Accreditation Update:
Fast Track Accreditation Proposals

In the months since the 1997 AGM, the Accreditation Working Group has met on seven occasions, held one public consultation and discussed its work with Sections and the Council on numerous occasions. The membership of the WG was chosen from UKIC members to reflect the wide variety of conservation; practical/administration, independent/public, practitioner/commissioner, accrediting/non-accrediting bodies. The remit from the AGM to Council was to develop accreditation from the principles outlined by the previous WG. It was pointed out then that, in constructing a workable scheme, some modifications might be necessary. So it proved in practice and some reworking of the detail of implementation was carried forward into the following proposals. At all times, it was borne in mind that accreditation is not designed to benefit individual conservators, but is to improve the protection of the public as clients and, more widely, the heritage. There must be no compromise on standards in assessing conservators for accreditation.

The business plans for accreditation have been prepared to ensure that UKIC does not make a significant profit during the introduction of the accreditation scheme. This keeps the initial costs for candidates to the minimum. However, the future funding of the accredited conservator status, such as insurance for UKIC's legal costs, the (hopefully rare) disciplinary proceedings, and also the long term costs for managing continuous professional development (CPD) assessment have not been identified. In the short term, UKIC has sufficient income to fund the necessary activities. When the proposals and costs of the full accreditation system are clearer, UKIC will reassess its various income raising options. The funds could be raised in a number of ways, such as: increasing subscriptions all round; increasing subscription to the accredited members; fee for CPD; providing reduced rate insurance cover for accredited conservators. Insurance costs and benefits are being investigated and will be announced at the AGM.

Council wishes to thank the 1997/8 Accreditation Working Group members, who are standing down at the 1998 AGM: C.V.Horie (Chairman), J.Henderson (Secretary), C.Brown, C.Calnan, M.Ciantar, D.Hill, S.Howell.

Council is presenting the following proposals for consideration by the membership.

These proposals were accepted at the UKIC AGM on July 29th 1998!

PROPOSAL 1: To proceed (at this stage) with only one level of accreditation.

This single level will provide comparability with the professional levels in other walks of life, such as engineering or architecture. An accredited conservator will be a fully competent professional who has the maturity to make decisions that will have serious consequences if anything goes wrong. Implementing a single level has the added advantage of costing less to introduce than two levels (see reproduced below an extract from Consultation Document UKIC Accreditation Working Group December 1997 Revised Categories of UKIC Professional Membership'). However, very few people approve of the acronym, PAUKIC, for an accredited conservator, as was proposed at the last AGM. As the first accredited conservators will be announced at the 1999 AGM, the Council wishes to receive suggestions of alternative names for this membership grade which can be introduced then.

PROPOSAL 2: To implement a fast track procedure during 1999 as proposed in the attached AGM papers.

Consultations changed the attitude of the WG towards the use of accelerated accreditation for experienced conservators. The fast track process should provide sufficient funds to underwrite the costs of the full accreditation scheme. It is anticipated that professional indemnity insurance and similar services will be provided by UKIC to accredited conservators at a preferential rate.

PROPOSAL 3: To finalise the full accreditation scheme by mid-1999 and implement it in 2000 in collaboration with other conservation bodies.

Unfortunately, pressure of work reduced the progress that could be made on the full accreditation scheme. It was clear for financial reasons and to improve acceptability, that the scheme should be carried out in collaboration with other conservation bodies. UKIC was approached by the Society of Archivists and the Institute of Paper Conservation for discussions, out of which arose a Joint Accreditation Group (JAG). These groups combined represent a majority of conservators active in conservation bodies (ca 1200 of the 1900 represented by the groups in the Conservation Forum); separated, each would be unrepresentative. The Conservation Forum has been kept informed of developments. An application for partnership funding from the Musems & Galleries Commission is being made and its success will be known by the time of the AGM.

These proposals were accepted at the UKIC AGM on July 29th 1998!

UKIC Fast Track Accreditation

UKIC Council recommendation

Introduction

How can UKIC generate a list of conservators who can be recommended? It would be possible for UKIC to do a blanket 'professional accreditation' of all conservators who, say, have been practising for 15 years. But UKIC would not then have any quality control on those it claimed were highly skilled professionals. At the other extreme, UKIC could insist that existing conservators should work through the standard route to accreditation. But years would pass before a representative 'body of professionals' was established and many well regarded conservators would have neither the time nor the inclination to submit themselves to the protracted process, so bringing the system into disrepute.

