Written evidence submitted by Liverpool
City Council (arts 54a)
LIVERPOOL CITY
COUNCIL: CULTURE
LIVERPOOL 3 SEPTEMBER
2010
Executive Summary
Liverpool's regeneration continues to be shaped
and improved by our uniquely strong cultural offer. We have a
rich programme of events, community activities, performances and
exhibitions through the city's exceptional venues and festivals.
Liverpool City Council (LCC) works closely with the cultural sector
and currently provides annual funding of £4.2 million through
our Arts & Culture Investment Programme (ACIP). The City provides
a major events programme that involves our cultural sector and
brings exponential benefits. Furthermore LCC is engaged with the
independent arts networks that represent the sector such as LARC
(Liverpool Arts Regeneration) and COoL (Cultural Organisations
of Liverpool) and provides non-financial support through partnership
working, facilitation and joint work to enhance delivery of cultural
services. This has brought tangible and significant economic and
social benefits and contributed to the repositioning of the city
as an international tourist destination. We propose that:
— Culture is not an "add on"—it's
an integral part of our society, but needs support and nurture
to fully realise its inherent value.
— The CASE Study has already demonstrated the
economic and social significance of cultural activity (tourism,
economy, employment, training, education, community cohesion,
sense of place and identity, wellbeing).
In times of economic recession and reduced spending
power, cultural providers can help individuals and communities
cope and improve quality of life in non monetary ways. LCC is
concerned for the fragility of the cultural sector and the delicate
balance of funding that is reliant upon public subsidy, and how
this will impact on the regeneration of the city:
1. Parts of the sector operate close to
their financial and organisational margins and are vulnerable
to cuts in funding.
Current scenarios and contingent plans will broadly
allow changes to be managed and structured. However, further reduction
in funding will impede ability to change and will lead to regression
of the sector and will reduce the value and impact of their activities.
Stronger strategic guidance and support is required
to give the cultural sector the opportunity to respond to the
(as yet) under defined requirements of national government and
to enable them to refocus their activity to meet strategic aims
using available resources.
2. Culture should be embedded at the core
of the remit of the emerging LEPs, who should be responsible for
communicating, coordinating, engaging and developing the cultural
sector to meet new agendas of the Big Society. We need to embed
culture firmly to fully realise the benefits to quality of life.
3. We need "buy in" at the highest
levels of national and local government to the multiplying value
of culture to education, health and economy, and to be able to
support the cultural sector to ensure the cultural contribution
to the regeneration of our city continues unabated.
4. We need more official emphasis and endorsement
of the value of culture to Quality of Life and to ensure that
there are socially accessible routes to these benefits. We need
to ensure that resources are focussed in the areas of most need
and that strategic regional support is maintained.
Cities are already well equipped to be able to
make decisions regarding the requirements and allocation of cultural
resource. We require less complex and burdensome administration,
and greater autonomy to strategically focus our programmes of
work.
5. The cultural sector still has potential
to deliver stronger quality of life benefits at a neighbourhood
level. Value and impact can be developed using coordinated approaches
to match funding for neighbourhood & grass roots projects,
to encourage cross authority (or joint agency working) and to
maximise the use of available assets such as historic buildings.
6. Policies need to strongly reflect that
statutory and funded bodies understand and consistently espouse
the value of culture to Quality of Life.
Funding policies should be reviewed (along with
non cultural policies) in order to provide cultural progression
routes through school, employment opportunities, social activity,
and built environment. Lottery funding needs to benefit those
who buy lottery tickets.
7. Provision needs to be made for support
from experienced and qualified sources for both the Museum and
Film sectors, to maintain and improve their successes.
8. It is not realistic to consider private
sector funding as a substitute for public sector subsidy. The
"culture of cultural support" is not yet embedded, and
requires more development, incentive and advocacy. It is unlikely
to proportionally benefit the smaller end of the sector.
9. The current economic climate will not
encourage patronage without further incentives. The mechanisms
for developing patronage are not as well developed as those for
sponsorship. There is a challenge in meeting the desired results
in certain areas of work, and in particular geographical locations.
1. 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?
1.1 Current funding cuts and uncertainty
over future funding are having a detrimental effect to the morale
of cultural organisations and are affecting their ability to plan.
Whilst the seriousness of the economic situation and the need
to reduce public debt is understood, the cultural sector is generally
pessimistic about the immediate future, and their ability to maintain
effectiveness at reduced funding levels. There are fears that
the progress made will be reversed and that rapid change will
be forced upon them.
