# Brief: Museums and libraries

Prepared from Grant Precedent, 2026-10-23; data as of precedent 2026-10-21, measures 2026-10-22.

## Measures funders require

### Institute of Museum and Library Services, Inspire: Grants for Small Museums

#### Effectiveness

- Requirement: defined by the applicant
- Definition: The extent to which activities contribute to achieving the intended results of the Inspire program
- Instrument: Performance Measurement Plan (recommended limit 2 pages)
- Target rule: No target rule stated
- Source: IMLS Inspire: Grants for Small Museums, PDF p. 18 (printed 'Performance Measures 16'); Performance Measurement Plan PDF p. 35 (printed 33), https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/0446a0bd-e2df-4d94-9def-53833babebb0/attachments/bc245744-af46-4b30-af35-ecd628aa7b6b/fy27-oms-igsm-NOFO.pdf

#### Efficiency

- Requirement: defined by the applicant
- Definition: How well resources (e.g., funds, expertise, time) are used while generating maximum value for the primary audience
- Instrument: Performance Measurement Plan (recommended limit 2 pages)
- Target rule: No target rule stated
- Source: IMLS Inspire: Grants for Small Museums, PDF p. 18 (printed 'Performance Measures 16'); Performance Measurement Plan PDF p. 35 (printed 33), https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/0446a0bd-e2df-4d94-9def-53833babebb0/attachments/bc245744-af46-4b30-af35-ecd628aa7b6b/fy27-oms-igsm-NOFO.pdf

#### Quality

- Requirement: defined by the applicant
- Definition: How well the activities meet the requirements and expectations of the primary audience (This is different from evaluating the performance of your project)
- Instrument: Performance Measurement Plan (recommended limit 2 pages)
- Target rule: No target rule stated
- Source: IMLS Inspire: Grants for Small Museums, PDF p. 18 (printed 'Performance Measures 16'); Performance Measurement Plan PDF p. 35 (printed 33), https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/0446a0bd-e2df-4d94-9def-53833babebb0/attachments/bc245744-af46-4b30-af35-ecd628aa7b6b/fy27-oms-igsm-NOFO.pdf

#### Timeliness

- Requirement: defined by the applicant
- Definition: The extent to which each task/activity is completed within the timeframe proposed
- Instrument: Performance Measurement Plan (recommended limit 2 pages)
- Target rule: No target rule stated
- Source: IMLS Inspire: Grants for Small Museums, PDF p. 18 (printed 'Performance Measures 16'); Performance Measurement Plan PDF p. 35 (printed 33), https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/0446a0bd-e2df-4d94-9def-53833babebb0/attachments/bc245744-af46-4b30-af35-ecd628aa7b6b/fy27-oms-igsm-NOFO.pdf

## What you can collect, and how

Tier 1 is collected today from your own records. Tier 2 needs one free instrument. Tier 3 needs a partner under a data agreement. A measure that matches no rule has no tier.

### Tier not determined

#### Effectiveness

#### Efficiency

#### Quality

#### Timeliness

## What grantees achieved

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum reported 273 results against targets over 14 periods; the median result was 94% of target (middle half 81% to 100%), and 37% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

- Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (FY2006): Average monthly full-time equivalents; promised 130.0, actual 103.0 (79% of target). Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=541&FiscalYear=2006&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=5&UniqueProgramID=5415

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Presidential Library Research and Collections reported 69 results against targets over 8 periods; the median result was 93% of target (middle half 82% to 111%), and 36% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

- Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum (FY2020): Number of visitors to the Library (a); promised 43,000, actual 15,967 (37% of target); unit: count. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=506&FiscalYear=2020&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=2&UniqueProgramID=5062

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Historical Library reported 49 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 93% of target (middle half 84% to 101%), and 35% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

- Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (FY2004): Percent of conservation treatment on books completed in 30 days; promised 95.00%, actual 71.50% (75% of target); unit: %. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=541&FiscalYear=2004&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=5411

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Operating the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum Complex reported 26 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 72% of target (middle half 47% to 103%), and 35% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

- Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum (FY2021): Total expenditures - all sources (in thousands); promised $ 7,540.8, actual $ 0.0 (0% of target); unit: $. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=506&FiscalYear=2021&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=5061

