Get documents about "REVIEW OF LOTTERY SCHEMES
Document Sample
THE ARTS COUNCIL OF NORTHERN IRELAND
REVIEW OF LOTTERY SCHEMES
Summary Report
31 March 2003
Deloitte & Touche
19 Bedford Street
Belfast BT2 7EJ
Northern Ireland
CONTENTS Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Aim 1
1.2 Structure of this Report 1
2. CONTEXT 2
2.1 Background 2
2.2 Context 2
2.3 Task Brief 3
2.4 Key Research Questions 3
2.5 Assumptions 3
3. METHODOLOGY 4
3.1 Introduction 4
3.2 Development of a Sampling Frame 4
3.3 Summary of Activity 4
3.4 Format of Meetings 4
3.5 Participation Levels 5
4. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION FINDINGS 6
4.1 Overview 6
4.2 General Issues 6
4.3 Criteria 6
4.4 Guidelines 7
4.5 Sums available 7
4.6 Eligible and Ineligible Costs 7
4.7 One Live Application 7
4.8 Rolling Programmes or Deadlines 8
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report
CONTENTS Page
4.9 Premium Payment 8
4.10 Eligibility Criteria 9
5. RECOMMENDATIONS 10
5.1 General 10
5.2 Criteria 10
5.3 Guidelines 10
5.4 Sums Available 11
5.5 Eligible and Ineligible Costs 12
5.6 One Live Application 12
5.7 Rolling Programmes or Deadlines 12
5.8 Premium Payments 13
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Aim
The purpose of this report is to present a summary of the Deloitte & Touche review
the Arts Council of Northern Ireland‟s (the Council) Access to the Arts, Audience
Development and New Work.
1.2 Structure of this Report
This summary report is structured as follows:
Section 2 – sets the context for the review;
Section 3 – outlines our methodology and the response rates to the consultation;
Section 4 – presents a synopsis of the views expressed in the consultation; and
Section 5 – contains recommendations for consideration by the Council.
A list of organisations that contributed to the consultation process is included as
Appendix 1.
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 1
2. CONTEXT
2.1 Background
In May 1999, following regional public consultation, the Council launched a
“Strategy for the Distribution of National Lottery Arts Funding 1999 – 2002”. This
strategy saw a shift in emphasis from capital developments to project based grants
aimed at benefiting people from all sections of society. It was reviewed in 2002 in
advance of the launch of the 2002 – 2006 Lottery Distribution Strategy, which was
also subject to public consultation. Three of the schemes within these strategies are
the subject of the current review.
2.1.1 Access to the Arts
During the period 1999 – 2002 the Council dedicated this programme to
providing new opportunities and promoting access to the arts through a wide
range of community arts development programmes. During this period, 68
grants were awarded totalling £2,750,161. The scheme was revised and
re-issued on 1 April 2001 and a major change was an increase in the
maximum grant from £25,000 to £40,000.
2.1.2 New Work
This scheme was transferred from „pilot‟ status and established as a
mainstream lottery scheme on 1 April 2001. It is designed to take new work
from any art form to people throughout Northern Ireland. Priority is
accorded to innovative original work by Northern Irish artists. The original
requirement to create a capital asset as a result of funding was dropped at this
stage and the relaunched scheme required grant recipients to encourage
education and / or community access programmes in each new work
commission. 28 awards were made in 2001/2002 totalling £814,162.
2.1.3 Audience Development
The current Audience Development programme was introduced in April
2001. This programme offered grants of up to £100,000 per year for three
years to help organisations identify and develop their audiences. The three
main elements of the programme provide funding for touring,
education/outreach and marketing. 12 awards were made in 2001 / 2002
totalling £1,761,409.
2.2 Context
Three months into the 2002/03 financial year it became clear that the demand against
available budgets for these particular schemes was significant and that under the
rolling programme system, the schemes were likely to be heavily oversubscribed.
As a result, the Council took the decision to impose a deadline of 31 July 2002 for
Access, Audience Development and New Work applications. This left no resources
in the programme for the rest of that financial year. It was agreed by the Council
that these schemes would be reviewed as a matter of urgency during the closure
period.
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 2
2.3 Task Brief
The purpose of this engagement is to review the Council‟s Access, Audience
Development and New Work Schemes and to make recommendations for
consideration by the Council. The Council intends to re-launch the revised schemes
in April 2003 with grant aid available as early as possible in the new financial year.