1.2 Liverpool is currently anticipating
the arrival of the new Museum of Liverpool in 2011 which will
be a major tourist attraction, we are concerned about the impact
upon National Museums Liverpool (NML), and urge maintenance of
support to this successful & effective organisation that brings
education, engagement and visitors to the city. In the absence
of a clear national vision, plan and progression route for funding
of culture, there is difficulty in putting together contingency
and emergent planning to ensure that the cultural sector remains
relevant and has impact. The cultural sector needs better guidance,
some certainty of the level of funding available, and more information
about what outcomes are required. In Liverpool the sector has
grown in recent years due to the European Capital of Culture in
2008 and is in the process of consolidating. It contributes enormously
to the aims and objectives of the city. The Mersey Partnership
have identified that tourism has the potential to grow by another
£100 million and create a further 2000 jobs in the region.
Culture is an essential component in ensuring that this potential
is met.
1.3 However it is also a fragile sector
that could be considered as under funded. Many of Liverpool's
small and medium organisations operate to tight financial margins,
based on frugal management and judicious fundraising. They are
a success in this respect but are vulnerable to funding cuts.
Top slicing 15% or 25% will render some organisations ineffective,
as this is where they are able to produce artistic programme and
real impact. We have assessed our organisations and are confident
of their abilities but also aware of their financial precariousness.
However there is still work to be done towards optimisation of
the sector and improvement of partnerships and efficient use of
resources. There is a need for planning time and structured change
to be "incentivised" along with a clear vision and pathway
to future norms and expectations for cultural delivery. Additionally,
Liverpool has an array of complex heritage assets that require
sustained public investment, otherwise risk losing viability.
1.4 Parts of the sector operate close to
their financial and organisational margins and are vulnerable
to cuts in funding.
1.5 Current scenarios and contingent plans
will broadly allow changes to be managed and structured. Further
reduction in funding will impede ability to change and will lead
to regression of the sector and will reduce the value and impact
of their activities.
1.6 Stronger strategic guidance and support
is required to give the cultural sector the opportunity to respond
to the (as yet) under defined requirements of national government
and to be able to refocus their activities to meet new strategic
aims using available resources.
2. What arts organisations can do to work more
closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and
to make economies of scale
2.1 Liverpool is well networked with major
organisations clustering within Liverpool Arts Regeneration Consortium
(LARC) and small medium organisations in COoL (Cultural Organisations
of Liverpool). The Merseyside Local Authority Arts Officers Group
(MAOG) are working with Liverpool organisation "Arts in Regeneration"
to look at best practice in Arts & Health and Wellbeing across
the City Region in order to identify efficiencies, proposal and
develop best practice frameworks. These organisations are already
building cooperation and coordination of resources to be more
effective: (see footnote and LARC response[68].)
LCC is reviewing how it supports the cultural sector and is moving
closer towards:
2.1 Facilitation:
— A clearer strategic focus for activities
and better communication.
— Brokering of partnerships and projects.
— Better tools for commissioning.
— Training for organisational development.
2.2 Advocacy and Support:
— Providing a structured support programme
("Fit for the Future") through joint working with support
agencies such as LCVS, Merseyside ACME, All About Audiences and
Arts Council England.
— Support for enterprise such as signposting
to fundraising opportunities.
— Coordination of Business support.
— Networking with business sector (for
example through A&B, BIA, ACME, Business Link.)
— Developing supportive toolkits including
websites and communication forums.
2.3 Clear communications:
— Marketing and Tourism advice.
2.4 Better Administration:
— We will review and simplify our monitoring
procedures to reduce administrative burdens.
— We will consider alternative monitoring
methods that enhance relevance evidence and advocacy for culture.
— We will review and streamline the terms
and conditions of our grant offers.
2.5 We need culture to be considered on
a statutory basis by emerging Local Enterprise Partnerships, and
for recognition that culture is an essential component of contributing
to the involvement of our communities in "Big Society."
Cultural Organisations are ideally placed to change mindsets,
engage new participants, build enthusiasm, engender volunteers,
share &build skills; all the hallmarks for the building of
social capital. They require structured resources and incentives
to be able to do this, through clear vision and guidance towards
outcomes that are sustainable. Embedding of cultural components
in health, education and community frameworks will have the double
effect of creating new markets for cultural activity, and improving
quality of life without direct linkage to economic growth.
