Looking Forward to a Year of Writing and Advocacy

Looking Forward to a Year of Writing and Advocacy

What do Martin Luther King, Adam Smith and Ben Ansell have in common? 

In January I spent time thinking about where best to focus my writing and advocacy in 2024. As inspiration, I read pieces by Martin Luther King, Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations), and Ben Ansell (Why Politics Fails). I didn’t expect the readings to have common themes but they did. Each said, in different ways, that the white middle class values power, advantage or the whip-hand (literally, in the context of Wealth of Nations) over justice, equity or economic stability.

It’s true we are no longer fighting for freedom from bondage or the right to vote, but we recognise that the fight for racial equality is ongoing. Ansell argues that today the middle class uses wealth in equally pervasive ways to maintain their advantage; e.g. by gaining access to the best schools and in the process excluding others.

Some of my articles last year point to the power of the middle class to subvert racial equity sometimes through actions but often – and more powerfully – through inaction that maintains advantage. These articles reflect my fear, not of the far right but of the ‘near middle’; the white middle class who as King put it:

“prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension 

to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

My New Year’s reading clarified for me that we can only achieve equity with equal access to finance; and that inequality itself poses an existential threat, because it stops us from working together when we need to deal with our biggest challenges, like climate change. There can be no solidarity in solving these threats without equitable access to wealth.

Through my advocacy work this year I intend to encourage the ‘positive peace’ that King speaks of. This involves posing difficult questions to the middle class that will require answers, not peaceful avoidance or silence. In particular these questions need to be asked of the leaders of funding bodies who, through their funding choices, can catalyse the more equitable distribution of finance.

These funders cannot seek to control the outcomes of their funding but they can provide access to it. Equitable access to wealth creation is an outcome in itself and the single best way to produce Smith’s robust economy, King’s open democracy and Ansell’s idea of politics that  produce more equitable outcomes in education, health, employment, housing and criminal justice.

As King suggests, tensions are an inevitable part of the process to a social peace. I will sharpen my pencil and write with love but not fear.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Wider systemic injustices

We Need To Talk About Race Kevin Osborne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360

The arts divided cannot stand

The arts divided cannot stand

The UK’s growing Black, Asian and minority ethnic population* inevitably means that the racial funding gap** in the arts will widen over time. To close it we either need to double down on cuts to large London cultural institutions or come together as a sector to argue for a significant increase in government funding to the arts.

In November, Arts Council England (ACE) announced a significant increase in the proportion of its NPO budget going to racially diverse organisations, from 2.4% to 8.4%. As a result, from next year ACE will distribute its funding more closely in line with the size of the Black, Asian and minority ethnic population, which at the start of the spending review was c.14%.

But by the time ACE announced its spending plans, updated census data put the UK’s ethnically diverse population at 18.3%, and in London 63.2% of the population identified as being from an ethnic minority. This demographic shift means ACE needs to more than double its investment in ethnically diverse organisations to achieve racial equity.

To pay for this increase, the difficult decisions ACE made to make cuts to major London-based institutions like English National Opera (ENO) and the Royal Opera House would need to be consolidated and further cuts implemented.

 

Can we close the racial funding gap and continue to fund incumbent institutions? 

ACE has left the door open to future funding of organisations whose grants were reduced or cut in the last spending review. As CEO Darren Henley CBE said,

We’d like to work with ENO so they are in a strong position to reapply for NPO next time, from outside of London with Coliseum as a key part of their provision.”

Reinstating funding to the likes of ENO while continuing to meet its commitment to racially equitable funding would require a significant increase in ACE’s current budget to c.£2.1bn. This is how it breaks down per annum:

  • The amount required to bridge the racial funding gap in NPO funding from 2023 – £44.1m pa
  • The projected increase in the racial funding gap at the next spending review (2026-30) due to continuing growth of the Black, Asian and ethnically diverse population – £4.92m pa
  • The reinstatement of funding to London organisations – c.£22.4m pa
  • Inflation, estimated conservatively at 5% – £22.3m pa

Total: £93.72m p/a

This represents a 21% increase in ACE’s current budget, from the current level of £446m to c.£540m per annum. So, across the next four-year funding period from 2026-30, ACE’s budget would need to exceed £2.1bn. 

