Agree with mhaunton about endowments - I think we are a number of years away from even considering this as a standard element (even Jeremy Hunt in a recent speech talked of this as a 100-year project!)

On the question of 'distinct' budgets - I think the issue is about a) having sufficient funding and b) having sufficient control over how to use that funding. I presume the term 'distinct' is chosen to give a sense of the latter, but some clarity is probably needed.

I agree with mhaunton about endowments. I am also unsure if having a distinct budget makes you a good archive if all it covers are wages.

Does this requirement effectively exclude community archives from the standard as they are likely to have no defined budget. If a defined budget of NIL is acceptable, then it seems to be missing the mark in having an impact

IMHO, having a clearly defined budget is an *essential* foundation for any form of service. I've worked in services where that has and has not been the case. Not being in control of a clearly allocated budget - no matter the size - makes it very difficult to be recognised as a discrete service, especially within larger organisations. There is no baseline from which to easily develop, either financially or organisationally. By contrast, having a budget means that you have a corporate identity upon which you can 'legitimately' build.

In terms of community archives and other 'non-budget' settings, there is always some form of cost and value involved. Even if labour and services are provided entirely free by volunteers and donations in kind, those assists can be liquidated to a balance sheet that provides evidence of a budget. That budget can then be used effectively, for example as evidence of matched funding in funding applications. It has to be recognised, though, that the level of budgeting evidence required of such settings will have to be lower than that of more established organisational archives services.

In any larger organisation, what does the level of expenditure over the last two years show except what is available to cut in the next two? Surely a sound financial basis is a resolution by the board or council that funding will be maintained at present level for the next 2/5/10 years. The fact that this seems utopian only underlines the threats that services face.
Agree with Pauljs that a separate budget is an essential.

I agree that having a separate budget is a good thing, but is it essential? If so, that would exclude some small local authority archives that would otherwise be able to meet other accreditation criteria.

For large organisations like local authorities it's not always deemed possible or desirable to split down budget responsibilities into such very small units as an archive which sits within a library or museum service, and perhaps just consists of one archivist.

I'm thinking of archives that sit within, for example, a library service, are located within a branch library, perhaps in conjunction with local studies and / or reference. There may be some elements of devolved budget (e.g. preservation and conservation), but there is no requirement to have buidings, stationery budgets etc., as these fall within the larger service budget.

This isn't ideal, but because they don't have their own stationery budget doesn't mean that the archivist can't get enough envelopes or staples!

There needs to be some clarity about at which point an archive budget is considered 'separate'.

I'd argue LARay's hit the nail on the head -- the issue here is that archives have enough money available to do the work they need to do, and sufficient control to spend that money on what needs it, not what someone else claims needs it.

Having a separate budget for the archive service would a priori show that, at least to me. But if someone can demonstrate that they can pay for all the archive's specific needs out of a line item in another budget that covers everything else, then that should be fine.

Conversely, if an archive has a separate budget, then it needs to show that the money available is sufficient unto itself -- and that mission-critical resources are not available only out of a budget that's earmarked to and controlled by someone else, leaving the service in danger.

SChubb, you describe my position at some points of my working life very accurately, except that I have always had a distinct budget. If there isn't a separate budget for the archive service then prima facie there isn't an archive service, just an active library.
I am currently down to 3.7 f.t.e; but still getting an end of year recharge from our library admin officer for photocopy paper used and a rentcharge for space occupied. She lets me have pens free though!