The 2024 Annual National Snapshot of United States Museums survey, conducted by AAM and Wilkening Consulting, was fielded in August 2024. It tracked key metrics the Alliance began to collect in June 2020 to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on museums and, more recently, gauging new opportunities and challenges for the sector.

This is the sixth “snapshot” report of the museum field that the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) has produced since 2020. In that time, the purpose of these reports has shifted from monitoring the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on museums to helping us track recovery from those impacts, and more recently to gauging new opportunities and challenges for our sector. The data collected for these reports has become critical to national advocacy efforts, especially when advocating for funding for US museums.

Over 400 museum directors responded to the survey on their organizations’ behalf, representing a broad cross-section of the field in geography, size, and discipline. This year, thanks to more robust participation, the data has been disaggregated by geographic region, museum discipline, operating expenses, and governance type.

Read the full report.

Key Findings

This year’s report offers a window into the state of the museum field in 2024, with information on attendance, employment, finances, disruptions, DEI backlash, cybersecurity, and exhibitions. The data shows positive trends in employment and individual giving, but illuminates challenges in recruitment and growing concern around shifts in philanthropy. Four years after the pandemic closed museums across the United States, the field’s recovery is trending upwards, though it is still incomplete.

In the face of these and other challenges, it continues to be critical to advocate for funding and policies that support the museum sector. During the height of the pandemic, AAM’s advocacy work helped secure billions of dollars of federal relief funding. As we recover from this global catastrophe, our collective efforts will be required to help our sector thrive for years to come.

The findings show encouraging improvement over the statistics reported in the 2023 Snapshot report. Still, recovery remains uneven, and many museums have not yet returned to their pre-pandemic attendance or financial health:

• Four years after the pandemic’s start, only half of museums (51 percent) have recovered to 100 percent or more of their pre-pandemic attendance levels. This is an improvement from 2023 when only one-third of museums had fully recovered to their pre-pandemic attendance levels.

• Museums support a broad range of American jobs in their communities, from security and administrative positions to educators and exhibition designers. 89% of museums have maintained consistent staff sizes or grown their staff over the past year.

• Financial recovery from the damage of the pandemic has been inconsistent, with 19% of museums seeing decreases in net operating performance as compared to 2019, 57% experiencing increases, and 24% seeing no change.

• Looking forward, 46% of respondents project their bottom line will increase this year compared to 2023, 17% expect decreases in their bottom line, and 37% expect no change.

• While charitable donations are up, 61% of museums report that the number of individual donors to the museum has stayed the same or decreased in the last five years. This indicates a sustainability challenge that comports with the broader nonprofit sector and demonstrates the need to provide the charitable deduction for the vast majority of taxpayers who do not itemize.

• When asked what they anticipate to be the most significant disruptions to their business strategies in 2025, almost half of respondents identified shifts in philanthropy (48%) and financial/market instability (46%), followed by a reduction or elimination of government funding (33%).

This research makes clear that disruptions to philanthropy, market instability, and threats of reduction or elimination in government funding have the potential to radically impact an already fragile sector. While the museum field’s recovery from the pandemic is improving, significant support is still needed to secure this vital sector.

Read the full report.

In addition to her role as a national museum data source, Susie also works with museums across the US to help them better survey, study, and understand their current and future audiences. I’ve long wanted to do a Q&A with Susie, and as the importance of audience research continues to percolate, I thought now was the time to do so! The following are excerpts from our conversation on her work and background and insights into the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers and its themes for 2025, among other emerging trends.

Adam Rozan: Hi, Susie. Can you introduce yourself?

Susie Wilkening: Hi, Adam. I’m Susie Wilkening, the principal and founder of Wilkening Consulting. We’re an audience research firm that primarily serves the museum field. A large part of our work looks at the role of museums in American society, which is a ginormous, big question.

AR: Before you were Susie Wilkening, the go-to voice for research on US museums, were you also a former museum employee?  

SW: Yes, I’ve also worked and interned at many museums. My first museum volunteer gig was at the Fernbank Museum of Natural History in Atlanta, and later, I volunteered at the Atlanta History Center. After college, I got a master’s, and my first full-time position was as the director of the Saratoga County Historical Society in Ballston Spa, New York. It was a teeny-tiny historical society. I was the only full-time staff member with one part-time educator. I honestly did a bit of everything!

AR: I’m sure that was a fantastic experience and a hard one as well. How did this experience motivate you to think about research and the more significant, abstract questions facing the field?

SW: I spent five years there, and that’s where I started thinking about the audience. I had these questions: Why does this place matter? Why do people care about and give money to this place, especially when there are other things like food banks that feel more deserving?

AR: These are good questions, important ones. And how did you pursue those questions?

SW: I started looking for answers but didn’t find any. I eventually moved to Boston and started a short-term project that turned into working for ten years with Reach Advisors. That’s where I learned how to ask the right questions and do this work.

AR: I want to know more about your research practice, but first, let’s establish some basics. What is audience research?

SW: Audience research is where we go out to the public—whoever we’re defining as the public in this case—and ask them what they think about whatever it is we have questions about.

AR: The public is…?

SW: The public could mean the broader population, frequent museum visitors, sporadic visitors, or even people who don’t visit museums. We might be asking them why they visit museums, what they think museums’ roles are in their communities, or doing political polling on topics like legislation supporting museums.

AR: What does a museum do with this information once they gather it?

SW: Ideally, they take this information and use it to inform their future programs, exhibitions, and initiatives. It helps them plan strategically, informing decisions about what kinds of exhibitions to bring in, what programs might appeal to specific audiences, and what longer-term goals they want to accomplish. They can also use evidence with donors or funders to show their impact or justify funding requests.

AR: Does a museum have to do its own research, or can it use external sources like census data or research from its municipality, chamber of commerce, or area colleges, for example?