2.6 Culture should be embedded at the core
of the remit of the emerging LEPs, who should be responsible for
communicating, coordinating, engaging and developing the cultural
sector to meet new agendas of the Big Society. We need to embed
culture firmly to fully realise the benefits to quality of life.
3. What level of public subsidy for the
arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;
3.1 It is not possible to attribute an ideal
amount to each organisation in percentage terms, as the nature
of organisations varies widely. Allocation amounts are not the
only issue but how the resources are allocated. In Liverpool LCCs
grant funding scheme of £4.2 million generates match funding
of over £20million, involves thousands of people in events
and workshops, and brings millions of visitors. There is still
potential for to build on the successes of these initiatives and
build community involvement, enhanced visitor attractions and
a better offer to our communities. The LCC Cultural Champions
is an initiative that aims to bring the interface between the
public, the cultural sector and the local authority together and
early indications are of improved advocacy and engagement at a
local level; (see http://liverpoolculturalchampions.wordpress.com/about/.)
3.2 Liverpool is also developing a Heritage
Investment Framework that will improve the dynamics of the City
Councils relationship with English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery
Fund.
3.3 However certain activities, particularly
those with social development or artistic quality at their core
do not always have an immediate economic return and require specific
and focussed financial support to realise their long term benefits
in both economic and social terms. These activities are often
time limited (eg Creative Partnerships/Find Your Talent) and are
not given time to engender real social change. Geographical areas
receive support, and then lose momentum as the initiatives end
and the funding moves to other problem agendas. There should be
a long term strategy for the embedding of cultural infrastructure
into public services, (education, health, environment), for the
development of initiatives that bring long term benefits, creating
new audiences for culture and involving more people. We need to
change mindsets so that culture is embedded in our services, and
that it's contribution to quality of life is fully recognised.
3.4 The expectations in terms of outputs
and outcomes could be simplified and standard models of evaluation
should be promoted that are simple to use and explain cultural
impact. Use of internet and electronic communications can help
enable this and provide credible data.
3.5 We need to ensure that an understanding
that quality cultural provision is essential to education, built
environment, community & youth work and health improvement.
Local Enterprise Partnerships will be ideally place to ensure
the development of effective and positive collaborations that
can have real impact.
3.6 In terms of heritage, there are real
costs associated with heritage designations (defined by Government)
in addition to the costs of good stewardship and this should be
balanced with some degree of state funding.
3.7 We need "buy in" at the highest
levels of national and local government to recognise the multiplying
value of culture to education, health and economy, and to be able
to support the cultural sector to ensure the cultural contribution
to the regeneration of our city continues unabated.
4. Whether the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution is the right one
4.1 The system has a general clarity, but
maintains a distance between arts/culture infrastructure, third
sector (community services), and private sector. Partnerships
are therefore driven by pro—active initiatives that have
to be strategically aligned through sometimes complex multi agency
arrangements and funding schemes. The complexity of these arrangements
can lead to duplication or dilution of impact.
For example, a time limited project in one neighbourhood,
with no strategic arrangements for progression by participants
or community. At the same time a similar project, funded by a
different agency in a nearby area, begins, duplicating development
costs.
4.2 Communication is an issue, and the tools
or incentives for this should be developed so that assessment
of Lottery funded projects includes current and proposed projects
being visible to strategic partners and to neighbourhood stakeholders
prior to assessment of new proposals.
4.3 Arts Council England's Grants for the
Arts is a clear process that has become well understood by the
arts sector. It does require a certain amount of understanding
and prior knowledge, and Local Authority Arts Officers provide
essential support to the development of successful bids, providing
local knowledge and strategic input and should be encouraged.
ACEs efforts to involve Local Authorities in the decision making
processes of GFA, (and RFO assessments) are beneficial to both
partners in developing a joint approach to arts infrastructure.
However a similar but wider joint approach to Lottery funded Sports/Heritage/Community
projects would benefit assessment of resource allocation. Cities
are already well equipped to be able to make decisions regarding
the requirements and allocation of cultural resource. We require
less complex and burdensome administration, and greater autonomy
to strategically focus our programmes of work.
4.4 Improvement could also be made in public
perceptions of the benefits of the cultural arts to health, well
being of individuals, and to social outcomes generally. Common
models of evaluation and tools for measurement require standardisation.
Measuring audience numbers does not give a full picture as evidenced
by the CASE study.
