Culture sector - support needs: survey analysis

3. Funding challenges

Difficulties applying for public sector funding

Question 15: Have you faced any difficulties applying for public sector funding?

As shown in Figure 8, just under two thirds (63%) of all respondents selected ‘yes’ they had faced difficulties applying for funding. Fifteen percent said ‘no’ they had not faced difficulties applying for public sector funding and three percent of respondents said ‘prefer not to say’.

However, almost one in five respondents (19%) said this question was ‘not applicable’ because they or their organisation had not applied for public funding. See Figure 8 and Table 21.

As shown in Table 22 and Figure 9, a higher proportion of organisations stated they had encountered difficulties when applying for public sector funding compared to respondents who replied as an individual:

• 61% of individuals said ‘yes’ they had faced difficulties applying for funding, compared to 69% of organisations.
• 12% of individuals said ‘no’ they had not faced difficulties applying for public sector funding, compared to 20% of organisations.

The percentage of respondents who said ‘not applicable - I/my organisation has not applied for public sector funding’ was higher for individuals compared to organisations (25% compared to nine percent). See Table 22 and Figure 9.

Type of difficulties applying for public sector funding

Question 16: If you selected 'Yes' to the question above about difficulties applying for funding please select any of the following statements that may apply to you or your organisation and then provide more detail below:

Respondents were asked to select any statements relating to difficulties applying for funding that might apply to them or their organisation.^[29]

• Over three quarters of respondents (76%) said there was a ‘general lack of available funding’.
• Almost two thirds of respondents (62%) said ‘the funding application process is time consuming / off putting’.
• Almost half of respondents (46%) said they or their organisation ‘applied for funding but it was unsuccessful’. See Table 23 and Figure 10.

Other difficulties were:

• 22% said they or their organisation ‘does not have the capacity to apply for funding’.
• 21% said they or their organisation ‘is not eligible for the funding that is available’.
• 20% of respondents said ‘the type of financial support or investment they or their organisation need is not available’.

The proportion of respondents who selected the remaining reasons for experiencing difficulties was 16% or less (see Figure 10 and Table 23).

Whilst the top three reasons why respondents faced difficulties were the same for both individuals and organisations, the proportion stating each reason varied by respondent type (see Table 24 and Figure 11).

Individual respondents were more likely than organisations to say:

• ‘Funding application process is time consuming / off-putting’ - 67% of individuals versus 52% or organisations.
• ‘I/my organisation does not have the expertise to apply for funding’ – 20% or individuals vs 10% of organisations.

Organisations were more likely than individuals to say:

• ‘Not eligible for the funding that is available’ than individuals (28% of organisations vs 17% of individuals).
• ‘The type of financial support or investment I/my organisation needs is not available’ – 27% of organisations vs 16% of individuals.

See Table 24 and Figure 11 for more detail.

Question 17: Please provide further detail on any of the options you selected above.

Respondents were asked to provide further detail on the difficulties they have faced applying for public funding. They highlighted a range of issues, including the complexity and administrative burden of the application process, the increasing scarcity and competitiveness of funding, and restrictions on how funding can be used. Structural barriers to accessing public funding were also widely reported with individuals and organisations perceiving disadvantages linked to their geographic location, organisational structure, sector focus, and demographic profile.

Comments have been grouped separately to reflect the distinct experiences of individuals and organisations (although some of these issues are common to both groups).

Individual respondents

The main concerns included:

• The complexity and opacity of the application process
• Scarcity of funding and high competition
• Restrictions on how funds can be used
• Structural barriers in funding opportunities

Application process

Respondents widely viewed the funding application process as overly complex, time-consuming, and requiring specialised expertise. Many described it as a substantial administrative burden, particularly for freelancers with limited resources, who must dedicate unpaid time to researching, planning, and collaborating, often with no guarantee of success. Some noted that the pressure of deadlines forced them to prioritise applications over paid creative work, making long-term planning difficult.

