The question of whether increased funding to Black-led organisations necessarily would mean less funding for White-led organisations is an important one. Is equitable funding a zero-sum game: a right or benefit won by one side is lost by the other?

The importance of the question is that it illustrates the scale of the problem to be fixed. It represents the extent to which White leaders and their organisations will need to sacrifice power and financial status to achieve equitable funding. It sheds light on the degree of inertia towards meaningful change and initiatives that work. 

Clearly, the higher the level of personal sacrifice and risk to lifestyle and livelihood, the more resistance there will be to making the change that is needed to achieve a fair funding system. By extension, if there is increased resistance, the answer also reveals the extent to which Black leaders will need to take the same personal risks to their status and financial security to challenge those who have control of, and benefit from, current resources, for a fair settlement.

If equitable funding remains a zero-sum game, there are serious implications for Black and White leaders alike. At a time of heightened awareness of racial inequalities, Black leaders are less willing to tolerate the status quo. But in a zero-sum system, a fairer distribution to Black-led organisations would mean defunding incumbent institutions, which may create a backlash from a predominantly White-led sector. The moral case for doing this is strong, but the personal implications on the lifestyles and livelihoods of White leaders would make this hard for them to swallow.

An underinvestment of £126m per annum

It is vital that we change the current ‘win-lose’ situation by increasing overall funding into the arts and creative industries so that we avoid the inevitable resentment, division and conflict that comes with ‘losing’. There are several ways of achieving increased funding including government policy, corporate social responsibility and public sector investment. 

An estimated £1bn of public and private grants is spent on arts and culture each year. Of this, only an estimated £24m (2.4%) goes to Black-led organisations. This represents an underinvestment of £126m per annum. To achieve equitable funding within a decade would require an additional £1.26bn to Black-led organisations. Without significant extra cash, equitable funding in the arts inevitably becomes a contest between Black and White leaders over the finite pot of funding available.

This direct conflict of personal interest and aspiration between Black and White leaders is unlikely to be constructive, nor is it comfortable. It forces fundamental questions. What are we as Black leaders willing to risk in challenging those in power to achieve equity?  And what are we as White leaders willing to relinquish in terms of power and status – and perhaps even personal income – to achieve a fair distribution of funding? 

In a zero-sum scenario, I am committed to advocating and campaigning for racial equity, putting me in direct conflict with the personal interests of my White counterparts, some of whom I rely on to fund my projects. Such infighting is unlikely to end well for anyone and, given the structural power imbalances, least of all Black leaders.

Ways of achieving increased funding

To avoid counter-productive conflict, we must urgently explore ways to increase the funding pot. There are many options for doing this. 

1 – Government intervention through various means including:

• a racial equity recovery fund that matches the help given to established and mainly White-led cultural institutions to the tune of £2bn over 12 months;
• using some of the c.£2bn from Big Society Capital to fund Black organisations. This money came from dormant bank accounts including from Black communities;
• setting equitable quotas for Arts Council England and other public funders; and
• enforcing Charity Commission guidelines to fund equitably. It is a legal obligation, but not one they currently enforce.

2 – Reallocating some of the billions of pounds of endowments held by funders to deliver social impact, as suggested by Sir Ronald Cohen in his book ‘Impact’.

3 – A requirement for commercial businesses in receipt of tax benefits from a Comprehensive Spending Review to redistribute them equitably. 

4 – Impact investment in social enterprises with innovative ideas that can deliver social benefit and create scalable solutions. These can deliver financial returns to both investors and the social enterprise – and save government money in the long term. What Sir Ronald called a ‘win, win, win’ scenario. 

We must address the personal dimension head on

The political arguments for equitable funding are well understood. But in the end, as human beings, it is the personal dimension that prevents this from happening. To paraphrase the American feminist, Carol Hanisch, the political is inevitably personal. Without addressing the personal dimension head on we are unlikely to develop effective policies and initiatives to fix the problem. 

