ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM · SUBMISSION FORM Page 6 of 18 Is it useful to offer...

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

of 18

Submission Information

Please use this template to provide comments on the Arts NSW Arts Funding Program Review discussion paper.

Contact Details (optional)

Name of Organisation: Museums & Galleries NSW

Your Name: Michael Rolfe

Phone Number:

Email:

Confidentiality

All submissions will be treated as public documents, unless you clearly indicate the contrary by

marking all or part of the submission as ‘confidential’. Public submissions may be published in

full on the Arts NSW website, including your personal information and/or the personal

information of third parties contained in the submission.

A request made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for access to a submission marked

confidential will be determined in accordance with that Act.

Do you want this submission to be treated as confidential? Yes NoX

Submission Instructions

This template is provided as a guide for your response to the discussion paper. A summary of

the Key Themes from the discussion paper is at the back of this template. The questions posed

in the summary are provided as a stimulus for your response. You do not need to respond to

each question posed.

Submissions should be made by 5pm Friday, 26 July 2013.

Arts NSW reserves the right not to consider late submissions.

Where possible, submissions should be made on the following template, and should be lodged

electronically via the email address [email protected]

Alternatively, submissions may be sent to the postal address below to arrive by the due date:

Arts Funding Program Review Arts NSW PO Box A226 SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235

mailto:[email protected]


of 18

1. WHO AND WHAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED AND HOW?

This section of the discussion paper looks at: Eligibility Organisations Peak and service organisations Individuals

We welcome your views on these aspects of the Arts Funding Program and any other thoughts and ideas you may have on who, what and how.

How do current eligibility requirements impact on you, your organisation or arts and

cultural activities?

M&G NSW supports maintenance of the current ‘eligibility’ framework – with the following

suggested changes;

Re-inclusion of the education sector.

The funding of individuals, other than through existing skill and professional

development opportunities, is not considered a priority.

Continued support for organisations is critical to artistic program excellence and

effectiveness. This is particularly the case in the local government context where

Councils provide staff and facilities – and where grant funding often supports artists

and allows programming adventure and creative development – historically a strong

characteristic of State Government arts support in NSW.

Where else can regional arts organisations look for funding and support?

An increasing trend to promote philanthropy and sponsorship - the experience of most

small to medium organisations in this area is not encouraging.

Success nationally is dominated by high profile major performing arts companies and

state/national cultural institutions (CI’s). Government could look at mechanisms to

syphon that success as a condition of funding – redirecting some ‘high end’ success

towards grass roots and regional activity.

There is a need for consensus to be achieved on a sustained and effective level of

continued government support for the small to medium sector.

Strong arguments exist for a wholesale re-balancing of government arts funding away

from major performing arts in support of regional and small to medium capacity build.

Investigate opportunities to support regional cultural programs, through changes to

laws governing developer contributions, creation of a specific lottery fund, tax

advantages for fundraising and other related offsets, to encourage private giving.

Support small and medium sized organisations (and regional entities) to pursue

aggregated media and e-campaigns that offer greater capacity and visibility to attract


of 18

support.

Are explicit and transparent grant assessment criteria desirable?

Explicit and transparent criteria are desirable.

Regardless of the clarity of published guidelines, Arts NSW needs to better rely on

leadership, professional expertise, arm’s length process and grounded policy to guide

qualitative decision making in what is, and what will always be, a competitive

environment.

How can government work to strengthen organisational capacity in the arts and cultural

sector?

In the small to medium sector organisational capacity can be improved by

strengthening connections and support mechanisms between organisations and with

major cultural institutions and the education sector.

Sharing of resources and skillsets (hub and spoke) and use of web technologies such

as video conferencing are essential for strengthening to be achieved.

Encourage a more strategic view of arts service provision across local government

boundaries, and facilitate a greater willingness for collaboration and partnerships to

occur.

Strengthened capacity is inextricably linked to strong and innovative programming.

Distinctive and innovative programming lies at the heart of any organisations viability

and capacity - programming is the reason why we invest in infrastructure and skills

development.

Enhance sustainability and programming reach of regional museums and galleries

through improved program support, training, skills and fundraising development and

networking support.

