There is a new belief that any debate about racial inequality – its causes, impacts and solution – should be driven by those with ‘lived experience’. Increasingly, funders are embedding this thinking into policy, making participation of people with ‘lived experience’ part of their funding criteria. And white leaders are using it to excuse themselves from race conversations – or at least to be less vocal. 

The intention is good; to increase the impact of social justice programmes and to empower those affected by giving them a say in the programme design and implementation. But it raises serious questions about the benefits of relying on lived experience in dealing with racial inequalities.

How do we decide which lived experiences matter most, given the ever-increasing fragmentation of identities and perspectives on solutions to racial inequity? And within current power structures, can white people ever be excluded from driving solutions on racial inequality? 

Activists versus Assimilationists

According to YouGov research, 84% of people from black communities say they have experienced racism to some extent and agree action needs to be taken to eradicate it. However, this belies the fact that although we share lived experiences of racism, we each process and cope with them differently. As a result, views vary widely on strategies for addressing the problem. 

Within my friendship group alone, opinions range from those who believe that racism is best challenged through social and political action (Activists), to those who think our energy is better spent ‘fitting in’ and becoming successful (Assimilationists). 

These strategies vary not only between socially defined racial categories but also within these categories (e.g. Black, East Asian, South Asian etc). And of course, different people balance these strategies in individual ways. Given the range of possible responses, how do we actually decide who to listen to when implementing solutions.  

Usually, the lived experience of the most vocal takes priority over those who are politically quieter. Activists shout louder than Assimilationists and hold sway when influencing the language used in communications (political correctness), publicly stated positions (PR) and policy on racial inequity. But rarely does this convert to real change in practice.

The money does not follow the strategy

Taking the arts sector – and the Arts Council in particular as illustration – all its major policy communications talk about creating a more inclusive sector with a greater diversity of arts output. But if we follow the money, it’s clear their policy on grants distribution is neither inclusive nor diverse.

Only 2.4% of ACE funding goes to Black-led institutions – this should be 14% if distributed in proportion to the BAME population. Compare that to 14% of ACE funding which goes to opera alone. Funding is heavily skewed to the major arts institutions and to assimilating (some would say encouraging) Black communities into accessing niche art forms produced and curated by white people. 

Given the weight of investment committed to the major institutions, ACE’s diversity strategy – and budget – have been directed at diversifying the boards, staff and content of the existing major opera houses, theatres and museums. It has not attempted to redistribute funding equitably to create a wider diversity of institutions and art forms. 

No matter how strong the voices are, no matter how much we bring lived experience to the centre of the decision-making process, these views are inevitably mediated by those in power, who are predominantly white. 

White leaders must not exclude themselves

This is what drives the struggle between the disparate parts of the Black communities to be heard. There is no monolithic lived experience. Yes, there are common lived experiences, but when seeking solutions to the problems we face, there are too many views and perspectives to be heard.

Ultimately someone decides on which lived experiences to privilege. To exclude white voices from the conversation makes no sense, and is not possible given current power structures. So it is important that white leaders do not exclude themselves, shielding behind the politically correct notion of empowering those with lived experience.

You are the power brokers and it’s important to be transparent; to acknowledge that in your decision making some voices get heard while others are silenced. The work, therefore, lies in more equitable funding which would enable a wider range of interventions from a more diverse range of lived experiences. 

The money is there. Your work is not to remove yourself from the conversation but to distribute it equitably.  

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.

NB. Although we agree that equitable funding is important for all groups, we are talking specifically about racially equitable funding at this time.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Explore more content across my blog

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