How were museums selected for assessment?
For the first iteration of this research, 40 museums across the United States were selected for assessment after consultations with an external panel of experts with significant experience in the museum, arts and cultural sectors.
The selection process was designed to create a diverse and meaningful cross-section of American museums rather than a ranking of the country’s largest or most prominent institutions. Museums were selected with consideration for several factors, including geographic diversity, cultural relevance, diversity in institutional size and approximately even representation of contemporary and encyclopedic museums.
Including both contemporary and encyclopedic museums was important because these institutions can differ substantially in the nature and history of their collections, exhibitions and curatorial responsibilities. Where those structural differences make a particular criterion inapplicable, the methodology accounts for them rather than penalizing a museum for an assessment area that is not relevant to its collection or institutional model.
This inaugural group of 40 museums establishes the initial benchmark for the project and provides an opportunity to identify both areas of progress and opportunities for museums to strengthen Jewish and Israeli representation, institutional policies and engagement with Jewish communities.
Role of the External Expert Panel
Integral to the development of the assessment was an external panel composed of 15 artists, curators, collectors, board leadership, philanthropists, and former administrators with experience and knowledge of museums, the arts and the broader cultural sector.
The panel advised throughout the development of the project, including on the selection of museums for assessment and the development and refinement of the criteria. Experts brought industry-specific perspectives that helped ensure that the assessment considered the operational realities of different types of museums and reflected meaningful indicators of institutional practice.
The expert panel served in an advisory capacity. Its participation helped inform the methodology and evaluation framework, but final research and assessment decisions remained with ADL’s Ratings & Assessments Institute (RAI) and should not be assumed to reflect the individual views of any particular expert.
How were museums assessed?
Once the assessment criteria were established, RAI researchers used a multi-pronged approach combining publicly available research, direct outreach to museums and a corroboration process.
RAI researchers conducted secondary research using publicly available sources, including museum websites, exhibition and collection records, publicly available policies, museum programming and partnership information, and other relevant public records. Historical assessments of exhibitions, partnerships and programming considered activity over the preceding 10 years (2016-2026).
In addition, all 40 museums included in the assessment were contacted directly and provided with a survey designed to gather information that may not be publicly available and to give institutions an opportunity to provide relevant context about their policies, practices and activities.
Museums were also contacted as part of a corroboration process and given an opportunity to review relevant findings, identify missing information, provide additional documentation and correct factual inaccuracies before assessments were finalized. By the conclusion of the corroboration period, approximately 50% of the museums assessed had responded to the research team.
Survey responses and information supplied during corroboration were reviewed alongside the public record. Direct engagement with museums was intended to improve the completeness and accuracy of the assessment rather than to advantage institutions that chose to participate. Institutions were neither penalized for declining to participate nor given additional credit for participating.
What criteria were used for assessment?
The assessment examines museum practices across three broad categories:
1. Policies, Reporting & Internal Standards
This category evaluates whether museums are institutionally equipped to capture and respond to bias, discrimination and antisemitism by examining the visible mechanisms, policies and institutional practices they have in place to prevent harm, address incidents and create accountability.
2. Representation in Exhibitions, Collections & Provenance
This category evaluates the representation of Jewish art and Israeli artists in museum collections and exhibitions, as well as relevant provenance research and disclosure practices.
For provenance, ADL defers to established museum-sector standards, including American Alliance of Museums (AAM) and Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) guidance and the 2024 Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art.
3. Partnerships, Community Engagement & Jewish American Heritage Month
This category evaluates museums’ engagement with Jewish cultural and historical institutions, Jewish-focused educational programming and recognition of Jewish American Heritage Month.
Together, these criteria are intended to provide a multidimensional assessment of how museums address Jewish inclusion as a matter of culture, heritage and identity — not solely religion — through what they exhibit and collect, their institutional policies and their relationships with Jewish communities.
Criteria Guide
Category 1: Policies, Reporting & Internal Standards
Policies Addressing Antisemitism
This criterion assesses the extent to which publicly available museum policies address antisemitism.
ADL examined whether a museum has an applicable policy and, where such a policy exists, whether it:
- Identifies protected categories without specifically addressing antisemitism;
- Explicitly references Jewish people or Jewish identity within an inclusion, nondiscrimination or similar policy;
- Explicitly prohibits antisemitism; or
- Explicitly prohibits both antisemitism and anti-Israeli discrimination.
