Last night I was sent a link to a document showing what appears to be the amount of funding Birmingham City Council will put into arts organisations over the next few years. I ummed and ahhed about posting it but it’s all over Twitter this morning anyway.
Big caveat on this – I’ve not heard an official announcement about this (or even much speculation, to be honest – there’s been more focus on the Arts Council England and the UK Film Council). Who’s been informed of these figures and whether they’re 100% correct, I have no idea. That said, I’ve asked around a few people and the general gist of it seems to be correct.
The document says these figures are ‘recommended’. If I understand rightly, they’ll be put to a public cabinet meeting on 13 December. If anyone has any info on that then feel free to share it. Info might be at birmingham.gov.uk/democracy but, well…
If they are right it doesn’t look good, but then not much news coming out of the council is at the moment. Savings of £300k a day need to be made and 10,000 jobs are going.
I’m not going to go through that document an pull apart the figures but the comment box is below if you want to discuss things. Just be aware that I’d rather not have to moderate any potentially defamatory comments.
UPDATE
The Business Desk have done some digging and been told (if I’m reading this right) that the doc that’s doing the rounds may be an example of ‘scenario planning’. Which isn’t to say it’s necessarily right or wrong.
Related to that planning, Birmingham City Council have released their budget consultation with a proposed business plan (PDF) which includes:
- Considering a “trust” and new operating model for museums and review of commercial approach
- Reviewing support for arts organisations (additional to existing savings of £0.525m in 2011/12)
See the doc for figures. Comments are welcomed, the deadline is 17 January 2011.
If it’s true then we would want to know:
What was the assessment of the arts commissioning process?
•What was the process of decision making? Was it transparent and minuted?
•Who assessed the large organisations and what scrutiny was shared amongst staff and other key stakeholders
•What was the risk assessment of taking organisations out of the portfolio?
•Where is the voice of the small independent org? Especially as this was a key part of the city of culture bid?
• Small orgs investment from Birmingham City Council at the moment is £154k which levers £2.9 million from Arts council and other trusts. Are the small orgs not value for money?
•Is there full recognition of the impact from April on livelihood of artists, lack of arts provision to citizens, profile of city, diversity of cultural practice, engagement work with young people, leverage of funds and investment into the city.
•Why have BCC not sought to limit the damage of disinvestment by graduating the process as ACE have done to give small orgs the best chance of fundraising and remodelling.
•What message does it give about the commitment to and value of diversity and to an independent sector?
Wow – is this right? Birmingham Wikileaks for sure! And here was me, bused up to Liverpool by the council for their city of culture bid, to pitch to Phil Redmond on our authentic and diverse arts orgs. The very ones they’re pulling the plug on! I’m feeling now like they made a fool out of me. Some whizzkid needs to put in an FOI and find out for sure if this is true.
Birmingham Arts Cuts – Never Mind WIKIleaks! | Culture Vulture West Midlands's Blog
[…] around the internet this morning is a bombshell for several Birmingham-based arts organisations. Details of proposed cuts to the Birmingham City Council Arts budget have been posted and […]
There’s some really great and key questions from Deirdre here, and I think if this is all true we need to pull together and make sure those questions are asked….try and take some action….
If the figures are truly what’s coming down the line, then the only way to interpret them is as an assault on ‘culture’ in the widest sense of that word, ie a greater democrotisation and diversification of culture which has been fought for and built up over the last 3 decades in Birmingham, and a traditional Bham knee jerk support for a narrow and backward looking version of the ‘arts’, ie the preservation of traditional high arts in all their bricks and mortar finery.
Having been to Derry this last week, and having now read this shameful forecasting of what the Bham Council thinks is the narrow band of arts that tax payers money should support in these straitened times, then ‘long live Derry.’
Absolutley disgraceful . I think they couldnt be bothered thinking about it .
This is a clear message that Birmingham City Council does not value the arts -not really . We know these are harsh times -all the more reason to think deeply and carefully . Its an example of the bigger the better mentality that prevades the city . We need people in leadership capable of being imaginative , creative and giuded by values . Its clear that isnt happening .
Birmingham could have made a stand and proved itself a city of vision . Its failed to do that .
Right what are we going to do – we musnt let this happen without expressing our extreme disapointment .
New Funding Crisis – Alphabet Under Threat
“These are challenging times, and we must all understand that some letters are used much less frequently here in Birmingham. Some can also be very hard to understand for our foreign visitors. It is with great regret that we’ve decided to cease our commitment to rough, spikey letters immediately, and look to phase out our support for vowels over the next three years. In the lng rn w blv ths wll spprt th dvlpmnt f th rts scn hr n Brmnghm.”
Hi,
I won’t blog lots here, as have already commented – at length – so here’s a link to my blog with some of my thoughts on the possible cuts: http://www.hybridconsulting.org.uk/blog/big-best#comment-29
Samina
It doesn’t come as a surprise but the spreadsheet, with the lack of narrative to explain it, is a stark reminder of reality. This is how the coalition view the arts in Birmingham, as predominantly non experimental, traditional high arts. Safe, possibly good for tourism and the local economy? A reductive and narrow view of culture at the best of times.
If what I have read is real I believe the city leaders have failed to recognise the importance of arts and culture in the lives of its residents and the sustainable development of the city. We live in a city that is the largest and most diverse in the UK. It is for me incomprehendable to believe that a city as important and as large as Birmingham; that boasts circa one million inhabitants from diverse cultural backgrounds, can contemplate decimating its arts sector by reducing it funding from 22 (yes!! twenty two) to 6 (six) organisations in two to three years.
