacts was severely curtailed.

CCI staff noted that objects accepted for treatment tend to be complex, deteriorated and fragile; and they are accepted because they cannot be treated by museums themselves or by private contractors. While CCI’s contract with each client does provide an estimate of the time required to complete the treatment based on photographs and a description, often an accurate estimate can only be prepared once the object is analyzed.

Analysis of CCI Website Traffic

The CCI website is an important channel for disseminating preservation and conservation information to the Canadian and international heritage community. The volume of visitor traffic to the CCI website is an indicator of the level of interest in information produced by CCI. CCI had two active websites in 2010 when the evaluation data was collected: its main website <CCI-icc.gc.ca/">www.CCI-icc.gc.ca> and a second website oriented to museums for training purposes and to the general public <www.preservation.gc.ca> that was integrated into the main website in 2011-12.

Highlights of the traffic analysis for the main website14 include the following:

  • A total of 88,812 visits to the main website took place over the six-month period, an average of 483 visits per day. A total of 61,027 unique visitors were attracted to the site.
  • Visitors by country were as follow: 39% of all visits were from Canada, followed by the United States (14%), France (13%) and the United Kingdom (4%). This reflects the international profile of CCI. Some 58% of visitors were English-speaking and 26% were French-speaking.
  • The site has a high bounce rate of 59% (the percent of visitors who enter the site and leave the site rather than viewing other pages). This indicates that the majority of visitors visited only one page on the site.
  • The number of page views15 per visit was 3.4, suggesting that some visitors did explore the site beyond their initial landing page. On average, a visitor spent two minutes and fifty seconds on the site. A majority of visitors (63.5%) remained on the site for zero to ten seconds.
The high bounce rate along with the short time spent on the site suggests that many visitors do not fully explore the site.

3.2.2 Achievement of Outcomes

Attainment of CCI immediate outcome: The Canadian and international heritage community has access to the results of CCI’s research and development activities.

CCI’s research and development effort received the highest accolades from key informants both in Canada and around the world.

Research and Development Activities

A majority of the international key informants stated that CCI’s research is at the leading edge, and noted that several CCI scientists are viewed as being among the leaders in their fields internationally. As evidence of this leadership role, they noted that CCI employees play prominent roles in international committees; for example, a CCI scientist recently completed a three-year mandate as chair of the International Council of Museums - Conservation Committee (ICOM-CC).

Specific research areas that were mentioned as being particularly important to the international museum community include research on: waterlogged wood; preventive conservation/risk assessment; environmental climate guidelines for museums; and newer materials, including plastics, audio-visual and digital media.

In particular, the work on environmental guidelines for museums (temperature and relative humidity) was mentioned several times by key informants in both Canada and internationally. This work is viewed as potentially having a major impact on museums, due to the savings in energy costs as a result in modifications to energy control systems (e.g., higher temperatures in summer lead to reduced air conditioning and lower temperatures in winter require less heating). This work was the subject of one of the evaluation case studies.

Diverging views from the international and Canadian community were obtained on one point. A few international experts stated that a key feature of CCI’s research is that CCI’s solutions are practical and are of utility to the typical community museum that lacks conservation resources while some representatives of Canadian heritage institutions commented that CCI’s solutions do not always consider a museum’s actually ability to implement them. The suggestion was made that CCI staff should spend more time in the community working in institutions, to help museums adapt CCI’s solutions.

Some Canadian museum and heritage conservation professionals suggested that CCI ensure that the outputs of its research are formulated into practical guidelines for their care of collections strategies. For example, CCI is seen as the only possible source of information for up-to-date environmental guidelines, and some Canadian clients stated that they would like CCI to take a proactive approach to making recommendations which museums can apply.

A few key informants from the Canadian museums community mentioned that during museum building renewal projects, explaining conservation requirements can represent a significant challenge, particularly without strong CCI-supported documentation. An example of a useful tool might be a CCI-produced brochure on conservation guidelines and best practices that could be provided to boards of directors, curators, and building renewal teams to further their understanding of the requirements of conservation facilities.

CCI’s research on such topics as Canadian artists’ materials (the subject of an evaluation case study) was seen as being important and useful to the museum community. The original works are analyzed to develop a “baseline” of information for the database and to provide information needed to make treatment decisions. CCIis also often asked to provide analysis of works brought in by such clients as the RCMP and Interpol to identify frauds. The research remains within a limited range of institutions and conservators.

Knowledge Dissemination

A citation analysis was carried out using Google Scholar to identify citations in the international literature for all 303 CCI research articles published between 2003-04 and 2009-10 (research articles publication involves delays). Some CCI authors had published only one article, while others had published up to twenty. Some authors, despite publishing many articles, have not had any of their works cited. Of the total of 303 articles, 36 or 11.9% had been cited at least once. These 36 articles yielded a total of 143 citations, an average of 4.0 citations for each cited article.

Most of the 303 publications were published internally by CCI (e.g., in the CCI Newsletter) and these were least cited. Articles published in external journals were cited more often, followed by externally-published conference papers. The five most-often cited works were all in external journals/conference proceedings (Appendix D, Table 8). One article published in a CCI newsletter yielded several citations (“Preventive conservation: reducing risks to collections”, 2005). Several journal articles have been widely cited, indicating that these works have been widely read. Articles listed in the following journals yielded the most citations: Studies in Conservation (46 citations); Restaurator (16); and Journal of Cultural Heritage (12).

All of the articles cited were published several years ago and are based on research carried out primarily prior to the period covered by the evaluation (i.e., pre-2003). The number of research publications has declined substantially in the few years prior to 2008-09 (Appendix D, Table 3). CCI noted that the shutdown of the labs as part of the building renovation affected the ability of scientists to carry out research and to publish the research results. CCI also noted that it has focused increasingly on making practical information available via its website.

All key informants from Quebec were highly appreciative of the knowledge and expertise shared by CCI professionals during workshops and demonstrations. Concerns were expressed regarding the quality of written and spoken translation provided due to the technical nature of the workshops and demonstrations. There were concerns as well about the level of bilingualism of some CCI conservators and scientists.

CCI noted that it faces challenges in recruiting bilingual conservation staff. The two training programs in Canada’s post-secondary educational system are offered in English only (a Master’s program at Queen’s University and a diploma program at Sir Sanford Fleming College). Francophone conservatoires from Canada can train in France (Université de Paris) or Belgium (Institut royal du Patrimoine artistique). The relationship between the Quebec conservation community and CCI offers opportunities for collaboration on the revision of written materials, improved quality control by CCI, joint planning of workshops, briefing simultaneous translators (as required), and through detailed participant evaluations.

Attainment of intermediate outcome and its associated ultimate outcome: Usage of CCI learning opportunities and impacts on professional knowledge, skills and practices.