Actively fund, encourage and nurture innovative arts and cultural practice and

creative industry activity, across the board. Government to maintain a focus on its

responsibility to directly nurture arts, culture and heritage related activity.

More effectively (and perhaps specifically fund) support cultural heritage collections –

in volunteer museums.

Consider flexibility options in the grant structure – such as low interest loans,

matched funding etc.

Re-introduce part funding support for the establishment of new professional positions

and provide continued support for the professional development of museum and

gallery professionals.


of 18

Is it useful to think in terms of emerging and established organisations and approach

their funding in different ways?

Current process of moving through project, program and multi-year categories

adequately addresses the issues raised.

Resource sharing and partnerships between emerging and established orgs should be

encouraged.

How should pathways and transition into and out of Program Funding categories best be

addressed?

Current arrangements supported. Successful completion/acquittal of projects –

progress to annual on a proven track record – built around strength of completed

artistic/cultural program, successful audience goals, negotiated partnerships and

financial management etc.

Should peak and service organisations continue to access funding from within the AFP to

fulfil the roles above?

Peak and service organisations (P&SO’s) have long played an important part in the

development of, and programming support provided to, organisations in NSW.

P&SO’s play a lead role in strengthening the arts and cultural sector.

Investing in P&SO’s is both an indirect and direct investment in creating a healthy and

sustainable arts sector.

P&SO’s assist Government arts programs in many ways as they have the knowledge,

relationships and processes in place to understand what is actually happening in the

arts communities they serve.

P&SO’s work with Government to ensure advice and resources are available to deal

with emerging issues.

P&SO’s undertake research; provide statistics and an understanding of issues

affecting sector/s not available elsewhere.

The Discussion Paper (point 1.3) inadequately describes the breadth and service

connection P&SO’s deliver towards supporting arts, culture and heritage in NSW.

While M&G NSW does provide advocacy, capacity building, communications and

training services, significant contributions also made towards the development and

production of creative and interpretive content and community wide benefit are

overlooked.

Everything M&G NSW does, contributes towards an enhanced visitor/audience

experience.


of 18

P&SO’s build capacity, foster growth, develop skills and expertise in sectors served.

An additional $500,000 (not including Arts NSW new museum grant programs) in

support for the small to medium museum & gallery sector in NSW generated by M&G

NSW since 2012.

Structured removal from government characterises P&SO effectiveness within the

arts support ecology contributed to.

If the question is, should P&SO’s be funded? Then clearly the answer is yes.

If the suggestion is that funding be identified and sourced from elsewhere (in the arts

budget) then perhaps a case could be articulated about that, once options were

identified.

Would some of the services above be better provided on a fee-for-service basis?

Most P&SO’s already embrace a ‘fee for service’ philosophy within their business

models.

M&G NSW fee for service projects and programs include;

o NETS exhibition touring program

o All Professional development activities

o Research projects for Biennale of Sydney, M&GSQLD and Evo-cities

o Museum Standards and Museum Advisor Programs are part funded through

fees and charges

o RPG NSW biannual conference support

M&G doesn’t support charging volunteer, local government and/or not for profit entities to

cover operational or ‘core funded’ costs. Is this another example of cost shifting?

Does the current devolved funding model deliver effective outcomes - why?

Yes, in the context of volunteer operated museums, our devolved grant and skill

development programs offer an accessible and valued point of access for both

financial support and skill development across the sector.

M&G NSW’s VIM, Standards and Advisor programs provide a coordinated and

structured suite of support and skill development activities that are well supported,

effectively targeted and partner focused.

Many volunteer run organisations remain daunted by the AFP process.

Standards and Advisor programs strengthen the relationship between participant

museums and their local councils.

Since 2012 and through to 2015 effectiveness is also measured via successful

negotiated matched funding for ITEGS/CSI grants in the form of Artist In Residence

support provided by Copyright Agency Limited.


of 18

Is it useful to offer individuals specific funding pathways around emerging, mid-career or

established artists, regional artists, international activities, specific art forms etc?

Generally felt that this is best the domain of the Australia Council, philanthropic orgs

and funding platforms.