2.4 Key Research Questions
The consultation was designed to ascertain the following – through Arts Council and
arts sector consultation:
does the sector agree that a premium payment for projects working with
special needs groups and disability and ethnic groups should be introduced,
following the recent impact assessment and in the light of diminishing
resources?;
do the criteria for each scheme present clear and understandable guidance for
potential applicants?;
do current guidelines and sums available under each scheme meet the
perceived needs of potential applicants?;
do current eligible and ineligible costs seem rational, or is there a need to
introduce other costs elements within the parameters of the financial
directives?; and
do rolling programmes or deadlines for each scheme present a preferred
option for applicants?
2.5 Assumptions
The following assumptions have been agreed with the Council and underpin the
recommendations arising from this consultation exercise:
any recommended action must be consistent with Government Policy and
Financial Directions for the distribution of National Lottery Funds;
changes at programme level are unlikely to precede the outcome of the
DCMS Review of Lottery Funding. Any changes which emerge as a result
of this consultation will be within schemes and will relate directly to the
issues highlighted in the terms of reference;
recommendations should be made in the context of likely available funds for
the schemes in question. The projected budget for 2002/2006 has been used
in this context;
proposals should also be consistent with the Council‟s strategic and corporate
plans and with the 2003-2006 Strategic Plan; and
administrative issues are beyond the specific brief of this consultation. Points
raised will be reflected back to the Council, but recommendations will not
address administrative difficulties directly.
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 3
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This section outlines our approach to this consultancy assignment and reports on
response rates and the activity of the project team. The two key target groups for
this consultation were Council Members and Staff and the Northern Ireland Arts
Sector.
3.2 Development of a Sampling Frame
Given the size of the arts sector in Northern Ireland and the level of interest in the
three schemes under consideration, it was necessary to develop a sampling frame in
order to identify potential participants for this consultation exercise. The Council
provided a list of all applicants to these schemes since 1999 to the project team. We
then prepared an invitation list for the consultation based on a sample from the
database. In an effort to select a varied and representative sample, we identified the
following variables and ensured that relevant groups were included in the selection:
status of application (whether groups were successful or unsuccessful in
securing funding);
the range of artforms;
geography – urban / rural;
relevant Section 75 categories; and
level of Grant.
3.3 Summary of Activity
After deduplication and cleansing of the sample, a total of 186 applicant
organisations were invited to participate in the consultation exercise. In addition, 22
umbrella organisations were invited to send a representative to consultation
meetings. A total of 20 consultation sessions were held in Belfast, Derry and
Fermanagh.
11 arts development officers met with the project team and a subgroup of the Lottery
Committee also attended a discussion session. A meeting was held with officials
from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Arts Managers Group of
the Forum for Local Government in the Arts was also briefed about the consultation.
A number of clarification meetings were also held with the Council.
3.4 Format of Meetings
Organisations were invited to send a representative to a pre-scheduled meeting to
discuss the three lottery schemes in question. The options of rescheduling or
submitting comments in writing / via e-mail were also given. Advance notice was
given of the kinds of issues that would be raised. Copies of the correspondence and
of an aide memoir that was used in the group discussions are attached as Appendices
3 and 4 respectively.
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 4
3.5 Participation Levels
A total of 60 organisations participated in the consultation exercise. This represents
a 29 per cent response rate. The majority of those groups attended one of the
consultation meetings. Nine groups submitted written comments and four were
interviewed by phone by a member of the project team. A supplementary letter was
sent to those who did not attend their scheduled session to remind them that they
were welcome to attend another session if they wished and to highlight the
alternative media for contributing to the debate. A list of those who attended is
attached as Appendix 1.
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 5
4. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION FINDINGS
4.1 Overview
The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the views and issues raised
during the consultation meetings. It is important to note that many consultees
wanted to use the opportunity of this review to highlight a number of wider issues
relating to the lottery strategy and the administration of lottery funds. The focus of
this review is on a series of operational issues around three specific lottery schemes
and our recommendations will relate specifically to those issues. It is important,
however, that the other issues raised are recorded and for that reason, a „general
issues‟ category has been included in this section of the report.
4.2 General Issues
Despite a certain level of scepticism regarding the timing and potential outcomes of
the consultation process, those who participated gave a frank assessment of the
schemes under review. General perceptions of the Council were mixed and
applicants‟ experiences of the Lottery were varied. The application process was
generally considered to be arduous and the moratorium in 2002/2003 clearly
damaged the sector‟s confidence in the Council‟s planning and management systems.