SW: Many great external resources exist, like governmental sources, nonprofits, and academic institutions. For example, I’m excited that the Bureau of Labor Statistics just released its 2023 data for the Consumer Expenditure Survey. It tracks how much people spend on things like museum admissions, and that’s valuable for museums to understand.

External sources like the BLS and the US Census are great for providing information and context, but they are not museum-specific. For that, museums must do the work in-house, hire researchers, or participate in larger research projects (like the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers).

AR: Why ask the public when we can talk or survey our museum staff on what we should do?

SW: What the staff thinks, their input is essential. However, it likely will differ from what the public thinks. Overall, museum professionals are outliers. Museum staff are generally curious, lifelong learners who view learning as fun, but that’s not necessarily the case for the broader public. Our view of what makes an engaging museum experience differs significantly from what the public finds engaging.

AR: I wonder if you can share a few tips on how your clients—museums—are using and sharing data in real ways, like bringing research findings to meetings and decision-makers.

SW: It depends on the questions being asked. Some are straightforward, like asking the public about upcoming exhibitions or what’s keeping them from visiting more frequently. Museums take that input and adapt accordingly. Other questions are more complex, like those around inclusive history, climate change, or civics—topics where society doesn’t have a clear consensus. For these, we help museums understand their audience’s values and attitudes so they can present content thoughtfully, anticipating pushback and being prepared for it.

AR: What’s the biggest pushback you see from organizations when embracing data?

SW: One significant challenge is data overload. There’s so much data out there, and it can be hard to make sense of it. Museums often know their frequent visitors well but struggle to reach casual or non-visitors. It’s not impossible, but it requires effort and prioritizing broader outreach to understand the full context of their audience.

AR: Other big misconceptions?

SW: One of the biggest misconceptions is that frequent visitors represent the entire audience, the broader public. While frequent visitors provide valuable insight, they’re often just a fraction of the population, and their preferences might not reflect those of casual or non-visitors. That’s why it’s so essential to make an effort to reach beyond your core audience.

AR: For a museum with limited resources, how would you advise conducting audience research without spending a fortune?

SW: There are many ways to collect cost-effective data that take minimal time. The Annual Survey of Museum-Goers is a great way to gather insights into your audiences without designing or conducting the research yourself. You can even participate in the survey every few years or work with a consultant every few years. I also encourage museums to have casual conversations with visitors, which can be very informative.

AR: What strategy can museum directors or staff use to learn about visitors?

SW: I know a museum director who uses this great tactic. When he’s returning from lunch or a meeting and parking in the museum lot, he’ll approach visitors leaving the museum and say, “I only have an hour. Is it worth it?” They don’t know he’s the museum director, and it’s an informal way for him to get candid feedback on their experience, and it costs him nothing except a few minutes.

AR: That’s great. With so much available data, how do you break it down and make it useful for museums?

SW: We’ve found that infographic Data Stories work well. Every fall, we release one Data Story a week, which distills a piece of the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers into a quick, visually appealing infographic. It’s a digestible way for museums to get critical insights without being overwhelmed by the data. These stories help inform museum staff, trustees, and volunteers in an accessible way. Our graphic designer, Erika Kaszczyszyn, based in Boise, does excellent work making the data accessible and attractive and is also responsible for the many avatars that dot the work.

AR: The Annual Survey of Museum-Goers is a paid survey that benefits the participating organizations and the general field. How does that work?

SW: Every winter, in partnership with the American Alliance of Museums, we develop and field the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers. In return for a small fee, museums can field a high-quality survey to their audiences and receive reports of their results, including comparisons to the overall sample and to narrower peer groups. Because hundreds of museums participate, we typically develop dozens of peer group data cuts so we can provide comparison data for the major types of museums, such as art, history, zoos, etc., but also narrower peer groups, such as military museums or science centers in communities without children’s museums or vice versa … because that matters to science center audiences! We also provide comparison data by geographic area when possible.

The base fee is $1,250; it is a low-cost way of getting high-quality data and comparisons. We have found that staff, boards, and funders find the results extremely helpful as they make decisions.

AR: What kinds of questions do you ask in the Annual Survey?

SW: The annual survey always has benchmarking questions, like how often people visit museums, what they think the museum is doing well, and what they think could improve. It also includes a battery of demographic questions. We track these results over time, so museums that field the Annual Survey annually receive historical data, tracking their change over time.

About a third of the survey changes yearly, with different themes reflecting trends and pressures affecting museums, such as inclusion, climate change, or civic engagement.

AR: Can you give an example of one of those key insights from the Annual Survey?

SW: One of the survey’s most significant impacts is helping museum staff consider how they present inclusive content. Inclusive history can be a cultural flashpoint; museums must be prepared for the conversations (and emotions) they might spark. We’ve provided tools that allow museums to assess their audience’s attitudes toward inclusion, which helps them plan content that’s both productive and thoughtful.

AR: What’s a trend you’re seeing right now in the data that might surprise people?

SW: One interesting trend from the 2024 survey is that inclusive parents and guardians of school-age children are finding their voice to defend inclusive history in the classroom. It’s not something we’re seeing publicly yet. Still, it’s clear from the survey that these parents are starting to find the language and community they need to advocate for inclusive education. It’ll be interesting to see how that evolves.

AR: What is the theme for the 2025 survey?

SW: For 2025, we’re going deeper into repeat visitation because that’s still a challenge from the pandemic. We’re also looking into social connection, like how families and friends use museums as spaces to bond. Before the pandemic, we saw parents saying they couldn’t get family time at home anymore, and they were looking to museums as a place to focus on quality time.

AR: That’s interesting. Are there any other themes you’re excited about?