“As a freelance individual, you are not paid for all your admin time trying to get funding – so meetings, research, application and form-filling are all done for free. You cannot get retrospective funding. Because the funding is so ad-hoc and unsustainable, it means no long-term planning.” (Individual respondent)

Several respondents found the system daunting, citing frequent changes in terminology and evolving funding criteria. Many perceived the process as favouring established organisations over independent artists, requiring extensive business-style planning, outcome predictions, and engagement metrics that they felt were unrealistic for smaller-scale projects. The lengthy waiting periods, often several months, compounded financial uncertainty, making it challenging to budget or schedule work.

Concerns were also raised about the transparency of rejection feedback. Some applicants reported meeting all stated criteria, receiving positive assessments, yet being unsuccessful due to high competition. Others described rejection reasons as arbitrary or contradictory, leaving them frustrated by the lack of clear guidance for improvement.

“I understand that not all applications can be successful, but the ones I've been unsuccessful with recently have all included feedback that the project met the requirements of the fund but that the number of applicants massively outnumbered the scope of the fund based on the amount of money available.” (Individual respondent)

A recurring criticism was that funding increasingly prioritised social impact, accessibility, and sustainability over artistic or creative merit. While these objectives were broadly supported, respondents felt that meeting such criteria was often financially unfeasible for smaller projects. The emphasis on social justice and community engagement, some suggested, placed additional pressures on creative practitioners whose primary focus was creative work rather than broader social programming.

Scarcity of funding and high competition

Respondents widely perceived a severe shortage of funding opportunities for individuals, describing an intensely competitive environment with low success rates. Some viewed the system as oversubscribed to the point of being ineffective.

A number of respondents reflected on how administrative burdens had increased over time, with the process of securing funding becoming more time-consuming than the creative work itself. Some perceived funding sources to be scattered and eligibility criteria restrictive, leading to confusion and frustration.

“Availability is not transparent - there should be a central bank of information containing potential funders of all types - the application process should be as simple as possible and not require screeds of paper or lengthy statements.” (Individual respondent)

Individuals without administrative support or extensive experience in funding processes described feeling at a disadvantage, as they struggled to dedicate the necessary time and effort.

“Applying for funding is an art form itself. I often feel money goes to those who are good at applications rather than those who produce good art.” (Individual respondent)

Beyond practical barriers, respondents described the emotional toll of repeated rejection and the stress of navigating complex applications. Some expressed feeling demoralised, questioning the value of their work when funding was consistently out of reach. Others noted that the lack of accessible financial support for individuals contributed to a wider sense of exclusion from the funding system.

While there was recognition of the need for public investment in culture, respondents believed the combination of scarce resources, intense competition, and opaque application procedures made access to funding unnecessarily difficult. Some characterised this as a systemic issue, arguing that the demand for funding far outweighed what was available, leaving many without support.

Restricted funding

Some individuals have encountered difficulties associated with the availability of funding streams. A common concern was the lack of financial support for long-term sustainability. While initial project funding was sometimes accessible, respondents noted difficulties in securing follow-up funding to maintain successful initiatives. Essential expenses such as technology upgrades, and facility maintenance were frequently excluded from available grants, making it harder for individuals to sustain their work.

Respondents reported additional limitations, as some perceived that funding structures tended to favour collaborative projects or externally commissioned work over individual creative practice. As a result, some opted for alternative funding methods, such as crowdfunding, which they perceived as more viable.

Sector-specific funding restrictions were also noted. For example, some respondents from the music sector pointed to gaps in funding provisions for industry-related costs such as artist management. These constraints further limited access to financial support, reinforcing broader concerns about the inflexibility of existing funding structures.

Structural barriers in public funding opportunities

Key challenges include:

• Limited support for individuals
• Gaps in funding for certain sectors and projects
• Exclusion of specific demographic groups
• Geographic disparities disadvantaging rural respondents
• Limited support for individuals

“Although they are the backbone of the cultural sector, self-employed artists are often prioritised less than organisations which can mean there is less trust in us, or we are not eligible to apply.” (Individual respondent)

Some respondents noted that funding was often tied to charities, social enterprises, or arts organisations, limiting access for those working independently. Others felt excluded due to requirements that prioritised formal business structures. Competition for individual grants was described as intense, leaving many individuals without viable alternatives.