CCI’s learning activities are utilized and have augmented the knowledge of professionals working in Canada’s heritage organizations. CCI’s professional development workshops are highly valued.

This section focuses on the intermediate outcome in the logic model pertaining to the use of CCI’s learning opportunities. It also examines the linkages between this outcome and the ultimate outcome pertaining to improvements in professional knowledge, skills and practices.

Professional Knowledge

The results of the survey of clients indicate that CCI has had an impact on preservation and conservation knowledge of staff in heritage organizations. When asked what would be the impact on their own organization if CCI had not existed in the five years prior to 2008-09, 71% of expert services and training clients responded that their organization’s staff would be less knowledgeable.

Respondents were asked about the overall impacts of CCI on Canada’s heritage community. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of EST clients agreed that as a result of CCI’s learning opportunities, heritage workers across Canada have improved their professional knowledge, skills and practices.

One of the evaluation case studies focused on CCI’s professional development workshops on disaster planning and emergency preparedness. Findings from the case study indicated that such a workshop can have considerable impacts on improving awareness and knowledge of this subject beyond the museum itself and throughout a community.

A majority of key informants from Canadian museums stated that CCI’s professional development workshops are highly valued and they suggested that CCIadd additional workshops each year, including repeating some of the more important topics.

Skills and Practices

CCI’s internship program received high marks from the majority of key informants in Canada and internationally who were familiar with this program. Those from the Canadian museum community stated that their own participation in the internship program and in other on-site training at CCI had been invaluable to their professional growth.

Some key informants from both the international and Canadian heritage community stated that CCI plays a critical role in supporting conservation in Canada’s educational system. Only one university in Canada (Queen’s) has a graduate-level program. It was suggested that CCI could play a stronger leadership role, by forming formal collaborations with universities and colleges. It was reported that only one university worldwide (Northumbria University in the United Kingdom) is currently offering such a program, and this could be an opportunity for CCI to partner with a university.

A majority of key informants from the international community spoke highly of CCI’s participation in international conferences and workshops (in partnership with ICCROM and ICOM), on such subjects as risk management and preventive conservation. These activities were viewed as highly important, because they are a good example of the “train the trainers” approach, where conservation specialists can participate in the course and share their knowledge with the conservation community in their own countries, including Canada.

Some suggestions were made that CCI has an important role to play in terms of offering mid-career training in conservation to museum professionals, comparable to what is offered at the Getty Conservation Institute for conservation professionals. It would appear that more museum professionals (such as collection managers and curators) are interested in increasing their knowledge of conservation, and are unable to commit to a university program. A few key informants suggested that CCIcould be a leader in providing options for this type of learner.

Attainment of intermediate outcome and its associated ultimate outcome: Expert services are used by heritage organizations to preserve their collections and to enable access by current and future generations

CCI has had a positive impact in terms of preserving heritage collections in Canada.

This section reports on the perceived success CCI has had in achieving its intermediate outcome pertaining to the use of CCI’s expert services by heritage institutions to better preserve their collections. The evaluation also attempted to assess whether increased preservation has, in turn, led to increased accessibility of collections. The main source of information is the client survey, supplemented by comments made by key informants.

The client survey included questions pertaining to preservation and accessibility and gathered feedback on the performance of CCI with respect to specific expert services and training projects. A strong majority (76%) of EST clients stated they are “better able to preserve their collections as a result of this project.” (Appendix D, Table 7).

When asked about the potential impacts of CCI on their collections in the absence of CCI, a slight majority, 56%, of EST clients, responded that their collections would be in a poorer state today. When asked a broader question about the impact of CCI on Canada’s heritage community, the results were very positive. Some 92% of EST clients stated that CCI has had “a positive impact in terms of preserving heritage collections in Canada”. And 88% agreed that “without CCI, fewer of Canada’s heritage collections would be preserved and therefore available to current and future generations.”

Key informants and the client survey respondents had differing perspectives on accessibility. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of EST clients stated that less of their collections would be available for exhibition or loan had CCI not existed over the 5 years prior to 2008-09. A majority of key informants stated that, in the absence of CCI, fewer of Canada’s heritage collections would be on display today. For example, artifacts that had been treated by CCI in recent years might not have been treated at all in the absence of CCI – given the costs involved. They provided examples of instances where the museum would have used private sector conservators to treat the artifact, at a significant cost. Also, a few conservation specialists stated that in the absence of CCI, more objects would be on display today, but in worse condition. Their explanation was that heritage institutions would be less knowledgeable about the impacts of the environment on collections and might have put some artifacts on exhibit that should not have been.

3.2.3 The CCI Delivery Strategy

CCI adds value to the pursuits of several other PCH programs and only few areas for improvement were identified.

CCI provides support to several PCH programs, including the Movable Cultural Property Program, the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Program, the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund and Museums Assistance Program. A summary of each program is provided in Appendix B.

Movable Cultural Property Program (MCPP): The program reported that CCI does excellent technical work and has received feedback from heritage institutions that it is highly respected. Frequently, CCI is able to develop innovative solutions to permit an institution to obtain a Category B application.

CCI provides a specific service to this program that is unique and could not be replaced by the private sector. Under program regulations, artifacts belonging to a foreign country can be detained for a period as part of an “action for recovery.” In one high profile case, CCI stored items and conducted authenticity and condition reports for objects that were eventually returned to a foreign state. This role could not be fulfilled by an outside agency for reasons of security.

Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Program (CTEIP): No major issues were reported regarding CCI’s support to this program; for example, the facility assessments are up to date. The program is concerned that it relies solely on CCI for expert service, which is a risk to program delivery. A 2006 PCH evaluation study of CTEIP also did not identify issues pertaining to program delivery.

Canada Cultural Spaces Fund and Museums Assistance Program (MAP): The feedback from most Canadian museums representatives is that they value the involvement of CCI in their facility design projects. PCH managers also commented that CCI provides very useful support to these two programs. For example, the involvement of CCI in reviewing a museum’s application to the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund provides a “seal of approval” that the upgraded or new facility will comply with recognized environmental guidelines (e.g., for HVAC systems).

The suggestion was made that the PCH programs and CCI should work more closely together to have a more systematic process for anticipating future client needs. Another suggestion was for CCI to prepare a toolkit on technical requirements for heritage facilities, which PCH program officers across Canada could provide to program applicants.

Room for improvement in communications and client reach strategies.