There was recognition that there had been some positive developments in relation to
the refinement of the application and project management processes for Lottery
funded projects, but the procedures were still considered to be overly bureaucratic
and inefficient. A majority of consultees called for more transparency within the
grant-making process and it was felt that more feedback to unsuccessful applicants
and more contact between arts development officers and applicant (and subsequently
grant-aided) groups, would help in this regard. Wider issues of the future of Lottery
funding, the relationship of Lottery and Treasury funding for the arts, additionality
and sustainability were also raised.
4.3 Criteria
Many of those consulted indicated that they had no difficulties with the selection
criteria for awards. In principle, the criteria made sense to applicants and „seemed
fair‟. They were perceived to be consistent with the policy directives and with new
targeting social need and equality priorities. Questions arose in relation to how those
criteria are applied to the decision making process however and there was
significantly less clarity and satisfaction at that level.
Many applicants considered the different „layers‟ of criteria problematic, particularly
because the interrelationship between the overarching lottery criteria and the
programme specific ones was not considered clear. Some consultees wanted more
information on the weighting process and the relative importance accorded to
different priorities. There was a sense from a number of people that contributed to
the debate that decisions were not actually based on the criteria.
Discussion around the decision making process led a number of consultees to raise
the issue of how quality of the artistic content of applications is assessed. The
debate about whether these schemes are about quality art-led activities with a
community outreach component or whether they are about introducing the arts as a
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 6
medium for community development, was an animated one which highlighted some
quite polarised views. Some consultees felt the criteria were „stacked against‟ new
organisations who needed an opportunity to develop a track record and demonstrate
the quality of their work.
Finally, a major issue that emerged was confusion between the remit and objectives
of the Access and Audience Development schemes and the outreach component of
New Work.
4.4 Guidelines
The majority of those consulted indicated that they had found the written guidance
reasonably clear. Perceived difficulties arose when they sought clarification on the
written guidance from arts development officers and there was a sense that the advice
given to groups by the Council was inconsistent. On this basis, some groups called
for more detail to be added to the written guidance. A number of areas of confusion
in relation to the guidelines were identified in the course of the consultation and
these have been highlighted to the Council.
4.5 Sums available
There were few strong views on levels of grant available. Most were accepting of
the current levels, given the constrained resource environment. Some expressed the
view that the £50k cap for single pieces of work under New Works was too low.
Others felt the £40k limit on Access was also too low. The cap of £20k on
administrative salary costs and 10 per cent on overheads within Access was also
considered to be too low – particularly for umbrella organisations and for
organisations working with groups with special needs.
In relation to the adequacy of the amount of money available for the schemes, a
number of groups highlighted the need to protect money for „art‟. It was claimed
that it was easier to find funding for outreach activity than for core arts projects in
their own right. They highlighted that the Council was the primary (and for some
the only) source of funding for the arts and that other resources were available to
promote social inclusion and community development activity. Others highlighted
that these schemes are specifically about access and outreach work and they
challenged those who felt that the focus should be exclusively on the artistic
component of the project.
4.6 Eligible and Ineligible Costs
There was general support for the current parameters on cost although a certain
element of confusion existed in relation to equipment costs. The majority of
grantees were unaware that funding was available for equipment hire and that there
was a degree of flexibility generally on equipment rules. It was argued that the
guidelines needed to be amended and that the Council should explicitly state what
equipment costs were permissible.
4.7 One Live Application
There was much confusion over the detail of this principle. While the sector
understood the need to ensure appropriate monitoring of projects and recognised that
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 7
there was a need to „spread‟ funds around, this restriction presented significant
problems for some groups. This was particularly the case for groups where the
grant was supporting wages. The time period between final sign off of the original
project and approval of the new one meant that there were „gaps‟ in programming
and some organisations could not retain their workers over this period. This lack of
continuity was considered to be a waste of investment already made by the Lottery.
The „one live application‟ rule was generally regarded as a major constraint and there
was little recognition of the process currently in place whereby applications are
progressed to the point of approval while other activity is ongoing. Some found it
difficult to understand why it was acceptable to submit multi-project applications,
but not to submit more than one application within a particular time period.
Concerns were expressed about the implications of the one live application rule for
organisations in receipt of a grant who wish to submit an application for a distinct
piece of work with a consortium.
4.8 Rolling Programmes or Deadlines
This is an area where there was no clear consensus of opinion. There was general
recognition that there is no easy solution to the management of these funds which
have finite resources and are the subject of high demand. There was
acknowledgement of the logistical difficulties of managing funds across the full
financial year within a rolling system – particularly in respect of large applications.
While the balance of opinion probably tipped in favour of maintaining a rolling
programme, the vast majority of consultees indicated that they could work within
either system if it was operated efficiently and measures were taken to ensure that
funds were available throughout the financial year as appropriate within the
designated system. If deadlines are introduced, the key concern for consultees was
to ensure that there are an adequate number of „entry points‟ each year.