Where will our young people go to stretch themselves creatively and develop coping and interpersonal skills in a safe, caring and nurturing environment? Our adults and senior citizens deserve to have places where their needs and interests are being met and where they feel comfortable; a place away from their homes where they can unwind, develop friendship, love and participate in creative and stimulating activities.
How will we mine the rich tapestry of cultures and arts that are embedded within our communities when we no longer are able to use the expertise and knowledge professional arts practitioners and artists have developed over decades to extract and bring to audiences and participants?
I fear that without the facilities and services organisations, such as, the Drum, Sampad, ACE Dance, Craftspace, etc. offer we will fracture irreparably the trust/bond between the city and its communities, and it would take decades to redevelop the creative sector and during which we will have lost a generation of creative young people and the cohesion that has existed in our city between diverse communities.
In line with Deirdre’s line of thinking, has the city taken the above into consideration when coming up with these recommendations?
Well, the official line is that the decision won’t be made until cabinet on the 13th. The document is ‘internal’ and an idea of how things ‘might look’. I presume the arts team are covering their arses with both hands. Bottom line is, it is in the councillors hands, not the arts team (their recommends, though) so time for some lobbying, people!
The very thing which makes Birmingham vibrant is its rich diversity across the board! It is important that we continue to support this work not only because it is good but it goes a long way to remove the growing ‘them and us’ climate we are in. Whatever BCC’s reasons are for this I am sure they aren’t good enough because principles are the things we hold to especially when they are inconvenient. This could not have been an informed decision based on a participative democratic process – these decisions affect civic life as art does not exist in isolation.
What kind of city do we want to live in? Tell us how we can be taken seriously as a modern, international / global city or even City of Culture with such cuts? The meagre sums given to these organizations is shocking, and to cut their budget altogether adds insult to injury – they bring in a great deal more than what they are given.
Forgive the rant but I am a citizen, and I love my city and its people too much to risk seeing the worst happen by saying nothing.
Dear All,
Can I make it clear that this document is purely a discussion document and no decision has been formally made as to future funding of arts in Birmingham.
The document that has been leaked was requested by the Council’s Chief Executive to look at the impact of taking a 25% cut over three years across the arts in Birmingham. Unfortunately, to add to this, two streams of internal funding within the Council for the arts comes to an end on the 1st April 2011. This is why the overall cut would in effect be 32%.
Discussions have taken place between Council officers and politicians about this document and large sections are politically unacceptable and we are working on identifying alternative sources of funding so that the proposals for 2012/13 and 2013/14 never see the light of day.
In the case of year 2011/12, the funding for the smaller art organisations will be lumped into a single pot called “project commissioning” and totalling £365,000. Organisations will be able to bid for project related monies, and this will open up funding avenues to organisations like Capsule and Punch who at the moment get nothing.
Believe me, from my perspective, art organisations are crucial to the economy of Birmingham, whether it’s through flying the flag of Birmingham internationally like Stan’s Cafe; making Birmingham an interesting place to live, which in turn reverses our brain drain (eg Fierce); or by reaching out to the vulnerable members of our city and using art to build their self confidence and broaden their aspirations.(eg Craftspace).
Tht snds bttr.
Thanks, Martin.
I get the impression (speaking purely as an observer) that the level of uncertainty on the local authority side has worried some people and made life trickier for others.
It was raised as an issue at the Arts Council briefing a couple of weeks ago – orgs are meant to be making their National Portfolio applications at the moment (deadline 24 Jan) and not knowing the whole funding situation, or the process for determining it, makes that difficult.
Not that business planning’s easy to do on the basis of project funding, but I guess you get what you can at the moment.
Cheers for the added info/context. Are you able to say what the process/timescale will be leading up to a final annoucement?
@Chris. I’ve been working closely with my portfolio officers on the ‘financial squeeze’ between April 2011 and April 2014 and there are umpteen different versions of the leaked spreadsheet. Whichever way we change things, the consequences in year 2012/13 and 2013/14 are politically not acceptable.
What I have emphasised to my portfolio officers is the importance of our small art organisations and the need to find ways that we could squeeze more money out of Performances Birmingham and the other large art organisations. Remember Performances Birmingham is the Town Hall and Symphony Hall which are been subsidised to the tune of £3.2million.
Performances Birmingham is important to the cultural offer of our city, BUT I think it maybe possible to link this organisation in numerous ways to corporate sponsorship. Remember the Library of Birmingham will raise £34million through corporate sponsorship and donations.
The proposals for 2011/12 on the leaked sheet will go ahead, with some final tweaks. I think the proposal to lump all the funds from the small art organisations into a project pot is a good idea, since it opens up access to funding for Capsule, Punch and other small art companies.
We will now work on testing the market for corporate sponsorship for Performances Birmingham, and other art organisations, so that the awfulness of the proposals for 2012/13 and 2013/14 never happen.
I can’t promise miracles, but believe me when I say that I will do my up most to finds ways to avoid the proposals for 2012/13 and 2013/14. It may involve all of us (‘us’ meaning the art organisations, plus the council) putting our heads together to find imaginative ways of raising finance and reducing administration costs.
Perhaps naive but I can’t help but wonder why the cuts cannot be spread equally across the board. That way the pain is shared and we all face the same difficulties. 32% all round if that is what it has be and let’s get on with it.
I hope you are right Martin.
The big organisations should slowly have their subsidies reduced and be encouraged to generate additional commercial revenues.
