Independent Review of Creative Scotland

Theme 3: Creative Scotland’s performance

Monitoring of the organisation’s performance

Creative Scotland’s primary method of public reporting is by publishing an account of how it has progressed its annual plan. This seeks to demonstrate value for money, the appropriate implementation of principles, and the impact of Creative Scotland’s activity. These annual reviews are published on Creative Scotland’s website around nine months to a year after the completion date for the annual plan.^[66] This prevents any timely interventions being agreed by the Board and is a significant risk.

It is not clear how Creative Scotland, either at executive or non-executive level, monitors performance in the intervening period, with little evidence of indicators and milestones being shared with the Board on a regular basis. The Review was unable to see how ongoing change and transformation, required of all organisations, is being planned, managed and monitored. This limits the opportunities to learn, adapt, and continuously improve. The Review has not been able to find evidence of coordinated and planned work to improve the organisation over a period of years. In other organisations this work is set out in a ‘transformation plan’ and clearly prioritises areas of change that will be undertaken to improve performance and outcomes. There is a need for the Board and the Executive to focus on this activity for the long-term sustainability of the organisation and the sector.

Recommendation 14: The Board and its committees must regularly scrutinise performance against the key activities in the annual plan and in relation to internal performance.

Recommendation 15: Creative Scotland needs to develop a plan that sets out key elements of transformation that will enable the organisation to improve and meet the needs of the sector.

Improving performance of the organisation

Many people have dedicated considerable time to input to this Review providing helpful evidence and constructive suggestions. Some of the issues raised are not new, leading to a sense of deep disappointment for many in the sector who feel they have previously provided feedback which has not been acted upon.

Whilst the outcome of providing 251 organisations with longer-term funding has brought many positives, some recommendations from the Wavehill report regarding the previous process for regularly funded organisations have not been incorporated into the Multi-Year Funding process.^[67] For example, the report emphasised the need for a simplified application process and clearer feedback. These points were also raised during this Review.

It was difficult to evidence how Creative Scotland embeds a culture of continuous improvement and learning from others, both externally (for example the more proportionate approach adopted by other funders^[68]) and internally (for example sharing Screen Scotland’s good practice).

Staff were keen to share their expertise and skills with the leadership team, suggesting that more opportunities for constructive dialogue internally would reduce siloed working and improve organisational performance. They also felt that additional opportunities for learning and development were important. Those external to the organisation suggested that staff would benefit from training in specific areas, for example to improve deaf awareness.

Self-assessment is an important tool. In its absence organisations can be unaware of areas for improvement and areas to prioritise. Creative Scotland should use self-assessment methodology to support the development of a prioritised change programme.^[69] Staff should be fully involved in this process.

Recommendation 16: Staff engagement should be prioritised to enhance performance and embrace opportunities for closer working and greater two-way learning between Screen Scotland and the rest of Creative Scotland. This would improve cohesion and impact.

Effectiveness of external monitoring

There is a clear duty on Creative Scotland to ensure best value and proper evaluation of the use of public money.^[70] Whilst it is essential that Creative Scotland ensures effective monitoring of those it funds, many reported that processes have become excessively bureaucratic. This creates an administrative burden on both Creative Scotland and the sector. There is also tension between Creative Scotland and the sector as to how monitoring is done. This tension is significantly amplified by a widespread level of dependency on Creative Scotland funding.

Creative Scotland requires a level of reporting from individuals and organisations it funds that was said to amount ‘to crippling bureaucracy’. It is not clear how this information informs decisions, advocacy or support for either the individual/organisation or the sector. While this information may be being used, the Executive and Board should demonstrate how they use the data they collect, and research undertaken, to identify priority areas for improvement, development and funding.

There is also little evidence to suggest that monitoring is feeding into timely performance management. This is particularly important given that there are 13 organisations, currently supported by a development fund, which are expected to join the Multi-Year Funding portfolio in 2026-27. Given the Multi-Year Funding portfolio is fully committed and there is no financial headroom for new organisations, timely monitoring is essential.

Recommendation 17: Creative Scotland should streamline the reporting and monitoring required of funded individuals and organisations to enable more focus on outcomes and on demonstrating impact.

