Culture sector - support needs: survey analysis

2. The proportion who have received funding (public, private, third sector) and their experiences^[19]

Sources of public funding received (currently or in the past)

Question 9: Have you or your organisation received funding (currently or in the past) from any of the following (public) sources?

Most respondents have received some public sector funding. Over half of the respondents who received public sector funding (51%) received funding from ‘Creative Scotland (including Screen Scotland)’ (currently or in the past). The next most popular sources of public funding were ‘Local Authority funding’ (33%) and ‘public funding other sources’^[20] (30%).^[21]

Twenty two percent of respondents said they ‘did not receive public sector funding but would like to in the future’, 11% said they ‘did not receive public sector funding and do not intend to in the future’.

The percentage of respondents who have received public sector funding from other public sector sources was 14% or less (See Figure 2 and Table 15).

Organisations were more likely to have received public sector funding than individual respondents across all of the public sources presented (see Table 16 and Figure 3). The biggest differences could be seen for:

• 51% of organisations received public sector funding from ‘Local Authorities’ (currently or in the past) compared to 24% of individuals.
• 44% of organisations received public sector funding from ‘Public funding – other sources’ (currently or in the past) compared to 22% of individuals.
• 65% of organisations received public sector funding from ‘Creative Scotland’ (currently or in the past) compared to 44% of individuals.
• 27% of organisations received public sector funding from ‘Scottish Government – Other Budgets’ (currently or in the past) compared to eight percent of individuals.

One quarter (25%) of individual respondents ‘do not receive public sector funding but would like to seek public sector funding in the future’, compared to 15% of organisations. Fifteen percent of individual respondents have ‘not received public sector funding and do not intend to in the future’, compared to three percent of organisations. See Table 16 and Figure 3 for more detail.

Question 10: If you selected any of the options above, please provide any relevant further details. For example:

• If it is regular/or ad-hoc funding
• The nature of the funding

Respondents were asked to provide further details about their experiences with public sources of funding. The main topics raised in this question were in relation to the irregular nature of public sector funding and application challenges.

Creative Scotland was the most frequently mentioned funding provider, followed by Local Authorities, the Scottish Government, and various other funding schemes.

Many individual respondents shared that public funding support is often small, irregular, and project specific meaning they need to secure funding from multiple sources for continuity.

“The funding is based on each new project; it is not regular. Sometimes, I receive funding, and sometimes, I do not.” (Individual respondent)

While some organisations receive regular, multi-year support, others rely on ad hoc, project-based funding or targeted schemes. For many responding organisations, public funding covers only a portion of their budget. Some rely on smaller, project-specific grants, while others receive a mix of core funding and supplementary project-based support. As a result, many respondents secure financial backing from multiple sources to sustain their activities.

Many respondents expressed frustration with the unpredictable and inconsistent nature of public funding. They highlighted the challenges of securing support, particularly when funding often arrives too late to be useful or is only available for specific projects rather than offering ongoing stability. Some also highlighted the withdrawal of previously available funding, making long-term financial planning increasingly difficult.

The application process was highlighted as being complicated, particularly when the application requirements were complex or unclear. Respondents perceived that this made it harder to access funding even when their submissions were strong (discussed again question 17).

Smaller, volunteer-led groups / organisations found the application process particularly burdensome, describing it as increasingly time-consuming and complex. Several respondents also pointed out gaps in public funding for specific sectors like video game development.

Despite these challenges, many individuals acknowledged the vital role that public funding has in supporting their careers. For some, this funding had a transformative effect on their work, enabling them to pursue new opportunities they otherwise could not have afforded.

Organisations emphasised the broader impact of public funding beyond direct financial support. They argued that public investment not only provides vital financial backing but also builds confidence among other funders, donors, and audiences, encouraging further investment in cultural projects.

“It is generative – if public funding reduces, all other commercial and fundraising income reduces too. Public funding’s value is more than financial. It builds confidence for other funders, donors, sponsors and audiences to also invest. Further national or local public funding is a marker of cultural and social value.” (Organisation respondent)

Sources of private funding received (currently or in the past)

Question 11: Have you or your organisation received funding (currently or in the past) from any of the following (private) sources?

For those who have received private funding, the most common options were from ‘philanthropic’ sources – ‘charitable trust’ (36%) followed by ‘individual donor’ (31%). The next most popular sources of private funding were ‘commercial income’ (30%) and ‘philanthropic – foundation’ (25%). See Figure 4 and Table 17.^[24]

Just under a quarter of respondents (23%) have ‘not received private sources of funding but would like to in the future’ and 16% of respondents have ‘not received private sources of funding and do not intend to seek this funding in the future’.

The percentage of respondents who receive private funding from ‘corporate – sponsorship’, ‘corporate – social giving’, ‘other’ or ‘philanthropic – other’ sources is 18%, 10%, nine percent and two percent respectively. See Figure 4 and Table 17.

Organisations were more likely to have received private sector funding than individual respondents across all of the private sources presented (see Table 18 and Figure 5). The biggest differences could be seen for:

• 61% of organisations received private sector funding from ‘Philanthropic - charitable trust’ (currently or in the past) compared to 23% of individuals.
• 52% of organisations received private sector funding from ‘Philanthropic - individual donor’ (currently or in the past) compared to 19% of individuals.
• 43% of organisations received private sector funding from ‘Philanthropic - foundation’ (currently or in the past) compared to 15% of individuals.
• 45% of organisations received private sector funding from ‘commercial income’ (currently or in the past) compared to 22% of individuals.