They could also be encouraged to provide space and pro bono services to smaller organisations if they are to receive such a high level of investment.
Small and emerging organisations need subsidy now more than ever.
Remember Martin you have a very high number of voters in your ward who work in the “small scale arts sector” I already see the prospectiveLabour candidate has picked up on this. If the arts is not protected you might join some of those smaller organisations on the outside looking in.
If we’re not happy with the decision the council makes me should use our democratic right to vote our decision makers out!
I have to agree with Marsha. Though the suggested cuts were shocking in themselves I was also surprised to see how few organisations were on the list in the first place. To make a cultural city you need an ecology of organisations, a range of scales, and a funding mechanism that enables people without the infrastructure to develop the kind of policies the funding bids this time required to get funding and be sustainably supported in by the City.
Projects like Grand Union show how a small investment goes a long way. On Friday Mick Peter Director of Culture at DCMS was in town and spent time meeting people and seeing and hearing about projects like Eastside Projects, Capsule, Fierce, Vivid, Ikon Eastside and Grand Union. It’s great to have interest at this level in the ‘small scale’, independent sector. These fleet of foot organisations are already innovating, working together and thinking around some of the problems we face in a constructive way. They are also relaying a message outside the city that Birmingham has an authentic and significant cultural offer. More support for these organisations, and the cultural producers – and by that I mean the artists, curators, designers, writers, musicians designer-makers etc – is what this city needs. In financially constrained times it would be foolish to forget those who have the potential to generate a richer future for us all.
Yes it does sound better that there is a pot of money for small organisations . And if more companies can be added to the portfolio than thats got to be good for the people of Birmingham .
However there is a lot of ground to be made up in terms of trust .It was such a shock to see ‘0’ by companies- a real statement of how much this work is valued by City Leaders it felt to me .
I tend to agree that if cuts of 32% need to be made then that should be accross the board – be bloody brave and resolute – and fair . I really do think The City needs to get over its “Bigger the Better “obsession .
Its been feeling better to be an artist living and working in the city recently thanks to networks of artists working together and really contributing to a sense of movement and cohesion . We all got behind the City of Culture Bid and continued to sing the praises of Birmingham long after the decisions were made . I personally consciously play the role of an ambassador for Birmingham where ever I am working – I am often asked why I live here.!! We must be honest about our poor national reputation – I know Manchester really well and I am afraid there is a much stronger appreciation and recognition of the part that the arts play in the economic , mental , emotional and spiritual well being of the whole City.
The City should make a statement confirming its committment to grass roots arts and outlining why they are of value to the Citizens of Birmingham .
It may well be that the leaked document has been misunderstood
and the new pot may well be better – it kind of needs to be ! I think its about time to say its never really been good enough actually and councillors need to be aware of that.
This City has a wonderful record of non conformism – creative thinkers and social reformers . Lets get our heart and minds back on track . The present economic challenge is a chance for us to be radical and make things better . Lets take it .
@JaniceConnolly. The problem we have here is that someone has leaked a document, that is
(a) not in a format that fully explains the situation. So for example, you look at Women and Theatre and see a big zero next to it and think “s**t, that’s my art company finished”, yet if you scroll down the page you will see the money has been pooled under ‘project commissioning’.
(b) This was a discussion document, the bulk of which has already been rejected.
I hear what you say about introducing a 32% cut across all the art organisations, so they all take the cut equally. However, there are number of reasons that this:
i) There are facilities like the MAC that would not survive a 32% cut, plus all the art organisations that pay it rent, also taking a 32% cut.
ii) A 32% cut to the small art organisations, I think would finish most of them off
iii) We have large art organisations and facilities that are high profile enough to attract major sponsorship. If we can attract this sponsorship for these large art organisations in time for 2012/13 and 2013/14, then I believe the larger organisations would be able take a much higher reduction in Council finance than 32%
@Marsha Brookes. I hear what you say about these cuts potentially having a damaging impact on my re-election and to a point I agree with you. However, I’m not trying to protect the arts in Birmingham for some selfish reason to get myself re-elected, but because I believe passionately in the importance of the arts to the quality of life and economy of Birmingham. I didn’t come into politics to serve my ego, but because I was fed up with seeing Moseley and Kings Heath looking a dump, and Birmingham as a whole being the butt of jokes nationally.
We are in a national financial crisis, but if we work together – pool administration resources where possible and attract corporate sponsorship where possible – I believe we could come out on 1st April 2014 leaner and stronger collectively.
As it’s gone unmentioned to date it might be worth a read of the City’s Cultural Strategy 2010-15.
It’s an interesting read that sees cultural participation as being as much about fitness and wellbeing as it does arts engagement. It does though pitch the arts as having a key role in everything from international profile-raising to bringing on talented youngsters in deprived wards. In that respect perhaps we need a larger rather than smaller budget or at least a strategy that asks less of the arts.
I do think a strategy that more clearly aligns actions against organisations would be welcome, then at least everybody would know what’s expected of them.
The section on the Creative Industries suggests a separate strategy for that sector is on its way. That would be welcome since there’s too often a tendency to see the supported arts sector and the creative industries as the same thing. The report draws on data from the unpublished report on the sector from last year (though it paints a flattering picture of what was a downbeat report). Given that it’s been quoted from extensively now I’ve put my copy of it online. In fact the strategy cites a range of data that would be handy to have in one place, in an accessible format. Open data for the cultural sector perhaps.