At the State level individuals benefit through program and project funding delivered

through organisations.

Exceptions relate to professional development opportunities provided, scholarships

and quick response travel grants.

It is not necessary to categorise artists by where they live.


of 18


of 18

2. STRUCTURING THE PROGRAM TO SUPPORT VIBRANT ARTS AND CULTURE IN NSW

This section of the discussion paper looks at: Programs and projects Supporting accessibility A diversity of art forms and disciplines

Your views, ideas and thoughts on shaping the Arts Funding Program to contribute to a vibrant arts and cultural sector in NSW.

Is the current Project/Program structure appropriate for the AFP?

Overall, sector response is generally supportive of the current structure. Successful

project applications allow new and developing orgs to undertake specific, innovative

and time limited activities that can be measured and acquitted across nominated

KPI’s.

Program support encourages a broader consideration of overall impact and offers a

degree of certainty over time.

Triennial support is effective given the usual 2 year development/ presentation cycle

for most established and staffed orgs.

Consideration could be given to broadening project application portals beyond

prescriptive categories to allow for submission of new, innovative and collaborative

ideas.

Strategic funding model is supported particularly in the context emerging issues and

new activity.

Are current priority areas for access and participation still appropriate and relevant?

Support for maintenance of current priority areas (CALD, People with a disability,

Aboriginal, Youth).

Addition of Seniors is supported.

A prioritised (or strategic) emphasis (similar to Western Sydney) of support for

regional and outer metropolitan access is also recommended.

Strategic/prioritised development of existing facilities into ‘hubs’, that are better able

to service their geographic reach, would dramatically improve regional access,

participation, skills and services. Support for regional capacity through networks,

peak body involvement, joint programs and collaborations.

In considering the creation of such a strategy Amanda Lawson, in her Future

Frameworks: Towards a Strategic Plan for the Visual Arts & Museum Sector in NSW

report, proposed the creation of museum and gallery ‘centres of excellence’. For

many years now, NSW State and Local Governments have vigorously supported the

growth of a skilled and valued network of professionally staffed regional galleries.

More recently there has been growth in professionally staffed regional museums and

a heightened discussion in support of NSW Aboriginal culture, through an active

keeping place network. In essence, in NSW, the bones of an effective ‘centres of

excellence’ model already exist.

To help realise the full impact of the museum and gallery sector as an economic,

cultural, and tourism force, movement towards the report’s ‘identified’ potential now


of 18

requires this proposed prioritised approach. M&G NSW supports the view that over

time and in response to mapped findings, resource allocations and a prioritised focus,

better co-ordinated and more easily accessed regional services would be able to be

delivered.

Can digital delivery assist to increase wider participation generally and in regional and

remote areas?

M&G NSW strongly believes that digital delivery can improve participation and access.

Strategy is dependent on reliable broadband access in regional and remote parts.

M&G has been pursuing the development of a concerted digital delivery

strategy/platform through;

o the promotion and trialling of video conferencing technology

o the development of a mobile friendly, geo-locational and aggregated web

presence for NSW museums and galleries

o partner web presence for NETS agencies coupled with online curatorial tools

for use by regional and remote galleries

o online touring exhibition register for museums and galleries

Does the current AFP provide appropriate opportunities for funding of your art-

form/discipline?

Current AFP guidelines and language continue to present significant barriers to

participation of museum and cultural heritage organisations.

Cultural Heritage Collections (particularly those that are volunteer managed) need an

enhanced and identified pathway for effective support – devolved support programs

are efficient and valued.


of 18


of 18

3. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM

This section of the discussion paper looks at: Assessment process Getting the timing right Measuring outcomes Communication, access and transparency

Your contributions on effective administration of the Arts Funding Program.

Are there improvements that can be made to the current assessment process?

Generic assessment criteria serve to focus applicants across a range of important

considerations and also allow them to articulate their plans consistently for

assessors.

Concern has been raised about cross art form make-up of panels. Art form/ heritage

specific panels – or groupings of ‘like’ art form representation should be considered

where appropriate.

Whether or not successful applications are always of high artistic/or cultural quality is

questioned.

