In Response to the Arts Council England Independent Review

By Reyahn King, Executive Director at The Exhibitions Group

After what has seemed like a long time, the independent review of Arts Council England (ACE) by Baroness Margaret Hodge has finally been published. Most of the recommendations made are welcome, although some answers to underfunding seem to be hopeful and technocratic when organisations and individual artists just – you know – need more money. Any regularly ACE-funded organisation will be relieved by an extension of the funding cycle from 3 years to 5 years and application by rolling programme. 

At The Exhibitions Group, we particularly welcome a more pragmatic approach to the Government Indemnity Scheme. This would answer some of the criticisms that we hear from our members, especially around security. To be fair, ACE has already been reviewing the scheme; further access, more simplicity and clearer communications would enable exhibitions to tour more widely and culture to reach more people.  

Museums are still under claiming Museums and Galleries Exhibitions Tax Relief (MGETR), but this is getting better and is a financial lifeline for some exhibitions venues. The touring rate increase recommended for some performance artforms is great but the mention in relation to museums just says ACE should look at whether they could be better aligned. I found this a bit unclear. It would be good if the (lower) rates for MGETR were the same as the other scheme and if the process for refunds could be faster!  

When carrying out and commissioning research, The Exhibitions Group has not been able to draw on ACE data, yet we like many others believe that somewhere in their systems, or those of their partners, rich data must be held.  

Over decades now, organisations have provided information yet the only use we see of this for the sector is in an annual review. This is a real issue for museums as we don’t always have sophisticated ticketing mechanisms like other art form venues. Research by Cultural Associates Oxford – which will be published by The Exhibitions Group next year – shows that museums are still using basic metrics to assess their impact, if at all. We are no longer benchmarking and testing to see if our actions achieve their intended outcomes or reach the audiences we intend to. A central dataset that the sector could use analytically would provide rich information that could really support museums to work better, with and for audiences.  

Overall, this seems to be a positive set of recommendations, and I am relieved that major overhaul and upheaval of ACE is not on the cards. Reorganisation is rarely the answer so much as attentive, responsive, appropriate culture change and I think ACE is capable of that. More listening to organisational circumstance and brilliance rather than pressure to deliver ACE outcomes will hopefully create a less tick box response from organisations and enable them to thrive in their own unique ways.  

It would be positive to recognise that some organisations are well suited to delivering to particular audiences and – especially if this is an underrepresented community – support should continue for them to do that well. I have experienced an organisation who delivered fantastically for its Global Majority community, having to water that down to tick a wider range of protected characteristics for ACE. Whilst intersectionality is real, that approach suggested a lack of respect for organisations who know their constituency. 

My final thoughts support one of the points made in the report: that ACE Relationship Managers provide good advice and support. We’ve certainly found that to be the case. With this news released just before Christmas, I hope that staff at ACE do not find this timing too unsettling and it’s worth reminding them after a long, tense wait, that they are appreciated. The job of a cross artform national funding and development body is not an easy one!