Written evidence submitted by South East
Dance (SED) (arts 17)
1. INTRODUCTION
AND SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction to South East Dance and the
South East region
1.1.1 South East Dance (SED) is the national
development agency for dance in South East England. Our mission
is to ensure a thriving ecology for dance in the South East, enhancing
conditions for more, bolder and better dance. We aim to raise
the profile of dance and work with partners within and beyond
the region to achieve this. Artists and audiences are at the heart
of all we do. Our aims are:
— to increase access to dance;
— to increase participation in dance;
— to raise the profile of dance;
— to provide artistic and strategic leadership
for dance;
— to encourage learning and workforce development
in dance; and
— to operate an effective dance organisation.
1.1.2 During 2009-10, despite entering a
period of organisational and artistic review where activity was
reduced, SED reached 15,929 people through its live and recorded
work. In addition it engaged 246 professional artists whilst providing
1,220 volunteering opportunities for young people. In the same
year our film programme Forward Motion was presented in 12 countries
securing 109 screenings and audiences of 4,689 whilst raising
the international profile and cultural capital of British arts
work.
1.1.3 Achieving this level of activity would
prove impossible without revenue funding distributed from central
and local government by our core funders Arts Council England
and Brighton and Hove City Council.
1.1.4 The South East region currently encompasses
19 county and unitary authorities and 55 districts. It is the
third largest of the nine English regions and is the most heavily
populated with the highest percentage of inhabitants born out
of the UK second only to London. The population of the region
is growing faster than any other region, with a large percentage
projected to be above the age of 50 by 2020. 80% of the region
is classified as rural. Whilst the South East is perceived to
be an affluent region, it also has pockets of deprivation with
some of the most deprived areas in England within Brighton and
Hove, Hastings, Southampton and Medway.
1.2 Summary of response to DCMS Inquiry:
— Any spending cuts from central and local
government will equate to less front line arts activity.
— A mixed financial model, including central
and local government investment, is essential in order to sustain
the arts.
— A carefully phased approach to central
and local government cuts will be essential in order to avoid
killing front line arts activity.
— Many arts organisations are very effectively
streamlined and therefore whilst some work can be done to develop
shared services, the potential savings in this area are limited.
— Arts organisations are not a homogenous
group and therefore no one funding programme will fit all.
— The arts sector welcomes an Increase
in lottery funds, however it should not be seen as an opportunity
to reduce revenue funding provided by central and local government
which is needed to ensure longer term stability and lever funding
from other sources.
— Businesses and philanthropists can have
an important role to play as part of a mixed financial model,
however more should be done to encourage investment to organisations
beyond London.
2. RESPONSE TO
DCMS COMMITTEE INQUIRY
QUESTIONS
2.1 What impact recent, and future, will spending
cuts from central and local Government have on the arts and heritage
at a national and local level?
2.1.1 Less funding from central and local government
will directly equate to less arts activity. This will result in
fewer people engaging or experiencing the arts.
2.1.2 The mixed financial model for arts organisations
in England has been central to its success. Using public investment
to lever private investment or commercial return is essential
to the arts ecology. In the event of significant cuts from central
and local government, arts organisations such as SED could be
forced to operate entirely as commercial concerns. Whilst SED
recognises the opportunities presented by its commercial ventures,
reliance on one sole model could place the organisation in a vulnerable
position.
2.1.3 By operating as a commercial concern SED
would be forced to provide arts experiences solely to those that
could afford them. During summer 2010 SED worked in partnership
with six sub regional hubs to provide strategic and artistic leadership
in the delivery of Big Dance. The project provided free opportunities
for over 8000 people to engage with dance regardless of age, ability,
economic background etc. A reduction in funding from central and
local government would make this project impossible to deliver.
2.1.4 Nationally, cuts will jeapordise the UK's
thriving, world-class arts scene. Relatively small amounts of
public funding stimulate a creative mixed economy which accounted
for 2 million jobs and £16.6 billion of exports in 2007.
For every £1 that the Arts Council invests, an additional
£2 is generated from private and commercial sources.
2.1.5 Additionally, cuts will impact on the
tourism industry, on regeneration and on the development of a
cohesive and engaged society. Arts and culture are central to
tourism in the UK, worth £86 billion in 2007. Inbound tourism
is a vital export earner for the UK economy, worth £16.3
billion to the UK economy in 2008.
2.1.6 Cuts at any level will have an impact
on the development and delivery of the arts in the UK. However
a phased approach would ensure organisations have an opportunity
to plan more effectively for the future and protect the ongoing
delivery of frontline arts activity.
2.2 What could arts organisations do to work more
closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and
to make economies of scale?
2.2.1 In 2009-10 SED undertook an artistic and
organisational review in order to ensure that front line arts
activity was provided to the best of its ability and with the
most effective use of resources. During this process it reduced
its core operational costs by 25% resulting in increased funds
of over £100,000 being redirected to its programme of activity.
SED is now as operationally streamlined as possible with administrative
functions working to capacity in order to deliver activity.
2.2.2 In light of the process outlined in section
2.2.1 above, the benefits of shared services for SED would be
limited. In order for this to be a useful exercise it would need
to reduce its own activity, thus providing fewer opportunities
for the public to engage with arts activity.