The overall finding from the key informant interviews is that CCI needs to increase its communications and client outreach efforts. Some of the specific comments received are as follows:

  • The CCI’s general response telephone service was not working well during the period of the evaluation. A few key informants commented that when they call, they want a “live body” to answer. It was also noted that the delay between leaving a message and getting a call back can be long, and that the client’s request is not consistently referred to the correct CCI expert.
  • There was a call for CCI to take on a more visible leadership role in Canada in publicizing the need for Canadian heritage institutions to protect Canada’s cultural heritage.
  • CCI could provide documentation on the purpose of conservation, which conservators could give to their building renewal teams as well as the general public.
  • A few key informants from the Canadian museum community called on CCI to better connect with the community. They would like to see CCI specialists travel to museums and promote the importance of preserving collections and share knowledge on treatments and conservation (somewhat similar to the mobile labs that existed at one time).
  • They also commented that they would like to see CCI getting out more into the provinces and specifically into museums themselves for longer periods to familiarize themselves with the day-to-day realities faced by museums in terms of care of collections.
  • The client survey found that some 70% of expert services and training clients rated CCI’s communications activities (emails, newsletters, web updates) as useful, compared to 64% for GIR clients.
CCI fees schedule could be revised for certain type of services.

CCI was viewed by the majority of key informants in Canadian museums as providing good value for money. Examples were given where CCI provided valuable advice (e.g., regarding construction of a new building) at what were perceived as very inexpensive rates. While a few key informants noted that similar services may sometimes be available in the private sector, they would be more expensive and likely would not be used in the absence of CCI. The overall view is that the heritage community would be receptive to a modest increase in CCI rates.

The results from the client survey found that 23% of expert services and training clients are familiar with CCI’s fee schedule. Most CCI services are delivered at no charge to primary clients, public museums, and few clients pay fees. The level of familiarity with the fee schedule is also very low among GIR clients (5%).

Clients who had some familiarity with the fee schedule were asked to rate the level of fees charged by CCI for expert services, training events and publications. The majority of expert services and training clients stated that the fees charged were reasonable.

Opportunities exist for improving the CCI service delivery strategy.

The overarching structure of CCI’s service delivery works well. Issues related to access to CCI services were identified through the client and non-client surveys. Survey recipients were asked to identify barriers that heritage organizations might face in accessing CCI services. The most common response (44% of EST respondents and 40% of non-clients) was lack of knowledge/awareness of the programs and services offered by CCI (Table 9, Appendix D). For EST respondents, this was followed by funding/budget/cost of service issues (30%). For non-clients, 17% identified funding/budget/cost of service issues and the same percentage stated that their museum was too small for CCI services.

Survey recipients were provided with a list of potential barriers and asked whether they had ever encountered each one in attempting to access CCI services. The barrier most cited (40% of ESTrespondents and 34% of non-clients) was that “CCI training and professional development workshops were too far away to attend.” (Table 10, Appendix D). This was followed in order by “did not know CCI offered the service or help you were looking for” (22% of EST clients and 25% of non-clients); “CCItraining and professional development workshops were too expensive to attend” (19% of EST clients and 22% of non-clients); and, “request for service was declined due to lack of capacity to do the work in the required timeframe” (19% of ESTclients).

3.2.4 Modèle de l'ICC par rapport au modèle d'autres organismes de conservation

The evaluation concludes that the current model make sense. Having both conservators and scientists under one roof, enables research results to be applied to treatments and treatment issues can feed back into the research program and so on.

Key informants included several high-profile members of the international conservation community. They were asked to comment on the CCI organizational model, i.e., the fact that CCI has a combination of business activities and services out of one central national institute, including: research and development, expert services, knowledge dissemination, and training and professional development.

There was consensus from the international community that CCI has a unique business delivery model. While several other institutions around the world have a research focus, CCI is viewed as having a unique mix of activities. Both the literature review findings and key informants found that CCI is considered to be in a class of leading governmental organizations, and most of these key informants noted that it is a very small group. The organizations that were frequently mentioned in this leading group included institutes in the Netherlands (Instituut Collectie Nederland, or “ICN16), Belgium (Institut royal du Patrimoine artistique), France (Centre de recherche et de restauration des musées de France), and the United States (Getty Conservation Institute).

CCI is one of the few institutions in the world that is dedicated to the conservation and preservation of heritage collections and artifacts for all museums and archives in the country. In many countries, the leading conservation institute is housed within a national museum with a mandate to primarily service the museum’s collection - not the heritage community at large. For example, while the Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute in the United States conducts research, it serves only the Smithsonian museums. In Denmark, the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts primarily has an educational focus (it grants degrees at the undergraduate and graduate levels) and also carries out research.

In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords conducted a major study of the country’s heritage strategy, which examined the question of whether to establish a national conservation institute.17 The study recognizes that Canada as well as Netherlands have adopted a national conservation centre with considerable success, but that there does not appear to have been enough support within the British Heritage sector to put in place such a model. The study also indicated  that a “distributed” centre might itself bring its own advantages, making it easier for a long list of all interested parties to contribute. The recommendation was not to establish such an organization but to improve the networking among the museum conservation labs and universities.18 The report implies that the reason for the resistance seemed to stem in part from the existing national museums not wanting to lose their conservation expertise. As noted earlier, all of the international key informants commended Canada for implementing a centralized model.

In the United States, the Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) is similar to CCI in that it focuses on contributing to the field of preservation and conservation through research, participation and partnerships in field projects, knowledge dissemination and education. GCI is not a governmental organization (it is funded via the Getty Trust), has much greater resources and has a global mandate.19 GCI does not conduct treatments for other museums (even for the other Getty museums). It has a broad mandate in that it deals with all aspects of art conservation: collections, buildings, sites, movables and immovables. As with CCI, GCI has an internship program that is highly respected.

CCI received high marks from most of the international key informants for its organizational model, due to its emphasis on outreach and on serving the Canadian heritage community. The only strategic issue that surfaced regarding the CCI organizational model is whether CCI should continue to carry out specific treatments on behalf of Canadian museums. The group of international key informants were split on this issue. Some argued that CCI should focus on research and not get involved in treating specific artifacts. They noted that other leading conservation institutes around the world outsource their treatments to private conservators. They suggested that, given the constraints on budgets facing governments everywhere, CCI should consider reallocating the resources currently devoted to treatments to its research and training activities. These activities were viewed as being more cost-effective, i.e., having an impact on the larger heritage community whereas treating an artifact affects only a single institution.

Others strongly disagreed and stated that they were very supportive of the current CCI organizational model. They recommended that treatments should continue. By having both conservators and scientists under one roof, research results can be applied to treatments, and treatment issues can feed back into the research program. In addition, treatments have an important role in CCI’s internship program, i.e., students need to work on restoring objects as part of their training. If CCI were to discontinue treatments, then its internship program would no longer be viable.