This fast track process will enable existing conservators to demonstrate their professionalism by the testimony of their peers, to be assessed by their peers in an efficient and speedy process.

The benefits of using a fast track method are:

• Existing good practice by conservators is publicly recognised;

• The conservation profession demonstrates, in practice, that it is capable of defining and implementing standards of professionalism;

• The List of accredited conservators demonstrates by their numbers, by those included, and by their quality, that conservation can indeed be described as a profession;

• Clients have confidence in choosing from the List, conservators who have demonstrated their competence;

• The accredited conservators will be used as the benchmark and resource for the standard accreditation process;

• The financial and human resources generated by the fast track method will support the development and implementation of the standard accreditation process.

Principles of the procedure

• The primary aim is for the public benefit, not the conservator. Those accredited will have widely acknowledged experience and expertise.

• Standards will be at least as high as those required for the normal method of accreditation. UKIC must be confident that no candidate accredited by this route will bring the wider accreditation process into disrepute.

• Candidates will have at least 10 years (full time equivalent) conservation experience. This is a pragmatic decision for the fast track process only, based on the practice of comparable professions.

• Assessment will be by peer review. The onus is on the candidate to demonstrate professional competence.

• Candidates will be sponsored by at least two peers of acknowledged reputation.

• The fast track application and assessment process will be tightly time limited, to the calendar year 1999.

• Candidates must be Voting Members of UKIC.

Timetable

Procedure (Supporting documents can be seen by clicking on the relevant link)

1. The application will be made on a standard form, Application Form (Applicant's CV). Attached to this will be a self assessment of competence, Self Assessment Questionnaire. The competencies are defined by UKIC drawing on the MTI Occupational Standards and other documents where necessary. The self-assessment will be agreed and signed by two sponsors. The application fee will cover UKIC's costs only. The applicant is responsible for preparing the application.

2. Sponsors will be conservators of established expertise who need not be members of UKIC. Each sponsor will also submit a Sponsor's CV. UKIC will reserve the right to ask for additional sponsors.

3. At least one sponsor must be outside the applicant's immediate work activity, e.g. no contractual relationship. A conservator cannot act as a sponsor to a person who has sponsored his own application for accreditation.

4. Applications will be considered in confidence by an Accreditation Committee appointed by Council, incorporating section nominees and other expertise. The recommendations from the Committee for approval of applications will be passed to Council for ratification. The names of the accredited conservators and their sponsors will be published by UKIC. Accredited conservators will be so identified in the UKIC membership list.

5. The Committee will be assisted in its work by two Case Officers' who will, between them, examine each application. The Case Officer will be empowered to investigate and refer applications back to the applicant, for instance if the application is incomplete. A report will be made to the Accreditation Committee. It will be the duty of the Case Officers to ensure that a consistent minimum standard of professionalism has been demonstrated by each candidate recommended for accreditation. In the event of a borderline decision or a recommendation for rejection, the second Case Officer will prepare a report on the candidate and both reports will be presented to the Committee for consideration. It is expected that the Case Officers will be part-time consultants appointed for the task. The Case Officers will be funded by the application fee.

6. The Committee will consider a conservator only once in the fast track process. The unsuccessful applicant will be advised of the grounds of the decision and may apply by the standard assessment route in due course. Half the application fee will be credited against the fee for subsequent application by the standard route.

7. All those accredited will be subject to reassessment of their CPD at intervals, perhaps at a rate of 10% per annum. Those approved by the fast track will be re-examined in a process starting after 5 years, integrated with the needs of those accredited by the standard route.

8. After the first round, the Committee will identify disciplines inadequately represented in the accreditation process and, if appropriate, will encourage individuals who may be eligible to apply.

9. Accreditation lapses with the resignation of the conservator from UKIC.

10. The application fee for the fast track assessment will be £200 in the first round and £225 in the second, somewhat cheaper than the cost of the standard route, see the Business Plan.

11. UKIC will take care in the operation of the assessment that reasonable checking procedures are in place and may be liable for any negligence in carrying out the procedures. UKIC will therefore take out insurance to cover any liability and legal costs.

12. In the case of a complaint about the professional activity of an accredited conservator, the established UKIC disciplinary procedures will be followed, Article 8.1 & 8.2, Regulation 1.2.2 & 1.3.2.