SW: We’re also following up on some earlier research on museums and community. There’s this idea within the field that museums are these community spaces, but the public doesn’t always see them that way. So we’re flipping the question around and asking, “What do you think are the responsibilities a museum has to its community?” It’ll give us better insight into how museums can engage more meaningfully with their audiences.

AR: That’s a great question. If I understand correctly, you’re also looking into trust and credibility.

SW: Yes, especially in this era of AI and disinformation. We’re asking the public what museums can do to support their trust in the presented information. Trust is such a big issue, especially as museums strive to be seen as credible sources of information.

AR: And will you be touching on the upcoming 250th anniversary of the United States?

SW: We plan on publishing multiple Data Stories that will help museums consider how to commemorate the 250^th.

AR: Has registration already opened, and when does it close?

SW: Yes! Registration opened on October 1, and museums are expected to field their surveys anytime between early January and March 8. The fee is only $1,250 if they enroll by February 28 and launch their surveys by March 8.

AR: Next, you’ll speak at the CoMuseum conference in Athens and Thessaloniki. Congratulations. Can you tell me about that?

SW: Yes, I’ll be heading to Greece, and I’m very excited and honored to be speaking and participating in this year’s CoMuseum programming! I’ll be talking about research and the many ways that we collect, use, and share audience research to help organizations make meaningful decisions in the work they are doing better to serve their current and future audiences and communities. I’ll share the best practices we have developed in the US, including how museums here are using the data, and I hope to learn how European museums might be fielding research as well.

Among the findings of the report, which surveyed museum leaders and board members about the effectiveness of their boards, several stood out to us about the financial needs of museums:

• Approximately three-quarters of museums (74%) have investable assets of less than ten million dollars in value, which includes museums without investable assets.
• Half of museums use their investable assets for general operating funds (51%), and almost half for growing the endowment (46%).
• The museum field continues to face financial strain, with half of museums indicating at least one sign of financial distress.
• One-quarter of museums have dipped into their reserves or endowment to cover operating expenses.

Museum leaders and board members agree that boards can widely improve their performance regarding fundraising and outreach.

Given these financial realities facing the museum and arts community, Northern Trust would like to share some best practices we’ve learned for boards and staff looking to grow investable pools through fundraising:

Step 1: Cultivate Board Leadership

For fundraising goals to succeed, your organization’s board of directors should be committed to their success. Board members can demonstrate commitment through leading by example, including activities like:

• Making a personal monetary contribution
• Attending fundraising events
• Providing names for prospect letters/calls
• Asking or joining others in directly asking for money
• Meeting with potential donors face-to-face
• Including your organization in their personal planned giving

Step 2: Prepare Planned Giving and Fundraising Staff

Ideally, your development staff is led by a senior development officer responsible for all fundraising—annual giving, major gifts, planned giving, and fundraising events—with additional staff dedicated to each strategy. However, many nonprofit organizations don’t have the funding to support full-time development professionals focused on each fundraising strategy. As a result, any and all fundraising staff must be able to discuss your donors’ financial objectives, but also clearly articulate your organization’s mission and programs, and identify how the gift is aligned with a donor’s specific values and philanthropic objectives.1 Fundraising staff should have a proactive mindset and the ability to develop meaningful personal relationships with donors.

Step 3: Build Strong Relationships with Senior Management and Staff

Cultivate a strong team culture within the development staff. Developing a good working relationship between the development and finance staff ensures administrative best practices are maintained and that the gift process flows smoothly. Creating a standing committee composed of board and staff, empowered to focus on development and advancement, is an effective way to enhance communication and coordination between the board and staff.2

Step 4: Establish Policies and Procedures

Your development and finance staff should establish written policies and guidelines governing your fundraising program (and have them reviewed by counsel). Below are some of the policies to consider.

• Gift Acceptance Policy: Creating your gift acceptance policy should be a collaborative process involving the development staff, finance staff, senior leadership, the board, and in-house legal counsel.
• Investment Policy: A properly drafted investment policy demonstrates the nonprofit’s commitment to following fiduciary responsibility in managing charitable gifts and supporting donors’ wishes in perpetuity.
• Gift Technique Policy: The gift technique policy relates to the mechanism used to make a gift (Charitable Gift Annuities is an example of a gifting technique).
• Windfall Policy: A windfall gift is an unrestricted gift that is significantly larger than average gifts and unexpected. Over time, almost every nonprofit organization will receive one or more windfall gifts. Yet, too many organizations are unprepared when they receive a gift that exceeds not only their budgeted fundraising goal, but perhaps their budgeted annual expenses. By creating a windfall policy, you can establish a longer-term vision for such a gift rather than reacting to only the immediate needs of the nonprofit.

Step 5: Articulate the Mission and Vision

It will be very difficult to solicit gifts if your development staff cannot articulate your organization’s mission and vision. Past accomplishments must be highlighted, but a current statement supported by financial facts will provide a clear picture of your organization’s future. A well-developed presentation for the donor should answer the questions “why us,” “why now” and “what for.”3 A donor must believe in the organization, and in their ability to help it.

Step 6: Bolster Donor Relations and Prospecting

Your development team must learn to cultivate charitable prospects and educate them on the options available. Once donors are engaged, focus must be placed on staying continuously in touch with them.

The cultivation process begins with developing a relationship between the donor and development officer. The officer needs to understand what would encourage a donor or prospect to give, such as a donor’s philanthropic priorities or their estate and retirement planning objectives. Active listening will keep the conversation going and help uncover the donor’s intent for giving and leaving a legacy.4 The planned giving officer must be able to identify the donor’s financial and philanthropic objectives, and show the impact of each planned gift. The development staff can emphasize the importance of endowment funds and present specific giving opportunities. The focus should be that planned gifts are critical to meeting the future needs of the organization.5

Communicating regularly with donors is vital. Neglected donors normally do not complain; they just disappear. By not staying in touch, other organizations are able to cultivate them. Donors need to feel special, so remember them on special occasions such as birthdays or holidays like Thanksgiving. One easy way to recognize donors is to create a society that acknowledges a donor’s annual or cumulative level of giving.

