In your article about the latest Taking Part figures (AP235, pp1–2) you say the seven English audience agencies “failed in their bids” to the National Portfolio. True, but to clarify: a blanket national decision was taken not to include the agencies in the National Portfolio, regardless of regional assessment (“strong” in our case) or individual merit. The seven applications by the agencies, invited last autumn, were treated in a way in which no other grouping or sub-sector was during this process. Others will write to you about your interpretation of the figures. I write with a sadness that this valued infrastructure (taking only 0.4% of regularly funded organisation pot) will no longer be supported.
This puts the responsibility for the “for everyone” element of the Great Art strategy firmly on the shoulders of National Portfolio Organisations (read those funding agreements carefully when they arrive) and on Arts Council England (ACE) itself. ACE’s own Equality Impact Assessment notes the “likely” impact on equality, audiences and participation without this infrastructure. It will interesting to view Taking Part in two years time. Rather than a plateau, what if it is a downturn? I wonder what the sector and funders will want to see in place to address such a decline – collaborative working? Access initiatives? Shared market intelligence to drive informed programming and marketing? Is that the sound of a wheel being reinvented?