4.5 We need more official emphasis and endorsement
of the value of culture to Quality of Life and to ensure that
there are socially accessible routes to these benefits. We need
to ensure that resources are focussed in the areas of most need
and that strategic regional support is maintained.
4.6 Cities are already well equipped to
be able to make decisions regarding the requirements and allocation
of cultural resource. We require less complex and burdensome administration,
and greater autonomy to strategically focus our programmes of
work. This will provide the individual & distinctive city
characteristics that will provide both local and national strength
to our cultural offer.
5. What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations
5.1 This change is intended to bring more
funding directly to arts and heritage organisations. However,
reductions to Big Lottery Funding will impact on community focused
or based organisations who do not have organisational infrastructure
and specialist staff to develop their business. It may become
more difficult for grass roots organisations who rely on support
agencies to initiate projects and sustain themselves without the
advice, experience and expertise of professionalised services
who rely on Big Lottery funding.
5.2 This may also impact on the Equality
profiles of organisations and audiences/participants, as deprived
areas will suffer a lack of the right skills to access funding
and management. Provision for the (non cultural) artistic support
of SME cultural organisations requires further consideration.
During 2010 Liverpool City Council and Liverpool Primary Care
Trust have jointly funded 46 small "Grass Roots" organisations
to delivery a wide programme of activities that promote and engage
people in Health & Well Being. Many of these organisations
rely on other sources of funding being available and this creates
value for projects and for the local authority's investment in
them. Cultural organisations can fill the gaps in "professionalisation"
of community involvement, but need frameworks and incentives to
provide these services. There are a myriad of services currently
available but structured progression routes are required to enhance
the impact of this and ensure reach at a neighbourhood level.
5.3 This could be rolled out by Local Enterprise
Partnerships, for example, with initiatives dependent upon community
partnership and uptake in geographical areas who are currently
not engaged. Greater participation working and coordination between
funders and delivery organisations is required to create real
impact. Greater joint working across Local Authority boundaries
should be encouraged and incentives given to do this.
5.4 Supporting the use of heritage assets
by charitable developers (ie the third sector) is also a method
of optimising resources, by providing a home for organisations,
and keeping the historic fabric of the city in productive use,
5.5 The cultural sector still has potential
to deliver stronger Quality of Life benefits at a neighbourhood
level. Value and impact can be developed using coordinated approaches
to match funding for neighbourhood & grass roots projects,
to encourage cross authority (or joint agency working) and to
maximise the use of available assets such as historic buildings.
6. Whether the policy guidelines for National
Lottery funding need to be reviewed
6.1 The policy guidelines are specific in
their support for "public good", "the arts",
"the national heritage" etc. However this is a backfill
approach that seeks to redress imbalances in provision and uptake.
Clear messages are not given in the policy of the benefits of
the cultural provision, and of the long term desirable outcomes.
Agencies dilute and create mixed and complex messages that some
communities find difficulty in interpreting (for example "artistic
quality" is subjective based on life experience of the arts).
A consequence of this is disenfranchisement and little impact
on lifestyle choices. The gap between "pub and football"
and "theatre and art gallery" needs to be populated
with a bombardment of positivity around family and school education,
youth work, health improvement and environmental changes that
engender appreciation of better and healthier lifestyle choices
through normalisation of cultural social activities. Lottery funding
needs to benefit those who buy lottery tickets.
6.2 Liverpool has attempted to address this
with a joint approach between the City Council and PCT in the
2010 Year of Health and Well Being. Initiatives such as this need
time for the success to be assessed but initial findings are positive
with cultural audiences and participants being given new perspectives
through attractive and diverse activities.
6.3 There is a need to develop holistic
cultural approaches that embed the value of culture to quality
of life throughout people's lives, so that cultural is not an
alien object that needs explaining through expensive and fragmented
"backfill" projects. (see footnote [69]
and LARC response).
6.4 Policies need to strongly reflect that
statutory and funded bodies understand and consistently espouse
the value of culture to Quality of Life.
6.5 Funding policies should be reviewed
(along with non cultural policies) in order to provide cultural
progression routes through school, employment opportunities, social
activity, and built environment. Lottery funding needs to benefit
those who buy lottery tickets.
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
7.1 Whilst LCC does not receive direct funding
from MLA we recognise the improvements in standards that MLA have
brought to Museums, and that a strategic regional context is vital,
and that this should be resourced.