Step 7: Identify Marketing Plans

Marketing plans should identify the donor market and map out the content that will promote your organization’s mission and engage future donors. The bottom line: Focus on the donors and the programs they want to support, not the giving vehicles.

Step 8: Network with Peers and Advisors

Allied professionals, such as financial planners, CPAs, trust officers, and attorneys, are valuable resources—not only for their expertise, but also their connectivity to individuals who have the potential to make meaningful gifts. Leveraging these connections can be a win-win for all involved. Professional affiliations with local planned giving councils, as well as national councils such as the American Council on Gift Annuities and the National Association of Charitable Gift Planners, are meaningful resources for professionals who have a role in designing and implementing donors’ philanthropic plans.

To wrap up, fundamental to Northern Trust’s community involvement strategy is the belief that cultural institutions play a key role in the development of vibrant and healthy communities. These institutions bring learning to the public, preserving and commemorating the events, places, and cultures that created, and continue to shape, the nation. They are passionate about their missions and enjoy making the world a better place. I hope you found this information useful. For more information, please visit: northerntrust.com/FIA

1. Dean Regenovich, “Establishing a Planned Giving Program,” Lilly School of Philanthropy at Indiana University.
2. Jeff Lydenberg, “Creating Strong Board Leadership for Planned Giving,” PGCalc, April 2012.
3. Regenovich.
4. Michelle L. Glennon and Scott Lumpkin, “Propel Campaign Success with Planned Giving,”
5. Sherry Clodman, “10 Steps to Developing a Planned Giving Program,” PLANNED GIVING: Making it Happen, Volume 1, 2006.

Knowing the essential role board members play in the vitality of our field, the first iteration of this report measured the performance of museum boards on a field-wide scale, taking a close look at diversity, culture, and finances. The 2024 report highlights the critical strides museum boards have taken with diversity and inclusion in recent years, as well as the many challenges and opportunities to further equity in the highest ranks of museum leadership and improve overall efficacy.

Key findings:

• Boards have made meaningful progress in diversifying their ranks, and still have significant room for improvement. In 2017, nearly half (46%) of museum directors reported that their boards were entirely white (i.e., no people of color). With this iteration of the survey, 27% of directors report their boards as entirely white.
• Boards and directors widely agree that diversity and inclusion is important to board performance. This sentiment has grown since the 2017 study. Directors’ assessments of board impact on organization performance corresponds with an increase in diversity across many demographic characteristics.
• Most boards have engaged in conversations about diversity and inclusion, but many museums have not followed up on these discussions with concrete actions to promote diversity. Only 39% of boards have modified recruitment efforts to reach potential members from diverse backgrounds, and 33% of boards have modified organizational policies and procedures to be more inclusive and equitable.
• There is relative parity in representation between men and women on boards, and a majority of directors are women. However, women are much more likely to direct smaller museums than men – about three-quarters of museums with revenues under $1 million are led by women directors.
• Boards widely can improve their performance regarding fundraising, outreach, advocacy, and government relations. Average director ‘grades’ for their board’s performance in these areas range from C to D+, and board members agree that these are the greatest areas in need of improvement.
• The museum field continues to face financial strain in the aftermath of the pandemic, with half of museums indicating at least one sign of financial distress. In the six months prior to completing the survey, half of museums either lost revenue or had to make difficult decisions on personnel, programs, or other expenditures (or all of the above). One-quarter of museums have dipped into their reserves or endowment to cover operating expenses.

Download the full report below.

We are grateful to Northern Trust for their support of this research.

Introduction

In 2023, the American Alliance of Museums, Fiducient Advisors, and The Morton Arboretum conducted a national investment benchmarking study aimed at developing actionable, authoritative field insights into investment management, objectives, and performance for museums, zoos, gardens, and performing arts organizations across the country.

In the rapidly evolving financial landscape of cultural institutions where the intersection of mission-driven goals and fiscal sustainability is crucial, the inaugural edition of Cultural Institutions’ Investment Policies, Practices, and Performance offers cultural leaders with valuable insights tailored to their unique needs, filling a gap left by previous investment benchmarks designed for larger entities or higher education organizations.

Join us for a webinar on Wednesday, February 14, 2024 to discuss the report and gain:

• Current insights into investment practices among cultural institutions
• Strategies for more effective financial stewardship in uncertain times
• Discussion and guidance on best practices in investment management today and beyond

Register for the webinar

Executive Summary

A Challenging and Evolving Landscape

The past few years have tested cultural institutions, with the COVID-19 crisis and subsequent economic downturn in 2022 significantly impacting financial stability. This environment underscores the importance of well-managed investment portfolios in securing long-term fiscal strength. The scrutiny on these assets has reached unprecedented levels, necessitating access to tools and resources for responsible stewardship and informed decision-making.

Survey Overview

The 2023 study boasts 226 respondents from diverse cultural institutions, including Botanical Gardens/Arboreta, Art Museums, History Museums, Symphony Orchestras, Zoos and more. The participants covered a spectrum of investment pool sizes, from those under $10 million to larger institutions with over $100 million in assets.

Key Findings

The study reveals a commitment to building and growing investment pools to advance missions. Emphasis on best practices, risk management, and cost considerations were identified as top priorities, with a noticeably increased interest in socially conscious investing. Decision-making authority predominantly lies within Finance or Investment Committees, almost always with professional advisory involvement.