Implementation of priorities

Creative Scotland has set out four strategic priorities in its strategic framework and annual plan: fair work, environmental sustainability, international and equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).^[71] These are important principles that underpin all of Creative Scotland’s work. There was some concern that the focus on these priorities detracts from the quality of art, culture and creativity. From published information it is not evident how these areas, important as they are, were selected as the strategic priorities for the organisation. There is also an opportunity to better communicate the progress being made in these areas due to public investment.

Fair work

Creative Scotland is clear that it lacks the funding to enforce the conditionality of Fair Work First,^[72] despite fair work being one of its priorities. There is insufficient evidence that organisations in receipt of public funds are held accountable when they fail to meet their obligations under Fair Work First, with reported concerns about lack of monitoring and enforcement.^[73] Without real consequences, be it financial penalties, reduced future funding, or other sanctions, the commitment to fair work risks becoming purely symbolic.

Some individuals highlighted contradictions between Creative Scotland’s expectations of those it funds, and the impact of Creative Scotland’s own approaches on fund recipients. For example, individuals reported receiving feedback that projects would have been funded if they had cost less, noting the apparent contradiction with the real Living Wage. They also highlighted the detrimental impact of slow decision making on cash-flow. Similarly Creative Scotland staff felt that the effective voice element of Fair Work First was not applied sufficiently within Creative Scotland.

The Culture Fair Work Task Force, created following a commitment in the Scottish Government’s Culture Strategy Action Plan,^[74] did not conclude in time for the Review to consider its conclusions.^[75] The Scottish Government has commissioned an independent evaluation of Fair Work First to determine whether it has achieved its intended aim. The evaluation will run from July 2025-26. The evaluation, along with the UK Government’s forthcoming Employment Rights Bill and wider Make Work Pay agenda will inform the future direction of the Scottish Government’s broad Fair Work policy, including Fair Work First. Given the importance of fair work and the specific nature of the art, culture and creative sector, Creative Scotland should be actively involved in informing and influencing this work. There may also be an opportunity for Creative Scotland to learn from how other countries’ support their workforce.^[76]

Recommendation 18: As fair work is a key priority of Creative Scotland, its compliance should be more effectively monitored across funded organisations.

Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI)

Global majority artists, creative practitioners and organisations in Scotland make significant contributions to Scotland’s cultural output. Despite this, the Review heard that they face significant structural barriers despite commitments to inclusion by Creative Scotland. There were requests for Creative Scotland to rethink how open, transparent and accessible the communication channels are for racially marginalised individuals and organisations.

It is important that EDI is a priority both for Creative Scotland and for the organisations it funds and advocates on behalf of. There are opportunities for further improvement within Creative Scotland, for example by accepting visual or audio applications for funding. This was raised as an issue at a Board meeting two years ago. Without having access to a digital plan, the Review cannot comment on the prioritisation given to this improvement.

Some reported concerns that there is a prevalent EDI ‘tick box exercise’ happening within larger, funded organisations. There were also some concerns that much of the funding going into EDI does not reach the marginalised grass roots organisations with lived experience who can deliver vital work for communities.

Several reported that supporting access for people with a disability to art, culture and creativity was seen as an afterthought. There was a sense that more effort had been put into audience access rather than into direct support for disabled artists.^[77]

Those applying for funding are required to provide information on how the proposed work meets the strategic priorities. Having reviewed the minutes of Board and Committee meetings, it is not clear how this information is used to identify gaps or inform decisions.

Consideration of options

Many noted the apparent tension between ambition and resourcing for delivery, with some suggesting that in some cases there is also limited skills or knowledge of the changes in the sector within Creative Scotland (this was within widespread recognition of the knowledge and dedication of the staff).

In advising the Board and non-executives of issues, there is limited information in Board reports on realistic options that are based on a demonstrable understanding of the sector, the changing needs and areas where, for example, under-representation needs to be supported and developed. The available evidence suggests that there was also insufficient challenge by the Board of Creative Scotland’s senior executive team. For example, there appears to have been limited options presented to the Board on the ways Multi-Year Funding could be applied and the rationale to use reserves to support Multi-Year Funding related to transition, development and progression to year two levels. Given the remit of Creative Scotland and the breadth of the sector, it is not clear if funding for new and emerging areas (based on collected and interpreted research and intelligence, including those not previously funded) or creative practitioners was given consideration. The Board could take a more strategic approach by seeking more options, which would ensure that decisions subsequently taken are more aligned with the needs of the sector.