Twenty nine percent of individuals said ‘No but would like to seek private sector funding in the future’ compared to 13% of organisations. Twenty two percent of individual respondents have ‘not received private sector funding and do not intend to in the future’ compared to five percent of organisations. See Table 18 and Figure 5 for more detail.

Question 12: If you selected any of the options above please provide any relevant further details. For example:

• If it is regular/or ad-hoc funding
• The nature of the funding

While a number of respondents have successfully obtained private funding, many reported challenges related to: eligibility, ethical considerations, or a general lack of awareness about available opportunities.

Many responding organisations shared the view that private funding is largely ad hoc, irregular, and project based. Additionally, several organisations noted that most available private funding sources are ‘restricted,’ meaning they can only be used for new projects rather than covering core operational costs.

Some individual respondents stated that private sector funding for an individual is nearly non-existent or shared their experiences of being ineligible for most private funding opportunities, making it difficult to secure financial support.

For those who have obtained private sources of funding, some individual respondents indicated that they are relying more on commercial income, with some turning to alternative revenue streams such as selling their work (art, books, music, crafts), running workshops and classes, or securing sponsorships from local businesses. A few mentioned experimenting with subscription-based models (e.g., Patreon, Kickstarter). However, several respondents described these income streams as unpredictable and insufficient to sustain a long-term artistic/cultural practice.

Several organisations also stated that commercial income is a core part of their business model, though it is often insufficient to cover all costs. Respondents reported generating revenue through ticket sales, memberships, space rentals, merchandise sales, freelancing, and commissioned work. However, these income streams were described as unpredictable, influenced by external factors such as audience demand and venue costs. Many organisations noted small profit margins, with a portion of earned revenue needing to be reinvested into operations.

Some respondents observed that corporate sponsorship has become increasingly rare, with several organisations stating it is “almost non-existent” or has been discontinued entirely. When available, sponsorship was typically tied to specific events rather than long-term support. Individual donations were also mentioned, though respondents described them as small, irregular, and difficult to sustain. Many organisations reported lacking the resources to manage structured donor programmes.

Several organisations reported experimenting with alternative funding strategies, including social enterprise models, entrepreneurial competitions, crowdfunding, and equity investment. However, these approaches were also described as challenging.

For some, seeking private funding is not their preferred approach, but financial instability has left them with limited options.

“I would rather not seek private funding, but the landscape is so precarious, and I need to find a way to both survive as an artist and make a living.” (Individual respondent)

Some respondents shared the view that relying on private donations and philanthropy could lead to inequalities and undermine the broader role of culture and the arts in society.

Sources of third sector funding received (currently or in the past)

Question 13: Have you or your organisation received funding (currently or in the past) from any of the following (third sector) sources?

Almost one third of respondents (32%) have not received third sector funding but would like to seek it in the future and 29% of respondents have not received it and do not intend to seek third sector funding in the future. See Figure 6 and Table 19.

For those who have received funding from third sector sources, the most common source was ‘charities’ (30%). Seventeen percent of respondents received funding from ‘not for profit organisations’, eight percent from ‘voluntary organisations’ and four percent from ‘other’ third sector sources.

Organisations were also more likely to have received third sector funding than individual respondents across all of the third sector sources presented (see Table 20 and Figure 7). The biggest differences could be seen for:

• 42% of organisations received third sector funding from ‘charities’ (currently or in the past) compared to 23% of individuals.
• 21% of organisations received third sector funding from ‘not for profit organisations’ (currently or in the past) compared to 14% of individuals.

Thirty seven percent of individuals said ‘No but would like to seek third sector funding in the future’ compared to 23% of organisations. Thirty two percent of individual respondents have ‘not received third sector funding and do not intend to in the future’ compared to 24% of organisations. See Table 20 and Figure 7 for more detail.

Question 14: If you selected any of the options above, please provide any relevant further details. For example:

• If it is regular/or ad-hoc funding
• The nature of the funding

The main point raised in this question was around the availability of third-sector funding.

While several respondents expressed openness to third-sector funding opportunities, many conveyed a lack of optimism about their availability or accessibility. Some individual respondents reported challenges in qualifying for funding, particularly as individuals rather than as part of an organisation.

“I am not aware of any third-sector funding for individuals, but if I was, I would apply for it.” (Individual respondent)

Others shared the view that securing third-sector funding can be difficult, particularly when eligibility depends on aligning with the priorities of specific organisations.

Many responding organisations shared that third-sector funding plays a role in supporting their cultural work, though they often described it as modest in scale, typically one-off, ad hoc, and project-specific. Some respondents noted increasing competition for limited funds, making it particularly challenging for small organisations to secure financial support.

“ While this support is highly beneficial, it is not a guaranteed or recurring source of income, meaning we must carefully plan and prioritise its use.” (Organisation respondent)

Many organisations also indicated that third-sector funding is typically tied to specific initiatives rather than providing sustained operational support. A recurring concern was that while project-based funding was available, core costs such as staffing, venue maintenance, and utilities often remained unsupported.

Beyond direct financial support, a few respondents mentioned engaging in partnerships with third-sector entities that involved commissioned work or collaborative projects. While these opportunities provided an alternative to traditional grants, they were described as rare and inconsistent.