Skip to main content
Records Authority
Category: Archival Management

Deaccessioning

Also known as: Deaccession
Simply put

Deaccessioning is the formal process of permanently removing an object, such as a work of art, from a museum's collection. Once removed, the object may be sold or otherwise disposed of. It is typically treated as a significant decision that follows established policy rather than an informal or routine action.

Formal definition

In collections management, deaccessioning refers to the formal and permanent removal of an object from a museum's permanent collection, often followed by disposal through sale or other means. It is generally governed by institutional policy and professional ethical standards, and is often characterized as a deliberate, documented decision rather than a casual withdrawal. The scope of the term as reflected in the available evidence pertains to museum and public art collections; it is distinct from records management disposition, though both concern the controlled removal of holdings under governing rules. Deaccessioning describes the act of removal from the collection and should be distinguished from the subsequent disposal method, which may vary depending on institutional policy.

Why it matters

Deaccessioning determines whether an object remains part of an institution's accountable permanent collection or is permanently removed from it, so it carries significant consequences for public trust, institutional stewardship, and the integrity of collection records. Because the evidence characterizes it as a major decision rather than a routine withdrawal, the process is typically bound by institutional policy and professional ethical standards. Handling it informally, or without adequate documentation, can expose an institution to reputational risk and questions about whether the removal was justified and properly governed.

The term also matters because deaccessioning is only the act of removal from the collection; what happens afterward, such as sale or other disposal, is a separate question governed by its own policies. Conflating the two can obscure important accountability distinctions. Records and information governance professionals should note that, while deaccessioning shares the general logic of controlled removal under governing rules, it belongs to museum and public art collections management and is not the same as records management disposition. Treating the two as interchangeable would misstate the scope of each.

Maintaining a clear record of what was deaccessioned, on what authority, and by what method supports transparency and defensibility. Depending on institutional policy and applicable ethical guidance, deaccessioning decisions are expected to be deliberate and documented, which reinforces why the process is generally embedded in formal governance rather than left to individual discretion.

Who it's relevant to

Museum collections managers and registrars
Those responsible for a museum's permanent collection rely on deaccessioning policy to govern how objects are formally and permanently removed, and to document the decision and any subsequent disposal. Their role typically includes ensuring the removal follows established institutional procedures rather than informal practice.
Public art program administrators
As reflected in the evidence, deaccessioning is a major decision for public art programs and is expected to be completed only after due consideration. Administrators of such programs are relevant to the term because they must apply governing guidelines when removing artworks from a collection.
Museum leadership and governance bodies
Because deaccessioning is characterized as a significant, policy-driven decision, institutional leaders and governing boards are often involved in authorizing or overseeing it, and in ensuring alignment with professional ethical standards.
Records and information governance professionals
Practitioners in records management may encounter deaccessioning as a related but distinct concept. Both concern the controlled removal of holdings under governing rules, but deaccessioning pertains to museum and public art collections and should not be conflated with records management disposition.

Inside Deaccessioning

Appraisal and Reassessment
The evaluative process by which a repository determines that material previously accepted into its holdings no longer falls within its collecting scope, retention criteria, or preservation mandate, typically prompting consideration for removal.
Authorization and Approval
The governance step requiring that a deaccessioning decision be sanctioned under documented policy, often by a designated authority such as a collections committee, archivist, or governing body, rather than by individual discretion alone.
Documentation of the Decision
The recording of the rationale, scope, approvals, and outcome of the deaccessioning action, so that the change to holdings remains transparent, auditable, and defensible over time.
Method of Disposition
The route by which deaccessioned material leaves the holdings, which may include transfer to another repository, return to a donor or originating body, sale where permitted, or destruction, depending on policy, legal terms, and the nature of the material.
Legal and Ethical Constraints
The terms attached to acquisition, such as donor agreements, transfer conditions, or statutory obligations, which can limit or govern how, and whether, material may be deaccessioned; these typically vary by jurisdiction and sector.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Deaccessioning.

