Written evidence submitted by the National
Association of Local Government Arts Officers (NALGAO) (arts 209)
1. Background
1.1 nalgao is the national body representing
local authority arts officers across England and Wales. With over
400 members, it champions local arts and artists of all types—professional,
amateur and voluntary. nalgao's members include local government
officers at all levels, arts professionals, cultural and creative
industry organisations, as well as arts marketing and consultancy
specialists. We support local arts and creative development and
nalgao has a number of significant national partnerships, including
with the Arts Councils of England and Wales, the National Campaign
for the Arts and the Voluntary Arts Network.
2. Summary
— nalgao notes two principle related points,
one simple, one complex. The first (not yet widely recognised),
that as local government spends more on arts and heritage than
central government and as its budgets are cut, arts and heritage
will be hit twice.
— The second, that local government arts
funding underpins the breadth and diversity of the sector. The
real threat to grass roots and developmental work will have a
detrimental impact on the vibrancy of the "higher" end
of the sector. The "arts ecology" will be damaged, as
will cultural tourism and creative industries, one of the few
growth areas in the national economy.
— That the sums saved are insignificant
in the bigger picture yet will damage the sector considerably
for years to come. The impact of cuts in local authority arts
budgets will be a decline in participation in arts and cultural
services, affecting communities most disadvantaged, young people
and those economically challenged, with less art for everyone,
and only the well-off metropolitan will be able to access cultural
provision. The Arts Council's ambitions for "Great Art for
Everyone" will be unachievable.
— The timing of budget reductions will
be critical—front-loading cuts will cause damage, back-loading
will at least allow organisations to prepare for and in some case
replace lost funds.
3. The Impact of funding cuts from central
and local government on arts and heritage at a national and local
level
3.1 nalgao's primary concern over arts and
heritage funding is the double impact of central government cuts,
coupled with local government reductions. Local government is
a major funder of arts and heritage—spending more on these
than the DCMS. CLG reports[186]
that spending by local government on culture (excluding community
centres, sports and recreation) in 2008-09 was nearly £2,500,000,000
against £1,200,000,000 from DCMS.
3.2 Local government funding for arts and
heritage underpins the sector in England, but these services are
not statutory (excluding some record office obligations and minimum
provision of libraries). Consequently, cultural and leisure budgets
are under major threat as councils ask what is the minimum they
are required to do. Furthermore, these budgets have already been
under pressure for some time—there is little room to manoeuvre.
3.3 nalgao's annual surveys of local authority
spending on the arts reveals, in summary, that:
3.3.1 Arts budgets generally have been at
standstill, with little inflationary increase. Factoring in the
impact of inflation over the 2008-09 period, this equates to a
real 5% decrease in arts spending by local authorities.
3.3.2 Spending on the arts by local authorities
varies considerably, from below £50k to over £5 million.
Unitary authorities in general invest more in the arts than county
or second tier (ie district and/or borough) councils, an average
of nearly £1.5 million against £500k and £200K
respectively.
3.3.3 It is smaller councils that have reduced
arts spending the most, and that report least confidence in the
future. However, only three major cities in early 2010 reported
being positive about the future, against a general expectation
of severe cuts.
3.3.4 Forty-four authorities have withdrawn
all arts funding over the past seven years, which accounts for
approximately 15% of all local authorities with previously active
arts services. A quarter of responding councils to our 2009-10
survey expected severe service reduction in 2010-11 but this was
in expectation of a deficit reduction policy prior to the general
election and so before the likely scale of public spending cuts
was known. There is often no major press coverage of local authority
arts closures, unlike closures of regional or national arts projects,
which may receive press and media interest. The closure of local
authority arts services is consequently unreported and often unnoticed
by the national arts funding system.
3.4 Local authorities fund the arts in furtherance
of council priorities, such as health, education, regeneration,
economic development, creating vibrant places and supporting social
and cultural inclusion. In doing this council arts service have
developed strong partnerships with other council services and
external public services, such as health, education and housing
associations, while nearly two-thirds have partnerships with the
cultural industries sector.
3.5 These partnerships generate additional
funding for the arts, and while it is not possible to give a national
total for this, a representative sample of 64 authorities reported
additional income from these sources at £20,000,000.
3.6 Most council arts services attract other
public and/or commercial funding to spend on the arts, giving
a return of at least £1 for £1 invested. However, nalgao
notes that this return on investment is considerably lower in
2010 than in 2009, when it was £1.34 for every £1 invested.
3.7 While council arts services and independent
arts organisations have been skilful at attracting other public
funding for the arts, the in-year cuts in 2010-11 to these funding
streams have been particularly damaging, not only for being unplanned
but already into the funding year with funding spent or committed.