Our options are clear: continued inequitable funding, redistribution within existing budgets, or redistribution through increased budgets. The first option is untenable, the second unworkable and so we are left with the third, which is eminently achievable, and within a reasonable time frame. 

We should act now, Black and White leaders together, rather than in competition, so another decade isn’t allowed to pass without effective action.We are keen to keep the conversation going. To read more and share your thoughts on this or other articles, connect with me on LinkedIn.

NB. We have used the term Black. We recognise the diversity of individual identities and lived experiences, and understand that Black is an imperfect term that does not fully capture the racial, cultural and ethnic identities of people that experience structural and systematic inequality.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Explore more content across my blog

I was optimistic about the possibility for change to the stark and urgent problem of only 2.4% of regular arts funding going to BAME* organisations when the BAME population is 14%. But as I plan to launch Create Equity’s campaign for arts funders to pledge to distribute their funding equitably within the next ten years, that optimism has waned.

Although I have many agreements in principle from initial conversations with funders, there has been no rush of firm, specific commitments, and it’s clear that I will face considerable inertia in achieving this. 

What are you waiting for?

Grouped as themes, there are four reasons for resistance to signing the Create Equity Pledge.

1. The tyranny of choice – While many are beating a drum for urgent change, funders are hesitant about which initiatives, if any, to sign up to. New projects being developed to track the distribution of arts funding are preferred by funders because, while they will analyse how funders distribute their grants, they will not commit funders to a set quota. This is more likely to have impact but is also higher risk.
2. All inequalities are equal – Some don’t want to commit to funding equitably on race before doing the same on the other eight excluded characteristics. They want to address all inequitable funding at the same time. In my experience, this means they often don’t commit to anything. Either that or, given finite time and funding, the race agenda gets diluted.
3. What does success look like? – Some want to negotiate what counts as part of the quota. For example, can they include organisations which are white-led but which aim to serve BAME communities? This may feel lower risk as it offers a wider field to address. But it will also likely dilute the impact and significantly slow things down as they work through how to implement more far-reaching policies. 
4. Leave us alone – Some want to make the change to equitable funding without a Pledge (and the monitoring and accountability that goes with it). They are comfortable with their current approaches to change and instinctively protective of reputational risk. So they are reluctant to commit publicly to a quota which, if they fail to meet it, could become a ‘hammer’ to hit them with.

I’ve reached the conclusion that funding inequalities are so extreme that to argue about these technical concerns is time wasted on making real progress. In the end, I can concede to all but one of them. Funders can sign a different pledge (instead of Create Equity’s) if it includes a quota; conflate all underinvested groups if they want; or draw the boundary of what counts as part of the quota as broadly as they like. But the need for a public pledge that is time limited, and that can be measured and monitored, with clear accountability, is a must. 

Why past efforts have failed 

Nothing less than a fundamental shift in the power relationship between funders and BAME communities can solve this problem. The numbers and conflicting policies which underpin funding inequalities speak for themselves. 

If Arts Council England (ACE) were to increase funding to BAME organisations at 2% above inflation in all future funding rounds, it would take 140 years to meet the Create Equity Pledge. Its ability to move faster is heavily constrained by resources, competing priorities and government influence.

Those currently funded by ACE are more likely to get funded again. Over the last two spending revues, some 90% of funds went to previously funded organisations. So only around 10% is available to new recipients at each spending review. Even if all of this were allocated to BAME organisations, ACE would not meet the target for equitable funding. 

Another issue is when policies conflict. The policy to drive a fairer percentage of grants to the regions inadvertently runs counter to racially equitable funding. A disproportionate number of BAME-led organisations are based in London and as a result, nearly half of ACE’s total funding for BAME-led organisations goes to those in London. So geographical redistribution inevitably reduces either the overall number of BAME organisations who get funded, or the level of grants these organisations receive. Without significantly increasing the money pot, one form of equity can negate others.

