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 is the product of engagement with cultural professionals in the UK and internationally and it is based on the recognition that spontaneous memorials present significant emotional, ethical, and logistical challenges to those who work with them.
Our starting point was the following: as spontaneous memorials appear with increasing frequency, after terrorist attacks, pandemics, mass shootings, and human/natural disasters, many organisations find themselves underprepared and responses are often idiosyncratic. Museums, archives, and local authorities often operate without clear plans, protocols, or support structures. And importantly, the very idea of collecting spontaneous memorials is most often not addressed. 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 from spontaneous memorials that appeared 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, solidarity and resilience. 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.
A key finding 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 and emotional reward. 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.
A number of 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.
Along with the positive experiences, there were also difficult experiences. Professionals reported emotional burnout, unclear roles, and public and media pressure. Some said that they 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; and how to handle private messages, photographs or other objects left in public.
The review of existing guidance presented some strong tools: templates, checklists, and advice on procedures to follow. But most resources were limited to one stage, for example, emergency response, or documentation. 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, but 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 spontaneous memorials appear. 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 engages with the longer term: ensuring access to collections, involving communities in interpretation, supporting staff over time, and reflecting on the evolving role of the memorial items 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, I think, important lesson: spontaneous memorials are not just things. They are events in themselves: moments of collective vulnerability, sympathy, anger, grief, and care. They deserve thoughtful and ethical stewardship and care. And those who care for them need and deserve support, recognition, and ways to reflect together.
PLAN–CARE–HEAL is one step in that direction. It’s a call for preparedness, empathy, and accountability, to the objects, to the people behind them, and to those who carry the weight of caring for them long after the flowers fade. the people behind them, and to those who carry the weight of caring for them long after the flowers fade.
No responses yet