Culture sector support needs survey

4. Current experiences of public sector support

Current and main provider of public sector support

Question 20: Who is your current and main provider of public sector support?

All respondents were asked who is their current and main provider of public sector support.^[32]

Half of the respondents (50%) said ‘Creative Scotland’^[33] was their current and main provider of support. See Figure 13 and Table 27. The next most common provider was ‘other’ with 20% of respondents saying this was their current and main provider of public sector support (see below for more detail on ‘other’ providers).

Eleven percent of respondents said ‘Local Authorities’ were their current and main provider of public sector support. The percentage of respondents who noted ‘Scottish Government’, ‘UK Government’, ‘Enterprise agencies’ or ‘EventScotland’ was less than 10% of respondents. See Figure 13 and Table 27.

Looking at the respondent’s current and main provider of public sector support by respondent type, an almost even split of individuals and organisations named ‘Creative Scotland’ as their current and main provider (see Table 28 and Figure 14):

• 48% individuals
• 52% organisations

The next most common provider for both individuals and organisations was ‘other’ with 21% of individuals and 18% of organisations saying this was their current and main provider of public sector support. See more detail below on ‘other’ providers (question 21). See Table 28 and Figure 14 for a more detailed breakdown of respondent’s current and main provider of public sector support by respondent type.

Question 21: If you selected 'Other' for the question above about your main source of support please state who your main provider is:

Respondents were then asked to provide more detail if they selected ‘other’ in reference to their current and main provider of public sector support. The key categories of providers included:

Public and government bodies

• Creative Scotland ^[34]
• Screen Scotland
• Historic Environment Scotland
• Museum Galleries Scotland
• Scottish Graduate School for Arts & Humanities
• Arts and Humanities Research Council
• UK Research and Innovation
• British Film Institute
• Mayor of London
• Enterprise Agencies
• Local Authorities
• Scottish Government (various funds, including Equality & Human Rights Fund and UK Games Fund)
• Scottish Funding Council
• UK Government (City Region Deal, capital project support)
• NHS Dumfries & Galloway (Health board Endowment Fund)
• Health and Social Care Partnership
• The Touring Network

Lottery and trust-based funding

• UK National Lottery
• National Lottery Good Causes
• National Lottery Heritage Fund
• Royal Literary Fund
• Private trusts and foundations
• Individual sponsorship

Arts, culture, and business support organisations

• Scottish Book Trust
• Edinburgh Sacred Arts Festival
• Creative Edinburgh
• The Scottish Storytelling Centre & Storytelling Forum
• Business Gateway
• Innovate UK (Creative Catalyst Fund)
• Chamber Music Scotland
• National Performing Companies (funded by Scottish Government)
• Expo Fund (supports artists and partners)
• Firstport (Enterprise Agency)

International support

• Swedish public funding
• International governments (e.g., France)
• International galleries

Indirect and self-funding

• Contracted work through arts organisations
• Corporate sponsorships
• Fees charged to participants
• Self-funding (personal savings, income from other jobs, teaching)
• Ticket sales, patron donations, and private sponsorships
• Wind farm community funding
• Visitor donations

Type of support received from current and main provider of public sector support

Question 22: What type of support do you receive from this organisation?

Respondents were asked what type of support they receive from their current and main provider of public sector support.

The majority of respondents (64%) said they received ‘financial support only’ from their current and main provider of public sector support. See Figure 15 and Table 29. A smaller proportion (12%) of respondents said they either received ‘financial and business advice / support’ or ‘other’ support.^[35] See question 23 below for further detail.

Seven percent of respondents said they received ‘Financial and information, data or evidence provision’ support, four percent ‘Business advice or support only’ and three percent ‘Financial and organisational / HR advice and support’. See Table 29 and Figure 15.

Looking at the type of support received from the respondent’s current and main provider of public sector support by respondent type, ‘financial support only’ was the top response for both individuals and organisations although the proportion for organisations was higher (59% of individuals compared to 71% of organisations) (see Table 30 and Figure 16).

Individuals were more likely than organisations to receive:

• ‘Other’ support – 15% of individuals vs seven percent of organisations (see question 23)
• ‘Business advice or support only’ – five percent of individuals vs one percent of organisations

See Table 30 and Figure 16 for more detail on support type by respondent type.

Question 23: If you selected 'Other' for the question above about what type of support you receive please state what

Respondents who selected ‘other’ in the previous question about type of support were then asked to specify what this was.

Individuals described various forms of additional support. The most common types included:

• Direct financial assistance, including funding for creative projects, wages for workshops, and occasional grants.
• Business, financial, and sector-specific advice, as well as mentoring and coaching.
• Access to facilities and resources, such as support with venue space, exhibition space, materials, and administrative assistance.
• Assurance of available support providing financial and mental relief.
• Long-term investment in career development, research, and creative projects.

