Could do better still

The process used by Arts Council England (ACE) to establish a National Portfolio of regularly funded organisations (NPOs) is described as being “in marked contrast” to the one implemented in 2008 (see AP166), which generated widespread anger in the sector. In her new report, dated July 2011 but published last month, Baroness Genista McIntosh applauds the courage and determination with which ACE developed and stuck to its plan despite the challenges, and suggests that lessons from that previous experience have been well learned. She said: “The intellectual underpinnings of the process were secure, and backed throughout with excellent documentation; the arts sector as a whole understood, through extensive briefing and consultation, what ACE was aiming to achieve; the application process was conducted fairly and decisions were on the whole communicated and followed up effectively.”

However, while the overall findings contrast starkly with her findings following the 2008 funding review (See AP176) some of the issues of most concern in 2008 are described as being still in need of attention.

According to the report, ACE’s vision on which funding decisions were based, whilst clearly articulated, was not clearly reflected in decisions, and McIntosh has proposed a range of reasons as to why this was the case, including the short timeframe for decisions which meant that regional councils struggled to scrutinise everything put before them. This led to decision-making that became a bit generic, with too many last-minute changes and some applicants feeling that the reasons given to them for those decisions were sketchy, or that the decision did not reflect the assessment of their applications. She points to the necessity for more time to be allowed, especially for moderation, in any similar future portfolio review.

Relationships between ACE’s National and Regional Councils were also cited as being problematic in the NPO process, and being generally “vulnerable when ACE is required to act as one organisation”. McIntosh said this resulted in “frustration and a mutual sense of disempowerment at both regional and national levels”. Some members of Regional Councils were unhappy about “a lack of clarity about the weight attached to regional decisions” and the rejection of their recommendations about their regional portfolio during the national moderation process. This reflects deeper concerns within ACE about a potential loss of regional influence when its 50% cuts in administrative costs are implemented next year.

ACE’s communications around the review process and decisions made were deemed by McIntosh to be “well thought through and carried out diplomatically and efficiently”, and she defends ACE’s decision not to publish a list of all funding applicants. However, the heavily redacted minutes of the National Council Meeting at which decisions were finalised reveal that, in a consultation about whether the names of all applicants should be made public, only 38 out of 1,333 applicants responded negatively. It is not clear how the outcome of this consultation subsequently informed the policy of publishing only the names of successful applicants: the minutes of all Regional and National Council meetings at which decisions were made about the composition of the National Portfolio, have been redacted to reflect this policy.