Representative of Canadian museums were also mixed in their views on this issue. Some who had direct experience with CCI’s treatment program stated that they very appreciative of the excellent work that was done, yet admit that this work could be carried out elsewhere (albeit at a significant cost). In other words, some viewed the treatments service as  “nice to have”, not a critical service.

3.3 Economy and Efficiency

3.3.1 CCI as an Economical Use of Public Dollars

Limited evidence with respect to this issue.

None of t external key informants were able to comment specifically on the adequacy of CCI’s budget and resources, although some did challenge the allocation of resources between research and treatments as noted above. All of the key informants from the international community were very impressed with the impact that CCIhas had given it relatively small budget.

3.4 Other Issues

3.4.1 Emerging Issues for the Future of CCI

Demand for CCI services is likely to grow over the next few years due to the aging of collections and as new challenges posed from objects made from modern materials and the growing use of digital media emerge.

Some museum directors and leading conservation specialists from the international community expressed concern regarding the declining financial support provided by national governments for conservation. While many governments are promoting the importance of protecting their countries’ cultural heritage, budgets for conservation have experienced either no growth or reductions. For example, ICCROM reported that its budget has been frozen, as contributing countries are holding the line on support to UNESCO (and by extension to ICCROM) due to the heightened global concerns about rising government deficits and debt. Another example is the United States where the budget of the Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute has reportedly been reduced in size in recent years.20

The conservation and preservation community is also dealing with technical issues. New conservation challenges are arising from objects and works of art made from modern materials (such as plastics) and the growing use of electronic media. Museums and archives are struggling to find solutions to the deterioration of digital media materials such as CDs. Museums must be more sustainable and reduce energy costs, while still caring for their collections (storage, display and transportation).
Succession planning across the heritage community was identified by some key informants as an issue. Graduating students are becoming more specialized in particular conservation fields, while museums indicated that they require generalists, i.e., graduates who have knowledge of a broad spectrum of conservation issues. CCI is seen as a key education provider for young conservation professionals and for mid-career professionals.

To gauge the continuing interest of the heritage community in accessing the services provided by CCI, the client survey question asked whether clients expected their use of CCI services to increase, decrease or stay the same over the next three years. While 60% of expert services and training clients indicated their usage would stay the same, 36% stated it would increase, and 4% stated it would decrease. Of the group that expected their usage to increase, the main factor identified was the growth and aging of their collections, followed by a need for training. For non-clients, 53% reported that they would likely use CCI services over the next three years. The main reason given was to participate in CCItraining workshops.

3.4.2 CCI Performance Measurement

CCI is able to track and report on various basic activities and output indicators, but limited information is collected or reported on CCI’s outcomes.

This evaluation issue concerns whether CCI is monitoring its results and reporting this information to Parliament and to Canadians.

Some international institutions were asked about their performance measurement strategies and the nature of performance reporting. The overall view that emerged is that the results of investment in conservation are not well tracked in any country. No one was able to comment on relevant performance indicators for conservation. For example, there seems to be little data available on the state of collections within museums internationally, aside from a heritage health index study carried out in the United States five years ago.

Limited results-based information is collected and analyzed by CCI on an ongoing basis. CCI produces an annual report and provides information to feed into the PCH Departmental Performance Report process. An RMAF was prepared in 2010. As required by Treasury Board, CCI began reporting in 2009-10 on strategic outcomes: the number of heritage collections and objects preserved and the percentage of heritage institutions and workers who reported improved professional knowledge, skills and practices.  CCI has a database system (PIMS) that tracks CCI business activities and outputs that enables CCI to report on basic output indicators such as; the number of expert services transactions provided, the number of research articles produced and published, training courses delivered.

There are few indicators pertaining to the CCI’s longer-term impacts on the heritage community and CCI and the department do not have the resources or the authority to monitor and report on key strategic questions, such as:

  • What percentage of heritage institutions has a preventive conservation strategy?
  • To what extent do heritage institutions systematically assess the risks facing their collections?
  • Do the objects that receive treatments by CCI eventually get put on exhibit and accessed by Canadians?
  • To what extent have heritage institutions implemented CCI guidelines (e.g., for environmental climate controls)?
  • Do heritage institutions have access to the required preservation and conservation skills to adequately preserve their collections?
Answers to these questions would be useful for ongoing performance measurement and would help CCImake ongoing strategic business decisions.

3.4.3 Official Languages Act, Section 41

For the six years covered by the evaluation, only one year of data is available.

The PCH Heritage Group’s commitments under Section 41 of the Official Languages Act are to ensure that strong links are developed and maintained with official language minority communities (OLMCs), and that OLMCs continue to be regular clients and have access to the Heritage Group’s programs and services (including CCI) in the language of their choice. OLMCs are defined as official language minority groups within a broader language community, for example Anglophones in Quebec or Francophones in Winnipeg.

Reports were provided by CCI for the timeframe covered by the evaluation, including official language action plans, yearly reports and draft documents. While examining this material, an attempt was made to verify the figures in the reports and to apply these to the definition of OLMCs. Due to a lack of clear documentation and reporting criteria, it was difficult to discern how the program’s commitments to OLMCs were being measured. There was a clear demonstration of CCI’s commitment to offering bilingual services and publications through the full range of its activities. Documents that were originally produced in only one language have been translated and made available on the website. Training opportunities are offered in both French and English. Efforts have been made within human resources to staff and management positions with bilingual employees, or to offer language training to those wishing to qualify for positions, or simply improve their ability to work in the other official language.

The first year that services to OLMCs were measured is 2008-09. In that year, CCImeasured the number of requests from OLMCs through their e-service as 8% of the total number of requests. A cross reference on OLMCs could be done through the e-service registration (e.g., province of origin cross-referenced with language of choice), and perhaps as well through telephone requests using PIMSas a primary reporting tool.

3.4.4 Gender-Based Analysis

CCI has not yet implemented this policy.

Gender-based analysis (GBA) is an analytical tool that examines the differential impacts of federal government policies, programs and legislation on both women and men. Coinciding with the United Nations’ Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, the federal government committed to implement GBA analysis in its departments and agencies.

The ultimate GBA question is: Do programs, policies and other initiatives intentionally benefit one gender over another, and do their outcomes vary by gender?Gender has not yet been a consideration in the design of CCI activities. While CCI could undertake GBA analysis to report against the policy (it maintains records of participants in all training workshops and also tracks general information requests received by email and telephone); for the most part CCIservices do not target individuals but rather institutions and treatment objects.

4.0 Conclusions

4.1 Relevance

The evaluation concludes that CCI is relevant and consistent with governmental needs and priorities, and is linked to Departmental outcomes. CCI does not duplicate the work of other provincial/territorial government organizations or the private sector.