4.9 Premium Payment
Discussions within focus groups tended to centre on two key issues arising from the
idea of a premium payment. The first issue related to the principle of applying a
premium payment to under-represented groups and the second issue focused on the
practical outworking of the premium payment idea.
In relation to the principle, a range of opinions emerged. For the majority of groups,
the principle of engaging under-represented groups was accepted and it was also
acknowledged that engaging certain groups had cost implications. The difficulties of
focusing on selected Section 75 groups and not others were raised and some felt that
even Section 75 did not cover all socially excluded groups e.g. access to the arts is an
issue for those living in rural communities. At the other end of the spectrum, it was
argued the premium payment idea was unnecessary and would result in the further
development of a „tick box‟ culture.
There was no consensus on this issue but many acknowledged the administrative
difficulties of setting up a separate „pot‟ of funding. It was also noted that any
additional costs could be included or taken account of through raising the cap on
administration expenses for some groups from 10 per cent. Alternatively they could
be considered separately from overhead costs in the application.
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 8
4.10 Eligibility Criteria
There was some debate about the eligibility criteria for the schemes. Some
consultees felt that District Councils should be added to the list of ineligible
applicants. A minority of participants also suggested that individual artists should
not be excluded from applying to these schemes. The vast majority felt that for
reasons of financial management and given the requirement to showcase work under
the schemes, the exclusion of self-commissioning costs was entirely appropriate and
that it was not unreasonable to expect artists to work with constituted organisations
in relation to lottery funded activity. In addition, the existence of the Support for
Individual Artists Programme was highlighted.
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 9
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
It is important to highlight that forward planning for these schemes must operate on
two levels at this stage i.e. transitional and long term planning. There is a need to
plan for a high volume of applications on reopening of these schemes as a result of
pent up demand. These „transitional arrangements‟ may need to be different from
(although consistent with) longer term planning for the future operation of the
schemes. The sections that follow set out our recommendations in relation to the
main terms of reference. It is important to note that some of the recommendations
have resource consequences.
In relation to the general issues raised in this report (i.e. those issues not directly
within the terms of reference of the project team), we recommend that the Council
give due consideration to the views expressed by the sector in future review/planning
exercises. Specifically, however, we would suggest the following:
the Council should continue to work towards ensuring that its processes and
decisions are communicated to the arts sector in a way that is considered to be
„transparent‟ and that clarifies the basis for the various policies, procedures
and decisions relating to the distribution of lottery funds;
the Council should seek to improve mechanisms for feeding back to
unsuccessful applicants. This should include an explanation of how the
project failed to meet the criteria or why it could not be funded;
the Council should undertake an exercise to benchmark the administrative
processes that apply to these schemes against the processes of other
distributors and other funding bodies, both locally and in other regions; and
the Council should strengthen the „development role‟ within the arts
development officers post in recognition of the importance of development of
relationships with client groups.
5.2 Criteria
efforts should be made to clarify the remit, objectives and anticipated
outcomes of the different schemes;
the Council should develop a communication plan for these schemes and
actively seek opportunities to explain, clarify and disseminate its policies,
practices and decisions; and
the Council should review the operation of its standardised assessment
framework to ensure consistency of approach. Where there is a training
implication, this should be actioned.
5.3 Guidelines
we recommend that further detail should be included in the written guidance
on the following:
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 10
the calculation of benefits in kind in establishing partnership funding
(particularly in relation to the costing of volunteer time and the question
of whether management Committee members time is allowable);
the status of the „one live application‟ rule;
how to define the „start‟ of a project, given the requirement that a project
should not have started at the time of application;
the need to submit CVs with applications;
the need to build in evaluation costs into the project budget;
the exclusion of equipment purchase; and
the meaning of “fees for existing courses” under ineligible costs.
the rules which apply to applications from organisations operating within a
consortium and which have already applied on behalf of their own
organisation, should be clarified;
the Council should consider running a series of seminars throughout the year
to clarify the application process, programme criteria, approval mechanisms,
project management requirements and monitoring arrangements. These will
serve to add to efforts to maximise transparency, allow officers to engage
directly with groups in a time-efficient way and address the allegations of
inconsistent advice giving. There will be immediate resource implications
for staff in terms of time commitment in the design and delivery of these
schemes but the potential benefits are significant and it could result in a more
effective use of time in the longer term i.e. a reduction in high levels of ad
hoc queries. Seminars could also be used to encourage „joined-up‟
applications across schemes;
training for staff should be organised upon relaunch of the schemes to ensure
that all Council staff (and arts development officers in particular), are aware
of revisions to the guidance and to ensure consistency in the advice they give
to potential applicants;
we recommend that the presentation of the written guidance should be
reviewed;
a review the lists of supplementary questions that are issued to applicant
organisations should be undertaken; and
consideration should be given to establishing a „best practice‟ website.
