By Kostas Arvanitis
Over the past 18 months, I’ve had the privilege of working with Robert Simpson and Lesley Cheung to develop a new framework to support cultural professionals responding to spontaneous memorials after tragic events. The framework, called PLAN–CARE–HEAL, is both a conceptual model and a set of evolving, practical tools. It emerged through sustained engagement with cultural professionals across the UK and internationally, and it is rooted in the recognition that spontaneous memorials pose profound emotional, ethical, and logistical challenges for those who work with them.
Our starting point was simple but urgent: as spontaneous memorials appear with increasing frequency, after terrorist attacks, pandemics, mass shootings, and environmental disasters, many institutions find themselves underprepared. Despite the growth in collecting practices over the past decades, responses remain largely ad hoc. Museums, archives, and local authorities often operate without clear plans, protocols, or emotional support structures. And crucially, the very idea of collecting spontaneous memorials remains fraught: what should be collected, by whom, and for what purpose and use?
This project builds on nearly eight years of engagement with the Manchester Together Archive (MTA), a collection of around 10,000 items gathered after the Manchester Arena attack in 2017. Working closely with colleagues at Manchester Art Gallery and Archives+, we witnessed the emotional weight of collecting, cataloguing and caring for deeply personal expressions of grief, loss, and solidarity. These experiences laid the groundwork for PLAN–CARE–HEAL.
To develop the framework, we undertook interdisciplinary research. We surveyed and interviewed 65 cultural professionals from 12 countries, convened a collaborative workshop with 25 participants in Manchester in 2024, and reviewed 34 guidance documents and toolkits. These included resources from professional bodies, museums, and community organisations.
One of the most striking findings was the ambivalence professionals felt. When asked whether their experience of working with spontaneous memorials was positive or negative, 70% said “both.” People described a deep sense of purpose, emotional reward, and community connection. Yet they also spoke of exhaustion, ethical uncertainty, institutional neglect, and a lack of training or support. Many were left to navigate grief and trauma alone, improvising in real time with little preparation.
Several themes emerged. Respondents spoke about the urgency and meaningfulness of their work: “I felt guided by the urgency to salvage not only the physical objects but also the expression of emotions embedded in each one,” said one. Others highlighted collaboration and solidarity within teams, and the role of memorials in strengthening community ties. For many, the work offered a form of closure and a way to honour victims.
But these positives were often shadowed by difficult experiences. Professionals reported emotional burnout, unclear roles, and public and media pressure. Some had no access to mental health support. The ethical dilemmas were constant: how to respect grief while making decisions about what to preserve, how to catalogue children’s drawings, how to handle private messages, photographs, or mementos left in public.
Our review of existing guidance revealed some strong tools: templates, checklists, and advice on logistics. But most resources were limited to one stage, for example, emergency response, or archival processing. Few offered a comprehensive, lifecycle approach. Emotional labour was often acknowledged but rarely supported in practice.
This fragmented landscape led us to design PLAN–CARE–HEAL, a flexible, phased framework that supports a trauma-informed, longitudinal response. It is not a set of fixed answers. Rather, it is an evolving guide that invites reflection, planning, and collaboration.
- PLAN focuses on preparedness. It encourages institutions to act before a crisis occurs, developing emergency protocols, building relationships with stakeholders, identifying gaps, and offering trauma-informed training to staff. Many institutions only realise what they needed after the fact. PLAN aims to shift that timeline forward.
- CARE addresses the acute response when a memorial emerges. It supports sensitive, transparent, and community-centred approaches to documenting and collecting. It reminds institutions to assess staff capacity and wellbeing, and to engage with affected communities before taking action.
- HEAL looks to the long term: ensuring access to collections, involving communities in interpretation, supporting staff over time, and reflecting on the evolving role of the memorial in public life. It’s about moving beyond preservation toward meaningful engagement and legacy-building.
Importantly, PLAN–CARE–HEAL is designed to work with others: peer networks, bereaved families, survivors, and professionals across sectors. We see this as a platform for dialogue, not a top-down solution. It is a live resource that we continue to refine. An interactive website is in development and will launch in autumn 2025. We’re inviting feedback, case studies, and collaborators.
For me, this work has reinforced a simple but powerful lesson: spontaneous memorials are not just things. They are events in themselves: moments of collective vulnerability, sympathy, anger, grief, and care. They deserve thoughtful, ethical stewardship. And those who care for them deserve support, recognition, and spaces to reflect together.
PLAN–CARE–HEAL is one step in that direction. It’s a call for preparedness, compassion, and accountability, not only to the objects, but to the people behind them, and to those who carry the weight of caring for them long after the flowers fade.
No responses yet