The purpose of this criterion is to distinguish between general anti-discrimination protections and policies that explicitly recognize forms of discrimination and hostility affecting Jewish communities.
Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Training
This criterion examines whether museum staff receive training about bias, discrimination or harassment and whether that training explicitly addresses antisemitism.
Because information about internal staff training is generally not publicly available, this criterion is assessed through information supplied directly by museums through the project survey and during the corroboration period.
The assessment distinguishes among museums reporting:
- No bias or discrimination training for staff;
- Bias or discrimination training that exists but that does not include antisemitism; and
- Training that explicitly addresses antisemitism.
Accessible Reporting Mechanism
The assessment distinguishes among institutions that have:
- No publicly available contact method for visitors;
- Only a general information email address or telephone number;
- A specific feedback mechanism; or
- A specific mechanism for reporting bias or discrimination.
For museums affiliated with universities or other parent institutions, affiliation alone is not sufficient. The museum itself must provide or directly link visitors to the relevant reporting mechanism.
Internal reporting mechanisms available to museum staff were also identified as a positive institutional practice and awarded extra credit.
Protest and Solicitation Policies Inside Galleries
This criterion assesses whether museums maintain publicly available policies governing protests and solicitation inside gallery spaces and whether there is publicly available evidence relevant to their enforcement.
ADL considered whether the museum:
- Has no identified policy prohibiting protests or solicitation;
- Has a policy but there is evidence that it has not been enforced;
- Prohibits either protests or solicitation; or
- Prohibits both protests and solicitation inside museum galleries.
For university- or parent-affiliated museums, to receive full credit the museum must state or directly link to the applicable policy through its own website or channels; affiliation with an institution that maintains such a policy is not sufficient on its own.
A staff political-neutrality policy, where identified, was also noted as an additional positive institutional practice that was awarded extra credit.
Category 2: Representation in Exhibitions, Collections & Provenance
Jewish Art Representation
This criterion assesses meaningful representation of Jewish art in a museum’s collection and exhibitions.
ADL considered both the presence of relevant works in the museum’s collection and whether the museum has organized exhibitions dedicated to art by Jewish artists and art featuring Jewish themes or narratives during the research period.
The assessment distinguishes among museums with:
- No meaningful Jewish art presence or relevant exhibitions;
- A limited collection presence without dedicated exhibitions;
- One or two dedicated exhibitions;
- A substantial collection presence accompanied by multiple dedicated exhibitions; or
- Particularly substantial and sustained representation across both collections and exhibitions.
The criterion is intended to recognize sustained institutional engagement rather than isolated examples alone.
Israeli Artist Representation
This criterion assesses the representation of Israeli artists in museum collections and exhibitions.
ADL considered whether Israeli artists are represented in the collection, whether they have been exhibited during the research period, the frequency of such exhibitions and whether the museum has presented a dedicated solo exhibition or other significant feature of Israeli artists.
The assessment distinguishes among museums with:
- No identified Israeli artists in their collection or exhibitions;
- Israeli artists represented in the collection but not exhibited;
- A single exhibition featuring an Israeli artist during the research period;
- Multiple exhibitions featuring Israeli artists; or
- A dedicated solo exhibition or other significant presentation of an Israeli artist or artists.
Provenance Disclosure
For this criterion, ADL defers to guidance established by the AAM, including its guidance on the unlawful appropriation of objects during the Nazi era and its 2024 Ethics and Best Practices in Museums guide.
Consistent with these standards, ADL evaluates whether museums with relevant collections publicly disclose provenance information, identify potential gaps in ownership history during the Nazi era and demonstrate that Nazi-era provenance research is incorporated into their collections stewardship practices.
ADL examined whether a museum:
- Makes provenance information for relevant collection objects publicly accessible;
- Identifies or discloses gaps or uncertainties in provenance during the Nazi era; and
- Publicly demonstrates ongoing research into objects with incomplete or uncertain Nazi-era provenance.
This criterion is applied based on the composition and history of a museum’s collection. Museums whose collections largely postdate the Nazi era are not negatively assessed where Nazi-era provenance research is not applicable to the objects they hold.