Investment Strategies and Performance

Organization size plays a pivotal role in shaping investment strategies, with smaller pools favoring domestic equities and bonds, while larger entities allocate greater amounts to alternative investments like private equity and hedge funds. Despite the challenges of 2022, diversified portfolios (including stronger positions in equities) generally yielded favorable returns over three, five, and ten-year periods.

Setting Objectives and Future Priorities

Survey respondents indicated various changes in investment practices over the past five years, ranging from shifts in asset allocations to embracing Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. Improving investment returns remains the top priority for many, with a growing focus on socially conscious investing.

Governance and Oversight

The report highlights the prevalent role of Finance or Investment Committees in decision-making, often with professional advisory support. The engagement of outside investment advisors underscores the importance of effective stewardship. The study also explores spending policies, revealing a diverse range and the impact of portfolio size on considerations like diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) criteria.

Concluding Thoughts

This benchmarking initiative offers a nuanced perspective on cultural institutions’ investment landscape, emphasizing the focus on growth, best practices, and external advisory support. As investment pools expand, the report suggests an increased emphasis on prudent oversight and management, with leaders turning to data and professionals for effective asset management.

This inaugural edition serves as a valuable resource, arming cultural leaders with knowledge to help navigate the complexities of their investment programs and impact the overall success of their organizations.

In conclusion, this study not only sheds light on the current state of investment practices among cultural institutions but also serves as a guiding beacon for future decision-making. The insights provided in the report are a testament to the collaborative effort of Fiducient Advisors, the American Alliance of Museums, and The Morton Arboretum in addressing the unique financial challenges faced by cultural leaders in today’s dynamic environment. As the cultural sector continues to navigate financial complexities, this study stands as a vital resource, offering a roadmap for effective financial stewardship and long-term success for cultural institutions.

Download the report

Source: 2022-2023 National Investment Benchmarking Study Survey. Data as of April 11, 2023.

Produced in Partnership with

Jump to the text version

“Inflation problems, violence and bad weather make visiting museums out of the city of residence more difficult. Costs are greater and safety is not ensured.”

We all know that the COVID-19 pandemic devastated museum attendance. Many museums have not yet recovered to pre-pandemic attendance levels.

But there are other external pressures that can also have a significant effect on visitation. Let’s explore what they are, and who they affect the most.

In the 2023 Annual Survey of Museum Goers, as well as in a broader population sample of U.S. adults, we asked respondents to share with us what factors have negatively affected leisure time activities and travel plans in the past few years. They could choose all that apply.

• Extreme weather (including heat, storms, wildfires/smoke/flooding, etc.)
  • 23 percent of frequent museum-goers
  • 31 percent of U.S. adults
• COVID-19 or other public health concerns
  • 77 percent of frequent museum-goers
  • 48 percent of U.S. adults
• Violence/crime concerns
  • 21 percent of frequent museum-goers
  • 27 percent of U.S. adults
• Inflation
  • 44 percent of frequent museum-goers
  • 54 percent of U.S. adults
• None of these
  • 8 percent of frequent museum-goers
  • 18 percent of U.S. adults

For this Data Story, we are setting aside the COVID-19/public health response, and are focusing on the other negative factors we assessed.

Extreme Weather

No question, the climate is changing and weather is becoming more extreme. Much of the continental U.S. has suffered high heat and smoky conditions this past summer. Severe storms and flooding are increasing.

On a day-to-day basis, this affects the choices we make, such as whether outdoor or indoor activities are more suitable or even what vacation destinations we choose.

Nearly a quarter of frequent museum-goers have connected the dots that increasingly extreme weather is negatively affecting their leisure time; a slightly higher percentage of U.S. adults from the broader population agree.

But who were these respondents? They had two main identifying traits:

1. Political values. They were about 20% more likely to identify as “liberal” than the overall sample (and about 40% less likely to identify as “conservative”).
2. Geography. They were much more likely to be from the West Coast or Colorado (wildfires/ smoke) or from Buffalo (December 2022 snowstorm). Interestingly, hurricane-ravaged Floridians were significantly LESS likely to choose extreme weather.

Keep in mind, our surveys were in the field in the winter of 2023. Given what the weather had been like the previous year, it isn’t a surprise that the geographical spikes occurred as severe weather was more localized. Also, summer storms and heat were a distant memory.

Would 2024 show an increase, given that severe weather was more widespread in the summer of 2023? Or will memories fade again? We don’t know.

At this point, however, we are seeing this as an initial baseline for future comparison. As the climate becomes ever more erratic and extreme, we expect this percentage to increase as more of us experience challenging environmental conditions.

Violence and Crime

“Street crime and violence in Chicago makes us less likely to go there.”

For about one in five museum-goers, violence and crime is a concern, and the response among the broader population of U.S. adults was slightly higher.

For these respondents, if a museum is located in a place they perceive as high-risk, they are less likely to visit. And indeed, over 40% of the crime-averse reported they are visiting museums less now than they were before the pandemic. While perceptions about violence and crime are not solely responsible for this pull-back, it could be a contributing factor.

Who is most likely to be concerned about violence and crime? There were three main traits:

1. Political values. This was the most significant trait; they were about 40% more likely to be conservative (and about 20% less likely to be liberal).
2. Geography. Overall, this played a smaller role than political values, but some urban museums (such as in Chicago or New Orleans) seem to be more challenged by this issue than other (especially rural) museums.
3. Race and LGBTQ+ identity. While this also played a smaller role, we don’t want to dismiss these concerns. In particular, Asian or Asian American and members of the LGBTQ+ community were slightly more likely to express concerns about violence and crime than other respondents.

Inflation

Inflation, however, was a more widespread concern than weather or crime. In fact, more U.S. adults from the broader population said inflation had negatively affected their leisure time than the COVID-19 pandemic.

Who is most concerned about inflation?

Young adults. No question. They were 50% more likely to cite inflation as a challenge than other respondents.