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Smithsonian Institution Operations and Maintenance reported 16 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 99% to 100%), and 69% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

- Smithsonian Institution Operations and Maintenance (2006): Score, based on an Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers benchmark standard for facilities, of the level of maintenance provided to SI facilities (on a scale of 1 for best to 5 for worst).; promised 3, actual 3 (100% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10009067.2007.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Smithsonian Institution Facilities Capital reported 13 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 100% to 103%), and 85% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

- Smithsonian Institution Facilities Capital (2005): Progress in improving the average Facility Condition Index of Smithsonian Institution (SI) facilities; promised 38%, actual 38% (100% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10004430.2005.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: National Archives and Records Administration: Electronic Records Services reported 10 results against targets over 7 periods; the median result was 136% of target (middle half 120% to 165%), and 90% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

- National Archives and Records Administration: Electronic Records Services (2001): Percent of electronic records held by NARA stabilized in preparation for transfer to ERA.; promised 40%, actual 97% (242% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002428.2004.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: National Archives and Records Administration: Records Services Program reported 10 results against targets over 5 periods; the median result was 99% of target (middle half 93% to 107%), and 50% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

- National Archives and Records Administration: Records Services Program (2004): Percent of traditional NARA archival holdings described in an on-line catalog. Traditional holdings are books, papers, maps, photographs, motion pictures, sound and video recordings and other material not stored electronically.; promised 30%, actual 33% (110% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10001167.2003.html

## Target-setting language with precedent

Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule.

No target-setting clause from Institute of Museum and Library Services in the library yet; the items below are the nearest precedent.

- CDC DP-23-0002 applicant FAQ (2023): Quote: “you may enter a '0' and then TBD for targets in the work plan” — https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/healthyschools/nofo/nofo.htm
- EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.110(c) (2024): Paraphrase: An applicant that lacks a baseline explains how and when it will establish one. — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-08-29/html/2024-17239.htm
- USDA FAS Food for Progress FY2025, applicant Q&A, questions 72-73 (2025): Paraphrase: Yearly targets may be written as percentage-point change when the baseline value is not known. — https://apply07.grants.gov/grantsws/rest/opportunity/att/download/348844
- Senior Community Service Employment Program, 20 CFR 641.720(b),(d) (current text): Paraphrase: Targets for program years 3 and 4 are negotiated before the third program year and adjusted by DOL's model. — https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/chapter-V/part-641/subpart-G/section-641.720
- AmeriCorps performance measures, 45 CFR 2522.640(a)(1) (current text): Quote: “Adjust your performance measure or target based on experience” — https://www.govinfo.gov/link/cfr/45/2522?link-type=pdf&sectionnum=630&year=mostrecent
- SAMHSA CMHS Infrastructure, Prevention and Promotion Overview Guide, v2.0, p. 9 (2022): Quote: “grantees can revise annual goals in consultation with their GPO during the first quarter of each fiscal year” — https://spars.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/OE%20SPARS%20CMHS%20IPP%20Overview%20Guide.pdf
- Promise Neighborhoods guidance document, third edition (2025): Quote: “target setting will be an iterative process throughout implementation as more performance data is available” — https://promiseneighborhoods.ed.gov/pdf/Promise_Neighborhoods_Guidance_Document_508c.pdf
- HRSA-26-057 ECCS SEED applicant FAQs, p. 6 (2026): Paraphrase: Baseline estimates are confirmed or updated within six months of award. — https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/45e009d7-46ed-482f-8aa7-02812f207f71/attachments/54ad1b19-2651-43c7-8ade-76203c7770d7/HRSA-26-057_ECCS_SEED_Applicant_FAQs.pdf
- DOL Training and Employment Guidance Letter 10-21 (2022): Quote: “if a grantee wishes to negotiate their performance targets” — https://www.dol.gov/node/165731
- NIH PAR-25-383, Section VI (2025): Paraphrase: Future-year milestones may be renegotiated based on prior-year data. — https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-25-383.html
- Arizona Rural Health Transformation, approved program narrative, pp. 20-22 (2026): Paraphrase: A baseline assessment is done after award, and targets are set from it. — https://www.azahcccs.gov/AHCCCS/Downloads/Initiatives/RHTP/Arizona%27sApprovedProgramNarrative.pdf
- HRSA Health Center Program (H80) patient targets, Primary Health Care Digest (2022): Quote: “confirm or request adjustment to their patient target by the deadline in their email” — https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USHHSHRSA/bulletins/3120df3

## What reviewers penalize

These ten weaknesses recur in 17 published reviewer critiques, mostly U.S. Department of Education and NIH. The count is the number of critiques that name it, not a rate, and a reviewer comment is a judgment.