7.2 Liverpool City Council does house the
Liverpool Film Unit and their work has ensured that film has become
an important contributor to the city (and region's) economy. If
support funding is not made available to film & digital content
makers, there will be an effect on the amount of productions being
made in Liverpool, both indigenous and itinerant, who are reliant
upon this. Several large-scale UKFC supported productions have
come to Liverpool in recent years bringing substantial economic
benefits. If the funding is not realigned to encourage UK film
production there will be a detrimental effect. Tax initiatives
in the UK have recently encouraged production studios to relocate
to the UK (for example Marvel are filming Captain America in Liverpool).
These incentives and appropriate infrastructure should be resourced
to ensure that major productions continue to bring economic benefits.
7.3 The messages coming out from government
about the Digital & Creative Sector are really encouraging:
it is a growth industry, has export potential and a beacon of
hope for the UK economy etc. Support through National Lottery
funding and film tax credits is essential. Currently UKFC lottery
funding (RIFE) is administered in this region via Vision+Media.
In addition V+M are a key strategic partner in developing Liverpool's
particular strengths in the Digital & Creative Sector with
a number of key actions within the Liverpool Cultural Strategy.
This agency's future is at risk as a result of the UKFC and RDA
abolishment. Their absence would create a vacuum and alternative
strategies will need to be put in place to ensure that our vibrant
and dynamic film industry will be sustained and our filmmakers
supported at every level. Key to this would be continued access
to markets, skills and finance.
7.4 Provision needs to be made for support
from experienced and qualified sources for both the Museum and
Film sectors, to maintain and improve their spectacular successes.
8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can
play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local
level
8.1 Business support through sponsorship,
mentoring schemes, board and skills placements already contribute
significantly to the cultural sector. They also receive the benefits
of public awareness and support skills development through the
above. Business should be encouraged to embed culture into the
lives of their employees, to encourage well being, corporate social
responsibility and as to consider thi s as recognition of their
success. However it is difficult for small organisations to demonstrate
value to sponsors, particularly for specialist projects that do
not have wide public exposure. (For example a small group of artist
working with a community group, is unlikely to attract significant
private sector resource.)
8.2 The mechanisms for sponsorship proposals
and involving business are well developed, but do require agency
support (in Liverpool through Business in the Arts: North West
and Arts & Business). This area of work is also extremely
competitive and its development is resource heavy (upon organisations.)
Support should be maintained and encouraged through funding of
match schemes, and placing duties upon big organisations undertaking
major programmes to consider investment in the cultural sector
to encourage public benefit.
8.3 It is not realistic to consider private
sector funding as a substitute for public sector subsidy. The
"culture of cultural support" is not yet embedded, and
requires more development, incentive and advocacy. It is unlikely
to proportionally benefit the smaller end of the sector.
9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives
to encourage private donations
9.1 The principles of philanthropic support
are not widely formalised, and organisations such as Arts &
Business are at the forefront of developing this kind of initiative.
Whilst this offers potential for some, it is unlikely that philanthropy
will be able to replace loss of public sector resource. American
models are well established culturally and cannot be readily replicated,
particularly outside London, where concentrations of wealthy individuals
are fewer.
9.2 Government led incentives for private
donations and philanthropy should focus on support for organisations
wishing to undertake advocacy, and encouraging lower end uptake
and mass participation (such as similar schemes to ACE's Own Art).
9.3 The current economic climate will not
encourage patronage without further incentives. The mechanisms
for developing patronage are not as well developed as those for
sponsorship. There is a challenge in meeting the desired results
in certain areas of work, and in particular geographical locations.
68 LARC (From the Liverpool Way) : It's about
making the most of Liverpool's remarkable cultural assets, and
the major cultural organisations delivering to their individual
and collective strengths, including outstanding international
programmes and linking these to local communities and visitors
to the city in a strong, collaborative partnership with the city
council and others. It is about creating a movement for arts and
culture not just monuments, about new ways of connecting creative
producers, institutions, and creators to communities and social
networks. It unlocks, opens up and makes visible the potential
and talent in these communities and brings great art to Liverpool
in a way that draws out and builds on our talent. Back
69
In Harmony Changing communities through music Inspired by Venezuela's
El Sistema2, "In Harmony" is a community development
project using music to bring positive change to the lives of very
young children in the most deprived areas of England, delivering
benefits across the wider community. The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic
successfully bid to become one of three national pilots for In
Harmony England between now and March 2011, funded by the Department
for Education. http://www.liverpoolphil.com/193/in-harmony/changing-communities-through-music.html. Back
| 