Equitable funding, by any means possible 

My initial optimism has turned to pragmatism for this reason. The Create Equity campaign is both a pledge and a research project. If funders cannot pledge we will make determined efforts to understand their reasons. And with funders who do sign up but don’t meet the pledge, we will also seek to understand why. 

We plan to produce a report outlining the constraints, suggesting solutions and, where necessary, we will develop projects to deliver these solutions. It’s only by understanding and evidencing the limits of our current system that we can make the case for something new and more equitable. 

Equitable funding is the mission of Create Equity, by any means possible.  

Join the conversation on Linkedin.

* We have used the abbreviation BAME. We recognise the diversity of individual identities and lived experiences and understand that BAME is an imperfect term that does not fully capture the racial, cultural and ethnic identities of people that experience structural and systematic inequality.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Explore more content across my blog

1. The challenge

Setting up projects which develop BAME creative businesses – through which the founders can potentially generate significant financial reward – has been at the heart of my life’s work. To date I have supported thousands of artists and entrepreneurs, the four most successful of whom have an estimated combined net worth of £14m.

The bane of my career has been attempting to combine using public funding to drive the creative and entrepreneurial development of people from under-represented communities to commercial success. 

I still haven’t cracked it.

Development of ‘under-represented’ communities in the arts and creative industries is ‘in the public interest’ and therefore eligible for public funding. However, supporting under-represented artists and entrepreneurs to grow their businesses is a ‘private benefit’ and therefore less eligible for public funding, despite the wider public benefits of job creation and contribution to GDP. 

Covid-19 and the BLM movement are the most recent reminders of the deep racial inequalities in our society. They have strengthened my long-held conviction that public money supporting individuals from BAME communities to develop businesses is necessary.

2. Mazzucato on The Entrepreneurial State 

In her book – The Entrepreneurial State – Mariana Mazzucato argues that separation between the public and private sector is more myth than reality. There have always been points of cross fertilisation between the two; where public money is used to support early-stage development followed by commercialisation, again using public money, which also creates individual wealth. 

Examples include Google‘s algorithm and Apple’s touchscreen technologies – both developed with public funding and later commercialised. Government sometimes funds initial R&D in developing a new product, then encourages commercialisation by subsidising prices to make the new product affordable (e.g. development of the internet and solar panels). This is all justified as the public interest; but some people definitely got rich.

Some argue that in these projects the risks have been socialised and the rewards privatised – a long-standing ‘moral hazard’ debate in many industries. But the more relevant question here is why this is okay for the tech or environmental agendas, but not for racial equity: the need for public intervention is equally pressing and potential public benefit immense.

3. Using the entrepreneurial state to fund BAME creative entrepreneurs 

The private sector, left to its own devices, has persistently under-invested in BAME entrepreneurs: only 1.7% of venture capital goes to BAME communities vs. 14% of the population which is BAME. 

Government and philanthropic funders aim to redress this type of ‘market failure’. However, they significantly under-invest in BAME entrepreneurs. By value, only 2.4% of regular grant funding in the arts goes to BAME organisations. Funded BAME organisations also receive disproportionately small grants, at well under 50% of the overall average. 

Something completely new is now required in the arts. This has to tackle the question of personal gain head-on, even if distasteful to some philanthropic and public funders: the best-performing artists are successful both artistically and financially – that’s just how the industry works.

Philanthropic and public investment in ethnic minority entrepreneurialism in the arts is essential: like the climate crisis, racial justice is an existential issue, not just a desirable objective. Like access to the internet, diversity needs to be seen as a driver of innovation with major public benefits. The private sector, major trusts and various agencies of government need to commit fully to finding immediate large-scale solutions. 

4. Why start with culture when the whole system is broken? 

Art and cultural production are the UK’s shop window to the world through the world-class television, books, music, films, comedy, dance and poetry we produce. Think of the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony or the wedding of Prince Harry and Megan Markle: these events are packed with culture and broadcast to billions globally. 