For instance:
3.7.1 Regional Development Agencies have
(in some regions) funded the arts, the in-year cuts have resulted
in the withdrawal of £1.37 million towards the Turnpike Gallery
in the North West, where the Liverpool Everyman Theatre has also
lost £2.4 million promised for redevelopment.[187]
3.7.2 In the Eastern region, the withdrawal
of LABGI funding threatens the future of ADeC (Arts Development
East Cambridge). ADeC is a good example of the existing level
of innovation and partnership working already present within the
arts sector: a charity, ADeC works with a number of local authorities
through both grants and contracts, as well as generating income
directly, and through trusts and foundations, to deliver arts
services and activities directly responsive to local communities'
interests and needs. This is an effective and sustainable model,
however, the in-year cut of nearly 10% of its turnover has put
it under significant pressure, at a time when work was already
planned to manage planned cuts to local authority funding from
2011 onwards. It is notable that ACE made the decision to limit
the in-year effect on its core funded (RFO) organisations, but
this approach has not been uniformly matched in relation to the
more community focused work carried out and funded by local authorities.
3.8 Local government is often a co-funder
with Arts Council England for its Regularly Funded Organisations
(RFOs), and ACE's 2006-07 survey showed local government's contribution
to be £65.6 million. Funding cuts place this partnership
in jeopardy; at considerable risk to both regional and national
flagship arts organisations and it will be a rarity for either
partner to be able to make good the reductions made by the other.
3.9 The Arts Council and councils also jointly
fund activities and organisations outside of the RFO portfolio.
These were not eligible for SUSTAIN funding, introduced by ACE
to help organisations through the recession, and are vulnerable
to cuts. An example of this is the council run New Art Gallery
Walsall, which receives grant-aid from ACE, but faces council
cuts of between 25% and 40%. It has been calculated that even
the "best case scenario" will take ten years to return
funding levels to present day rates. The gallery has already had
to shut on Mondays; further budget cuts will mean more closed
doors.
3.10 However, Arts Council funding and the
RFO portfolio in particular, tell only a part of the story of
the arts in England. Over 70% of local authorities surveyed by
nalgao reported that they regularly fund non-ACE funded organisations.
3.11 nalgao has a particular concern for
the diversity of arts activities that take place outside of buildings—we
fear for this work as it leaves no "empty building"
as testament of lost funding. This area of community outreach
and often pioneering development, is particularly vulnerable,
especially work with the "hard to reach" groups and
communities, work in youth clubs, village halls, community centres,
in open spaces and on the street. This also includes festivals,
often the lifeblood of community participation in the arts. British
Arts Festivals Association (BAFA) reports sponsors are dropping
out. For instance, Henley Festival lost £100,000 sponsorship
as companies question the "wisdom of hosting champagne events
when staff are being laid off" and local authority lost grants,
and Cheltenham Festival faced a £220,000 cut of local authority
funding.
3.12 In addition to the funding they provide,
local authority arts services have a significant role in facilitating
the voluntary sector. Support for the voluntary arts sector on
the ground is almost entirely carried out through local authorities.
This varies from liaison with the licensing and enforcing roles
of councils through advice and guidance, and both direct and match
funding support to enable applications to third party grant giving
bodies. The voluntary sector is a huge part of the whole arts
economy across the UK, and the impact, both social and economic,
of the removal of local authority support on that sector is wholly
unknown.
3.13 We understand the focus on protecting
front line arts delivery, the Arts Council's emphasis on the arts
themselves, but the important financial support to capacity and
skills development has been an early casualty. The loss of support
to the Cultural Leadership programme, Artsmark and Audience Development
will all have a longer-term negative impact on the growth of talent
and workforce skills—the arts ecology will be damaged.
3.14 Nalgao also fears that—insofar
as an emerging arts and heritage policy can be discerned—that
it is informed by a "high arts" perspective, one whohc
does not recognise or value the breath and diversity of the arts
and heritage sector in England.
4. How arts organisations can work more closely
together to achieve economies of scale
4.1 There are clear entrepreneurial opportunities
and models for the sector—and the hub and satellite model
of the museum sector may have lessons for others as well. These
will enable greater efficiency and self-sufficiency, and there
is good evidence that these are already in development in both
council cultural services and the independent sector. However,
timing is crucial, and the front-loading of cuts will mean that
most services will not be able to develop new income routes and
delivery models in time to support a smooth transition. The result
will be weakened services, unable to deliver effectively and therefore
entirely vulnerable to closure. More careful timing and funding
reductions would enable services to move more effectively into
new operational models, protecting front-line services.
4.2 While economies of scale might well
be beneficial for back office "merger", the diversity
of the sector, the "character" of individual organisations
will need to be protected as will the ability to maintain specialisms
and social values when larger organisations will be in the stronger
position and could subsume smaller more vulnerable operations.
5. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable?
5.1 Currently the sums invested are modest
in the big picture—if the entire cultural sector, (that
is arts, museums and libraries) could access just.05% of the health,
social care and children's service budgets, council cultural budgets
would go up by 45%,[188]
and yet we have already shown that councils spend more than twice
on arts and heritage than the DCMS. The savings to be made—even
at 40%, will mean little to the national funding pot but cause
considerable damage.