Finally, I’m surprised there’s no mention of the role of the Birmingham Cultural Partnership (BCP) in the decision-making of future arts funding. Do they have no influence here? The report suggest they “will demonstrate a way forward in cultural provision for a modern multicultural urban centre.”
Let’s hope some firm information is out soon and that proper consultation takes place.
I don’t think a straight percentage off everyone would be fair at all – leaving aside the argument about why are we only cutting and not raising tax and not even chasing big corporations for tax.
(For some reason – clearly polemical from the Tories – not sure where the LibDems are except in the Tories pockets on this, certainly nationally, the only game in town is how much are we going to cut.)
Clearly 32% is huge and let’s be honest, is enough to kill off most organisations. However the larger, more establishment organisations can at least get significant sponsorship where smaller, diverse and innovative companies will struggle. On a positive note maybe there could be a city wide initiative to raise sponsorship and distribute it?
The large companies with national recognition, often with an audience who are more able to pay more, seem untouchable while small diverse companies can be cut with the stroke of a pen. Often because they don’t fit with whatever fad (sorry strategy) the funders are currently following.
A good example is CMAT in Handsworth, where after very significant investment the Arts Council (It’s not a cut it’s the end of a funding cycle – yeah right – how come the bigger orgs never seem to come to the end of a funding cycle?) has decided to stop all funding from March 2011.
If I sound bitter it is because I am. Arts funding in the UK has always been somewhat flaky and while change is needed arts like anything else needs some continuity. Martin is right about how difficult it is for smaller organisations to get sponsorship.
Coming so shortly after the City of Culture bid the true schizophrenia and ambivalence of the attitudes to the arts can now be seen here in Birmingham.
We have to reserve judgement until something more concrete comes out but it’s not looking good.
And while I am very, very disappointed in the LibDems and the way they have betrayed their principles (I used to be a Young Liberal in the 60s so I think I know a bit about that) I think it is very good than Martin comes on here to discuss the issue when many politicians would hide away.
Its worth remembering that support does not always need to be in the form of cash. Space is a significant cost, and therefore barrier, for many. For example the lack of genuinely affordable, fit for purpose artists studios in the city remains a huge issue in relation to retention of practitioners and the development of sustainable practices. Other cities have a history of buildings being offered on long leases on peppercorn rents to artists and cultural organisations. Investment of this kind gives a community collateral to build on and whilst this wouldn’t be a solution for everyone it might be a way to enable some new and existing projects to develop despite the economic situation.
@ruth Claxton. Interesting point about lack of affordable studio space – if you can provide me with more details of this, maybe off list, I would be interested to know.
Can I just add that dealing with the future funding (or lack of) for arts in Birmingham is just one of many issues I am dealing with to do improve the art and cultural environment in this city.
There are numerous lessons to be learnt from Manchester, who grasped the importance of culture in the early 1980s and have benefited economically ever since. For example, Manchester City Council will act as networker to ensure talented artists are introduced to individuals or organisations who are willing to invest in this sector; the Council will indentify talented entrepreneurs and help nurture them. This doesn’t require lots of money to do, just some imagination, good communication and a willingness to listen and connect people.
In the case of Birmingham, I am mindful that we lack a sizable independent sector from cafes, to shops, to fashion designers. My understanding is that this is mainly due to the huge step in Birmingham from running a small business in ones back bedroom to the next stage of expansion – in Birmingham this is renting a shop unit for £15,000 per year for fifteen years. This is too large a step for many.
We need a Camden Market equivalent area, with small size shop units and street stalls in an attractive and interesting environment………an area that gives affordable units that allow independent businesses to organically expand.
There is scope for such a development in the Wholesale Market of Birmingham, where the proposal is to move the market out to Aston and re-introduce the pre-1960s road pattern in this area. A Camden Market style layout would connect perfectly the creative industries in Digbeth to the entertainment area around Hurst Street.
@ruthclaxton – good idea – sadly so far the City Council has not been inclined to do this. Good example is Curzon Street Station which is crying out for an innovative use. Of course now it might be swallowed up by HS2 but in the interim it could be put to good use.
@Brian Homer. We have looked at using Curzon Street station building for Gallery 37 – a young people’s project. However, this came to a grinding halt when the HS2 terminal was announced.
Since that announcement, the Council have now fixed the roof, so the building is water tight. To bring the building into use would require alot work – re-wiring, installation of lift, addition railing on the main staircase to raise the height of the original railing, general redecoration. With HS2 due to open in 2025 and Curzon Street station being a ‘kiss-and-leave’ location, it is unlikely that any funding body would invest in a building that will only be used for less than 15 years.
The leaked report was pretty devastating to all of us who have worked one way or another over many years to raise the profile of the arts and creative industries in Birmingham and their economic, social and emotional value to the people of this city and region. So I am feeling slightly better after reading Martin’s comments. I accept that the arts must bear a share of the savings which BCC has to make but urge BCC to look at how this can be done in a more constructive way ie one in which the current successful smaller arts companies can be given a better chance of modifying or building different business models to ensure their survival in the short and medium term. Going from their current level of funding to zero in one fell swoop
(or after one more year on a reduced level) with only 3 months notice will decimate the arts ecology of Birmingham. It may not have an immediate impact on the city’s international image or its abililty to attract inward investment etc but this will happen soon enough as the quality, quantity and diversity of the city’s arts and entertainment offer declines.