4.2 Performance

4.2.1 Achievement of Outputs and Outcomes

In terms of producing the expected outputs, CCI’s clients are highly satisfied with all aspects of training and expert services. Opportunities exist for CCI in making all potential clients in Canada aware of its services. A website analysis reveals that the CCI websites does not retain a high percentage of the visitors it attracts.

Overall, CCI is achieving most of the planned outcomes as defined in the CCI logic model.

  • CCI’s research and development efforts received the highest accolades from key informants both in Canada and around the world. One aspect that CCI should work on is to ensure that its solutions are translated into practical guidelines for heritage organizations care of collections strategies.
  • CCI’s learning activities are utilized and have augmented the knowledge of professionals working in Canada’s CCI’s client heritage organizations.
  • Overall, CCI has had a perceived positive impact in terms of preserving heritage collections in Canada.
  • See section 4.3 below

4.2.2 CCI Delivery Strategy

Opportunities exist for improving the CCI service delivery strategy. CCI adds value to the pursuits of several other PCH programs and only few areas for improvement were identified. The main barrier in accessing CCI’s services is lack of awareness among Canadian heritage community. Room for improvement in communications and consultation strategies were identified. Participating in professional workshops is inhibited by their location and budget constraints in museums. CCI fees schedule could be revised for certain type of services.

The evaluation concludes that the current model make sense. Having both conservators and scientists under one roof, makes research results applied to treatments, and treatment issues can feed back into the research program and so on.

4.2.3 Economy and efficiency

While there is limited objective data with respect to economy and efficiency, stakeholders indicate that they believe that CCI offers good value for money. The alternative of devolving responsibility for conservation to the provinces/territories would likely require a much greater investment overall. Information from a capacity assessment would allow CCI to assess whether resources are at an appropriate level to carry out the mandate, and whether resources should be re-allocated internally to ensure they are aligned with client needs.

4.3 Other issues

Demand for CCI services will likely grow over the next few years due to the aging of collections and as new challenges posed from objects made from modern materials and the growing use of digital media emerge.

CCI is able to track and report on various ongoing basic activities and output indicators, with limited information collected or reported on CCI’s longer-term impacts on the heritage community. Both CCI and PCH have limited resources and authority to monitor and report on key strategic questions.

A number of CCI research personnel have retired or are nearing retirement and succession planning is an important aspect in aligned services with the current and future needs of clients.

In terms of fulfilling the PCH Heritage Group’s obligations under Section 41 of the Official Languages Act, for the six years covered by the evaluation, only one year of data is available. In 2008-09, CCImeasured the number of requests from OLMCs through their e-service as 8% of the total number of requests.

5.0 Recommendation

Following evidence presented in this report, it is recommended that:
CCI should develop and implement a strategic business plan to guide its service delivery, and to do so in consultation and communication with heritage institutions and associations in Canada. Important initiatives in the plan should include:

  • Exploring an integrated approach with  PCH Heritage programs to serve mutual clients;
  • Identifying issues and challenges facing heritage institutions including the types of  research, training and knowledge dissemination needed to support institutions;
  • A long-term research plan that is responsive to and aligns with the needs of the Canadian heritage institutions;
  • Adapting and diversifying efforts in training, information dissemination and professional development to respond to the needs of heritage professionals; and

Ensuring continuity of excellence and preparing for tomorrow’s challenges by developing a succession and talent management approach for conservators and conservation scientists. This approach should also take into account the needs for recruiting bilingual experts

6.0 Evaluation recommendation and CCI Management Response and Action Plan.

CCI should develop and implement a strategic business plan to guide its service delivery, and to do so in consultation and communication with heritage institutions and associations in Canada. Important initiatives in the plan should include:

1. Exploring an integrated approach with PCH Heritage programs to serve mutual clients;

Management Response:  Accept. CCI will continue discussions with PCH Heritage programs:   Indemnification, Moveable Cultural Property, Museum Assistance Program and the Cultural Spaces Canada Fund. The objective will be to identify mechanisms to forecast their requirements in advance of each fiscal year and to determine the types of information, training and on-line learning resources that would assist PCH Heritage program officers.  A guideline will record this integrated approach between CCI and PCH Heritage programs.

Implementation Dates:  March 31, 2013

Responsibility Centre: Associate Director General and Director, Conservation and Scientific Services

2. Identifying issues and challenges facing heritage institutions including the types of research, training and knowledge dissemination needed to support institutions

Management Response: Accept.  As part of the development of a 5-year Strategic Plan initiated in 2011-12, CCI will launch a stakeholder engagement process, with meetings and focus groups with its key clients and partners in Canada: CEOs of heritage institutions, and conservators and other heritage professionals. Discussions will also take place with international experts on scientific and technical developments in conservation.  The objective will be to identify the needs of heritage professionals and institutions and how CCI can have the greatest impact on the preservation of significant heritage collections in Canada, given diminishing resources.

Implementation Dates: March 31, 2013

Responsibility Centre: Director General & Chief Operating Officer

3. A long-term research plan that is responsive to and aligns with the needs of the Canadian heritage institutions;

Management Response:  Accept. Once CCI has completed the stakeholder engagement process, it will develop a long-term research plan aimed at finding practical solutions to conservation challenges in Canada. The plan will take into consideration a limited budget for staff and equipment, and include both in-house research and acquisition of research results from external experts. CCI will assess the international environment to identify potential research partners, to ensure it avoids duplicating research of others, and to learn about research results that can be adapted to Canada.

Implementation Dates:  December 31, 2013

Responsibility Centre:  Associate Director General and Director, Ressearch, Conservation and Scientific Services

4. Adapting and diversifying efforts in training, information dissemination and professional development to respond to the needs of heritage professionals; and

Management Response:  Accept. CCI will continue to review all CCI activities directed at delivering information, tools, training and advice to heritage professionals in Canada. Following completion of the stakeholder engagement process, it will develop cost-effective options for maximizing the CCI website, delivering on-line learning, multi-purposing information (external publications, training modules, web content), multi-purposing information and partnering with other organizations. The goal will be a framework to guide decision making and ensure CCI efforts address the priority learning needs of heritage professionals

Implementation Dates:  March 31, 2014

Responsibility Centre: Director, Client Relations and Professional Development

5. Ensuring continuity of excellence and preparing for tomorrow’s challenges by developing a succession and talent management approach for conservators and conservation scientists. This approach should also take into account the needs for recruiting bilingual experts.

Management Response:  Accept.  Beginning in January 2013, CCI will work with PCH HRWM to develop a Succession and Talent Management Plan. CCI will review the current workforce, identify required expertise and skills, and  develop a plan to ensure CCI has a bilingual workforce of  highly skilled conservation scientists and conservators to serve the heritage community in Canada, and of competent and skilled support staff to support business, marketing and client outreach activities and operation of facilities in a cost-efficient and environmentally friendly manner.

