Written evidence submitted by Faceless
Company Ltd (arts 50)
SUMMARY
— Faceless is a small organisation delivering
street arts and community arts projects established 20 years ago.
Its funding mix is 50% earned income, 26% project funding and
23% core cost funding.
— A 25%-30% cut to our core funding would
have a devastating impact on a small organisations due to the
fact that earned income is often recycled public money and commissions
and commercial income is reduced due to the economic downturn.
— Many small scale arts organisations are
already running to tight a ship to share staff resources although
the option of ensuring that new builds of schools, community centres
and public buildings and regeneration projects provide working
space for arts organisations at peppercorn rent could have significant
impact on levels of arts subsidy needed from central and local
government.
— Public subsidy is essential as the market
will not pay the price for the labour intensive product and many
organisations can not deliver the volumes to ensure a commercial
return on investment.
— The Arts Council and Heritage Lottery
Funds are effective deliverers of public funds. Central and Local
Government could do more to ensure smaller organisations are able
to access commissions for work which deliver central and local
government initiatives. The level of bureaucracy within the present
system favours national charities and larger organisations.
— The arts should benefit from an increase
in funds through the lottery good causes. However, these increased
in funds from the lottery appear unlikely to offset the total
impact of the cuts to central and local government that will filter
down to arts providers.
— The Big Lottery Fund would be more effective
if it actively supported R & projects where community organisations
can work with local people to gain buy in to a larger project.
— A way of ensuring businesses and philanthropists
support the smaller, less visible projects is to tax pre-tax profits
as a % for arts and to instigate a voluntary donation scheme from
philanthropists that could be distrcibuted through the current
funding bodies.
1. Context for our submission, who Faceless
is and what it does
Established in 1990, the Faceless Company aims
to increase access to the arts through outdoor performance, community
arts and event management projects. The company strives to deliver
its work fee of charge to communities that otherwise will have
little or no access to live performance or creative activity.
Faceless works extensively with young people and marginalised
communities using the arts to develop self confidence and aspirations
explore identity, foster of belonging as a means and nurture active
citizens.
This submission is made by Bev Adams FRSA BA
Hons, founder member, Artistic Director & CEO of Faceless.
Faceless employs three full time staff and a further full time
equivalent of three staff made up of freelance artists working
on a project by project basis.
The company turns over +-£250K per annum
and its funding mix is made up of 50% earned income from local
authorities, statutory organisations, national charities, voluntary
sector organisations, festival programmers and shopping centres,
26% project funding from the lottery (Arts & Heritage) trusts
& foundations and 23% core funding from Arts Council, Wakefield
Council and West Yorkshire Grants. 2009-10 figures
2. Recent impact of spending cuts from central
and local Government on the arts on a local and national level
The immediate 10% cut had little impact on small
organisations such as ourselves, as it made up such a small amount
of our overall income.
3. Future impact of spending cuts from central
and local Government on the arts on a local and national level
A 25%--0% cut to our core funding would have
a devastating impact on a small organisation such as ourselves.
The issue is compounded by the fact central and local government
spending cuts affect all aspects of our income generating options.
In the current economic climate, we have already seen a reduction
in our earned income as local authorities and statutory organisations
cut back on commissioning work and spending on the arts. In addition,
our voluntary sector clients, whilst commissions from them are
treated as earned income from us, are really recycled public funds
that they have made application for and commission us to deliver.
This means that, whilst our services are in line with delivering
a Big Society agenda, we are unable to deliver on this Agenda
if we can not raise the funds to support our projects from our
present range of central and local government funded sources.
4. Can arts organisations work more closely
together in order to reduce duplication and make economies of
scale?
It is possible that some arts organisations
can work more closely together, however many smaller arts organisations
already rely on committed, highly skilled, multi-tasking staff
who are comparatively low paid and work long hours. The sharing
of buildings is very much a viable option, certainly in our field
of work and we would very much like to be situated in the heart
if a local community. Perhaps, when new schools, community centres
or regeneration projects are built, there should be a provision
made for a resident arts company.
5. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable?
If it were possible for the market to pay the
price for what it costs to make a piece of art, theatre or music,
then I would advocate for no subsidy of the arts. However it is
not possible for small arts organisations to survive in a commercial
world as most projects are bespoke and are not able to generate
the volumes of sales to break event
When compared to the prices that can be commanded
in the corporate world, the present cost of a five day project
in the community with three artists is relatively cheap at around
£5,000 + expenses. However, in order for a company of our
size cover our overheads of £140K pa we would need to deliver
28 projects at £5K per year. This would be possible a) if
all our clients can afford to pay £5,000 and many can't and
b) that 28 communities in our area would have the capacity to
accommodate such a project c) we used salaries staff in the field
on these projects, leaving little time for the running and ongoing
development of the business.
Therefore public subsidy of the arts needs to
take place when the art is perceived as having real and lasting
benefit to society and where there are limited commercial income
generating options to enable the activity to take place
6. Is the current funding system the right
one
The Arts Council acting as a main distributor
of arts funding is an expedient way of getting funding to small
and innovative as well as strategically important arts organisations
and projects.
I would like to see Central and Local Government
make more innovative use of arts organisations and arts projects
in the delivery of their services. The arts can deliver on a range
of agendas and the process for bidding for new central and local
government initiatives needs to be simplified so that the smaller
organisations are not at a disadvantage when competing for these
tenders and commissions. Quite often at present, due to the sheer
workload of submitting a tender, the tendering system (SCMS) favours
national rather than local charities. Also, the SCMS system does
not take into account the relationships that arts officers, community
officers and education providers have developed with local organisations.
In a Big Society model where local people are more active in delivering
local services, this "on the ground" knowledge and local
trust is vital to project success and outcomes.
7. Impact of the changes to the distribution
of lottery funds
The arts should benefit from an increase in
funds through the lottery good causes. However, these increased
in funds from the lottery appear unlikely to offset the total
impact of the cuts to central and local government that will filter
down to arts providers.
8. Do the policy guidelines for National
Lottery Funding need to be reviewed?
The Arts Council Grants for the Arts and Heritage
Lottery schemes are effective at funding projects that have local
impact, are innovative or strategic value.
However the Big Lottery Fund is very difficult
to access. The Big Lottery fund fails to understand that in order
to run truly effective projects in very local communities it needs
to fund smaller R & D projects which seed funds the work that
takes time to build real buy in from local people to a project.
Once the R & D is done, then that local people and the community
delivery organisation would be in a better position to work up
a major project with meaningful outcomes.
9. Can businesses and philanthropists play
a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level
Local community arts work, whilst its impacts
society (people into work, community cohesion, active citizenship,
engaging young people) is often invisible to the wider world.
Whilst it would meet local businesses corporate social responsibility
agendas, the amounts such local businesses could contribute is
in the £100s not £1,000s.
An effective way to really match central and
local government subsidy would be to tax local businesses profits
as a % for art. A percentage of the billions made by shareholders
in pre-tax profits as well as a voluntary contribution through
wealthy philanthropists, distributed through the lottery givers
of Arts Council, Heritage Lottery Fund and Big Lottery Funds,
could have a substantial impact.
10. Are government incentives needed to encourage
private donations
Please see above re voluntary donations from
philanthropist and a % for arts on pre-tax profits.
September 2010
| 