A 21% increase in ACE’s budget is ambitious given the economic climate and can only be achieved if the arts stand together in their call for more money. Achieving the funding needed to close the racial funding gap and maintain the financial support to large incumbent arts institutions will not be possible if there is infighting between ethnic groups and/or artforms.

 

We are all in this together?

There are three years until the next spending review. Unless the arts sector – black and white, classical and non-classical, London and regional – come together to fight for increased funding, we won’t be able to achieve racial equity without further cuts to incumbent organisations.

Within any such collective action, the onus of achieving an additional £93.72m per annum must be shared, and those with most power and influence should shoulder more responsibility.

The recent Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Select Committee meeting scrutinising ACE’s spending review demonstrates the power of the large classical music organisations. Through their lobbying, they were able to haul ACE executives in front of a committee of MPs to explain spending cuts to organisations like the ENO and the Welsh National Opera.

No such scrutiny has ever been undertaken regarding the racial funding gap, something which has led to excellent organisations being cut or, worse, excellent new initiatives never seeing the light of day.

In the lead up to the last spending review, large incumbent arts organisations had little if any interest in actively supporting racial equity beyond their walls. They must now lend their political heft to the campaign for racially equitable funding in the arts sector more broadly, while lobbying for increased overall funding.

Given the scale of the ask we must be clear about our priorities. Any increase to ACE’s budget must first be spent on closing the racial funding gap.

 

Why the racial funding gap needs to be top priority 

As the UK continues to become an ever more multi-racial society, our leaders will inevitably become more diverse. How we give all leaders the funding to build the future charities, social enterprises and businesses they aspire to – and the UK needs – becomes an increasingly pressing question.

Reversing recent cuts to major arts organisations without first achieving racially equitable funding would be to prioritise incumbent classical music institutions – who already receive 80% of ACE’s music budget – over racial equity.

We cannot sweeten the pill or minimise the implications for those who argue for exceptionalism over racial equity. Exceptionalism – sometimes coded as ‘excellence’ – is an outdated device for the exercise of power and privilege. If we are genuinely all in this together then it’s incumbent on large institutions to share limited resources equitably.

So, I call on leaders of the major arts institutions to support the campaign for racially equitable funding in the lead up to ACE’s next spending review. It is their responsibility not only to campaign for the preservation of their own organisations but also to struggle for the right of all communities to reimagine and build the arts organisations of the future.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to close the racial funding gap in the arts. Our shared belief must be that in doing so we will fully harness the UK’s leadership potential, drive an even more excellent, inclusive, culturally relevant and robust sector.

Now is the time for the major arts institutions to demonstrate that we really are all in this together, by fighting for increased funding, or accepting with equanimity any cuts needed so that resources can be shared fairly. It is this second condition that is important in demonstrating the togetherness or not of the sector.

Accepting cuts is necessary; to close the racial equity gap in the arts is the ultimate sign of unity. Anything else would represent division and an arts sector divided against itself cannot stand.

 

 

*We recognise the diversity of individual identities and lived experiences and understand that various terms used in this piece to describe ethnicity are imperfect and do not fully capture the racial, cultural and ethnic identities of people that experience structural and systematic inequality.

 

** The racial funding gap is the difference between what a funder distributes to ethnically diverse communities and what this funding would be were it in proportion to the UK Black, Asian and minority ethnic population.

 

This article was first published in Arts Professional on 19 January 2023 as part of a series of articles that promote a more equitable and representative sector.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

create equity, equitable funding, uk, funding gap, racial equality, equity, finance, public funding, investment, kevin osborne

Create Equity

race, identity, inequality, equity, social justice, campaigning, kevin obsorne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360

Responses to ACE National Portfolio funding expose systemic racism (article)

Responses to ACE National Portfolio funding expose systemic racism (article)

It appears Arts Council England (ACE) has achieved a significant improvement in the proportion of its funding going to Black- and Brown-led* organisations. We need to support them in going still further to achieve racially equitable funding in the arts.