It is not just the large companies which are important ambassadors for the city. Our niche companies raise the profile of Birmingham through their own international networks, collaborations, appearances etc . Sampad have been in India during the Commonwealth Games, Ex Cathedra is due to make its debut in New York in the Spring and its reputation for innovative singing education has led to invitations to work in China, Thailand and Czech Republic in 2011/12. Big Brum has just finished a transnational project on the impact of drama in school which has been so well received by the European Commission that its findings are already having an influence on EU education and life-long learning policy. I could go on…..
I spent time in the1990’s telling the story of Birmingham’s physical and social regeneration and the crucial role that culture played in the process to cities across Europe. We led the way and others followed. Now we have to find ways to work more closely together in order to preserve as much of what has been achieved as possible. I should like to explore the possibilities of a Birmingham Culture Foundation which might attract business contributions as a match for monies from public sources, I also support Ruth’s points about the need for more affordable studio and office spaces. What about setting up a ‘cultural space bank’ where property owners (including the city) and developers could make available office and other spaces for creative companies at low cost? Anything which reduces our admin costs has got to be considered.
@JillR. My understanding is that the proposals for 2011/12 and the creation of a project commission budget for small art organisations, instead of revenue funding, were agreed by the small art organisations about six months ago.
I will double check this tomorrow morning when my portfolio officers come in. However, I am sure that I was told about six months ago, that officers had been talking to the small art organisations about the type of criteria we should have for this project funding.
I also understand your feeling of devastation on seeing this report. When I first saw this spreadsheet about four weeks ago, I felt sick. As I said on earlier posts, I am already doing my best to find alternative ways of raising funds so the proposals for 2012/13 and 2013/14 never happen.
Thanks, Martin. I know that you are doing your level best to fight the corner for the arts. What can we do to help – even at this late stage in the game?
@JillR. Actually we’re at a early stage, so not too late to influence things.
We’ll go ahead with the proposals for 2011/12, which my officers inform me, most art companies are aware of.
I am more than happy to met people from the arts world, have a cup of tea in my office in the Council, bounce ideas around, discuss all the ideas on my aspiration board (possible Museum of Contemporary Art, Art Cinema complex, how do we grow an independent sector, etc)…..and so on.
To arrange a meeting, contact my portfolio secretary, Carole Gibbs on 303 3013 – Carole controls my diary. Also, can you ask that Jon Lawton, my Cabinet support officer is at the meeting also.
Don’t want to use this thread to blow our own trumpets but We Are Birmingham (wearebham.com) has set up just the sort of space that Ruth has mentioned above – a large building held under a long term lease located in the middle of the city centre with a lot of space for local arts groups to use as workshop/studio/admin space.
We’d be happy to talk to any local arts groups who’d like to utilise any of our space and would be happy to work with the Council or the Cultural Partnership as part of Birmingham’s long term arts planning..
And just to wade into the debate…..a number of you will know that I have drafted a letter which is going to all BCC Councillors tomorrow at 5pm (that’s Tuesday 7th Dec).
It’s possibly also useful to know that I’m the CEO of Sound It Out, a regularly funded organisation of BCC, and I am a member of Birmingham Cultural Partnership. Firstly, I can say categorically that to my knowledge, in all the dialogue that I have had with BCC Arts Team, there has never once been a mention that the revenue funding for the smaller scale arts organisations was under review, let alone any clear indication or understanding that this was the case.
In fact, spanning back the five years I have been with Sound It Out I remember strong and constant discussions between the smaller scale arts organisations and the BCC Arts Team constantly requested a review of the funding structure to allow more funds to flow to the smaller scales, so I’m quite surprised and alarmed to hear this was not Cllr Mullaney’s understanding.
To my understanding there has been nil engagement or consultation with the sector (and I represent and informal smaller scale arts network!). I can also categorically state that this has never been raised at a Birmingham Cultural Partnership meeting.
While I was slightly relieved to hear from Martin that the funding wasn’t automatically going to go but had been shifted into a ‘projects pot’, I was also really concerned. From my perspective, what does that say about BCC’s commitment to the small scale orgs that they completely remove any ringfence of ‘core funding’ and lump it into a projects pot? It doesn’t really seem to reassure me when loosely defined ‘project pots’ are being dipped into until they disappear altogether!
If this is the case, I think we all need an incredible amount of reassurance and some clearly secure guidelines that safeguard the pot specifically for the smaller scale arts organisations (and I agree with Martin and others, this group does need to significantly increase). And of course if we do that, why not just call it the budget for smaller scale arts organisations?? Martin – can you confirm here that that pot is ringfenced soley for smaller scale arts organisations and is core, rather than BCC priority project led funding?
Hopefully many of you will have seen a version of the letter I’m submitting. In light of Martin’s details that the funding is ‘shifted’ rather than ‘cut’ I will be slightly revising the content. It’s not meant to fuel fires or start riots but is, i hope, a well balanced respnse to these potential threats that’ll articulate the incredible value of the small scale arts organisations of the city and the dangers these proposals threaten.
I’ve had loads of people and organisations ask to add their names to a list of supporters and would welcome any more – please email me direct at matthewdaniels@sounditout.co.uk for a copy of the letter to see if you’d like to add your voice.
Would people want to have a meeting with Martin asap – It will be hard to coordinate but i think the best thing to do would be for Martin to suggest a time and as many people as poss go . We are all busy and it would be good to all get together rather than have different factions and conversations .
whilst agreeing with Janice’s last post and Iam now about to add my tuppence worth of opinion into the mix of “different factions and conversations” whilst recognising the need for use to come together and develop a more coordinated and strategic approach to this issue then the Monday deadline seems to allow.