• Limited support for certain sectors and projects

Respondents reported that public funding opportunities often failed to support independent artists, game developers, musicians, comedians, and writers, leaving many struggling with low revenues and high production costs. In sectors like gaming, funding was described as particularly scarce, with individuals struggling to secure grants for small-scale or solo projects.

“I have attempted to apply for a few funding routes for my games, but they've all been rejected.” (Individual respondent)

Musicians highlighted how industry shifts had placed greater financial burdens on creative practitioners, with limited funding available for recording costs and low returns from streaming revenue. Writers, craft practitioners, and comedians also noted that existing funding structures rarely aligned with their needs, with some describing public support for their fields as almost non-existent.

“Being a comedian, there is virtually zero funding despite what comedy brings to the economy in terms of touring shows.” (Individual respondent)

Many believed funding mechanisms favoured already successful creative practitioners or those with institutional ties, making access more difficult for independent and emerging creative practitioners. Concerns were raised about potential conflicts of interest in selection processes, with funding decisions perceived to be influenced by personal networks.

Additionally, individuals working across disciplines, such as combining design with the creative arts, sometimes found themselves ineligible due to rigid categorisation. Experimental and early-stage projects also faced challenges, as it was perceived that funding processes often prioritised commercially viable or traditionally structured proposals over speculative or innovative artistic work.

• Exclusion of certain demographic groups

Several respondents noted significant barriers to accessing funding based on age, disability, social background, and career stage. Individuals, particularly those in mid-career, often found themselves ineligible for key funding streams, while some older respondents, those without formal art education, and individuals who identified as being from working-class backgrounds described facing difficulties navigating the funding landscape due to limited resources, networks, and guidance.

Some disabled and neurodivergent creative practitioners highlighted significant challenges due to application processes that were described as inaccessible, time-consuming and required additional resources. These processes often demanded extra support, which many could not afford, further limiting their ability to apply. Respondents expressed frustration with the perceived lack of awareness around the different needs of disabled individuals, with some noting that the funding system felt like an additional burden on top of their existing challenges.

“I am disabled and the applications are extremely inaccessible… plus I have to pay for support workers to help me complete applications for a very low probability chance of receiving funding.” (Individual respondent)

A recurring theme was the perception that there is a disconnect between the expectations of funding bodies and the realities faced by many individuals, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, with caring responsibilities, or without formal art education. Some respondents expressed that the complexity of funding applications, combined with a lack of ‘insider knowledge’ and unpaid time spent writing proposals, disproportionately disadvantaged them.

“People who are from working-class backgrounds, free education, and who are not art-world insiders are disproportionately disadvantaged in this process. This also means it takes them longer to write applications, which is unpaid time away from developing their creative practice.” (Individual respondent)

• Geographic disparities

Some individuals who are based in rural areas reported facing logistical and financial barriers that made it difficult for them to engage with support networks and application processes.^[30]

Some suggested that a lack of trust or familiarity between funding bodies and rural communities contributed to the imbalance, making it harder for those outside established cultural hubs to secure funding.

“We have been unsuccessful in several applications and see a lot of the funding going to projects in the Central Belt (higher concentration of people, better networks of trust?)” (Individual respondent)

In addition, many felt that eligibility criteria for funding favoured urban-based applicants, as the application requirements were often challenging for those in geographically isolated areas. This issue was further exacerbated by the perception that funding was disproportionately directed towards the Central Belt, with some rural regions being overlooked. Even when funding opportunities were technically available, high travel costs and the need to connect with urban networks created additional barriers for some respondents to this survey in rural parts of Scotland.

Organisation respondents

Organisations also identified several challenges with accessing public funding. The key concerns include:

• Complexity of the application process
• Changes in the funding landscape
• Restrictions on funding usage
• Structural barriers in accessing funding opportunities

Application process

The application process for public sector funding presents significant challenges for organisations, particularly smaller ones. These challenges mirror those faced by individuals applying for funding, with similarly high administrative burdens, extensive time requirements, and significant resource constraints.

