Written evidence submitted by Renaissance
East of England (arts 151)
1. Summary
1.1 INTRODUCING
RENAISSANCE EAST
OF ENGLAND
This response is from the Renaissance East of
England central office on behalf of the four museum services which
together make up the East of England Museum Hub:
— Colchester and Ipswich Museum Service.
— The Fitzwilliam Museum, University of
Cambridge.
— Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service.
The Hub partnership was formed in 2003 as the
delivery partner for the Renaissance in the Regions programme
in the East of England.
1.2 SCOPE OF
RESPONSE
This response therefore focuses on the significance
of Renaissance funding to the sector in particular, and the impact
that cutting or significantly reducing Renaissance funding would
have at a regional level. Hub partners will also respond as individual
institutions with their own perspectives, but this can read as
a collective response to those questions on which we feel qualified
to comment.
1.3 SUMMARY OF
KEY POINTS
— Renaissance has achieved a great deal
and should be maintained.
— If Renaissance is cut substantially or
completely the progress made by regional museums and the participation
of larger and more diverse audiences in museums and cultural heritage
will be threatened.
— Partnership working—including sharing
services and expertise—is key to increased efficiency and
improved services.
— National and local government need to
provide a realistic level of subsidy to encourage the partnership
model of delivery and to avoid a return to subsistence levels
of funding for arts and heritage organisations.
— A new model for Renaissance delivered
by Core museums needs to take into account the needs of rural
communities.
— A less bureaucratic system for delivering
and monitoring publicly funded programmes would be welcome.
— Museums and heritage deserve a national
strategic body which has a strong voice.
2. What impact recent, and future, spending
cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and
heritage at a national and local level
2.1.1 Achievements of Renaissance in the East
of England
Consistent data collection by the four hub partner
museum services demonstrates the positive impact of Renaissance:
— 800,000 visits were made to hub museums
in 2008-09, an increase of 11.6% since Renaissance began.
— 34% increase in visits by school age
children to East of England hub museums since Renaissance began.
— 84% of school visits to East of England
hub museums in 2008-09 were facilitated (ie were led by or involved
interaction with museum staff).
— 235,000 visits were made by children
to hub museums in 2008-09, that's a 29% increase since Renaissance
began.
— 57% increase from 2006-07 to 2008-09
in learning opportunities, including lectures, talks and tours,
offered to adults by the hub museums.
2.1.2 Renaissance has also benefited the
museum and heritage sector in the region as a whole: since 2008
Renaissance has worked with 89% of the region's registered and
accredited museums through professional networks, direct grants,
skills-sharing and training and joint-work on major projects.
2.1.3 Cuts to funding will put this progress
and the participation of these audiences in museums and cultural
heritage in jeopardy.
2.2.1 The nature of Renaissance funding
Crucial to this expansion in opportunities for
the public to engage with their heritage has been the long-term
nature of Renaissance. Unlike much short-term, project funding
available to museums, the Renaissance programme has become embedded
in the Hub museums and has transformed the way the sector works.
Over seven years it has enabled and encouraged strategic planning
and the staff funded by the Renaissance programme, and their experience,
are critical to continuing success such as:
— The development of sustainable long-term
partnerships with other museums and outside the sector.
— The collective development of strategic
programmes eg the Growing Communities partnership now influencing
local authorities in local cultural aspects of planning and development.
— Improved standards in the care and interpretation
of the region's unique collections through a network of Museum
Development Officers and Regional Museum Conservators and development
funding.
— Extending and improving services to schools.
— Applying knowledge and skills to work
outside museums with non-users in local communities, hospitals,
residential care homes, prisons and with marginalised groups such
as Looked After Children.
2.2.2 The assurance of Renaissance funding
from year to year (albeit with business plans of two years) has
delivered efficiencies in the development of museum services and
driven up standards by providing an infrastructure for joint action.
2.3.1 Conclusion: Impact of cutting Renaissance
If the Renaissance programme were to be cut
completely or significantly the result would not just be an immediate
loss of services to communities through inevitable redundancies,
but an undermining of the partnership ethos which has been so
effective in raising standards and encouraging ambition. Coupled
with a reduction in local authority investment, museums' capacity
to look beyond their own institutions would be far more limited,
while a return to a reliance on one-off project grants to individual
institutions would risk fragmenting the sector thereby undermining
efficiency.
2.3.2 To illustrate the difference, compare
giving a grant to a small museum for an exhibition on an aspect
of maritime heritage with Renaissance funding for a maritime heritage
project officer. The first might benefit the community and visitors
to the area in the immediate vicinity of the museum, but the second
spreads the benefits proportionately much further: the project
officer who runs the Maritime Heritage East network works with
43 museums across Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex to share expertise
and resources and raise the tourism profile of this rich aspect
of the region's heritage.
2.3.3 We strongly commend the continuation of
Renaissance to the Committee.
3. What arts organisations can do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make economies of scale
3.1.1 Shared resources
Already in the East of England significant economies
have been achieved (see 2.2 above). In addition we wish to point
to:
— The merger of two separate services to
form Colchester and Ipswich Museum Service [CIMS] which has integrated,
streamlined delivery and saved costs. The service is now managing
the new Ipswich Art School gallery as a venue and is discussing
a similar arrangement for additional cultural services in Colchester.
