Session 2010-11
Funding of the Arts and HeritageSupplementary written evidence submitted by Christopher Gordon and Peter Stark (arts 236) Evidence after publication of ‘Achieving Great Art for Everyone’ and the arrangements for a new National Portfolio funding programme for the arts by Arts Council England 11th November 2010. 1] The challenge to arts funding from the CSR settlement for Local Government The Arts Council’s vision is for England as "a world-leading creative and cultural nation". This implies an acceptance of leadership responsibility for the arts in all of the ways that they manifest themselves in society beyond those that ACE funds directly, as well as some genuine comparative international context. Local Government provides more funding for the arts and culture than ACE does (even setting aside the huge sums of money involved in the arts within education) and provides the bedrock of local provision for the full diversity of the voluntary and amateur arts, access to the arts and culture for the most disadvantaged and for local presentation and participation across the country through arts centres, festivals, community buildings, small grants programmes, museums and libraries. In addition to this bed rock funding at ward and neighbourhood and town and village level Local Government – particularly the major cities including the London Boroughs - often provides very substantial grant aid to major arts organisations in co-funding agreements with ACE. Support of both kinds is discretionary (apart from the library service) but it has – generally - been maintained to date and often (particularly as a consequence of new capital projects) increased. Early evidence suggests that the scale of pressure on Local Government finances within this CSR could have pushed the debate at local level beyond a tipping point and we could see very significant reductions in many cases and complete withdrawal in others. Perversely, the government’s ambitions for the Big Society may have contributed to this and arts organisations will be asked to seek resources from elsewhere – particularly from Arts Council England. The strategy to achieve Great Art for Everyone does not seem to engage with this – potentially very major – issue as centrally as its importance to the achievement of the vision would suggest. 2] An equitable basis for national funding in the arts and culture between the Capital City and the major ‘City Clusters’ outside it. Recent research (summary attached) has used newly available data for funding plans in 2011/12 to illustrate the very major disparity between the funding available to the arts and culture in London and in the major English City/Regions beyond it. The disparity exists in absolute levels, in ‘funds per head of population’, in the arrangements for partnership funding with local government and it applies to both National Lottery and Treasury funds. In 1982 the Policy Studies Institute study "A Hard Fact to Swallow" found Arts Council expenditure in London in 1980/81 to be £3.37 per head of population (php) against £0.66 php (19.6% of London levels) in the rest of England. After 30 years of steadily increasing public and Lottery funding and rhetoric of regional development, the situation is actually worse. For 2011/12 the comparator is estimated to be London £21.92 (php) against £3.44 php (15.7% of London levels) If DCMS direct funding of the major Museums and Galleries in London is added to ACE funding of its ‘front line’ organisations, the figures move to £70.36 php to London against an average in the rest of the country of £4.31 php (6.1% of London levels). Moreover, the largest cultural organisations outside London are expected to raise partnership funding from their Local Authorities whereas none of the largest London organisations seem to be required to do so. The strategy to achieve "Great Art for Everyone" within a decade does not identify or question these disparities. It does not appear to acknowledge that the issue continues to exist.. 3] Strategic engagement with local government and other funding partners. In 1986, there was such concern at the risk to the arts and heritage on the abolition of the GLC and Metropolitan Counties that Government was persuaded to make additional finance available to protect them. A dedicated and senior team within the arts funding system of the time worked almost exclusively on this subject with ‘at risk’ organisations and their local authorities for up to a year. The foregoing analysis would suggest that the risks to the arts and cultural infrastructure nationally may be greater in the current situation and yet the time (and senior management resource) for respectful and authoritative engagement with local authority funding partners does not appear to be available within the intended process as described in the guidance notes to applicants to the new National Portfolio Programme. The timetable for Arts Council decision making on grants within the new programme would suggest that Local Government will be presented with a fait accompli at the end of March next year and that – before then – there will be little or no scope for negotiation. The same analysis of the above timetable also appears to apply to engagement with the increasingly important funding partners from the private sector and - for some – in public sector broadcasting. There is also concern that the timetable and process could halt some of the extremely constructive and radical conversations that were beginning to take place between arts organisations, including some that promised substantial cost sharing and even suggested merger. 