Is deaccessioning just another word for destroying records?
No. Deaccessioning refers to the formal process of removing material from an archive or managed collection, which is not the same as destruction. Deaccessioned material may be transferred to another institution, returned to a donor or originating body, sold or otherwise dispersed, or in some cases destroyed. Destruction is only one of several possible outcomes, and treating the two as synonymous can obscure the range of options and the decisions that lead to them. The defining feature of deaccessioning is the change in custodial or accountability status of the material, not the specific fate that follows.
Does deaccessioning mean the same thing as disposition?
Not quite, though the concepts overlap. Disposition is a broad lifecycle term covering the actions taken once material reaches the end of its retention period, which may include transfer, permanent preservation, or destruction. Deaccessioning is more specific to archival and collection contexts and describes the removal of material that has already been formally accessioned into a holding. In practice, deaccessioning can be understood as a particular form of disposition applied to material already under archival custody, but the terms are not interchangeable and their usage often depends on organizational and sectoral conventions.
What governance approvals are typically needed before deaccessioning?
Requirements vary by institution, jurisdiction, and sector, so the specifics should be confirmed against local policy. In many settings, deaccessioning is subject to documented approval by a designated authority, such as a records or archives governance body, and may require sign-off consistent with the terms under which the material was originally acquired. Where donor agreements, statutory obligations, or transfer conditions apply, these often constrain what may be deaccessioned and by whom. Establishing clear approval thresholds and accountability before any removal is generally regarded as good practice.
How should a deaccessioning decision be documented?
Because deaccessioning changes the custodial status of material, maintaining a defensible record of the decision is typically important. Documentation often captures what was removed, the rationale, the authority approving the action, the date, and the eventual outcome, whether transfer, return, sale, or destruction. This documentation supports the authenticity and integrity of the remaining holdings and provides an audit trail should the decision later be questioned. The level of detail expected usually depends on organizational policy and any applicable regulatory or accountability requirements.
What criteria are commonly used to decide whether material should be deaccessioned?
Criteria depend on the institution's mandate and collecting scope, but factors often considered include whether the material falls outside the collection's remit, whether it duplicates existing holdings, its continuing evidential or informational value, its physical condition, and any legal or donor conditions attached to it. Decisions frequently weigh these factors against the resources required to retain the material. Because judgments about value can be contested, many institutions apply defined criteria consistently rather than deciding case by case without reference to policy.
How does deaccessioning affect the authority of the records that remain?
Handled carefully and with proper documentation, deaccessioning need not undermine the authority of remaining holdings, since a transparent process supports their continued authenticity, reliability, and integrity. Poorly documented or arbitrary removal, by contrast, can raise questions about what else may have been altered or removed, potentially weakening trust in the collection as evidence. For this reason, the process is often approached with the same rigor applied to other lifecycle actions, ensuring that changes to the holdings can be accounted for over time.

Common misconceptions

Deaccessioning is simply another word for destruction.
Deaccessioning is the formal removal of material from a repository's holdings, not a specific disposal method. The subsequent disposition may involve transfer to another institution, return to a donor, or, in some cases, destruction, so deaccessioning and destruction are not synonymous.
Deaccessioning is the same as routine disposition under a retention schedule.
Deaccessioning typically applies to material already accepted into a repository's permanent or ongoing holdings and generally requires distinct authorization and documentation, whereas routine disposition acts on records at the end of their scheduled retention. The two processes are related but operate at different stages and often under different governance.
A repository can deaccession any of its holdings at its own discretion.
Deaccessioning is often constrained by donor agreements, transfer conditions, ethical codes, and legal or statutory obligations that vary by jurisdiction and sector. These constraints may restrict which materials can be removed and by what method, so unfettered discretion is not the norm.

Best practices

Establish a documented deaccessioning policy that defines the criteria, required approvals, and permissible methods of disposition before any removal is undertaken.
Verify acquisition terms, donor agreements, and any applicable legal or statutory obligations, which vary by jurisdiction and sector, to confirm that proposed deaccessioning is permitted.
Require authorization from a designated authority or committee rather than allowing removals to proceed on individual discretion.
Record the rationale, scope, approvals, and chosen method of disposition for each deaccessioning action so the change to holdings remains transparent and auditable.
Consider disposition routes such as transfer to another suitable repository or return to the originating party before treating destruction as the default outcome.
Review holdings periodically against the repository's collecting scope and retention criteria so that reassessment is planned and consistent rather than ad hoc.