Arts Council Launches 2nd phase of ‘Grants for the Arts’

'Grants for the Arts' is not a new funding scheme; it has been operating now for over 2 years and recently it has undergone a makeover. On October 3rd 2005, Arts Council England (ACE) will begin accepting funding applications under the scheme using the newly improved application form. In addition it will incorporate new organisational procedures that have been recommended in an evaluation of the
[This is archived content and may not display in the originally intended format.]
Artshub Logo

‘Grants for the Arts’ is not a new funding scheme; it has been operating now for over 2 years and recently it has undergone a makeover. On October 3rd 2005, Arts Council England (ACE) will begin accepting funding applications under the scheme using the newly improved application form. In addition it will incorporate new organisational procedures that have been recommended in an evaluation of the scheme’s progress.

In April 2003, ACE first launched its ambitious new funding scheme: ‘Grants for the Arts’. It was considered the flagship project following the previous year’s massive overall restructuring of the Arts Council of England and the 10 regional Arts Boards to form one single organisation. It also coincided with the signing of a new funding agreement between the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) and ACE. In this agreement it was made clear that administrative savings were expected to result both from the overall restructuring of ACE and from the introduction of the new ‘Grants for the Arts’ system.

At the time there were 100 or more separate funding programmes, scattered relics of the old Arts Council of England and its regional offices. The funding application process was widely perceived as a bureaucratic nightmare, elitist and impenetrable to newcomers with decision-making that lacked consistency.

The new ‘Grants for the Arts’ scheme consolidated the many different funding schemes, all requiring a separate application form, in theory making the grant process consistent across England. A single application pack is now all that is needed whether you are applying as an individual or an organisation and regardless of what specifically you are applying for. ACE have declared their overall ambitions for the arts and make it clear that they are looking to fund projects that will fulfil at least one of those ambitions:

• Supporting the artist
• Enabling organisations to thrive, not just survive
• Championing cultural diversity
• Offering opportunities for young people
• Encouraging growth

In addition, each application is assessed according to five selection criteria and again, these are deliberately visible to potential applicants on the ACE website:

1. The artistic quality of the activity or its ongoing effect on artistic practice (or both)
2. How the activity will be managed and its ongoing effect on you
3. How realistic the activity is financially, and its future effect
4. How the public will benefit from the activity, immediately or in the long term
5. The contribution the activity makes to meet our ambitions for the arts.

There is a fast turnaround for applications now, ACE have target response times of within 6 weeks to funding requests of £5000 or less and 12 weeks for funding over £5000.

In keeping with the current climate of accountability, DCMS requires that ongoing evaluations of all ACE schemes have to take place. The first major Evaluation of the ‘Grants of the Arts’ scheme was in March 2005. Happily, it reports a largely positive response to most of the changes. The areas for concern have been assessed and the Evaluators’ recommendations have formed the basis of the improvements being integrated after October 3rd 2005.

Annabel Jackson and Graham Devlin of Annabel Jackson Associates conducted the Evaluation – ‘Grants for the Arts an evaluation of the first year’. They analysed statistical data as well as surveying approximately 200 Arts Council England staff, 130 successful applicants and 32 unsuccessful applicants and interviewing 15 umbrella organisations providing specialist advice, representation and communications networks to arts organisations and artists.

One of the past criticisms of Arts Council funding schemes was that, “the applicant fitted around Arts Council England” (ACE officer). Under the new scheme, among the key findings of ‘Grants for the Arts’ is praise for the simplicity of the application process and its highly customer-focused style – some 84% of interviewees said that ‘Grants for the Arts’ had enabled them to do the project they wanted to.

This new one-stop-shop style application form, “…means that the applicant only has to learn the procedure once, not each time they apply to a different programme.” (ACE officer).

There has been a significant increase in applications made and grants awarded to individuals and organisations that had not previously received Arts Council funding. The report sees this as, “an amazing achievement for a relatively short period of time.”

Great news for the applicants but as one ACE interviewee commented:
“Everything we do that makes application easier for the applicant makes it more difficult for the grant maker.” It seems that many ACE staff perceive their workload to have increased due to the greater number of applications. (In fact figures show that the level of applications has been fairly stable with an increase in March 2004.) It is more likely that the combined pressure to turn around applications quickly, (according to the report, ACE is meeting its target very well on that score) and the intense level of support offered to applicants during the process have slowed down staff operating speeds.

One of the more serious complaints that ACE officers reported was confusion over the criterion of ‘artistic quality’. Previously this area was seen as paramount importance to projects funded by Arts Council. However, under the new scheme, applicants have not been required to supply examples of their work routinely during the application process and this has led to much confusion.

Interestingly, in the same way as staff perceptions about workload were not completely backed up by statistical evidence, “assessment data showed that the most frequently occurring reason that applications were rejected was because they failed to meet the criteria for artistic quality (17% of applications had this as one of their rejection reasons.)” Artistic quality is at the head of the selection criteria list for Grants for the Arts and action was being taken promptly to explore this issue several months ago. With the updated scheme we should expect that staff are not only encouraging applicants to submit examples of work in the early stages of application but that they have undergone further training to guide them in assessing the artistic quality of applications.

The support offered during application has been one of the radical new strategies and it is clearly an effective one for improving success rates. “Assessment data showed that 66% of applicants discussed their project with a regional office before applying. The success rate for applicants who did discuss their project with regional staff was significantly higher than for those who did not (65% compared to 33%)” (Grants for the arts an evaluation of the first year, Jackson 2005)

Flexibility was also a positive key finding. “Grants for the arts strikes exactly the right balance. We want to give enough guidance to ensure good applications, but not so much that we cut out good ideas. It is not application by numbers, where applicants feel that they are in an examination and will only succeed if they say the right buzz words” (ACE officer).

Some of the problems for applicants that the evaluation identified were solely related to lack of clarity on the application form. For example applicants struggled to complete budget information and assessors found the information provided was not sufficiently detailed for the larger, more complex projects. Groups of artists were often unsure if they should apply as an organization or as individuals and frequently resorted to a confusing combination application. Sometimes the applicants were simply not aware that some of the questions did not relate to them and could be omitted. Many of these issues appear to have been addressed in the new application pack now available.

No doubt the scheme will undergo further tweaks when it receives its next evaluation again but overall it appears largely to have succeeded in its aims of consolidation and simplification and is enabling many more artists and organizations to benefit. If you are an artist or artistic organisation deserving of public funding, what better way to test out the new application process than by having a go yourself.

In the words of one satisfied grant recipient:

“There is nothing else like it in Europe”

To find out more and to access the online application pack see:

www.artscouncil.org.uk

Ali Taulbut
About the Author
Alison is a British-born freelance writer and is now living in Perth, Western Australia. She began her career as a teacher of Drama and English in London and has worked extensively with teenagers as a theatre director. She spent 10 years working in London's West End with writers of theatre, film and television as a Literary Agent.