In fact, adults 70 and older were the least likely to say inflation was a concern, somewhat puncturing the myth of the fixed-income senior (after all, Social Security sees yearly cost-of-living adjustments).

So, if a museum wants to attract audiences that are watching their household budgets, what are the best tactics? To find out, we asked inflation-concerned respondents how their museum-going has been affected by inflation.

First, let’s see what frequent museum-goers said. While a third said they were visiting museums less often, only 3% said they had stopped visiting museums entirely.

About half of respondents said coupons, discount passes, and free/reduced admission days were their favorite tactics to save money.

There were also shifting tactics based on life stage:

• Young adults (under 40) without children. These respondents were the most likely to say they were looking for coupons, discount passes, or free/reduced admission days. They were the least likely to look to membership to save money.
• Families with young children. Because these visitors are much more likely to be repeat visitors to specific museums, they are also more likely to see membership as an inflation-busting tactic.
• And for older adults…well, even when they are concerned about inflation, they are less likely to be cutting back on museums. They are more likely to say they are cutting back on overnight trips, and instead visiting local museums and taking day-trips.

Similarly, casual and sporadic museum-goers from the broader population of U.S. adults were also looking for coupons, discount passes, and free/reduced admission days. But nearly half of these inflation-concerned respondents said they were visiting museums less often, and nearly a quarter said they had stopped visiting museums entirely.

As we look into 2024 and beyond, these external pressures on museum attendance will likely continue. Museums will need to adapt to these constraints.

Some thoughts include:

• Can museums, especially those that are currently reliant on tourists, do more to attract local audiences?
• Can museums be safe havens to escape our turbulent world? If so, what does this look like? And how do we balance it with presenting more challenging content that we all need to learn from as well?
• How can we more effectively position ourselves as high-value destinations that stay a priority even when budgets are tight?

“I think post-Covid has made me more appreciative of the beautiful things in life, such as art, music, nature, etc., so it makes sense that I would enjoy the museum more often post-Covid. I am doing less of going out on the town, but spending more time at home and seeing people less than pre-Covid, so I find myself making plans less often, but somehow have managed to attend the museum more often than before the pandemic.”

Jump to the text version

There have been a lot of changes in how people live their lives over the past five years, largely (but not exclusively) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While some of these shifts may benefit museums, others mean museums have more competition and barriers, resulting in greater pressure on attendance.

To find out how these shifts are affecting museum-goers, we asked them to consider how their visitation to museums has changed in the past few years, including:

• The activities they are doing more of, and why
• The activities they are not doing as much of (or at all), and why
• Other concerns they have about visiting museums

For the most part, respondents were not that forthcoming about what kinds of activities they are doing more of. There was really only one thing that stood out: spending more time outside. It may have started as a result of public health precautions they were taking during the pandemic, but for these individuals, going outside has become an enjoyable habit.

“I am spending much more time in public parks, forest preserves, public events when there are fewer other visitors.”

When it comes to the things respondents are not doing as much of…well, it’s like we didn’t even ask the question.

That is, hardly anyone answered it. Why not? We don’t know. Maybe because it was the middle question and got skipped over. Maybe it’s because people don’t want to admit they have pulled back on some things. But the most likely answer is that most people don’t really think their own habits have changed that much/they have gone back to what they think of as “normal,” so they had no answer here.

So what did respondents want to talk about instead? Their concerns.

Nearly half of respondents (42%) shared concerns that are resulting in fewer museum visits. These concerns largely fell into four equal categories:

• Cost of visiting (or, perhaps, doing anything discretionary)
  • “Too poor to do anything fun now :(“
• Crowds
  • “Crowded spaces still make us uncomfortable, so we try to wait until the buzz of an exhibit has died down a bit before seeing it.”
• Personal health concerns
  • “For folks who are immunocompromised, the pandemic is still a reality.”
• And everything else.
  • There were a lot of other concerns, but they were a mishmash of things and nothing else stood out as significant.

Fortunately, museums can address most of these concerns through things like coupons and discounts, sharing when “less busy” times are, and even having special hours for those who have health concerns.

Interestingly, respondents also wanted to give museums some advice. 21% wrote in something we considered “advisory,” and their advice covered a wide variety of things. But only one theme stood out as significant:

They want things to be happening at museums.

“Alternative hours of operation such as evening events, ‘date nights,’ happy hour. After COVID, I want to engage more with people with the backdrop of a zoo, museum, etc. Also, anything new for kids is helpful such as experientials, learning opportunities. These places need to be opened up in a way that people feel they can just sit and be somewhere other than the four walls of their own home!”

While this advice of “more” may feel like we need to double-down and do more exhibitions and programs, that’s not necessarily a sustainable choice for many museums. (We’ll be looking at this tension in the 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers).

What’s heartening about all of these comments is that they virtually all come from a place of care. Museum-goers care about museums and want them to have a more vibrant and impactful future for all of us.

“It’s critical for a museum to support robust curatorial missions and risk takers. I hope that the museum can find the courage to make gains and take risks and bring work that isn’t already canonized elsewhere. Otherwise, the museum will lose the next generation of philanthropists. We cannot be places where everyone is over 70 and remembers the good ol’ days. We need to create the good days for today’s aware and informed citizenry.”

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:

• 2023 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 107,187; 228 museums participating
• 2023 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,002
• 2017 – 2022 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual and non-visitors to museums). See the Purpose and Methodology (Update) Data Story from September 12, 2023 for more information on methodology.

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories.

Jump to the text version

When we look at visitation gaps among the broader population, there are two big things to consider: Incidence and Frequency.

Incidence is a binary yes/no question: has someone been to a museum (of any type) in the past year? We measure incidence by doing broader population sampling among US adults.

Frequency is different, and looks at how often someone has been to museums in a defined time period.