- [ ] Attrition or missing-data handling left unresolved (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “the applicant did not address how missing data will be handled” U.S. Department of Education, Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase, WestEd, S411B220027, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 25, 29. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220027_WestEd_TRF.pdf#page=29
- [ ] Comparisons vulnerable to selection, contamination, baseline differences or incompatible data (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “may require additional interpretation” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, K01 AI131895 (Rebeiro, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 5-6. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/k01-rebeiro-summary-statement.pdf#page=6
- [ ] Feasibility assumptions or fallback arrangements unsupported (named in 6 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no alternative analysis plan is provided” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017174 (Heinemann and Cherney), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 3, 5-6. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/sanitized-heinemann-cherney-summary-statement-redacted.pdf#page=5
- [ ] Implementation fidelity, thresholds or mediators inadequately specified (named in 5 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “Mediators are not described.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Education Development Center, U411C190275, 2019, Technical Review Form, p. 4. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2019/11/U411C190275-Education-Development-Center-Inc.-TRF-Tier-2.pdf#page=4
- [ ] Measurement tools insufficiently identified, supported or protected against reporting bias (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no detail is provided” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, Niswonger Foundation, U411B170038, 2017, Technical Review Form, pp. 4-5. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2016/12/U411B170038_TRF.pdf#page=4
- [ ] Targets or success criteria missing, inconsistent or disconnected from the project (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “lacks a specific number” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, ASSISTments Foundation, S411B220024, 2022, Technical Review Form, p. 14. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220024_ASSISTments-Foundation-Inc_TRF.pdf#page=14
- [ ] Analysis procedures insufficiently specified for the stated questions or model (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “methods of data analysis are not adequately described” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, R01 AI098472 renewal (Gandhi, UCSF), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 4-5. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/2-R01-AI098472-06_Ganhdi_Summary.pdf#page=4
- [ ] Data protection, management or cross-site coordination incomplete (named in 3 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The data management plan stops midsentence on page 125” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017683 (Gifford and Camarata, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 9-10. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/sanitized-giffordcamarataapplicationsummary-dc017683-01a1.pdf#page=10
- [ ] Feedback collection lacks a specified route into program decisions (named in 2 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The applicant does not discuss how often the team will review data or implement changes.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, S411C200130, 2020, Technical Review Form, pp. 16, 19. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/12/S411C200130-Orange-County-Superintendent-of-Schools-TRF.pdf#page=19
- [ ] Evaluator independence insufficiently explained (named in 1 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The level of independence is not made clear” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Research Triangle Institute, S411C220065, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 24-25. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411C220065_Research-Triangle-Institute-_TRF.pdf#page=24

## Protocol skeleton

### Draft text, edit before use

Measures: Effectiveness; Efficiency; Quality; Timeliness. Baseline: \_\_\_\_ months from award, using Performance Measurement Plan (recommended limit 2 pages). Targets: set from the observed baseline at month \_\_\_\_, or committed now as a change of \_\_\_\_ percentage points from baseline (see the USDA FAS and SCSEP precedents above).

Missing-data plan (how dropout and missing observations will be handled): \_\_\_\_

Comparison group or baseline (what you compare against and how the groups started): \_\_\_\_

Fallback if recruitment, data access or the first analysis falls short: \_\_\_\_

Fidelity threshold (what counts as full implementation, and how it is measured): \_\_\_\_

Instrument named, with its validity evidence and its rights (license) status: \_\_\_\_

Numeric target for each measure (a number, not a direction): \_\_\_\_

Analysis for each outcome (method, comparison, adjustment): \_\_\_\_

Data protection and data management (who holds identifiable data, where, for how long): \_\_\_\_

Feedback schedule (who reviews the data, how often, and what changes as a result): \_\_\_\_

Evaluator role and independence (who evaluates and how they are separate from delivery): \_\_\_\_

The text is copied or summarized from public documents. It is not legal advice.