Liz Hill worries that the dash for cash to plug the arts funding gap will undermine the work of artists and organisations that specialise in social impact work.
Whether we like it or not, we’ve all become rather used to the idea that the arts sector is going to have to become less reliant on arts funding. And in case anyone was in any doubt, the 2012 funding agreement between the DCMS and Arts Council England spells out the reasons for this. “Strengthening the financial resilience of the sector” is among the six priorities that the DCMS has given ACE for the use of its grant-in-aid budget, and an “increase in contributed income in national portfolio organisations between 2012 and 2015” is one of just three performance indicators that are being used to assess ACE’s effectiveness. Not a lot of wriggle room there: when Norman Lebrecht described the Arts Council as having had “its arms-length independence shortened to a fingernail”, he wasn’t far off the mark.
Given this scenario it is hardly surprising that ACE is backing a new ‘cultural commissioning’ programme to “enable the arts, museums and libraries sectors to diversify their income streams and exploit commissioning opportunities”. Apparently the scheme will be offering arts organisations a bit of help to tap into other flows of Government funding – including those much bigger pots of money that support the social and health agendas. Fair enough… or is it?
A lot of artists and small arts organisations are already hugely experienced in supporting those on the margins of society, or are working in health settings to improve quality of life. But the work they do is in no way motivated by the ambition of “diversifying their income streams.” They are deeply committed specialists, many of whom have built tremendous reputations for the inspiring work they do in sensitive contexts, often with vulnerable and severely disadvantaged groups. Their attempts at securing funding for social or health projects are driven by a deep-seated belief in the value of their work to their communities and the wider public, and they are often as poor as church mice, dependent on charitable trusts and stop-start grant funding to cover their overheads and serve their participants and audiences.
It’s early days, and who knows what the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and its partners have in mind for the cultural commissioning programme – they probably aren’t quite sure themselves just yet. It is slightly reassuring to learn that an advisory group will involve social impact arts organisations; but if the programme really has been established with the intention of this vital work being used as a lever to extract new cash to bolster the ‘contributed income’ of arts organisations, my alarm bells start ringing straight away. The instrumental agenda for arts policy is worrying enough at the best of times. At the worst of times, like these, it is more disturbing still.
 |