Implementation Dates: December 31, 2013

Responsibility Centre:  Director, Corporate Services and Real Property

Appendix A – Evaluation Matrix

Table 3: Trends in Workload by Business Line and Activity

Evaluation Issues and Questions

Measurement Indicators

Data Collection Methods

Relevance

1. Is there a continuing need for the CCI, i.e., does it continue to serve the public interest through the heritage community in Canada?

  • Views of clients and stakeholders on the importance of preservation and conservation of Canada’s heritage.
  • Views of clients and stakeholders on the importance of each CCI service: expert services, training, information dissemination.
  • Ranking of preservation among the major priorities of Canadian heritage institutions.
  • Document and literature review.
  • Key informant interviews.
  • Survey of clients and potential clients.
  • Case studies.

2. To what extent is the program aligned with governmental and departmental priorities, including the Department’s strategic objectives?

  • Evidence of CCI’s objectives being included in relevant policy documents, e.g., PCH RPP, PCH strategic plan, digital economy, TB policies on federal government heritage collections, etc.
  • Document and literature review.
  • Interviews with PCH and CCI management.

3. Is federal government involvement required?

  • Views on whether there are alternatives to CCI, e.g., devolution to provinces.
  • Potential impacts on museums if the CCI were discontinued.
  • Key informant interviews.
  • Survey of clients and potential clients.
  • Case studies.

4. To what extent does CCI duplicate or complement the offerings of other government and private sector organizations?

  • Comparison to services (expert services, training, and information dissemination) offered by other organizations in the public and private sectors.
  • Document & literature review.
  • Key informant interviews.

5. What are the trends in the production of CCI outputs and how are they perceived by the heritage community?

  • Trends in volume of main CCI outputs over time.
  • Views of clients on various aspects of outputs: awareness, importance, usage, etc.
  • File and database review.
  • Key informant interviews.
  • Survey of clients and potential clients.

Performance

6(i)  To what extent has CCI achieved itsimmediate outcome?

a) The Canadian and international heritage community has access to the results of CCI’s research and development activities
  • Outputs summary: e.g., # of research projects; # scientific and technical articles authored by CCI staff and published (national & international)
  • # Citations of CCI publications in conservation journals.
  • Views of conservators and scientific community on awareness, value, relevance, etc. of CCI research publications.
  • Document and literature review.
  • File and database review (e.g., CCI library file of publications).
  • Citation analysis using Google Scholar.
  • Key informant interviews.
  • Case studies

6(ii) To what extent has CCI achieved its intermediate and ultimate outcomes?

  • a) Canadian and international heritage institutions and workers use CCI’s learning opportunities; Heritage institutions and heritage workers have improved their professional knowledge, skills and practices
  • b) CCI’s expert services are used by heritage institutions to preserve their collections; Heritage collections are preserved by heritage institutions for current and future generations.
  • Outputs summary, e.g., # institutions hosting CCI learning programs, # participants in CCI learning programs, # accessing online learning material, # publications mailed/sold.
  • Level of awareness of knowledge dissemination activities
  • Level of satisfaction, usefulness and importance of knowledge dissemination services and products.
  • Impact of knowledge dissemination activities on heritage institutions.
  • Outputs summary, e.g., # of expert services.
  • Level of awareness of expert services.
  • Level of demand for expert services.
  • Level of satisfaction, usefulness and importance of expert services.
  • Impacts of CCI services on preservation practices in heritage organizations.
  • Extent to which collections preserved by CCI are made accessible to Canadians.
  • Document and literature review.
  • File and database review.
  • Key informant interviews.
  • Survey of clients and potential clients.
  • Case studies.

7. Are any improvements required to CCI delivery strategy?

  • Barriers faced by CCI clients and potential clients.
  • Level of support provided to other PCH programs and other government programs.
  • Views on CCI communications products, web services.
  • Trends in website traffic.

 

  • Document and literature review.
  • File and database review (analysis of website traffic using Google Analytics).
  • Key informant interviews.
  • Survey of clients and potential clients.
  • Case studies.

8. How does CCI compare to other models of conservation organizations?

  • Assessment of the pros and cons of the CCI delivery model (i.e., co-location of different experts, equipment labs and three integrated business lines).
  • Document and literature review.
  • Key informant interviews.
  • Survey of Canadian clients and potential clients.

Economy and Efficiency
9. Is CCI an economical use of public dollars?

  • Views of key informants.
  • Comparison with other conservation institutes internationally.
  • Key informant interviews.
  • Survey of clients and potential clients.

Other Evaluation Questions
10. Is CCI well positioned for the future?

  • Views of clients, potential clients, research partners, and other stakeholders.
  • Document and literature review.
  • Key informant interviews.
  • Survey of clients and potential clients.
  • Case studies.

11. Does CCI have appropriate performance measurement?

  • Appropriateness of indicators in CCI PMF.
  • Document review.
  • Key informant interviews.

12. How well does CCI meet the federal government’s commitment under Section 41 of the Official Languages Act to linguistic minority communities in Canada?

  • Extent to which CCI services are accessed by heritage institutions located in official language communities (i.e.; # of French heritage institutions in minority French language communities, # of English heritage institutions in minority English language communities)
  • Document and literature review.
  • Key informant interviews.

13. Has gender-based analysis (GBA) been considered?

  • Extent to which GBA has been incorporated in service delivery.
  • Interviews with CCI management.

Appendix B – PCH Programs Served by CCI

Movable Cultural Property Program (MCPP)

Under this program, the Minister of Canadian Heritage designates institutions that apply for certification and MCPP grants. Applications for designation are submitted to the MCPP, and CCI undertakes an assessment to assess the applicant’s capacity to preserve cultural property and present it to the public. There are two categories of designations. Category A is granted for an indefinite period of time and for general purposes, while Category B relates to specific objects or groups of objects. Category B institutions must reapply for designation each time they wish to purchase a certified object. The MCPP typically grants more than one B designation to an institution that is working towards ultimately achieving Category A status. This process can take many years due to the significant investments that might be required (e.g., new/enhanced HVAC, fire and security systems).

The MCPPprogram has existed for over 30 years and some 300 institutions have obtained Category A status. About 100 of these institutions obtained their certifications in the early years of the program. In recent years there have been only a few Category A applications annually. The volume of Category B applications is somewhat higher, in the range of 15 annually.

Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Program (INDEM)

Under this program, the Government of Canada assumes the financial responsibility for loss or damage of objects in eligible travelling exhibitions. These exhibitions must have a minimum value of $500,000 and can include either domestic or international exhibitions hosted by museums, art galleries, archives and libraries in Canada. The deductible on indemnity coverage ranges from $30,000 for an exhibition with a total market value between $500,000 and $3 million, to $500,000 for one valued between $300 million and $450 million.