I would just like to add my support to Matt’s observations about the nature of the consultation with smaller arts organisations by BCC: “I’m quite surprised and alarmed to hear this was not Cllr Mullaney’s understanding. To my understanding there has been nil engagement or consultation with the sector (and I represent and informal smaller scale arts network!).”
As director of Creative Alliance, an organisation with extensive links with employers across the creative and cultural sector of the city and region, I agree with Matt. The experience of consultation is also certainly not the impression I have received from the numerous and extensive conversations I have had with people who run small and medium size creative and cultural companies. I am therefore concerned about the nature of the information being provided to Cllr Mullaney. By way of example: I am concerned that despite repeated requests for the publication of reports funded by public money some have never, to be knowledge been made available to those of us to provided our time and intelligence willingly and freely. The report commissioned by BCC about the future of Flying Start and written by James Burkmar, is an example of this. I did express my concern at the time to James and officers within BCC that this evaluation into a programme had veered into a piece of research to inform the future business of the BCC Arts Team. This clearly had implications of how this approach was being viewed by arts organisations.
Given these concerns, it leads me to question why we have this projects pot at all. Why can’t the projects pot just be collated into one pot and allocated across all the small and medium scale arts organisations in the city with an established track record and body of evidence for work with communities to enable them just to get on with the work they do so well. The beauty competition approach to funding is obviously favoured by officers as it in part justifies the need to have officers: who else is going to administer and then sit in judgement about who does and does not get rewarded. However it is a wasteful, bureaucratic, inefficient system open to question about its fairness and transparency. In this era of cuts why are we not questioning how we could allocate resources more effectively to organisations to enable them to work with the communities of Birmingham. These small organisations would of course still need to be accountable and provide evidence of impact. And, as Matt so eloquently indicates, small organisations working with various funding streams are highly skilled and proficient in providing monitoring and evaluation evidence to account for every penny we spend and the impact we have had. Anyone who has ever had the delights of delivering an ESF / LSC / SFA contract will know this. We could have a far more streamlined and collaborative approach to support the work of small and medium scale companies working with communities than applying to endless projects pots enables. By all means hold us to account but trust us to get on with it: we know what we are doing, we are good at doing it, we can prove it and when we can’t do that stop funding the work.
I would just like to contribute to the debate about how we might use this as an opportunity to come up with a more imaginative ways of providing Local Authority support all of the arts and all the communities of our city
I’d like to support the views expressed about the lack of consultation on these cuts. There was no indication at all about cuts on anything like this scale to the organisation of which I’m Chair, Big Brum Theatre in Education. Indeed as recently as the summer, we (and I assume other organisations) were asked by BCC to produce a 3-year business plan and several newly required policy documents – hardly necessary if we’ll no longer receive any core funding.
The problem with a pot of money for projects, which has to be bid into each year, is that it’s impossible to plan ahead. We’re all professional organisations, with permanent staff and many long-term projects. While none of us are fully dependent on city council funding – in fact we’re all expert at raising funds, bringing in a lot more money to the city than we take out – we do rely on our city council grants as a key part of our income. Our ability to forward-plan, our commitments to our partners and communities, are all put at risk if we don’t know from one year to the next whether we’ll receive BCC funding or not. It’s true that most of us act as ambassadors for Birmingham, both nationally and internationally. It’ll become harder to do that if we can’t any longer point to our financial support from the city council.
These 100% cuts to all but a few are a complete shock. What has happened to the idea that ‘we’re all in this together’? – it seems that some of us are more ‘in it’ than others.
The leaked document has sparked a debate that needed to be aired. Ruth and Jill have made some really insightful and exciting suggestions and comments which I for one could easily sign up to. Martin there isnt consistency in your comments, firstly you said said that the leaked document was a “discussion document and no decision has been formally made as to future funding of arts in Birmingham” and this was echoed by the press statement from the executive on friday. Then in this blog you go on to say “The proposals for 2011/12 on the leaked sheet will go ahead, with some final tweaks”, that seems to contradict itself.
I strongly agree with the comment from Matt and others from small scale orgs that no discussions or agreement were had with us about moving to project funding and there is definitely a misunderstanding or misrepresentation.
Without having a lot more detail on the rationale and intention of the Project Commissioning Pot it is hard to comment on how effective this will be in delivering a cultural strategy for Birmingham. Project funding is a short term measure and invests in short term activity rather than long term development. Time will be taken up making yet more applications and it doesnt give organsations the stability to plan and lever in further funds.
I am not necessarily in favour of the portfolio staying static, there should be an opportunity for new organisations to enter. The decision made on the 13th should be one which enables a key infrastructure of the best range of Birmingham’s diverse arts organisations to work collaboratively with BCC and others to secure a thriving arts and cultural sector.
Money Money « Stan’s Cafe Theatre Company
[…] is experiencing its own small Wikileaks moment. Created in Birmingham has cautiously pointed people to a City Council ‘discussion document’ which outlined a possible […]
I think a lot of good sense is being talked here – not a surprise as we are a talented, experienced ,innovative ,resourceful and passionate group of professionals . It is in BCC`s interest to consult with us .
To quote Deirdre….
“The decision made on the 13th should be one which enables a key infrastructure of the best range of Birmingham’s diverse arts organisations to work collaboratively with BCC and others to secure a thriving arts and cultural sector.”
How do we make this happen ?
