Written evidence submitted by Luton Culture
(arts 60)
SUMMARY
— The impact in the most negative scenario
could be significantly reduced services and potentially large
numbers of redundancies.
— However, if they are targeted strategically
and gradually, reductions could have positive implications in
encouraging arts and heritage organisations to come together in
more collaborative, creative and efficient ways.
— Careful consideration needs to be taken
of how the responsibilities of MLA are picked up in order to ensure
resources are targeted effectively at frontline delivery.
— The new Renaissance model must not waste
the learning and positive developments that have been successful
over the last seven years and must not sweep away positive hub
partnerships where they have transformed their areas. These partnerships
could take on some of the MLA responsibilities—indeed some
of the hubs have already been doing this since the MLA restructure
a few years ago.
1. What impact will recent, and future, spending
cuts from central and local Government have on the arts and heritage
at a national and local level
For ourselves, as for many other cultural organisations,
spending cuts will affect us at a range of levels, both via grant
cuts from the local authority and funding from national bodies
such as MLA and the Arts Council. The impact in the most negative
scenario could be significantly reduced services and potentially
large numbers of redundancies. However, if they are targeted strategically
and gradually, reductions could have positive implications in
encouraging arts and heritage organisations to come together in
more collaborative, creative and efficient ways which could save
significant amounts of money over the long term while sustaining—and
possibly even improving—our outcomes for the public. That
opportunity will be wasted if dramatic cuts are made over a very
short period of time. If the reductions in spending come in one
blow and are not phased over a sensible longer term, my fear is
that many will be back to running on a skeleton staff that just
manages to keep the doors open.
Cultural organisations have been relatively
well funded for the past decade and this has allowed much of the
sector to develop work in areas to support national and local
priorities such as community cohesion, health, learning, economic
development etc. Many arts and heritage organisations are already
exploring how to use what they have learned over the last years
to change their business models to sustain themselves in different
ways through commissioning, new collaborations and partnerships,
co-location of services and so on. Unfortunately, although many
cultural organisations are ready to take up this challenge, often
commissioning is not sufficiently developed at a local level and
so those opportunities are simply not yet there to be exploited.
In terms of the impact on ourselves specifically,
Luton Culture is a relatively new charity (less than three years
old) and currently relies on our local authority grant for 72%
of our £6 million budget and other public funding (MLA/Arts
Council) for another 12%. Our vision when the charity was formed
was to move to a 50% local authority/50% other funding model over
a ten year period. Clearly the timing of the cuts is not good
for us as we have not yet reached that level of independence—and
as a charity that runs mainly free services (libraries, museums
and our outreach activity) building up self sustained income through
secondary spend etc cannot happen overnight—particularly
when the individuals are generally cutting back on their spending.
Renaissance in the Regions has transformed the
museums sector over the last seven years and we await news of
what the new model will look like, what the level of funding is
likely to be and over what period of time the transition to the
new model will take place. The hub partners in the East fo England
are clear that the hub structure has worked extremely effectively
in the region. There are certainly areas for improvement but the
most effective way to herald the next phase of Renaissance will
be to build on what works already. The East of England hub picked
up many of the responsibilities of MLA when it was streamlined
a few years ago which significantly lessened the impact of the
cuts on the museums sector. With MLA due to close in 2012 the
hub would be in a positive place to take that further at a much-reduced
cost (see Q7).
2. What can arts organisations do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make economies of scale
Cultural and arts organisations need to be working
more closely together and to consider mergers and different models
of working to meet the current challenges. They need to be open
to see the opportunities to make economies of scale to become
more efficient. Unfortunately, political barriers and the bureaucracy
of local authorities still hamper them from being bold and coming
together to embrace Total Place solutions.
As referred to above, if reductions in spending
are phased with incentives for organisations to come together
either by merging or to run shared services, this could be a significant
opportunity to improve the efficiency of the sector. In many areas,
ours being one, there are relatively small local authorities each
running their own libraries, arts and museums. Coming together
under one sub regional agreement, charitable trust or social enterprise
model would enable large savings while sustaining or even improving
the offer to the public. But this is still a step too far for
many authorities to countenance and our fear is that, if funding
cuts are both deep and immediate, many cultural services and organisations
will instead wither and die.
It may also be an opportunity for arts and heritage
organisations to work across their sectors at a local level. At
Luton Culture we've discovered tangible benefits in being a charity
that runs libraries, arts and museums both in terms of efficiency
of scale for the back office operations but also in sharing skills
and resources which is supporting us to become more than the sum
of our parts.
3. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable
On the one hand Luton Culture embraces the need
for arts and heritage to be more independent, self-sustaining
and imaginative in their work. This underpins our vision as a
charity and was Luton Borough Council's aim when we were set up
in March 2008. However, and it is a large however, much of the
work that is integral to supporting our communities through learning,
positive activities and working with people to explore and instil
a sense of place and identity is something that must remain a
core free offer at the point of delivery. (Our trading activities
support this core work but still to a very minimal degree.) Indeed,
the core work of cultural organisations is even more critical
in times of economic hardship so public investment in them has
to continue if the arts and culture—and by that we include
free access to books, computers, libraries and museums—are
not to be denied to the less well off and cultural activity reverts
to being the preserve of those who can comfortably afford it.
However that does not mean that we conserve in aspic every cultural
outpost and cultural organisations need to look carefully and
strategically at their operations in order to remodel them to
meet the challenge.
4. Whether the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution is the right one
The current system differs of course for individual
organisations depending on their governance. It is clear that
local authorities will be looking at fewer directly delivered
services and those that remain in-house will most likely be the
key statutory ones. However, whether it is directly or indirectly,
via core grants or commissioned services, local authorities must
continue to be key investors in the heritage and arts organisations
who serve their populations. Better and clearer SLAs with cultural
organisations to deliver their outcomes are critical—as
are longer term funding agreements that allow for redress if the
organisation is not performing but gives cultural organisations
the stability of resource to plan and manage their priorities
and resources effectively. Otherwise organisations spend a disproportionate
amount of time chasing funding and their people on short term
contracts are constantly on the look out for longer term roles
that will give them better personal security. None of this serves
the sector well and even more importantly does not help it to
focus on the key outcomes that its communities and funders require.
5. What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations
The additional funding for lottery distributers
is very welcome. However, the funding is often for capital or
smaller revenue programmes so cannot replace core funding. Moreover,
most lottery grants require match funding, much of which comes
from the public sector. There is already serious concern that
good projects and programmes underway or in the pipeline are in
jeopardy because of the loss of the match funding element and
this issue needs to be addressed.
6. Whether the policy guidelines for National
Lottery funding need to be reviewed
I don't think that they need a huge overhaul.
Bearing in mind my previous comment regarding the concern over
match funding from public sources these guidelines could be reviewed.
However, I think it is still critical that there is a match funding
element from applicants to demonstrate their commitment to the
programmes that they are being supported to deliver—and
from local authorities where the project or programme enhances
their locality and/or quality of life for residents.
7. 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
The impact really depends on what organisation
takes over MLA's and the Film Council's responsibilities and how
they operate. As mentioned above, when MLA restructured and became
more streamlined a few years ago, the impact on museums was minimised
because the museums hubs took on much of the advice and support
role that MLA had formerly given. With the museums hub structure
also potentially ending this could be a significant gap. A clear
plan must be made and communicated in good time to allow effective
transition and it would be sensible to base this on those hubs
that have worked well under Renaissance with potentially the core
museum model used in areas where it has not.
With regards to libraries, the Advisory Council
on Libraries which advised the Secretary of State about library
and information services has also been abolished leaving a further
gap in advice and support for cultural provision.
8. Whether businesses and philanthropists
can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local
level
The simple answer is yes but clearly philanthropic
and corporate giving are not a panacea to replace public funding—certainly
not in the short term. Philanthropy in the UK is underdeveloped
compared to the US and will need sustained work to develop it
over the medium to long term.
Moreover, cultural philanthropy in the UK is
largely based around support for capital projects, when the most
urgent need for cultural organisations is revenue funding. Encouraging
existing philanthropists away from a desire to support very visible,
high kudos projects is key if they are to support the long-term
sustainability of the sector.
Substantial encouragement will also be required
to increase the number of cultural philanthropists if philanthropy
is to make any substantial impact at both a national and local
level. Increasing the numbers of people who identify themselves
as philanthropists could be achieved through a campaign highlighting
that relatively modest single donations can make a considerable
difference to small and medium sized cultural organisations. Also,
encouraging the idea of local cultural philanthropists might be
effective—and would closely align with Big Society principles.
A successful business owner, for example, could have significant
impact as a donor in a defined area and could therefore understand
their own potential as a local philanthropist, whereas they might
not be able to identify with the concept of a national/international
philanthropist.
9. Whether there need to be more Government
incentives to encourage private donations
This would be useful. A good model is the scheme
run by Arts and Business during the late 1990s which provided
match funding for projects which attracted sponsorship from businesses
that were first-time sponsors of the arts. Greater promotion of
Gift Aid (and all tax effective donation schemes) and legacy giving
would also be valuable.
September 2010
| 