Typically, when we ask about museum visitation in the broader population, we ask if respondents have visited in the past year. In 2021 and 2022, we switched to two years, and in 2022, 37% of respondents said they had visited a museum. In 2023, however, we went back to one year, and the percentage fell to 28%…smack in the middle of pre-pandemic norms of 25 – 31%.

When we field the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, the respondents are overwhelmingly frequent museum-goers. Our simplified definition of these individuals is that they are engaged enough with one (or more) museums to be on a communications list (email, social media, etc.) and then complete a survey on a museum’s behalf. We do assess their frequency, and virtually all respondents are what we would define as frequent museum-goers.

When we plot out certain demographic characteristics, we find that who visits museums frequently (and the gaps we discover) can be very different than who visits museums at all (the incidence). That is, the demographic profile of frequent museum-goers is a bit different than the profile of all museum-goers, especially casual and sporadic visitors.

Understanding these gaps (and where gaps don’t exist) is important, because it gives us a much more nuanced understanding of who museums are reaching, and how deeply.

There are three demographic factors that we want to examine more completely.

Educational Attainment

Among frequent museum-goers, 82% of respondents have a college degree; that’s 2.6x the rate of college degrees among US adults (32%).

From that, it would be easy to conclude that museum-goers are much more likely to have college degrees than the public. But that’s not totally true. A more accurate statement would be that frequent museum-goers are much more likely to have a college degree…a frequency gap, not an incidence gap.

When we look at incidence, we do find that people with a college degree are more likely to have been to a museum in the past year than other US adults, but those with some post-secondary education are right on their heels. The true incidence gap is with those with a high school diploma/GED or less.

Race and Ethnicity

Among frequent museum-goers, 84% say that they (or a member of their household) identify as white. In contrast, 59% of people living in the United States identify as white (not Hispanic or Latine).

Again, it would be easy to make a big assumption here. But the accurate conclusion from this is that yes, frequent museum-goers are significantly more likely to identify as white than the broader population.

Incidence tells a very different story. In 2023, for the second year in a row, white people were no more likely to have visited a museum than people of color. White people and African Americans are similarly likely to have been to a museum in the past year, Hispanics or Latines are slightly more likely, and Asian Americans are the most likely.

Surprised? Last year we were too! We had been seeing the incidence gap closing over the past few years, but we didn’t necessarily think that 2022 would be the year it would disappear (or that Asians and Asian Americans would be the most likely to visit). The fact that the numbers held for a second year gives us further confidence that this is a trend, not a fluke.

A victory lap? Not so fast! Incidence gaps do still persist by museum type and for specific museums.

By museum types, historic sites in particular have persistently high incidence and frequency gaps, with audiences still, overall, skewing disproportionately white.

Additionally, this still varies widely for individual museums. Your museum may still be facing an incidence gap, and only research specific to your museum can help you understand where your gaps are (or are not).

The frequency gap we see by race and ethnicity is incredibly persistent, but we have some good news here as well. Since 2017, it has been decreasing, albeit slowly.

Age and Life Stage

Some museum types deliberately focus on families with minor children (children’s museums and, to a lesser extent, zoos, aquaria, and science centers), and these museums don’t tend to see frequency gaps (or incidence gaps) by age that are of significant concern…though they often see frequency gaps with young adults without children.

But it is a different story for art museums, history organizations, and botanical gardens. It is incredibly common for the majority of their frequent museum-goers to be over the age of 60.

This, understandably, can cause a great deal of concern for people working in these types of museums. And that’s why looking at incidence is so important.

It turns out, however, adults over 60 are the least likely segment of the population to visit museums (a pattern we have seen pretty consistently over the past several years). We actually underserve them.

Additionally, those casual and sporadic young adult visitors visit most museum types, lagging behind the overall average only for children’s museums and zoos/aquaria (largely because, well, they don’t have children; this shifts when some of them start families, of course!).

Jump to the text version

It’s been 3.5 years since the COVID-19 pandemic devastated museum visitation. For some museums, visitation is back to normal. For others, well, not yet, as AAM’s spring 2023 “National Snapshot of United States Museums” survey indicates:

• 2/3 of U.S. museums have not yet returned to pre-pandemic attendance.
• Museums are experiencing an average of 71% of pre-pandemic attendance.

The good news is that incidence of museum-going seems to be back to pre-pandemic norms. Prior to the pandemic, we typically saw somewhere between 25% and 31% of U.S. adults reporting they had been to a museum in the past year.

In 2023, 28% of U.S. adults reported having been to a museum in the past year. That fits right in with those pre-pandemic norms.

So if incidence isn’t the primary issue, what’s responsible for ongoing attendance challenges? When we examine results from the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers over the past few years, shifts in frequency of attendance appear to be the culprit. Let’s take a look.

First, let’s time-travel back to winter of 2020. That year’s Annual Survey was in the field, and we began pulling the data for analysis in the middle of March … pretty much the exact moment everything began shutting down and the pandemic began. That was bizarrely fortuitous in terms of data collection, because it meant we had established a clean baseline for documenting pre-pandemic norms.

Our 2021 Annual Survey thus captured the first year of the pandemic (mid-March 2020 to mid-March 2021), 2022 captured year two, and now our 2023 survey has captured year three.

The Annual Survey asks frequent museum-goers two questions about museum visitation.

1. Self-reported repeat visitation rates at “their” museum.

The first question of the Annual Survey asks respondents to report their previous year in person visitation of the museum that invited them to take the survey.

When we aggregate responses by year, we can clearly see the devastating drop in attendance from pre-pandemic highs (March 2020) to pandemic lows (March 2021). 2022 saw some substantial recovery, but that slowed in 2023 … and there is still a significant gap in frequency from pre-pandemic norms. Repeat visitation simply isn’t where it was four years ago.