Many organisations reported that the application process is overly complex. Some respondents also noted that the level of detail that is required is often disproportionate to the amount of funding requested.

“The process itself seems to be almost designed to deter or trip up non-experts. There should be a far simpler way for very small organisations to make applications.” (Organisation respondent)

Several respondents also highlighted the increasing expectation for organisations to deliver broader social outcomes, which they argue should be the responsibility of government, local authorities, and third-sector organisations. The requirement to report on multiple agendas was reported as being particularly challenging for small teams, who must dedicate significant time to administrative work rather than creative activities. Others raised concerns about rigid financial reporting requirements, such as the expectation to provide multi-year budgets when their funding model operates on an annual basis.

Respondents acknowledged that the responsible use of public funds necessitates a thorough application and monitoring process. However, many felt that the time commitment required is often disproportionate. For smaller organisations with limited staff, this represents a significant strain on their operations.

Some organisations estimated that fundraising efforts consume the equivalent of multiple full-time roles within their teams. Grant applications typically take anywhere from two weeks to two months to complete, requiring highly detailed information. Some respondents noted that while they accept the demands of the process, they struggle with the capacity to undertake applications, particularly when lacking the necessary expertise.

Many respondents reported that funding decisions are often delayed, leaving organisations in precarious positions when planning for the future. These delays impact programming, staffing, and overall operational stability. Others expressed frustration with the lack of communication during the assessment process, noting that applications are sometimes rejected due to minor missing details without an opportunity to correct them.

“Unfortunately, there is little to no communication during the process to keep applicants updated. If something is missing—such as a single letter or document—the application is often declined without any follow-up to request the missing information.” (Organisation respondent)

A recurring challenge for smaller organisations is the lack of dedicated fundraising staff. As many of these small organisations rely on volunteers or a handful of staff, they reported that they struggle to allocate the necessary time and resources.

“In our organisation we all carrying out fundraising including completing application forms. Sometimes we have to prioritise other work, or project delivery and we can't hit a funding application deadline.” (Organisation respondent)

The financial constraints of smaller organisations further exacerbate this issue, as hiring a dedicated fundraiser or consultant is not financially viable. In some cases, the responsibility falls on artistic directors or senior staff, diverting attention from creative work. Others must rely on existing staff or volunteers who may lack the necessary expertise or capacity to prepare funding applications effectively.

Moreover, the significant administrative burden associated with funding applications can make the process prohibitive. Some respondents shared that they had to work late nights, weekends, or even during holidays to complete funding applications, which contradicts fair work principles.

Respondents also highlighted that the administrative burden of applying for funding is not only time-consuming but also emotionally exhausting for many staff members.

“Whilst we have received regular support from Creative Scotland the process has been incredibly time-consuming for a small organisation and has had a real impact on staff moral and ability to maximise on potential new performance opportunities.” (Organisation respondent)

Changing funding landscape

Many organisations have observed significant changes in the funding landscape, which they believe has made it more difficult to secure support. A major concern is the disappearance of funding, with several organisations facing reductions in support from both local authorities and public bodies.

Increasing competition for the remaining funds has become another pressing issue. Some organisations reported facing steep competition from better-resourced counterparts, which often leaves smaller organisations at a disadvantage. This intense competition has led to a significant drop in success rates.

“We are competing for the same pots of money than better-resourced organisations apply for and typically don't stand a chance of obtaining the funding as a result.” (Organisation respondent)

Restricted funding

Many respondents highlighted that while project-specific funding is often available, it rarely addresses the ongoing operational needs crucial for maintaining and growing cultural organisations sustainably. Such as, salaries, utility bills, maintenance, and other essential expenses.

The lack of capital funding further exacerbates the situation, as many respondents reported struggling to secure funds for essential building maintenance or equipment upgrades.

“Most public sector funding does not cover the fundamental issues of building-based organisations, namely the cost of electricity, gas, business and water rates, rent, repairs and maintenance etc.” (Organisation respondent)

The scarcity of funds for professional development was described as restricting organisations’ ability to build capacity and expertise, compounding the sustainability challenge.