The more routes we provide for people from all groups in our population to participate in production, then the richer the picture of contemporary Britain we show to the world. The more we provide access to distribution and ownership, ownership of commercial broadcast media, publishing and production, the more equitable and cohesive a society we create and the more we add to the UK’s creative output and reputation as a creative powerhouse. It is a matter of ethics and politics first, but the public economic and other benefits that flow from this are massive. 

To support long-term, sustainable development of BAME creative entrepreneurs, we must use the same mechanisms, institutions, agencies and policies that have been used to drive the tech and environmental agendas. This includes R&D to drive up the number and quality of BAME businesses; committing to artistic excellence and its commercialisation; encouraging long term private sector investment in BAME enterprises and allowing profits to flow to successful companies with wealth generated by BAME entrepreneurs and employees.

Early public sector interventions on the tech agenda have not capped wealth for the entrepreneurs at Google and Apple – why should they here? Future investment must not impose limits on BAME entrepreneurs in a sector in which the potential personal gains for privately funded white artists are so high. This would perpetuate exactly the inequality that philanthropic and public funding are intended to tackle. 

Developing the ‘social fabric’ is as important as developing the tech and green infrastructure needed for a more connected, prosperous and sustainable future. We must act now to apply the same solutions used for these other important agendas to fix systemic racial inequality, starting in the arts. 

Let me know what you think in the comments below or join the conversation on Linkedin

NB. We have used the abbreviation BAME. We recognise the diversity of individual identities and lived experiences, and understand that BAME is an imperfect term that does not fully capture the racial, cultural and ethnic identities of people that experience structural and systematic inequality.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Explore more content across my blog

CEC: Kevin you’ve dedicated your career to supporting BAME social entrepreneurs, but this fund is a new venture. Why now and how do you think it will make a difference to resolve the disparity of funds distribution?

The confluence of Covid, Black Lives Matter Movement and the macro economic challenges ahead we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the existing funding structures; to redistribute power. Both the demand and the need are at peak. It’s the perfect time to try. As you say, it’s been my life’s work so I can’t pass up the chance to at least try.   

The aim of Create Equity is to campaign for equitable funding by 2031. We are asking all the major arts and social enterprise funders to commit to this. Using Arts Council England as one example; if they were to implement the pledge today, instead of distributing c.£15m per year to BAME organisations it would be c.£87m per year, were they to fund in proportion to the BAME population. That’s an underinvestment of £72m every year. This under investment has gone on forever and it’s not just Arts Council. Every Arts Council and social investor across the UK under invests to the same extent, in percentage terms.

If the Create Equity 2031 pledge is successful then hundreds of millions more each year will be distributed fairly to BAME organisations. Of course given finite resources the question is where might the money for such a significant redistribution come from? This is the challenge I’m trying to address through the Create Equity Fund, a pilot investment fund for BAME entrepreneurs. The intention is to use public money to make equity investments. Given current public funding regulations this comes with the world of challenges, which maybe we’ll get into when we chat.     

 

CEC: Kevin what are some of the practical actions we as mere civilians can take to create real change?

Change your mindset. Equity doesn’t have to be seen as a zero sum game. If black communities get their fair share of funding, for white communities to see this as a loss, because this funding is no longer available to them is the biggest hurdle to change. Inequity inevitably ends in social fragmentation and this comes at a massive cost to us all.  We have to understand that equity is always going to deliver a net gain (perhaps not to you personally) but to society. 

CEC: Kevin in addition to your incubator and your new fund you’ve also got a pretty impressive blog called Skin in the Game which looks at current affairs, popular culture and issues in society through the lens of race, identity and power. Can you tell us more about it and your aspirations for this three-pronged approach?

There’s a social consequence to underinvesting in any community be it BAME communities, women or working class people. It means that we don’t harness the full potential of our society and it’s this waste of human potential that drives me crazy. And this waste of human potential has a cost in terms of underachievement, in education, employment, business and as we’ve seen during Covid in health outcomes. People die because of this shit; it’s real.  