Organisations primarily reported receiving financial and strategic assistance, including:

• Direct funding along with in-kind donations like equipment or promotional items.
• Support from lead officers and key partners, offering advice on funding, organisational development, and sector challenges.
• Assistance with initiatives such as Fair Work policies, HR for creatives, and international collaboration.
• Engagement with sector bodies and cultural organisations, facilitating collaboration and strategic alignment.

Experiences with current and main provider of public sector support

Question 24: Thinking about your experiences with your main provider of support (your answer to the earlier question) please rate to what extent you agree or not with the following statements:

Respondents were asked to think about their experiences with their current and main provider of public sector support and to rate to what extent they agreed, or not, with a number of statements.^[36]

Respondents were most likely to agree (strongly agree or agree) with the following statements about their experiences with their current and main provider (across all respondents, Table 31 and Figure 17):

1. ‘They provide clear guidance’ – 55% ‘strongly agree / agree’

2. ‘They fund projects which support a wide variety of individuals’ – 54% ‘strongly agree / agree’

3. ‘They have a strong and robust application process’ – 52% ‘strongly agree / agree’

4. ‘They provide a strong rationale for the funding they provide’ – 49% ‘strongly agree / agree’

5. ‘They have a transparent application process’ – 42% ‘strongly agree / agree’

Agreement in the remaining statements was 22% or greater (see Figure 17 and Table 31).

Amongst all respondents, the three statements respondents were most likely to disagree with (strongly disagree / disagree) were (see Figure 18 and Table 31):

1. ‘Their funds have evolved and developed to meet the changing needs of the sector’ - 39% ‘strongly disagree / disagree’

2. ‘They have funds that meet my needs’ - 32% ‘strongly disagree / disagree’

3. ‘They produce high quality best practice guidance for the sector’ - 31% ‘strongly disagree / disagree’

See Table 31 for the full range of statements relating to the respondents’ current and main provider of public sector support.

See Table 32 and Table 33 for experiences of current and main provider of public sector support by respondent type. The statements with the highest agreement (strongly agree and agree) were broadly similar for both individuals and organisations.

Although the percentage of respondents who ‘strongly agreed / agreed’ was higher for organisations compared to individuals. The biggest differences can be seen for:

• ‘They fund projects which support a wide variety of individuals’ - 66% of organisations ‘strongly agreed / agreed’ compared to 45% of individuals.
• ‘They provide clear guidance’ - 63% of organisations ‘strongly agreed / agreed’ compared to 48% of individuals.
• ‘They provide a strong rationale for the funding they provide’ – 55% percent of organisations ‘strongly agreed / agreed’ compared to 45% of individuals.
• ‘They have funds that meet my needs’ – 47% of organisations ‘ strongly agreed / agreed’ compared to 36% of individuals.

The statement with the highest disagreement (strongly disagree and disagree) was the same for both individuals and organisations. Forty percent of individuals and 38% of organisations ‘strongly disagreed or disagreed’ with the statement ‘Their funds have evolved and developed to meet the changing needs of the sector’.

In terms of statements with the highest disagreement (strongly disagree / disagree) the biggest differences between individuals and organisations can be seen for:

• ‘They fund projects which support a wide variety of individuals’ – 22% of individuals ‘strongly disagree / disagree’ compared to nine percent of organisations.
• ‘They provide clear guidance’ – 22% of individuals ‘strongly disagree / disagree’ compared to 17% of organisations.

See Table 32 and Table 33 for more breakdowns of experiences with current and main provider of public sector support by respondent type.

Question 25: Do you have any further comments about your main provider of support?

Respondents were asked if they had any further comments about their current and main provider of public sector support. Just under a quarter of the total respondents to this survey left comments. The majority were made in relation to experiences with Creative Scotland with some also commenting on local authority funding, Scottish Government funding and other sources of funding (for example, as listed in question 21).

There were mixed views towards the Scottish Government. There was an appreciation of direct and valuable relationships with Scottish Government and funding for the creation of a games action plan and for the national collections. Other views suggested that more should be invested and funded to sustain core arts organisations across Scotland. There was also a call out for more consistent revenue funding and additional targeted investment, particularly in capital projects and programming.

In the main, respondents used this section of the survey to express views around issues such as the funding application process and to also share some suggestions for improvements. A number of these issues have been covered in greater detail in other questions (such as question 17) and so the responses have been summarised to avoid repetition.

• Funding processes, applications and timelines

Many respondents were critical of current funding processes within Creative Scotland. Comments on the application process were in relation to it being overly complicated and time consuming. Some respondents also reflected that the reasons provided for rejection (to unsuccessful applicants) are not always transparent or rooted in a detailed understanding of the sector.

Comments regarding fairness were made in relation to disparities in capacity and skills, and the fact that individual artists, creative practitioners and smaller organisations go through the same process as larger organisations.