Institutions hosting travelling exhibitions must have their facilities approved for security, fire safety and preventive conservation. Site visits and facility reviews are conducted for INDEM by CCI. Once approved, the facilities will remain approved for five years. The application for indemnification is reviewed by an expert panel, including a CCI representative. Thus CCIplays a dual role.

Canada Cultural Spaces Fund and Museums Assistance Program (MAP)

In the past CCI provided facility planning services support to both of these programs. For example, CCI has worked with museums to provide support as part of a feasibility study for a major capital project. This support has since been discontinued (MAP no longer provides funding to museums for the conduct of feasibility studies). CCI does continue to provide facility management support by providing advice to museums on the design of upgrades to existing facilities and to the design of new facilities. This work is mainly in support of the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund. CCI frequently supports applicants to this program by reviewing their facility designs to ensure they meet environmental guidelines.

Appendix C – References

Curator Magazine. The Mindful Museum. Robert R. Janes. July 2010. <http://www.curatorjournal.org/archives/410>

English Heritage. National Heritage Science Strategy. Science and Heritage: Report with Evidence, House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 9th Report of Session 2005-06 <http://nhss.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/science_and__heritage_HL256.pdf?1290107585>

Government of Canada. Auditor General of Canada. Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Chapter 6, Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Federal Government. November 2003. < http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200311_06_e_12929.html>

Government of Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage. Canadian Conservation Institute. Democratization and Decentralization:  A New Policy for Museums. Notes for an address by the Secretary of State, the Honourable Gerard Pelletier, to the Canadian Club of Calgary. March 28, 1972.

Government of Canada. Communications Canada. Canadian Museum Policy. 1990.

Government of Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage. Canadian Conservation Institute. Results-based Management and Accountability Framework Risk-based Audit Framework. July 29, 2010.

Government of Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage. Department of Canadian Heritage Act. <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-17.3/ >

Government of Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage. Evaluation Services, Corporate Review Branch. Summative Evaluation of the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Program. January 25, 2006.
Government of Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage. Evaluation Services, Corporate Review Branch. Summative Evaluation of the Movable Cultural Property Program.January 2010. < http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/em-cr/evaltn/2010/2010-01/2010-01-eng.pdf >

Government of Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage. Museums Act. <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-13.4/index.html>

Government of Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage. Program Activity Architecture. <http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/org/missn/101-eng.cfm>

Government of Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage. 2010-11 Report on Plans and Priorities. <http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/publctn/rpp-10-11/index-eng.cfm>

Government of Canada. Library and Archives Canada. Library and Archives Canada Act. <http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/about-us/012-204-e.html>

Government of Canada. Treasury Board of Canada. Guide to the Management of Movable Heritage Assets. July 15, 2008. < http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=13872&section=text>

Government of Canada. Treasury Board of Canada. Policy Framework for the Management of Assets and Acquired Services. June 26, 2006. < http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12022&section=text>

Heritage Preservation and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s Collections. 2005. <http://www.heritagepreservation.org/hhi/>

United States Congress. Library of Congress. “Summit of Research Scientists in Preservation (SOR)”, July 24-25, 2008.
<http://www.loc.gov/preservation/outreach/symposia/sorssummary.html>

Appendix D – Data Tables

Table 3: Trends in Workload by Business Line and Activity
Table 3: Trends in Workload by Business Line and Activity

Activity

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Expert Services

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of general information requests received

1 601

1 372

993

654

851

414

767

# of conservation examinations at CCI

3

4

5

6

2

5

5

# of conservation examinations at client site

5

13

11

12

4

12

11

# of conservation treatments completed at CCIC

32

26

22

14

42

57

40

# of conservation treatments at client site

1

1

4

4

5

5

0

# of scientific services at CCI: object analysis & examination

88

73

72

77

63

69

75

# of scientific services at CCI: product and material evaluation

28

25

23

18

15

18

7

# of projects completed by Facilities Advisory Service

59

92

110

69

41

41

40

# of archaeology treatments at CCI: excavation

13

5

7

2

9

9

5

# of collection survey/risk assessment surveys

3

5

4

3

2

1

1

Research & Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of active R&D projects

32

9

6

13

9

10

22

# of research publications – CCI internal*

46

43

40

16

48

6

9

# of research publications – external journals*

24

19

33

32

9

14

13

Professional Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of workshops delivered

33

33

32

41

30

24

40

*Counts for the number of publications are for calendar years (i.e. 2003, 2004, etc.) as the month of publication was sometimes not available.

Source: All data extracted from PIMS except for the # of research publications which was provided by the CCI library.

CCI offers a range of services. Were you aware you could…”(Clients/Non-Clients: Q.4a-k, % Saying “Yes”)

CCI
Table 4: Awareness ofServices

Services

EST(n=188)

GIR(n=226)

Non-Clients (n=169)

Contact CCI by telephone or email to ask a question about conservation or preservation

95 %

89 %

67 %

Purchase CCI publications and technical information from the CCI bookstore, to be sent to you in hard copy (for example, CCI Notes, books, technical bulletins, charts)

90 %

81 %

64 %

Apply to CCI for conservation treatment of an artifact or work of art

90 %

76 %

60 %

Apply to CCI for scientific examination or analysis of artifacts or works of art (including samples)

90 %

72 %

49 %

Have online access to free electronic reference material from CCI’s website (for example, CCI Notes, conservation resources)

86 %

80 %

64 %

Participate in a CCI professional development or training session/workshop

82 %

71 %

59 %

Request CCI to undertake a technical assessment of your collections or facility (including site visits)

81 %

55 %

39 %

Request that CCI come to your site to analyze, examine or treat an artifact or collection

80 %

56 %

39 %

Attend symposiums or conferences sponsored by CCI

78 %

72 %

56 %

Borrow specialized equipment from CCI (e.g., environmental monitoring equipment)

60 %

38 %

30 %

Submit a proposal for a mid-career professional development learning project or sponsor a student or recent graduate for a CCI internship

47 %

34 %

28 %

“How important is each of the following CCI services to your organization?”
(Clients: Q.5 a-k, Rating of 4 or 5 on a 1-5 Scale:1 is Not at all Relevant and 5 is Very Relevant)

Table 5: Importance of CCI Services

Issues

EST(n=188)

GIR(n=226)

Contact a CCI preservation and conservation expert by telephone or email who can respond to technical questions