Skin in the Game is a space for me to explore this reality, to try and make some kind of sense out of it and then use that understanding to make real change happen. By making the link between my own experience and the systems that have underinvested in me I’m hopefully able to develop social enterprises and businesses that will make a difference. Skin in the Game is the source of Create Equity 2031 campaign and it’s also the source of the Create Equity Fund.  

My aspirations for this three-pronged approach is very simple; equity!

NB. We have used the abbreviation BAME. We recognise the diversity of individual identities and lived experiences, and understand that BAME is an imperfect term that does not fully capture the racial, cultural and ethnic identities of people that experience structural and systematic inequality.

Go to Creative Entrepreneur’s Website

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Explore more content across my blog

Several people have challenged my continued use of the term BAME. I remain ambivalent about this change.

The fight to end the use of the BAME acronym seems won. A key recommendation from the government’s report by the Commission on Race and Racial Disparities (the Sewell Report) is to disaggregate the term BAME. Arts Council and other funders have already dropped their use of the acronym, instead writing the words in full (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic). The aim of disaggregation is to recognise differences in experience and therefore performance (against various metrics) between the different communities represented by the acronym. Like so many others, I don’t like the term BAME. But as a social entrepreneur involved in the practicalities of creating new and fairer structures for diverse communities, I believe timing is everything. Arguments right now about the use of the term BAME are a distraction and the transition away from its use may take us down a path with far reaching and unintended consequences. Our primary goal must be to create a fairer distribution of power; or as the Sewell Report put it: ‘Create Agency’. 

Context to my thinking

I have spent much of the last four months writing a business plan for the Create Equity Fund (a BAME-focused investment fund for the creative industries). Part of this work includes research into the past distribution of arts funding to BAME communities. My research highlighted two issues in relation to changing the BAME acronym: i) disaggregating BAME communities may cause infighting between communities over resources; and ii) changing terms could make measurement more difficult and so make it harder to build statistical evidence of long-term structural issues. These challenges need careful consideration, mature debate and potentially more campaigning.

The potential for infighting between different BAME communities in the arts

Disaggregating the BAME acronym should, in theory, lead to disaggregated data sets. This will highlight inequalities between BAME communities which will inevitably lead to internal wrangling about who gets what. Most of the 2.4% of arts funding to BAME communities goes to ‘Asian’ organisations. With only 2.4% of arts funding shared between us (instead of the 15% which would be in line with the BAME populations), to start a debate on how we distribute equitably amongst ourselves is, in my view, folly. The saying goes, ‘A house divided cannot stand’. ‘We’, as diverse communities, have specific identities, yes. But we still share a common purpose and should not waste energy arguing over the crumbs currently being distributed to us. The worthwhile struggle is for equitable funding to our communities as an aggregated whole. Then and only then can we have a debate about who gets what in terms of disaggregated communities.

Changing BAME makes it more difficult to measure progress and reduces accountability of funders 

My research for Create Equity Fund confirmed that in the last ten years only 2.4% of arts funding went to BAME communities, I was unable to find data going back more than ten years because the term used for measuring ethnically diverse communities before 2011 had changed. If we change the term again, to something which doesn’t exactly correlate to the term BAME, we lose the ability to establish longitudinal data that we desperately need to make our case. What scant data there is on racial inequalities in the arts becomes harder to analyse and easier to contest or dismiss altogether. In changing the meaning of the BAME acronym we may unintentionally diminish our ability to keep policy makers and funders fully accountable. With less useable data we reduce our power to change things. If the government (and by extension bodies like ACE) decides against using the term BAME, in favour of something materially different, we would need to ensure that sufficient resources are in place to maintain data continuity. 

But why spend time on that campaign? In the wake of Covid-19, the Black Lives Matter movement, macro-economic uncertainties and climate change, there is a more immediate and bigger prize up for grabs. Our focus must be on an equitable and timely redistribution of resources and power. Only through resolving this do we get to build our own structures – our own ‘houses’ – rather than simply moving the furniture around the existing structures. Then we get to use our own language and truly define for ourselves what matters.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Explore more content across my blog