Review

By Ed Carroll So, now we know it. The Arts Council is efficient. The Evaluation Unit of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht produced a Value for Money and Policy Review of the Arts Council that examined their activities from 2009 to 2012. It found: ”(The Arts Council) operated efficiently in a difficult climate by applying a principle of small funding cuts, widely distributed to ‘maintain the ecology of the arts sector in a challenging period”. The Arts Council was commended “for its response to the economic crisis by significantly reducing administration costs; overhauling its organisational structures; and developing on its RAISE initiative”, which helps arts organisations to diversify funding streams.

The Review used the Programme Logic Model proffered by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. This defines the inputs, activities and outputs and outcomes of an organisation, constructed through a sequence of cause and effect between strategies and actions undertaken and benefits achieved. The approach never questions the starting points and so its findings inevitably lack a root cause analysis. This Review could not ask if the public good element of the spending is the right amount or type for groups whose cultural rights are curtailed.

The Arts are an important place through which to explore and challenge the values we put forward and espouse as a society. The review fails to address whether we are any further along the road in realising the societal value of the Arts. The nature and scale of any such outcomes from Arts Council initiative or investment gets no mention.

The review fails to balance values of efficiency and equality. The regressive nature of the National Lottery funding of the Arts Council is nowhere considered. This results in those with higher incomes benefiting more from public provision of the arts while those on lower incomes pay more for its provision.

The Review is concerned with diversifying funding streams for the Arts, in particular through private and philanthropic sectors. It seeks to mimic a public service delivery with festival platforms such as the Guinness Cork Jazz Festival, the Tiger Beer Dublin Fringe Festival and the Absolute Vodka’s Galway Arts Festival. These are ultimately platforms for the drinks industry amongst others.

The Review suggests that “International evidence in evaluating effectiveness and developing performance indicators are not applicable to the Arts Council”. A narrative where self-perception of reality is taken for reality emerges. Since you are never going to be tied down, indicators quickly become a tick box exercise when your context is deemed so specific that it has no wider applicability.

An unconvincing narrative get played out. The objective “to improve access to and participation in the arts across all communities” was delivered on through a “diverse range of…targeted arts initiatives supported” (outcome) and “provided a range of arts programme throughout the country” (result). In tracing such indicators the review moves without evidence to lay claim to a societal outcome of a “more inclusive society”.

What the Arts Council want to achieve from its public engagement agenda is limited and unclear. Access and participation, which includes public awareness, participation (including socially excluded groups) and geographical distribution of arts programmes, get reviewed from what is on offer rather than what has been experienced. Indicators are assessed using data from the Target Group Index, compulsory feedback from funded client base, box office analysis of performing arts, hits on culturefox.ie, and commissioned surveys.

The measurement of performance is based on data gathered from funded organisations activity and feedback reports. These sources of data are not competent to deliver the depth and breadth of knowledge needed to understand the extent to which access and participation have been delivered on in a manner that enhances public good.

The Arts Council’s largest grant scheme operates on an invitation only basis to fund organisations like CREATE, Age and Opportunity, Disability and the Arts, and the National Youth Council of Ireland. These groups have traditionally dealt with ‘communities of interest’ for whom the Arts Council has a particular responsibility to improve access to and participation in the arts. The role of a broader civil society in delivering on the public good through cultural action is not encompassed and this does not get consideration in the review. The Arts Council of England has observed that “healthy ecologies are very dynamic” which means “funding cannot be locked up in one group of organisations”, which has been the case here for a long time.

Indicators and the manner in which they are addressed could have offered the opportunity for an alternative narrative to emerge from the review. However, indicators in the review are quickly reduced to a metric of effectiveness. The opportunity to set out a clarity on the public good indicators we need in this field and how to assess them was missed.