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

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.

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.