Government UK has issued a rapid evidence review commissioned to gather case study evidence of the impact that increased budgetary pressures on local authorities (LAs) can have on small to medium heritage sector organisations (HOs).
Government UK writes:
… authored by Dr Tamara West and Professor Rafaela Neiva Ganga… ‘Impacts of changes to local authority funding on small to medium heritage organisations’….
… This rapid evidence review has been commissioned to gather case study evidence of the impact that increased budgetary pressures on local authorities (LAs) can have on small to medium heritage sector organisations (HOs). In particular, the research sought to understand levels of support, dependency, impact to communities, mitigating strategies, business model, and the funding lifecycle.
A qualitative case study approach was adopted to encompass:
1. Size
- £50k threshold to qualify as a small organisation
- medium over £250,000 and less than £1 million
2. Dependency rate
- based on reliance on LA funding
- eg low is below 20%, moderate is 20 to 50%, high is above 50%
3. Heritage type
- cultural (eg museums)
- natural (eg reserves)
- built heritage (eg historic landmarks)
The sites were chosen to reflect different heritage types (eg asset and non-asset based, urban, rural, community asset transfers and volunteer run sites or collections) and representative of the sector as a whole, ie museums, historic sites and houses, intangible heritage, outdoor heritage etc. In order to provide depth across each of these requirements within a short timeframe the review utilised a regional case study approach (West Yorkshire Combined Authority). The richness of this approach has limitations, for example, geographical specificity. This is in part countered by the selection of diverse heritage types and differing dependencies on LA support. In order to provide a robust and necessary context, the review also undertook a systematic review of literature. Whilst this was not a prerequisite of the commission this combined approach ensured that the in-depth and geographically specific case studies could be framed by existing studies and therefore a broader understanding. Together, this has yielded the following results.
Differing access to and usage of reduced LA funding
The qualitative data evidenced differing levels of LA support and reliance. Often available LA funding was targeted at micro or community level activities (small funding pots) or at larger scale capital investments. Almost all of the case study sites had either experienced decreasing levels of LA funding or were actively seeking ways to mitigate for any future loss of funding or in-kind support. Case studies of Community Asset Transfer sites undertaken for this report highlighted the challenges faced by those accessing a set amount of LA support that had not increased in over a decade. Several council-run museums, galleries, and heritage sites interviewed during this research had experienced significant cuts resulting in site closures, reduced hours, and reduced programming. In part, this has led to the curtailment of some public access to heritage, impacting more deprived areas and communities. It has also led to several mitigating and entrepreneurial strategies.
Mitigating strategies and impact
Smaller organisations, particularly volunteer and trust-run sites reliant on core council support for essentials such as utilities, faced the more severe risk. This was most evident in the community asset transfer case studies. Those with early commercial adaptation or access to large umbrella charities report greater stability. For most of the case study sites volunteers are central but often overburdened, especially for smaller HOs and particularly at community asset transfer sites. This echoes the findings of the literature review. In some cases, site diversification via rent, paid-for activities, or private hire helped fund vital paid-for administrative or similar support on a longer term. The case studies highlighted that intangible heritage in particular is at significant risk due to its dependency on annual funding and unpaid labour. All case study sites were aware of the need to apply for other funding streams, but not all felt that they were able or eligible to do so. LA owned and run sites drawn upon in the case studies and via interviews had adopted strategies such as bespoke programming and usage (eg social prescribing, private event hire). All case studies found there was a difficult balance that needed to be struck between their public access and educational remit and the need to diversify income.
Impact on place and community (end users)
Despite reduced resources, LA-owned-and-run heritage sites interviewed highlighted their central role in providing space for diverse community activities and in amplifying the uniqueness of their districts. During the interviews, it was also evident that volunteer-run community asset transfer sites and heritage trusts see themselves as guardians and advocates for place-based heritage, education and identity. Interviewees reflected upon how a reduction in income would affect more vulnerable or disadvantaged groups via reduction in educational or outreach services offered, or via decreased public access.
Networks and interdependency
Some HOs also referenced the value of accessing in-kind support via LA Heritage or Culture Team advice or services, though several commented on the decreasing amount of LA funded staff. HOs also gave examples of using small LA grants to fund contributions from independent or community creative groups. Almost all case study sites highlighted the vital knowledge and advice of external support (advice and development) organisations. Here, the wider literature and the qualitative interviews and case studies confirm the need to understand the whole support ecosystem, including interdependencies across scales and organisational types.