Structural barriers in public funding opportunities

Respondents highlighted several challenges that prevent many organisations from securing the funds they need to operate effectively. These challenges include issues related to:

• Business models
• The exclusion of certain cultural sectors
• Restrictions on European funding post-Brexit
• The prioritisation of larger organisations
• Geographical disparities in funding distribution
• Business models

A major barrier identified by respondents is the nature of an organisation’s business model, which can often disqualify organisations from certain funding streams. Several respondents explained that their size, turnover, kept reserves or lack of formal charitable status often made them ineligible for grants, despite their alignment with the goals of the grants.

• The exclusion of certain cultural sectors

Some respondents perceived that certain sectors are excluded from available funding. Specific examples provided in this survey came from respondents in the video games, comedy, music, film, creative health and wellbeing, and cross-arts sectors who described finding themselves ineligible for support.

“Creative Scotland does not view games as a screen industry (Creative Wales does), so we are only able to access funding through the open fund – this is a serious oversight.” (Organisation respondent)

• Restricted access to European grants

Several respondents pointed to the loss of access to EU funding as a major setback, reducing opportunities for international collaboration and diminishing Scotland’s cultural presence globally.

“Since Brexit, the lack of access to European funding has been a huge, huge blow. It basically means we can't work internationally anymore.” (Organisation respondent)

• Prioritising larger organisations

Some respondents feel that public funding bodies prioritise larger, more established organisations over smaller or grassroots ones which can make it particularly difficult for smaller organisations to compete.

“Accessing public funding and grants is extremely challenging. Many have been told by grant bodies that their companies are too small, as these organisations seem to primarily support larger companies.” (Organisation respondent)

It was expressed that this environment of competition between organisations can make collaboration and partnership working difficult. As such, it can create (sometimes unintentionally) a focus on identifying disparities between organisations and areas.

• Geographical disparities

Like individual respondents, some organisations based in rural or island communities, described struggling to secure funding due to geographic prioritisation and a lack of region-specific support. Certain funds were described as explicitly favouring organisations located in specific regions, leaving others at a disadvantage.

Reasons why difficulties applying for public sector funding is not applicable to respondents

Question 18: If you selected 'Not Applicable' to the question above about difficulties applying for funding please select any of the following statements that may apply to you or your organisation and then provide more detail below:

If respondents selected 'not applicable' or ‘prefer not to say’ to the question above about difficulties applying for funding they were asked to select reasons why.

For those who have not applied for public sector funding, 40% stated ‘I/We do not need additional public sector support due to self-funding’. However, over half of respondents (who could answer this question) (52%) stated ‘other’ as reason. See below (question 19) for further detail from these respondents. See Table 25 and Figure 12.^[31]

Question 19: Please provide further detail on any of the options you selected above.

Respondents were asked to provide more detail on why they did not feel the question on difficulties applying for public sector funding was applicable to them.

While some respondents did not require financial support, both individual and organisation respondents cited similar reasons for not engaging with the process, including a lack of relevant information, perceived bias within the funding system, and the complexity of the application process.

For some, public funding was simply unnecessary. Several individuals described their work as financially self-sustaining, while organisations often relied on self-generated income, sponsorships, or private donors. Others noted that while they had managed without funding so far, they might consider applying in the future if circumstances changed.

However, many respondents believed that securing public funding was unrealistic. Individuals often felt that the system favoured repeat recipients, making it difficult for new applicants to compete (also described in question 17). Some organisations shared similar concerns, pointing to a lack of suitable funding, particularly for core costs or capacity-building projects.

“It’s too competitive to try—always awarded to the same people or groups.” (Individual respondent)

A lack of knowledge and guidance also prevented some from applying. Several respondents, particularly individuals, admitted they were unsure where to start, unaware of available funding, or unclear about the eligibility criteria.

Even those who were interested in applying were often discouraged by the difficulty of the process. This was especially challenging for individuals and small organisations with limited staff or volunteers.

“Applying for funding is a very long and difficult process, which sadly cannot be achieved with only one member of staff available to keep the entire service running.” (Organisation respondent)