Conclusions and recommendations
1. The Department's targets for broadening
the audience for heritage were unrealistic and set without clear
evidence of how they would be achieved.
The proportion of the population visiting historic sites is already
high and the most reported reasons why people don't visit these
sites is because they are not interested in the historic environment.
Before setting targets in future, the Department should:
a) use existing knowledge of what works to make
a clear action plan that shows how its objectives will be delivered.
It should involve key parties, such as English Heritage, in assessing
the realism of targets to which they will contribute, and
b) undertake a full examination of the costs
and benefits of achieving the targets and balance this against
other spending priorities.
2. The Department has not developed any effective
means to measure the contribution it or its sponsored bodies make
towards its objectives. It did not meet two of its three targets
for increasing visits to historic sites, but could not explain
why. The Taking Part
survey measures progress against the Department's targets but
cannot show a causal link between actions taken and what is achieved.
The Department should identify more direct and cost-effective
ways of measuring its impact, and that of its sponsored bodies.
3. The Department funded English Heritage
for 19 months without setting clear expectations about what it
would deliver for the money. Agreeing
measures to monitor performance on key policy areas provides essential
accountability for taxpayers' money. In future, the Department
should agree what its sponsored bodies will deliver before it
releases the related funding.
4. Several government-funded organisations
across the cultural sector are seeking to attract new audiences,
and there is a risk that they might waste resources through duplication
of effort. The Department should collate
information about what works in attracting new audiences across
sport, culture and the arts, and disseminate it across its sponsored
bodies. It should promote cross-fertilisation of knowledge, such
as by inviting specialists from other sectors onto the Broadening
Access Group which English Heritage chairs.
5. The Department's definition of 'participation'
with heritage is obsolete. As well as
by visiting historic sites, there are many more opportunities
to enjoy our heritage such as by getting involved in local conservation
projects, by learning on the internet, and by watching historically-based
television programmes. The Department and English Heritage should
research how people interact with the historic environment, and
use this knowledge to inform their strategies and performance
measures for getting more people interested in heritage.
6. In the last five years free educational
visits to English Heritage's sites have fallen by 20%.
This concerns us, as positive childhood experiences are crucially
important to instilling a long-term interest in heritage. English
Heritage should develop an action plan that addresses the obstacles
to visiting heritage sites and identifies ways to encourage school
visits by children from different backgrounds. It should aim to
reverse the decline in educational visits to its own sites, set
milestones to measure progress, and report back to this Committee
in April 2010 setting out the actions being taken and the progress
made.
7. English Heritage's workforce is less diverse
than other government departments, and does not reflect the general
population. This is, in part, because
of the specialised nature of some professional roles, but also
suggests English Heritage has not placed sufficient importance
on achieving a more diverse workforce. English Heritage should
develop an action plan to increase the diversity of its workforce,
and set milestones for measuring progress and achieving outcomes.
8. English cathedrals represent some of our
most important architectural heritage yet many of them charge
the public for entry. These buildings
are expensive to look after and the Department and English Heritage
should work together to find ways to fund their conservation so
that they can be less reliant on charging for entry, which could
deter people from visiting.
| 