4] The time frame and the process ACE has adopted the 2008 recommendation it received from Baroness Macintosh and offered any organisation 12 month’s notice of a change in its funding status. That recommendation, made in a very different funding climate, produces the apparent need for what may be seen as a ‘rush to judgement’ on applications to the new programme. The new programme has been opened to new applicants. Estimates obviously vary but an anticipated 1,500 applications totalling circa £400m is not an unreasonable assumption (see next section on the future of Grants for the Arts). The process suggests evaluation against the published criteria, against each other and against a reduced budget (but still one of over £300,000,000) in less than 9 weeks. Concurrently Grants for the Arts applications will continue to be processed (for which the system requires 12 weeks for a decision on awards of over only £8,000). The process also uses a single application procedure to address requests for, say, £40,000 p.a, from a small publisher and for £29,000,000 from the Royal Opera House with strategic goals at a level of generality that will be hard pressed to assist assessment. It is difficult for outside observers to see how this process can be fair, transparent and thorough 5] Achieving the planning certainty aspired to. The process aspires to give certainty of future funding levels to the new portfolio of Arts Council clients from April 2011 in the same way that the DCMS has given that certainty to the major museums and galleries it funds directly. In the more complex world of Arts Council decision making and partnership funding the worthy ambition to give such certainty may not be deliverable in practice and the ‘costs’ of the attempt may actually delay that certainty. Were withdrawal of funding to one or more major organisations to be mooted and were that decision to be appealed and then – possibly - legally challenged, could the other decisions stand whilst this process was underway? The same delay might apply where changes in funding from partners forced a fundamental review of programme and business model. It seems that breathing an additional three to six months into the ‘front end’ of the process could substantially enhance the possibility of achieving real early planning certainty for organisations. 6] The future of Grants for the Arts and ‘resilience’. Last year Grants for the Arts provided 2,795 awards totalling £64,900,000 across the country at an average of £23,220. 35% of RFOs also benefited from Lottery funded Grants for the Arts in addition to their core – Treasury funded – awards. They have been asked in briefings to consider including replacement for such funds (which will be inaccessible to National Portfolio organisations in future) in their proposed core budgets for future years. If Local Government funding is the key to delivery of the local arts and access agenda, then Grants for the Arts is the essential funding source for artists and artist-led practice and for the innovation ‘at the borders’ that is essential in any healthy arts or creative industry ecology. If Lottery funding is to be made available to NPOs, for a new capital scheme, for touring and for other new ‘strategic streams’ in the future, what level of funding is likely to be available for Grants for the Arts? Even with the increase in Lottery funding anticipated by 2012 (16%) it seems probable that these new uses for the funds will more than absorb that increase. This, in turn suggests that there will be an upper limit to Grants for the Arts awards introduced and – perhaps a formal ban on what might be seen as ‘annual’ or recurring applications. This likely outcome on the future of Grants for the Arts and – for many small artist-led companies – the loss of Creative Partnerships and Local Authority income will force them to seek the protection of NPO status as – without it – their prospects will be severely compromised. As noted earlier, changes at local government level are also likely to direct many other organisations whose main public support previously came from these local sources, supplemented by arts grants, to seek the same funding status as this appears to be the only possible source of ongoing support from the Arts Council. It appears that government has given a clear steer that the largest arts organisations should expect the same treatment as their own directly funded portfolio of Museums and Galleries – a 15% cut in funds by 2015. This would represent a hugely favourable settlement in the context of much larger reductions to the overall Arts Council budget. 67 of the largest organisations (currently receiving more than £800,000 each – a total of £200m within the £319m current RFO group of 873 organisations) will have their funding levels determined nationally under the new procedures. Were that group of 67 to receive only a 15% reduction to their overall Treasury-sourced resources, then the funds available for the remaining 806 present RFOs (current totalling £119m) plus new applicants, and for determination by Regional Councils, would be reduced indeed. Resilient business plans for smaller specialist arts organisations cannot be built on only occasional project funding. Some measure of continuity of arts funding will be a necessary part of any such sustainable business models. The Arts Council Strategy does not appear to offer the realistic prospect of such funding through either the National Portfolio Programme or Grants for the Arts. Note This evidence is provided as a supplement to an earlier submission to the Inquiry by the authors and available at the House of Commons website as:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmcumeds/writev/464/034.htm Achieving Great Art for Everyone? Still hard facts to swallow. A preliminary scoping study on comparative investment in front line arts organisations between London and the Regions in the context of wider ‘cultural’ public and private expenditure on the arts and culture.