Category 3: Partnerships, Community Engagement & Jewish American Heritage Month
Jewish Institution Partnerships
This criterion assesses museums’ substantive engagement and collaboration with Jewish cultural, historical and communal institutions over the research period.
ADL distinguished among:
- No identified partnerships or engagement;
- Limited or membership-level engagement;
- One substantive partnership, such as a co-organized exhibition, institutional loan, co-presented program or grant partnership; and
- Multiple substantive partnerships during the research period.
Organizations that support Israeli art and artists may qualify as relevant partner institutions. Loans to or from Jewish institutions are considered evidence of partnership but are not treated as exhibition or collection representation under the separate Jewish or Israeli representation criteria.
Jewish Educational Programming
This criterion assesses public educational programming related to Jewish art, history, culture or other relevant Jewish subjects.
ADL distinguished among museums with:
- No identified relevant programming;
- A single one-time program;
- 2-3 programs during the research period; or
- More than 2-3 distinct programs or a sustained or recurring series.
This approach is intended to distinguish occasional engagement from sustained institutional investment in Jewish educational programming.
Jewish American Heritage Month Recognition
This criterion assesses whether a museum substantively recognized Jewish American Heritage Month (JAHM) through its own institutional channels in 2026.
Full fulfillment requires meaningful engagement with JAHM, such as dedicated programming, educational content, exhibitions, events, or other substantive initiatives. A brief or standalone acknowledgment – for example, a single social media post that simply recognizes JAHM without accompanying programming or educational content – is not considered sufficient for full recognition.
Where a museum does not recognize heritage months generally, the criterion is treated as not applicable rather than interpreting the absence of JAHM recognition as disparate treatment.
Recognition by a university, parent institution, federal entity, or other affiliated organization does not on its own constitute recognition by the museum. To qualify, recognition must have occurred through the museum’s own channels in 2026.
Problematic Events
This criterion assesses the extent to which problematic events related to antisemitism, anti-Israel hostility, or related conduct have been documented at or in connection with the museum.
The assessment is based on publicly available and reported information concerning events occurring since October 7, 2023. Museums receive a reduction in points under this criterion based on the number, severity, recurrence, and degree of institutional connection of documented qualifying events. More numerous, severe, repeated, or institutionally connected events result in a greater reduction in points.
This criterion evaluates the documented event itself and its connection to the museum; it does not assess the adequacy of the museum’s response to the event. Information regarding institutional responses was not consistently available across museums and events and therefore was not used as a basis for scoring under this criterion.
Where no qualifying events were identified in the public record or other information available for assessment, no points were deducted under this criterion. This should not be understood as an affirmative determination that no such events occurred, but rather that no qualifying events were identified based on the information available for review.
The assessment distinguishes among museums with:
- No documented qualifying events;
- One or a small number of isolated or limited events, primarily involving unaffiliated third parties with little institutional connection, or one minor institutionally affiliated event;
- Multiple documented events with meaningful institutional connections, including events involving museum employees, programming, exhibitions, or affiliated activities;
- Repeated or significant documented events, including multiple events with meaningful institutional connections or evidence of a broader pattern of concerning activity; or
- Pervasive, repeated, or severe documented events demonstrating a substantial pattern of concerning activity at or connected to the museum.
Purpose and Limitations of the Assessment
The assessment is intended to provide a structured picture of how museums address Jewish representation, institutional protections and engagement with Jewish communities.
The methodology combines quantitative criteria with contextual research because no single indicator can fully capture an institution’s approach. A museum may demonstrate leadership in one area while having substantial opportunities for improvement in another.
The assessment is also necessarily based on information available during a defined research and corroboration period. Museum exhibitions, policies, partnerships and programming change over time. The findings should therefore be understood as an assessment of documented institutional practices during the 2026 research period rather than a permanent characterization of any institution.
By establishing transparent and consistently applied criteria, the project aims both to identify gaps and to highlight practices that can serve as useful models for museums seeking to strengthen Jewish inclusion, representation and engagement.
Experiencing antisemitism or bias in the arts?
If you are an artist, writer, performer or member of the arts and culture community who has experienced or witnessed antisemitism, bias or discrimination, please Report an Incident to ADL. If you are seeking legal support, you can also submit a request to ADL’s Legal Action Network.