5.4 Sums Available
we recommend that the Council should review the 2003 / 2006 projected
budgets and assess the potential for „pulling forward‟ some funds into the
2003 / 2004 financial year in order to assist with the management of the
anticipated high demand upon reopening of the schemes;
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 11
the 10 per cent cap on overheads and £20k limit on administrators‟ salaries in
the Access Programme should be reviewed;
consideration should be given to raising the £40k limit for Access grants.
This will be particularly necessary if a decision is taken to raise the current
limit on overheads within this scheme; and
the costs of meeting the special needs of defined socially excluded groups
(see 4.8) should be considered separately from standard overhead costs.
5.5 Eligible and Ineligible Costs
the current rules regarding eligibility do not need to be changed. It is also
our view that there is no need to change guidelines on exclusions to funding;
the Council should, however, clarify the position in relation to eligible
equipment costs and guidance should be amended accordingly.
5.6 One Live Application
the Council should consider processing applications giving approval in principle
(if appropriate), subject to the satisfactory completion of the first application.
This would result in a maximum of two applications per programme per
applicant at any one point in time; and
the Council should review its policy on supporting „pilot‟ years for projects.
5.7 Rolling Programmes or Deadlines
In assessing transitional arrangements, we have identified a series of options for
mechanisms for accepting applications that could be employed by the Council
including:
the immediate implementation of a rolling programme system;
the immediate implementation of a deadline driven system;
an expression of interest process;
the opening of schemes on a staggered basis;
a call for applications based on project implementation timescales;
separation of processing systems depending on the level of grant; and
run one competition only for 2003/04.
We suggest that it would be extremely difficult to open all schemes and start
accepting applications on 1 April 2003. We propose that guidance and information
on all three schemes should be published at that stage but that a phased approach to
opening schemes and awarding grants is necessary to ensure that the anticipated high
demand is managed effectively.
While the recommendations below suggest a way forward, the practicalities of how
the management of these schemes will fit with other Treasury and Lottery fund grant
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 12
rounds needs to be considered internally within the Council. Equally, these
suggestions are not based on any detailed assessment of activity cycles and trends
relating to demand. Any decision should be made in the context of full
consideration of all these variables.
5.7.1 Access Programme
Given the nature of demand for the Access Programme, we would recommend that
this programme is opened for applications in April 2003 with the first decision being
taken at the earliest possible opportunity i.e. June 2003. The Council should
introduce a number of deadlines for applicants to the Access programme throughout
the year, with a minimum of three deadlines in total.
New Work Programme
The application process for the New Work Programme should move from a rolling
programme to a deadline driven bidding process. We would recommend two entry
points within the current financial year and decisions should be made in two
„blocks‟. The deadlines should be driven by the planned production period for the
piece of New Work in question i.e. the first deadline should be for work that will be
completed between September and December 2003. The second round would assess
work planned for the period between January to March 2004. The amount of
funding for New Works for each time period should be clearly specified.
Audience Development
In relation to Audience Development, we would recommend that the Council issues
information on 1 April requesting submissions (i.e. high levels statements of
intended activity) from organisations and groups on concepts and ideas that they are
currently developing. This process will enable the Council to engage with these
organisations in developing proposals for submission to the Council in September
2003.
In addition:
on reopening of the schemes, applicants should only submit one application
per scheme per organisation;
these arrangements should be kept under review and the outcome of that
review process should inform planning for the 2004/2005 financial year; and
the transitional arrangements and the rationale behind them, should be clearly
communicated to potential applicants via grants officers, the Council website
and in writing in application packs.
5.8 Premium Payments
the Council should explicitly state what constitutes „special needs‟ in respect
of Lottery funding and applicants should be encouraged to consider how they
might target underrepresented and socially excluded groups within their
projects; and
we consider that there is no need to introduce a separate pot of funding to
meet the costs of groups with special needs but consideration needs to be
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 13
given to the implications for budget thresholds. We believe that the principle
of assisting underrepresented groups to participate and access the arts is best
dealt with through the main application process. Groups should be asked to
identify and cost how their projects assist groups with particular needs.
The Arts Council of Northern Ireland - Summary Report 14
Related docs