— Museums Luton is now part of Luton Cultural
Services Trust which brings together museums, libraries and arts
services into a new charity. This has enabled better co-ordinated
and more efficient cultural provision for the town.
— Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service
and CIMS are developing new joint governance models that could
both reduce overheads and provide exciting new possibilities for
the interpretation of East Anglian heritage.
— Funding of a Museum Development Officer
for the museums of the University of Cambridge has led to combined
outreach projects reaching thousands of families and the development
of schools' teaching in the museums. Shared facilities and response
to emergencies, for example, have been developed.
3.3.2 We would welcome DCMS support for
museums exploring different models of governance and encouragement
of the sharing of staff functions across arts and heritage organisations.
3.4.1 Shared expertise
The Renaissance East of England skills-sharing
and training scheme, SHARE, has a proven track record of delivering
effective museum development through a "barter" economy.
Hundreds of days of time from staff in five of the region's largest
museum services are pledged and then used to support activities
that benefit museums of all sizes. These include training sessions,
tailored on-site advice, mentoring, work-shadowing and self-supporting
networks of specialists. SHARE provides a "network of know
how" that helps unlock expertise so that it can benefit as
many as possible. SHARE has increased skills levels in collections
care, service to the public and museum management and administration.
3.4.2 We are currently exploring how to
develop the SHARE "mutual" model for the future and,
as part of that, are looking at a full cost-benefit analysis.
We believe the model is of interest to many in the sector but
we know that some core funding is essential for its administration.
We are sure that this model could be extended to include other
partners in cultural services.
3.5.1 Shared services
The collaboration of Renaissance East of England
partners has produced joint initiatives and services for museum
users such as exhibitions:
— Stevenage Museum and Epping Forest District
Museum have used Renaissance funding to produce family-friendly
touring exhibitions which can be booked for free by museums in
the region.
— Eastern Exchanges, the East of
England's response to the Cultural Olympiad which has already
engaged thousands of young people in activities and involved many
of them in planning the events.
— Joint exhibitions are also a central
part of the work of the regional museum networks such as Maritime
Heritage East and the Greater Fens Museums Partnership.
3.5.2 What the partners can bring to the
table results in better services for all: the whole is greater
than the sum of the parts.
3.6.1 Conclusion: Future possibilities
Renaissance East of England believes there are
real opportunities in this area, and that our experience has shown
that delivering economies of scale can go hand in hand with developing
strategic vision. However, government should recognise a certain
level of funding is needed in order to maintain the necessary
capacity for this model of working.
4. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable.
4.1.1 While we accept that some cut in public
subsidy to the arts and heritage is unavoidable we would argue
that cutting too much will ultimately undermine the long term
sustainability and credibility of the country's cultural heritage.
4.1.2 Public subsidy needs to be set at
a realistic level in order to:
— Provide a solid base from which institutions
are able to raise money from other funding partners and private
donors which in turn supports the purchase of works of art and
exhibitions.
— Enable organisations to plan strategically
and so make the most of opportunities for partnership nationally
and internationally.
— Avoid "subsistence" funding
where institutions live hand-to-mouth damaging credibility and
ability to programme quality activities.
— Safeguard a commitment to public service
ensuring all sections of the community benefit from our cultural
institutions.
5. Whether the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution is the right one.
5.1.1 Renaissance and Core museums
The distribution of public funds to the museums
sector in England through Renaissance has been successful in a
number of regions. The hub partnerships have provided many efficiencies
with regional posts, projects and central coordination supporting
the whole museums community.
5.1.2 The MLA proposal for Core museums
has the potential to undermine good hub partnership working if
too narrow a definition of what constitutes a core museum is imposed,
ie a single institution based in a metropolitan centre. This model
excludes more rural parts of England without major centres of
population. We welcome a recent suggestion that Core Museums might
also include groups of museums working together and consider this
model more likely to build on Renaissance achievements.
5.1.3 We also would welcome a direct funding
relationship with DCMS if Renaissance continues—the principle
of devolving funds and responsibility direct from national to
local is something we support.
5.2.1 Local Government
We need sufficient funding from central or local
government to cover the basic obligations for the upkeep of collections
and provision of public services. We need to be able to rely on
this in order to put our effort into income generation, cultivation
of supporters and donors and applications for funding from research
bodies and charitable foundations.
6. The impact of recent changes to DCMS arm's-length
bodies—in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council
and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
6.1.1 The MLA has been important in providing
strategic leadership and a voice for museums, libraries and archives
at a national level. However, their role as programme managers
for Renaissance has been more problematic.
6.1.2 Less bureaucracy is to be welcomed
but a sector strategic body of some kind is important. There are
some issues which are best coordinated and communicated nationally,
such as Accreditation standards. It's also important that if these
functions of the MLA are merged with an existing body eg The Arts
Council, Heritage and Museums are not seen as the "junior"
partner—after all eight out of the top 10 tourist attractions
in the country are museums. There would need to be an equal representation
and voice for arts and heritage organisations.
September 2010
| 