Following a funding decision the issue of rigour was raised. It was suggested that there should be a more robust system of upholding and investigating best and bad practice respectively.

It was felt that different systems and applications could be put in place to account for these disparities, as the ‘one size fits all’ approach to funding puts some at a disadvantage. A tailored funding framework was suggested which recognises the unique needs of different creative forms.

A further suggestion was to have an independent neutral body overseeing the application process. This would mean that if a prospective applicant

wants to relay any critical feedback about the application process, they can do this without the worry of compromising their relationship with the funder.

Focusing on specific funding schemes, some respondents have experienced challenges with Creative Scotland’s Multi Year Funding (MYF) in the past. However, at the point of completing this survey it is likely that respondents who had applied for this funding were still waiting to hear about the outcome.^[37] Criticism was mainly directed towards delays to the MYF process.

“Overall, we think that the process for Multi Year Funding was ok. However, it is a very time-consuming process, the response period far too long, and it could be more efficient.” (Organisation respondent)

There were mixed views on the Creative Scotland’s Open Funding.^[38] It was suggested by some that Open Fund processes have been streamlined and improved. Yet, it was raised that there could be much more transparency and support for applicants, particularly freelancers and small organisations who are competing with salaried staff at larger companies. The closure and then reopening of this fund was perceived by some to be extremely challenging.

There were general comments made in relation to the broader funding mechanics of Creative Scotland. Respondents reflected that the expectations that are put on organisations or individuals, who are seeking funding from Creative Scotland, outweigh the resources they many have and indeed the level of funding that is available. For example, it was highlighted that the number of additional criteria that have been introduced around Creative Scotland funding connected to Fair Work, equalities and environmental sustainability has not been matched by an increase in funding to support the implementation of these measures.

Some respondents were keen to make the distinction between positive individual efforts in Creative Scotland and the challenges they are encountering with systems and processes.

“Creative Scotland is staffed by lots of talented, hard working and intelligent people…I believe that they try to listen. But they are completely hampered by bureaucracy.” (Organisation respondent)

• Responding to evolving needs

Some respondents would like to see their main funders have more engagement with the sector, in terms of being more responsive to their evolving needs and broader sector challenges. A specific request was for them to take responsibility and leadership for the sector by initiating open discussions on ethical fundraising.

It was highlighted that the absence of engagement can lead to a feeling of disconnect between funders and organisations. For some, this was linked again to transparency and the perception that funding decision makers could do more to understand the breadth of work across Scotland.

“We have had good experience with them [Creative Scotland] and they are always approachable. However, it would be great for them and other Government funders to spend time with the grassroots and find out what it is really like trying to make a small arts organisation work, try to make work whilst constantly having to hit targets.” (Organisation respondent)

Related to this point was the desire for Creative Scotland to facilitate bringing together arts / culture organisations and individuals in Scotland to exchange. It was noted that when this used to happen, it was extremely positive both for sharing of good practice and creating the conditions to encourage new and existing partnerships.

• Perceptions on the scope and remit

Some respondents reflected on the role of Creative Scotland and the services it delivers. It was questioned to what extent Creative Scotland should appropriately represent different parts of the sector. A specific example provided was in relation to community led amateur music groups who are mainly self-funded. The wider question was to what extent is Creative Scotland designed (or should be in the future) to recognise and support organisations that do not receive public sector support.

“The issue for Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government is to make a decision on the role of a body providing culture sector support.” (Organisation respondent)

The other main point raised in this theme was the observation that Creative Scotland is an organisation who distributes funding and also one that provides sector support and advocacy. It was suggested by a small number of respondents that it would be beneficial to split the different functions into separate bodies, ensuring that the body who distributes funding is rooted in sector expertise.

• Wider resourcing and structural barriers

Some respondents made an association between the level of resource that Creative Scotland operate with, the fact they are dealing with extreme competition for funds and the impact this may have on things like funding application processes.

“I feel Creative Scotland have strong processes, and strategies, which are focussed on delivery. However, they do not have the resources they need to adequately fund the sector, and so it feels sometimes as if the funding processes are slightly overly prescriptive.” (Organisation respondent)

Some respondents also perceived that Creative Scotland must operate under challenging circumstances due to uncertainty around their budget allocation from Scottish Government.

“There has obviously been incredible financial pressure on them [Creative Scotland], which has been detrimental to them and to the sector as a whole.” (Organisation respondent)

For those who shared views about local authority funding, some felt that it can be limited and unpredictable and there are concerns it may be withdrawn. It was recognised that there are structural issues behind these experiences including budget ring-fencing among local authorities with regards to health, education and social care and real-terms reduction in local government grant funding from Scottish Government.

Concerns were expressed that without statutory recognition this is a trend which will continue, leading to councils cutting support to external cultural services, reducing and stopping its own cultural service delivery and venue / facility closure.