Not sure criteria have been set to achieve this. Required changes may be considered

too subjective to survive within the current process driven/objective assessment

regime.

M&G’s experience of the negotiated process is positive in that it allows an exchange

that focus’s our business planning on an outcome that best fits Arts NSW strategic

intent and policy directions.

Crowd-sourced assessment has been suggested (could work in some categories).

How do current timeframes impact?

Local Govt financial year budgeting and Arts NSW calendar year funding problematic.

Timing of announcements is a regular source of frustration for many applicants.

Guidelines should be released with a greater lead-time to submission.

Electronic submission is supported.

How do current reporting requirements impact on your organisation?

Data collection and KPI management are built into M&G’s workflow.

The acquittal process works well, although decisions on requests for variations can be

slow.

P&SO’s would benefit through a streamlining of data collection associated with AFP

applications.

Currently data collection is duplicated and inconsistent across orgs.

AFP process could provide consistent budget, staffing and program statistics to

P&SO’s.

Acquittal process best suited to reporting on quantitative KPI’s.


of 18

Qualitative more difficult to be measured through the reporting process and would be

better suited to Arts NSW staff experience of orgs and knowledge of programs/ art

forms.


of 18


of 18

4. Addressing the Future…

This section of the discussion paper looks to the future.

We welcome your thoughts on how best to deliver the Arts Funding Program with an eye on what’s to come.

In terms of cultural practice the future is unknown and on that score the challenge is to let it

happen.

What we do know however, is that it will be audience driven.

For it to be sustainable, it will involve partnerships and collaborations and be

focussed on discovery, participation and education.

The demands of traditional art forms, new and hybrid practices, heritage programs

and collection management, along with the need for new and improved physical

infrastructure and ICT connections, will continue to generate tensions.

In the future, we will better understand the economic value of arts and culture. We

will also have an improved knowledge of direct links between cultural participation

and community health and wellbeing.

Digital technologies will help construct, promote, record and present culture across

distance and over time.

Digital technologies will grow first hand discovery and presentation - digital

technologies will build audiences and grow participation.

The Arts Funding Program –

Priorities going forward;

• Regional access – programs, facilities, services & support

• Leadership – cultural policy direction, continued research and capacity building

• Digital opportunity – access, training & delivery

In conclusion

Museums & Galleries NSW acknowledges that government support for arts, culture and

heritage is influenced by a range of factors and policy priorities – and that going forward

significant trends ‘arc’ around the growth of digital technologies and

competing/increasing/offsetting demands for limited government support.

The focus of our current business plan recognises the value and importance of programming

in the context of small to medium and regionally based Aboriginal cultural centres, museums

and galleries. Enhanced support for their programming scope and continued access to

targeted devolved funding, advocacy and professional support is essential.


of 18

Local storytelling is a critical contributor to a state-wide and vibrant cultural sector. The

importance of ‘community’ culture and heritage – contributing to the success of regional

visitor economies – needs to be better understood and supported – across government.

In conjunction with improved support for volunteer run cultural heritage collections, there is

an opportunity to build on and grow existing investment in the skills and capacity of regional

galleries and museums. For them to more effectively support local visual culture and

heritage – within their geographic reach, requires a strategic and prioritised response.

Thank you for your response.


of 18

SUMMARY: KEY THEMES

1. Who and what should be supported and how? 1.1. Eligibility

How do current eligibility requirements impact on you, your organisation or arts

and cultural activities?

Are current eligibility criteria sufficiently meeting the current needs of the arts

and cultural sector?

1.2. Organisations

Is funding fewer organisations at higher levels to assist their capacity desirable, or

should more organisations be funded at lower levels to assist a greater spread of

funding?

Is the introduction of explicit and transparent criteria around eligibility for Multi-

year Program Funding desirable – if so, what criteria might be considered?

How can government work to strengthen organisational capacity in the arts and

cultural sector?

Are current Program Funding terms (generally 1 to 3 years) appropriate?

Is it useful to think in terms of emerging and established organisations and

approach their funding in different ways?

How should pathways and transition into and out of Program Funding categories

best be addressed?