85 %

80 %

Online access to free electronic reference material from website

82 %

84 %

Professional development or training sessions/workshops

75 %

66 %

Analysis/examination of artifacts/works of art

72 %

54 %

Sale of CCI publications and technical information via CCI website

68 %

57 %

Conservation treatment of an artifact/work of art

65 %

50 %

Symposium or conference sponsored by CCI

64 %

46 %

Visit by CCI to your site to analyze, examine or treat an artifact or collection

63 %

47 %

Technical assessment of your collections/facility (including assessments at your site)

56 %

44 %

CCI’s mid-career professional development learning project or internship program for professional development

47 %

38 %

Specialized equipment loan

46 %

41 %

“Over the past five years, which of the following CCI services have you personally used?”
(Clients: Q.6 a-e, % yes)   (Non-Clients: Q.5 a-f, % yes)

Table 6: Use of CCI Services

Services

EST(n=188)

GIR(n=226)

Non-clients (n = 169)

Contacted CCI by telephone or email to ask a question about conservation of preservation

85 %

82 %

31 %

CCI provided an expert service to your organization

77 %

30 %

NA

Visited the CCI website

NA

NA

68 %

Used CCI communications tools, e.g., e-news or newsletters

NA

NA

38 %

Purchased or downloaded CCI publications from CCI website

71 %

67 %

44 %

Participated in a CCI professional development or training session/workshop

58 %

42 %

23 %

“Thinking about your experience, to what extent would you agree or disagree with the following statements?”(Clients: Q.7, Rating on 1-5 Scale – 1 is Strongly Disagree and 5 is Strongly Agree)

Table 7: Ratings of CCI Performance on Project

Aspects

EST
(n=188)

CCI staff were available when needed

94 %

The project was carried out in a timely manner

85 %

CCI staff were experts on the subject matter

81 %

You increased your professional knowledge, skills and practices as a result of this project

81 %

You are better able to preserve your collections as a result of this project

76 %

Table 8: Most-Often Cited CCI Works

No. of Citations

Title

Source

Year

24

The characterization of metal soaps

Studies in Conservation

2003

15

Corrosion of copper and lead by formaldehyde, formic acid and acetic acid vapours

Studies in Conservation

2003

12

Laser yellowing: myth or reality?

Journal of Cultural Heritage

2003

12

The relative stabilities of optical disc formats

Restaurator

2005

7

Comparison of the fading and surface deterioration of red lake pigments in six paintings by Vincent van Gogh with artificially aged paint reconstructions

ICOM Committee for Conservation 14th triennial meeting

2005

Table 9: Main reasons for not accessing CCI services (open-ended question)

Tableau 9 : Principales raisons pour ne pas utiliser les services de l'ICC (question ouverte)

Barriers

EST(n=188)

 

GIR(n=226)

 

Non-Clients (n=169)

Lack of knowledge/awareness of the programs and services that CCI offers

44 %

33 %

40 %

Size of artifact/museum too small for CCI services

0 %

0 %

17 %

Funding/budget/cost of services

30 %

28 %

17 %

Location/transport/accessibility

7 %

12 %

8 %

Utilized another service provider

0 %

0 %

6 %

Communications barriers/bilingual communications/timeliness of response to requests

10 %

8 %

1 %

Availability of CCI/treatment times

5 %

3 %

8 %

Not aware of any barriers

0 %

2 %

0 %

Other

21 %

18 %

5 %

Nothing

2 %

3 %

0 %

Don’t know/no answer

14 %

20 %

25 %

“Have you ever encountered any of the following barriers in attempting to access CCI services?”
(Clients: Q.15 a-h)    (Non-Clients: Q.7a-h)

Table 10: Main Barriers to Accessing CCI Services (close-ended question)

Barriers

EST(n=188)

 

GIR(n=226)

 

Non-Clients (n=169)

CCI training & professional development workshops too far away to attend

40 %

38 %

34 %

Did not know that CCI offered the service or help you were looking for

22 %

26 %

25 %

CCI training and professional development workshops too expensive to attend

19 %

24 %

22 %

Request for service declined due to lack of capacity to do the work in the required timeframe

19 %

11 %

7 %

Could not afford the fee for the service needed

17 %

19 %

18 %

Could not afford to transport artifact to CCI

13 %

16 %

5 %

Request for service declined due to lack of expertise to perform work required

6 %

5 %

1 %

Request for service declined due to you/your organization not being eligible for service

3 %

7 %

2 %

 

1 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970), http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

2  CCI Mission Statement is available at: http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/index-eng.aspx

3 Source: CCI RMAF/RBAF, July 2010.

4 Includes an amount of $2,529,697 that was allocated as a supplementary appropriation to cover CCI’s costs of assuming custodianship from PWGSC on April 1, 2008 of three special purpose facilities.

5 Effective April 1, 2008, the Exhibit Transportation Service was discontinued; its annual revenues were approximately $1,000,000.

6 When available, data from fiscal year 2009-2010 was provided.

7Democratization and Decentralization: A New Policy for Museums”, notes for an address by the Secretary of State, the Honorable Gérard Pelletier, to the Canadian Club of Calgary, Tuesday, March 28, 1972, p. 5.

8 “Summit of Research Scientists (SORS) in Preservation”, July 24-25, 2008, Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/preservation/outreach/symposia/sorssummary.html

9 ) The EST category consists of clients who could have received several types of services: conservation and treatment; preventive conservation; scientific services; professional development; and, “other service” (e.g., equipment loan). The GIR category stands for clients who requested general information.

14 The data include both the English and French website versions.

15 Each time a user visits a web page, it is called a page view. Since a page view is recorded each time a web page is loaded, a single user may count many page views on one visit.

16 The ICN has recently merged with another institute to become the Cultural Heritage Agency.

17 Science and Heritage: Report with Evidence, House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 9th Report of Session 2005-06; available at: http://nhss.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/science_and__heritage_HL256.pdf?1290107585

18 Science and Heritage: Report with Evidence, p. 67.

19 The Getty Trust reported that in 2010 the GCI had program expenses of $26,951K, plus it had a portion of $10,458K in general and administrative expenses which covers all four Trust programs (i.e., GCI, Museum, Research Institute and Foundation). See: http://www.getty.edu/about/governance/trustreport/2010/financial.html.

20 Science and Heritage: Report with Evidence, p. 285.

Note:

To access the PDF (Portable Document Format) version you must have a PDF reader installed. If you do not already have such a reader, there are numerous PDF readers available for free download or for purchase on the Internet:

To take advantage of PDF features:

  • Save the PDF form on your computer;
  • Open the file with your PDF reader;
  • Complete the form; and
  • Save it again once filled.

It is not recommended to open a PDF form within your browser. Some browsers use plugins by default to view the PDF which may not work properly with fillable PDF forms.

Please note that all saveable and fillable PDF forms posted on this Web site are created using Adobe® authoring tools. It is therefore recommended that you use the Adobe Reader®, version 9 or higher, for best results.