I also think that BCC have a misguided understanding in terms of the value that independent organisations bring to the city not only in cultural terms but economically as well. Last year Supersonic Festival generated £1.9 million to the local economy, this year we think we’ve done more selling out 4 hotels in the city, that’s pretty impressive for a 10k investment by BCC. It’s the smaller organisations that are creating unique content that drive visitors, get great press and change the perception of Birmingham. Imagine what we could achieve with real investment, imagine what we won’t achieve with no investment.
The implication of the Council’s approach is that the so-called small organisations are simply by their size less important or significant than the large ones, whose ring-fenced funding is more worthy of protection. As Lisa’s post above makes clear this is not the case. In fact, many – pound for pound – create as much if not more local, national and international impact as their larger colleagues, in many and various ways. It is also the smaller companies that tend to be at the cutting edge, experimental, contemporary, creative and together making Birmingham a ‘producing’ city of living and developing artforms – exactly the kind of contemporary city which the Council seeks to promote. Certainly in our own case at BCMG our work is recognised internationally as helping to make Birmingham a leading UK city for contemporary music. I think this discussion shows there needs to be a more sophisticated understanding at the Council of the value of the smaller arts companies, and that this is an urgent priority.
@Lisa. The £10k investment by BCC in Supersonic came from the ‘project commissioning’ pot, which in this financial year is worth £125k.
At the moment, Capsule are completely cut out of any revenue funding and will remain so if we continue with the current proportion of revenue funding. In the new funding proposal, this ‘project commissioning’ pot will be increased to £365,000.
But isn’t the project pot going to have to cover a whole load of organisations that are currently funded meaning that increase isn’t really as healthy as it looks?
To quote Janice quoting Deirdre….
“The decision made on the 13th should be one which enables a key infrastructure of the best range of Birmingham’s diverse arts organisations to work collaboratively with BCC and others to secure a thriving arts and cultural sector.”
I suppose I suspect the current bureaucratic, policy heavy application process meant that some organisations who have something valuable to contribute to the infrastructure didn’t even attempt an application as they were not able to deliver what the council expected for the amount of money on offer. There are also ways to work for the communities of Birmingham without working exclusively with the communities of Birmingham. Whilst clearly the work people do with communities within the city is important, organisations which are developing a cultural offer which has an impact beyond the city and encourages inward investment should also be supported. What impact is, is an interesting question and maybe requires considering in a way which allows for different timescales and outcomes in terms of quantifiable results.
I don’t agree that the projects pot being distributed across existing organisations (small or large) is a good idea. Where does that leave space for people to grow and be supported as they transform themselves into organisations/individuals that will move the city forward? It’s important that whatever funding landscape emerges it leaves space for the people with new, relatively untried and untested ideas to to be enabled as they develop. This is what has been relatively unsupported by the city for too long. Its a strategy that involves some risk, but one which might well generate many high quality, unexpected, impactful (in the broadest sense of the world) outcomes
@ruth claxton. The revenue funding being removed from the small art organisations comes to £225,892.
The increase in project funding comes to £240,000. So there will be £15,000 more money for the small art organisations. This has been achieve by squeezing the large art organisation more, so that there is more money for the small art organisations.
So at a time of financial squeeze, the small art organisations have more money.
Let’s hope the that Project Commissioning Fund isnt implemented through a set of criteria which view arts from a narrow and purely instrumental perspective. If it can also invest in the production of experimental,diverse and innovative work which provide citizens and visitors with a distinctive cultural offer. From the meeting yesterday I’m not sure that will be the case. Only time will tell if the decisions made now are beneficial but it would be a shame if one of the biggest cities in England couldnt find a way to persuade its politicians to support art for arts sake because it makes the city a better place in all sorts of tangible and intangible ways.
@Deirdre Figueiredo. I do feel that there is a confusion here between what the Arts Council for England funds and the type of arts projects that Birmingham City Council funds.
The Arts Council have published their new strategy in which they have made it clear their criteria for what they fund. See http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/about-us/a-strategic-framework-for-the-arts/executive-summary/
goal 1 in their objective is ‘Talent and artistic excellence are thriving and celebrated’. This is the type of funding that would fit into your criteria of “the production of experimental,diverse and innovative work”
From a BCC viewpoint, we want to fund arts projects that meet the needs of the residents of Birmingham, which are:
1) increasing public participation in the arts in the most deprived areas of Birmingham
2) increasing youth participation in the arts.
3) raising the profile of Birmingham as a cultural destination.
It is possible that “the production of experimental,diverse and innovative work” could fit into the criteria of raising the profile of Birmingham as cultural destination, BUT what we are not going to fund is artistic production that is of no benefit to the residents of Birmingham, nor even has no output.
Martin your last comment made me think .
1) increasing public participation in the arts in the most deprived areas of Birmingham
2) increasing youth participation in the arts.
3) raising the profile of Birmingham as a cultural destination.
Why are Birmingham Royal Ballet , Cbso etc being funded ? They do not meet all the BCC criteria .
?
@Januce Connolly. All the organisations that will remain revenue funded act as the city’s ‘Art Champions’. This involves working the suburbs, engaging local people with the arts. See http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite/arts.champions?packedargs=website%3D4&rendermode=live
They also provide an elite cultural service where we can and do direct talented youngsters from the inner cities to. For example, the Birmingham Royal Ballet has performers who grew up in the streets of Lozells and Handsworth and were spotted as talented individuals in their teens.
I think it would be fair to say that the larger organisations keeping their funding, have a main focus that would fall under the third strand listed above more that the first two. While I agree that it’s fanastic to see young people from the streets of Birmingham involved with BRB and similar – if we’re very honest they’re the exception not the rule….
whereas the bulk of the organastions being cut have a main focus that lies in the first two areas – where nearly every project delivered is with and for people in Birmingham – in targetted areas that need the work….as a rule – and not the exception….