2.2.3 Arts organisations cannot be considered
as a homogenous group. Each organisation has different operating
models, financial models, activity plans, communication needs
and resource needs. The notion of shared services and economies
of scale in this landscape is complex. Whilst SED is actively
exploring possibilities for shared services with other organisations,
it believes the financial return would at best be limited.
2.3 What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable?
2.3.1 SED urges the committee to be mindful
that arts organisations are not a homogenous group. The optimum
level of public subsidy will differ in response to a number of
variables that might include; national profile, geographic base,
art form focus, building/non building based. In addition activity
will impact on level of subsidy. For example projects engaging
"hard to reach" young people are more labour intensive
and expensive, but may be more valuable to society than working
with those who can afford to contribute.
2.3.2 SED is committed to moving towards a ratio
of 50% public subsidy. In the past it has secured £1 investment
for every £1 of public funds (revenue and lottery). SED does
not have a building and as such it can be flexible and fleet of
foot as an organisation, responding to opportunity and demand
as it arises. However, with this it loses potential to generate
commercial income from dance classes, studio hire etc. SED is
currently moving towards becoming a building based organisation
and hoping to reduce its ratio of public subsidy to 30%.
2.4 Is the current system, and structure, of funding
distribution the right one?
2.4.1 The current system of funding based on
demonstration of artistic excellence, partner support, public
benefit etc with a mixed economy financial model works well for
SED. We currently benefit from fixed term funding for a period
of three years from Arts Council England and Brighton and Hove
City Council. This enables us to act strategically and lever additional
funds to work across the region with local partners. SED believes
it is essential that any future model should provide the support
for organisations to lay the foundations for long term plans and
that a minimum of three years funding is required to realise this.
2.4.2 The current system has national, regional
and strategic art form overviews built in. If this is lost (for
example, funding becomes localised), strategic development could
suffer, and funding could become less cost-effective.
2.5 What impact will recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds have on arts and heritage organisations?
2.5.1 SED welcomes the proposed increase in
the percentage of National Lottery to the arts through sub section
(3)(a) to 20%. Lottery funding has been central to our development
as an organisation, often providing an injection when the organisation
was entering a period of substantial/strategic change. Although
we are not reliant on lottery funds, they have been increasingly
important in adding value to our core programme, in turn having
had a direct correlation to our ability to increase participation,
enhance partnership working etc.
2.5.2 On behalf of a number of organisations
we support who are reliant on lottery funding, we feel certain
that this increased allocation will be welcome. Competition is
currently incredibly fierce for funding, resulting in many high
quality applications being rejected on the grounds of insufficient
funds.
2.5.3 SED remains concerned that the proposed
increase in lottery funding to the arts could be seen as an opportunity
to reduce/replace revenue funding. Currently arts organisations
are also facing cuts in funding from other public sources as well
as increased competition for funding from other key sources such
as trusts and foundations.
2.5.4 SED believes it to be entirely inappropriate
to consider lottery funds as an alternative to revenue funds which
provide organisations with an opportunity to plan strategically
for the long term. There is a real danger that arts organisations'
strategic position and contribution to the arts would be weakened
and they would be forced towards short-term projects if reliant
on lottery funding.
2.6 Do policy guidelines for National Lottery
funding need to be reviewed?
2.6.1 The criteria for lottery funds allocated
to the arts are somewhat inflexible. If the criteria were to be
reconsidered to include funding for extended periods of time or
for core resource needs, this too would be a positive outcome
of increased lottery funds.
2.7 Can businesses and philanthropists play a
long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level?
2.7.1 SED believes that businesses and philanthropists
can play a role in long term funding for the arts as part of a
mixed financial model. However, this will mean a cultural shift
which will take time and encouragement to develop. This funding
will also need to be one income stream within a diverse income
range, as reliance on one sole financial model would place the
arts in a vulnerable position.
2.7.2 SED remains concerned that currently 70%
of private investment is directed to the larger London-based arts
organisations. If we develop a model that is more reliant on private
investment, there is a danger the arts will become increasingly
more centralised at the expense of regional arts provision. Similarly,
investment opportunities are greatest for those organisations
which offer high-profile corporate entertainment and marketing
opportunities, meaning support for small to medium size operations
would be less appealing. Those working at the cutting edge, within
the community settings and supporting emerging artists are likely
to find it far harder to secure investment.
2.7.3 SED would welcome the opportunity to engage
with any initiatives that supported learning between arts organisations
and businesses/philanthropists in order to increase investment
to regional and local arts organisations.
2.7.4 SED believes that in a time of recession,
support for smaller organisations from businesses and philanthropists
is unlikely to materialise at the same rate as proposed central
and local government cuts. To focus entirely in supporting the
arts in this manner would be a flawed and high risk strategy that
could result in irreparable damage to the arts.
2.8 Is there a need for more Government incentives
to encourage private donations?
2.8.1 SED would welcome more Government incentives
to encourage private donations. It considers this to be essential
to exploit a mixed funding model where businesses and philanthropists
have an increased presence.
August 2010
| 