2. How many different museums they visit.

We also track how many different museums a respondent reports visiting in the course of the previous year. Once again, we find that visitation at museums in general plummeted from 2020 to 2021. There was substantial recovery in 2022, and this continued in 2023, putting this breadth of museum-going close to pre-pandemic norms … though we are not quite there yet.

Additionally, we are estimating that 4% of pre-pandemic frequent visitors are still sidelining themselves, and have not yet returned to museums at all.

While the results to this question are generally more promising, as we do seem to be approaching pre-pandemic norms, the reduction in frequency of visitation from our most avid visitors can really add up. Thus, it’s not that surprising that many museums have not yet reached 100% visitation recovery.

The good news overall is that yes, people are returning to museums, and things are getting better for most museums. But the return continues to be bumpy, with some people remaining “COVID cautious” and others returning in full force.

Individual museums also vary widely, with some still reporting low levels of visitation, while others may be exceeding pre-pandemic visitation.

As we head into 2024, new external forces are arising that may also affect leisure time and museum visitation. Inflation and severe weather are factors for many, which may help some museums attract more local visitors … or reduce visitation from other potential visitors. The 2023 Annual Survey checks in on these trends, and we’ll be sharing those results later in the fall.

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:

• 2023 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 107,187; 228 museums participating
• 2023 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,002
• 2017 – 2022 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers
• 2023 National Snapshot of United States Museums (American Alliance of Museums)

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual and non-visitors to museums). See the Purpose and Methodology (Update) Data Story from September 12, 2023 for more information on methodology.

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories.

– Megan Lantz, Director of Social Impact at AAM

Does your leadership talk about the social impact your museum has on its community? Is there data or evidence to support those claims? How do you document and demonstrate that value for your board, elected officials, and community? Do you need social impact data to receive funding, or to report after receiving funding?

These are questions we started asking nearly a decade ago, and after much research and collaboration, we are proud to announce the creation of a toolkit to help museums answer them.

In 2020, the Utah Division of Arts & Museums and Thanksgiving Point were awarded a National Leadership Grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services to support Measurement of Museum Social Impact (MOMSI).

Working with thirty-eight museums across the United States, MOMSI generated data about participating museums’ social impact on individuals in their communities as demonstrated by four outcomes: continued learning and engagement, increased health and well-being, valuing diverse communities, and strengthened relationships. Results show that these museums had a positive impact on visitors in all four areas.

The process that participating museums undertook, and the lessons learned from their experiences, have recently been published in the Museum Social Impact Toolkit, a highly anticipated resource that will allow museums to measure their own social impact, independently. The toolkit is free for any museum wishing to implement this work. Here’s what can you expect from the toolkit:

• Tips, resources, and a validated social impact survey
• Information to support collecting and analyzing your museum’s social impact data
• Insights from the thirty-eight participating museums, representing institutions of various sizes, scopes, and regions
• Social impact data you can share with your local, state, and national government representatives

Measuring museum social impact is a long journey, and it requires time and commitment from numerous employees and volunteers, often from different departments. We have designed the toolkit to set you up for success through summaries of tasks, checklists, best practices, language and materials to use, and tips for success for each step in the process.

What is social impact?

While there are multiple ways to define social impact, our chosen definition is the effect of an activity on the social fabric of a community and the well-being of the individuals and families who live there. Compared to the norm among museums and their funding sources of basing impact on output questions (i.e., “How many people were reached?”) or economic outcomes (Berger, Penna, and Goldberg 2010), measuring social impact forces a deeper, more meaningful conversation. Social impact addresses how museums may strengthen a community through education and lifelong learning, helping visitors understand multiple perspectives, and emphasizing the importance of personal and community well-being.

Social impact is becoming ubiquitous with museum practice. In 2022, the American Alliance of Museums announced Social and Community Impact as a main pillar in its strategic framework. And yet, museums have struggled to fully understand and articulate their impact due to a lack of research and consensus in the field on best practices for measuring social impact. Some museums have worked internally and individually to measure their social impact, but most museums do not have the capacity for such work.

Why use the museum social impact toolkit?

Take it from your peers! When the museum community was asked why they would use the social impact toolkit, here’s what they had to say:

“For generating institutional buy-in!”

“Benchmarking”

“Buy in from elected officials”

“To respond to funders”

“Common language across the museum to describe what museums can do”

“Find university partners”

Here are some of the reasons we think the toolkit will help your museum:

1. The social impact survey has been tested and validated in the field.

Through multiple iterations and psychometric analysis, we have produced a social impact survey specifically for museums that consistently measures what it is intended to measure, allowing all museums to use the same instrument to measure their own social impact.

2. Museums can develop and use shared language around “museum social impact,” as agreed upon and written in this toolkit.

In his 2016 Museum article “Museums Need Shared Definitions,” John Jacobsen argues that “the field needs to adopt a shared framework and language because we still lack an accepted way to measure our impact.” This is a bigger issue among the entire nonprofit sector. In their 2010 article “The Battle for the Soul of the Nonprofit Sector,” Ken Berger, Robert M. Penna, and Steven H. Goldberg describe “the two most important questions ever to face the sector” as “how to define the value of all the work we are doing, and how to measure that value.”

3. Using the toolkit could help museums identify new partners and potentially reach new audiences.

At this pivotal time in history, advocating for museums is more important than ever. To do that successfully, though, museums need to be able to demonstrate the impact they have on visitors and local communities. But while we can readily present data on educational and economic impact, social impact has historically been harder to provide evidence for. When museums can articulate their social impact, they can improve internal practices and leverage funding to continue this kind of socially strengthening work.

As this work continues to progress, we look forward to seeing how social impact data can help museums improve their practices and ground themselves more fully in their communities.