Table 6. Private Sector sponsorship [4]
[1] Derived from the comprehensive list released by ACE on 26 th October 2010 and reallocated to regions as per attached appendix 1 [1] Welsh National Opera is a National Company of Wales funded to tour into England and incorrectly shown as an RFO attributed to the West Midlands. It is excluded [1] Welsh National Opera is a National Company of Wales funded to tour into England and incorrectly shown as an RFO attributed to the West Midlands. It is excluded [1] On 27 th May 2010 ONS released the 2008-based sub-national population projections used here [1] In addition to RFO funding ACE also made 2,490 awards totalling £64,900,000 across England through its Grants for the Arts programme in 2009/10 at an average grant size of £23,220. No regional breakdown of this sum is available but it is thought to be fairly evenly distributed against population. [1] These php figures use the National RFO total less the funding provided to Welsh National Opera through the West Midlands. [1] London has historically argued that its wider catchment must be taken into account in calculating its £ per head benefit. A more sophisticated analysis would seek to add the Southern part of the Eastern Region to this analysis as the effective ‘travel to culture’ catchment of the capital. [1] The Royal Opera House, English National Opera, Royal National Theatre, Royal Shakespeare Company and The South Bank Centre constitute a distinct group of major clients within the Arts Council enjoying a different order of funding (each receiving a grant 3 to 4 times larger than any other client) and – until very recently – separately identified within the Arts Council as “National” clients. The PSI report addressed them as such. Only the RSC tours to any significant extent (very substantially into London). [1] Welsh National Opera is a National Company of Wales funded to tour into England and incorrectly shown as an RFO attributed to the West Midlands. It is excluded [1] Welsh National Opera is a National Company of Wales funded to tour into England and incorrectly shown as an RFO attributed to the West Midlands. It is excluded [1] The absence of £ 45.567 ,000 “Renaissance in the Regions” funding from the regional analysis is regretted. Despite every effort being made the figures are yet to be available. [1] As released by DCMS on 21 st October with adjustments made as per attached appendix 2. NB the allocation of funds from London based institutions to their regional satellites is done as an exceedingly rough estimate to indicate awareness of the existence of these satellites. [1] The Royal Opera House, English National Opera, Royal National Theatre, Royal Shakespeare Company and The South Bank Centre constitute a distinct group of major clients within the Arts Council enjoying a different order of funding (each receiving a grant 3 to 4 times larger than any other client) and – until very recently – separately identified within the Arts Council as “National” clients. The PSI report addressed them as such. Only the RSC tours to any significant extent (very substantially into London). [2] F unding from the Millennium Commission has been excluded from the “cultural” category. Had it been included, the London ‘skew’ would have been increased [1] On 27 th May 2010 ONS released the 2008-based sub-national population projections used here [1] Source DCMS total awards at 4/10/2010 by ACE since 1995 [1] Source DCMS total awards at 4/10/2010 by ACE since 1995 [3] Source ONS Regional Trends 42 released 24/6/09 showing % of households participating in each region and average weekly spend per household [4] Source. Arts and Business latest analysis. Note that Arts and Business combine East and West Midland into a single “Midlands” figureBusines [1] London has historically argued that its wider catchment must be taken into account in calculating its £ per head benefit. A more sophisticated analysis would seek to add the Southern part of the Eastern Region to this analysis as the effective ‘travel to culture’ catchment of the capital. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ©Parliamentary copyright | Prepared 9th December 2010 |