It feels a little unbalanced…. The way the cuts have been outlined would inicate clearly the city’s priority is the third strand – raising the profile of Birmingham as a cultural destination.
I wonder when the decision was taken that “the production of experimental,diverse and innovative work” is of no benefit to the residents of Birmingham.
1) increasing public participation in the arts in the most deprived areas of Birmingham
2) increasing youth participation in the arts.
3) raising the profile of Birmingham as a cultural destination.
What’s missing for me here is any mention of ‘quality’, there is no reason why diverse, artistically excellent, innovative, experimental work cannot feed into all three of there areas.
Project funding can be positive for some small organisations who wish to choose how and when they engage with BCC. However, one of the ongoing problems for project-funded and small-scale organisations is continuity, not just for the organisation itself, but the people they work with – who are the people of Birmingham, the young and those in areas of social and economic deprivation. The following cycle will be familiar to many of us:
a) A fantastic idea, usually developed in consultation with people of Birmingham or arising from a recognised need. Together designing an artistic project which is responsive, engaging, raises aspiration, and fulfills aims 1 & 2 (maybe 3, depending on scale)
b) Fundraising – if successful, raise several thousand from various project pots/trusts which will see you through the project
c) Deliver a fantastic project which is responsive, engaging, raises aspiration, and fulfills aims 1 & 2 (maybe 3, depending on scale). The company will have built a great, trusting yet embryonic relationship with a group of people of Birmingham who have had a new experience and are hungry for more but perhaps not yet ready to go it alone.
d) Project ends, time for evaluation. Boxes ticked for BCC, people have engaged, people have participated. However the people/community you’ve worked with want to know what’s next, where do we go from here, where else can they go with their newly awakened aspirations? How does it make them feel that the company can only work with them ‘as long as the money lasts’? Company awaits funding decision for next project pot. With no core funding, they don’t even know if they themselves will be there in a few months to deliver another project.
Real instrumental changes in the way people in deprived areas and young people engage in the arts in Birmingham cannot realistically be achieved on a purely project-funded basis. The large venues cannot achieve these aims alone despite the Arts Champions scheme. The best organisations to really engage deeply with people are the small ones on the ground. My concern is that removing long-term stability from these organisations substantially damages their capability to bring about aims 1, 2, and 3. Individual projects will happen, which will be fantastic, but a stop-start approach and increasing competition for funds between companies will not in the long term grow the sector, grow engagement, grow creativity in the City, or grow the aspirations of the people of Birmingham.
With all these cuts, could the city council consider withdrawing on pursuing what now seems to be a rather frivolous advertising campaign next year that is going to cost £100k from city council budgets alone, not to mention the additional money from Marketing Birmingham and match funding requests from arts organisations?
Surely the money allocated from the city council (and possible Marketing Birmingham) could be redirected into the revenue budget to support the smaller organisations. What is the point in running a high cost national advertising campaign that will only end up demonstrating the city’s reduced commitment and support to the arts in Birmingham during these times of austerity?
The report that goes to cabinet about the decision to reorganise Arts funding is here (PDF):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2865380/BCCArtsCommissioning.pdf
Martin,
You also have to understand why small organisations are so angry about these decisions, after spending valuable time writing hefty bureaucratic RFO applications (60 pages) for up to 10k which the BCC arts team have not responded to in a formal way but rather we see a leaked document informing us of 0 funding. It’s not very respectful or professional in terms of valuing our time to put in for this funding. I certainly hope that with the new pot for project funding a less bureaucratic system will be in place. There needs to be a huge shift in terms of value, we should be working together to make Birmingham a more vibrant cultural city, not being bogged down in paperwork.
There are a number of companies that don’t receive a bean of funding from Birmingham City Council and consequently remain invisible to the arts team unless they scream and shout. Rather than seeing this as all negative perhaps this will give those companies who not only manage to survive but also thrive using a more traditional business model a chance to demonstrate how the arts can be both commercially viable and creatively dynamic. Maybe the citys arts orgs need a bit of a shake up. Just a thought.
@martin mullaney I’m really familiar with ACE plans going forward, I just think a cultural strategy that empowers artists to shape the city and its offer through their work and ideas will benefit citizens because people will want to come and live/work/play here and that can only be good for everyone in birmingham. Anyway, whatever happens, appreciate and welcome your personal willingness to engage in debate and discussion. Let’s keep it going and find mutually beneficial ways to ensure the arts and artists thrive into the future.
All this is ideologically driven. Its the Tory ( LibDem poodles dream) push the clock back 50 years and retain elite culture for the elite and to hell with every body else. You won’t read it in our compliant media but this is a fabricated crisis, research by PCS union and Tax Justice Campaign shows £120 billion a year is avoided and evaded in tax by banks and big business. If that was collected there would be no crisis. The deficit after WW11 was 5 times what it is now and yet the Labour Government of the time was able to establish the NHS and develop a massive council house building programme. Artists need to take a leaf out of the students book and get angry and start getting out on the streets.
Some small battle won in that there is now transitional funding being granted to organisations previously in reciept of annual support from BCC . Better than the £0 that Somerset and other places have had to bear . This I feel was as a result of action being taken in terms of us all getting together . Thanks to Martin for hosting the meeting .
Lets keep on meeting , talking and protecting the arts in these harsh times .
Youch. Looks like Somerset’s opened the floodgates…