How can the AFP be better structured to encourage/secure investment from other

sources (eg philanthropic and private)?

Are there other ways/models (including non-financial) to effectively strengthen

arts and cultural organisations?

1.3. Peak and service organisations

Should peak and service organisations continue to access funding from within the

AFP to fulfil the roles above?

Would some of the services above be better provided on a fee-for-service basis? If

so, when might that be appropriate?

Does the current devolved funding model deliver effective outcomes - why?

Are there improvements that could assist the efficiency and effectiveness of

devolved funding programs?

1.4. Individuals

Is it useful to offer specific funding pathways around emerging, mid-career or

established artists, regional artists, international activities, specific art forms etc?

How effective are small grants programs (under $5,000)?

Do other funding bodies (eg the Australia Council), philanthropic organisations

and funding platforms already provide sufficient support for individuals?

Are there opportunities to partner with eg philanthropic and crowd funding

mechanisms to maximise support for individuals?

Is it desirable for funded organisations to provide greater assistance and

opportunities for individuals? If so, how could this be encouraged?

Are there other ways/models (including non-financial) to effectively assist

individuals?


of 18

2. Structuring the program to support vibrant arts and culture in NSW 2.1. Programs and Projects

Is the current balance between Program and Project Funding appropriate - why?

Are there new project funding categories that should be considered for support?

Are there current project categories that should be removed?

How can emerging issues, new activity and innovation most effectively be

facilitated?

2.2 Supporting accessibility

Are current AFP priority areas for access and participation still

appropriate/relevant?

Do you believe the AFP is achieving appropriate access for priority groups? If not,

are there alternative ways to achieve participation from priority groups?

Can programs supporting digital delivery assist to increase wider participation

generally and in regional and remote areas? What other mechanisms might also

exist?

2.3 A diversity of art forms and disciplines

Does the current AFP provide appropriate opportunities for funding of your art

form/discipline? If not, how can a more diverse mix of art forms/disciplines,

including new and emerging art forms/disciplines, most effectively be facilitated?

Should strategies around specific art forms/disciplines be introduced? If so, why

and how?

3. Administering the program 3.1 Assessment processes

Are there improvements that can be made to the current assessment processes?

Are the current assessment criteria still suitable?

Is there merit in allocating greater weight to specific assessment criteria? If so,

which criteria?

Do you believe the current assessment process results in funding for activities of

high artistic/cultural quality? If not, how can this be best achieved?

3.2 Getting the timing right

How do current timeframes impact on you/your organisation (including release of

funding guidelines, application dates, availability of application forms, funding

announcements and reporting)?

What are the most critical issues for you/your organisation which Arts NSW

should consider when setting timeframes?

3.3 Measuring outcomes

How do current reporting requirements impact you/your organisation?

Are there ways in which current reporting requirements can be improved?

Are there better ways to measure both qualitative outcomes (artistic vibrancy,

audience appreciation) and quantitative outputs (audience numbers, employment

statistics etc)?


of 18

Some reporting harmonisation with other funding agencies is currently in place. Is

harmonisation working? If not, what improvements can be made?

3.4 Communication, access and transparency

Are you aware of the current pathways through which you can obtain information

and/or seek advice on the current AFP – are they sufficient?

Is there sufficient transparency around the way the AFP is administered and

decisions are made? If not, how could this be improved?

Are the expectations of Government clearly identified within the current AFP (eg

objectives of funding, current priorities)?

Do you believe Arts NSW’s annual Client Feedback Survey provides an effective

opportunity to feedback on programs and services? Are there other ways feedback

can be encouraged?

4. Addressing the Future... How can the AFP most effectively develop, evolve and adapt to the contemporary

needs of the arts and cultural sector?

Are you aware of other programs and models for investing in the arts and cultural

sectors which might be considered as part of this Review? If so, why do you

consider them to be effective?

Should there be a stronger focus on innovation and new practices?

What are your top three priorities for a revitalised arts funding program?

What else would you like to tell us?

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM · SUBMISSION FORM Page 6 of 18 Is it useful to offer...

Documents

Transcript of ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM · SUBMISSION FORM Page 6 of 18 Is it useful to offer...