Whilst the Multi-Year Funding allocations were produced for each art form and local authority areas, no evidence was found to show that Creative Scotland had considered the impact of allocating more funding to a given art form in a given region. This resulted in many feeling that Creative Scotland’s funding priorities are too static, with insufficient rebalancing of funding in line with emerging trends and needs.

Impact

Many suggested that better use of digital systems were needed, both to reduce the burden on applicants and Creative Scotland of data collection and to help share intelligence with others. It was unclear whether Creative Scotland uses its data and intelligence to feed into its planning and priority-setting. Several commented that Creative Scotland does not currently collect and use data from areas that it does not fund (for example from the National Performing Companies, Museums Galleries Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland). Data held is not fully representative of the sector’s needs and trends, which limits the potential for Creative Scotland’s advocacy, strategic funding and development decisions to be fully informed (see theme 1 and recommendation 3).

Using sector-wide data, Creative Scotland would be in a strong position to demonstrate the sector’s greatest needs, helping to ensure the Scottish Government provides its leadership role for creative industries based on evidence and proving the benefit of a collective and coherent national approach.

There is a lack of evidence that data and intelligence is being used to inform decision-making, particularly around strategic emerging opportunities. Creative Scotland told this Review that it had suggested to the Scottish Government that Creative Scotland should be instructed to use Multi-Year Funding to support many more organisations than had previously been regularly funded organisations. It was unclear on what evidence Creative Scotland made that proposal.

Given the data Creative Scotland collects, there was an expectation that Creative Scotland should be able to demonstrate the impact of its activity and the important contribution culture makes to society and the economy (see recommendation 26).

Many partner organisations (for example the National Performing Companies, COSLA, South of Scotland Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Museums Galleries Scotland and VisitScotland) would appreciate more purposeful engagement, highlighting the greater potential impact that could result from closer collaborative working (see also theme 5). Several fed back on the opportunity for better knowledge and data sharing, which could support more impactful and comprehensive advocacy.

Communication on the benefits of culture and Creative Scotland’s actions is important both for the wider public and for the Scottish Government and Parliament to have confidence that priorities are being delivered and are good value for money.

The Creative Scotland website provides a considerable amount of information about the organisation’s work (including annual plans, annual reports, annual reviews, minutes from Board meetings and accounts) but it is difficult to find key information on both Creative Scotland’s activities, decisions and performance, and a clear articulation of the public benefit, impact in relation to geographic and socioeconomic cultural equity and long-term sectoral trends. Some key documents, such as the handbook for Multi-Year Funded organisations, were not on the website at the time of publishing this Review.

Creative Scotland has four monthly newsletters reaching a total of 11,300 subscribers.^[78] Both Creative Scotland and Screen Scotland also have a significant presence on social media channels. From a review of documents to committees or the Board it was not clear how communications are measured and their impact assessed.

Recommendation 19: The website should be improved to enhance public access and improve transparency. There is scope to make more data, information and decisions publicly available.

External communications could be improved with more targeted campaigns. For example, although Multi-Year Funding was open to all organisations in Scotland, many from sectors that Creative Scotland do not traditionally support did not apply. As some parts of the sector had previously been told to look elsewhere for funding many did not realise the Multi-Year Funding was different. There was no evidence of targeted communication to encourage these traditionally underfunded parts of the sector, such as gaming, to apply.

Creative Scotland staff suggested that internal communication should also be improved. For example, staff reported that they found out about decisions after these had been communicated externally, leaving them unable to answer queries in relation to the changes. Despite recognition that staff might find significant changes ‘worrying or unsettling’, some reported an absence of advice or open discussion. How decisions are made was said to feel opaque at officer level, with requests for better internal communications and clear routes for officers to influence decisions based on their expertise. Creative Scotland staff also highlighted concerns about lack of user-testing of new processes and insufficient opportunities to feed into decision-making.

The staff survey is a vital source of feedback for an organisation. It is under redevelopment which has resulted in there being a four-year gap in fully understanding the views of staff on what is going well in the organisation and what needs to improve.

Recommendation 20: Communication should be strengthened internally and externally. Decisions, and the rationale for them, should be shared internally prior to public announcements. There should be improved communication processes to ensure consistency of delivery.