5.2 To answer this question however, the
policy and purpose of funding arts and heritage needs to be clear,
as does an understanding of the value the funding "buys".
If free access to galleries and museums is the nation's ambition
so that our heritage is free to all, not only those who can afford
it then that comes at a cost. A cost that includes the fixed costs
that come with the statutory duty of museums to conserve and interpret.
5.3 A "cultural entitlement" policy
would suggest a different funding level, and no doubt one that
is currently not considered affordable. However, a "one percent
for arts" policy has been successfully applied by councils
in the past and might be a useful benchmark—as well as providing
a very clear statement that arts funding is far from excessive.
6. Is the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution the right one?
6.1 Analysis of Arts Council funding to
RFOs across the English regions (2005-06 to 2008-09) indicates
a considerable imbalance of distribution. While London received
over 50% of the funding, the Midlands received 12% and the South
East—the most populated region, received only 4%.
6.2 ACE no longer distinguishes between
treasury and lottery funding distributed as grant aid, but a similar
imbalance is present in grants—with £6,080,000 to London,
£1,656,000 to the West Midlands and only £832,000 and
£781,000 to the East and South east respectively.[189]
As ACE reports that grant applications are frequently turned down
in the lower funded areas due to pressure for funding rather than
poor proposals, this indicates the distribution of funds for grant
is not equitable.
6.3 The Arts Council has been working to
address this imbalance, but there is a lack of equity across the
country and, while local priorities and difference are to be acknowledged
and celebrated, ACE policy differences have been hard to understand.
Funding distribution needs to be transparent and fair—but
even for successful fund raisers, the processes are time consuming
and the decision making often obscure.
6.4 ACE no longer publishes distribution
data related to art form and regions, consequently it is not possible
to see who has received Grants for the Arts funding. This leads
to the perception—if not the reality—that in some
regions, G4A funding is topping up RFO clients, rather than supporting
grass roots, new and innovative or developmental work.
6.5 Indeed, ACE's focus on organisations
that require significant levels of regular funding can be counter
productive: it has effectively excluded smaller scale, often more
flexible organisations, and it also creates a bias against organisations
working in communities, which often do not carry the overhead
costs of large buildings. It could be seen as encouraging organisations
away from routes that would increase self-sufficiency. In this,
we welcome the current review by ACE of its funding streams and
hope these will in future be more equitable and responsive.
7. Whether the policy guidelines for National
Lottery funding needs to be reviewed
7.1 While the hoped-for increase is welcome,
it is not due until April 2012, by which point it is likely that
reduced staffing will mean arts organisations and council arts
services have little capacity to make funding applications. This
increase will not make up the budget cuts.
7.2 The ending of the "Awards for All"
has negatively impacted on community groups as it was a simple
and easily accessed lottery fund, not adequately replaced by ACE's
smaller Grants for the Arts scheme, which remains challenging
for small community groups and inexperienced fund raisers who
previously were able to learn much by the simpler application
process.
7.3 At the same time, larger arts projects
have been generally excluded from the Big Lottery which has not
generally been able to recognise the value of arts led applications.
8. The impact of recent changes to DCMS NDPBs
8.1 While we would agree that some of the
NDPBs needed review to be more effective, the abolition of these
with so little consideration of the impact is concerning. Where
will support for museums, libraries and archives now come from?
How will the nationally important support for the film industry
be made?
8.2 Furthermore, there have been considerable
changes to these agencies over the past few years n- changes that
have led to a loss of human capital and intelligence. Organisations
are the sum of the people that inhabit them—not simply a
reflection of the balance sheet. Loss of knowledgeable and experienced
personnel through repeated restructuring has been destructive
of relationships, and certainly in the case of the MLA and ACE,
meant a serious reduction in contact, support and effective advise.
9. Whether businesses and philanthropists
can play a long-term role in fund the arts at a national and local
level
9.1 While it is hoped this would be the
case, representative voices have already indicated they are interested
in adding value, not replacing public funding.
9.2 Experience has shown that high profile
organisations, those in prime locations with fine building—whether
traditional or new—those that have something to offer sponsors
in either prestige or hospitality or marketing, can do well in
this—although sponsorship and patronage have declined in
recent years.
9.3 Lower profile, less glamorous work such
as criminal justice, activities in less densely populated, rural
areas and centres of deprivation, outside of the economically
active south east and London have all struggled
9.4 Sponsors and businesses support that
which appeals to them, new organisations, developmental and risky
projects, volunteer led arts projects—those most dependent
on public funding are not generally attractive to private funding.
10. Whether there need to be more government
incentives to encourage private donations
10.1 Yes—but it is hard to say how
private donations could be generated, beyond a more generous and
equitable tax break system. To create a similar spirit of giving
to America will take time—at the very least—more like
a cultural shift.
September 2010
186 Local Authority Revenue Expenditure and Financing
England: 2008-09 Final Outturn, December 2009, CLG. Back
187
Arts Professional website 16 August 2010. Back
188
IDeA January 2010. Back
189
Arts Council England Annual Review 2010. Back
| 