In ACE’s announcement of its 2023-26 National Portfolio investment, it said 8.4% has been allocated to Black- and Brown-led organisations, up from c.2.4% in the previous round. If true, this represents a far larger leap than I ever expected, especially considering the circumstances in which it was achieved.

DCMS handed ACE a poisoned chalice to deliver on the government’s levelling-up agenda, instructing it to cut funding for London by £24m – a reduction of 15% – and to reallocate an additional £43.5m to the regions. 

That left ACE in the invidious position of having to increase funding outside London while also meeting its commitment to increase funding to Black- and Brown-led organisations; most – and the largest – of which are based in London. Given these constraints, ACE has pulled off what looked like an almost impossible task and significantly increased both geographical and racial equity. 

But even before the ink has dried on the funding announcements, there is a threat of a forced U-turn by ACE, which is under attack from the classical music fraternity in London.

 

Power at play

ACE’s funding decisions and the response to it starkly expose power at play. The speed at which major institutions have mobilised media and political engagement comes as no surprise. 

The English National Opera (ENO), axed from the portfolio (albeit with parachute funding of £17m), is to appeal its settlement and has the ear of the Culture Secretary: “Chief Executive Stuart Murphy met Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan and told her in no uncertain terms that her numbers don’t add up. That meeting has been described by ENO insiders as ‘constructive’ and another is in the diary for a fortnight’s time while a campaign to back their cause has taken off online after being launched by singer Sir Bryn Terfel.”

The Royal Opera House (ROH) seems set to do the same or at least have backroom negotiations to improve their settlement. ROH said: “We will be discussing the details of our NPO funding arrangement with ACE over the coming months, before a final settlement is agreed early next year,” indicating there will be some pushback. 

The fightback from London’s cultural institutions has started in earnest and there is every chance it could be successful in reversing what has been achieved in geographical and racial equity in arts funding. 

These large institutions shout from the rooftops about their audiences’ diversity but don’t seem concerned about the overall diversity in the sector of which they are a part. When push comes to shove, their self-interest blinds them to our collective gain. They push for self-preservation under the guise of preserving cultural and artistic excellence. But this is a dangerous path to tread.

 

Exceptionalism

In the last National Portfolio funding round ENO received a sum that would fund the current top 25 Black- and Brown-led organisations including the Young Vic, Chineke! Foundation, Akram Khan Dance Company, South Asian Arts, Punch Records, UD, Tomorrow’s Warriors and the Centre for Chinese Contemporary Art. 

As I write, the campaign to reinstate ENO’s funding has – depressingly – reached 50,000 signatories. What’s disheartening is that at least 50,000 people haven’t thought through the wider implications of continuing to fund ENO at current levels. Either that or they believe that ENO delivers more value to the UK’s creative economy, reaches greater audiences (of any ethnicity) and delivers more outreach to young people than the best 25 Black and Brown-led funded organisations. 

Clearly statistics against any of these measures would never bear this out, so what they are in effect claiming is that the exceptionalism of the artform itself is worth more – and adds more – to the overall cultural fabric of the UK, than the 25 Black and Brown-led organisations in the National Portfolio combined. 

This is even though there is no lack of opera or classical provision in the UK. In ACE 2018-22 investment round, classical music (including opera) received 88.8% of all music funding. The correction made in this new investment round represents a 9% reduction, which still leaves classical music and opera with c.80% of all music funding.

Another interpretation could be that the ENO leadership and supporters think the cuts should have been spread equally across opera and classical artforms. But what they forget – or may not know – is that when ACE previously tried to implement wide-ranging cuts the backlash was so great that they were forced into an embarrassing climbdown.

This time, any reversal by ACE – or more likely DCMS – would send a chilling message not only to our sector but to society at large. That Black and Brown arts and culture don’t matter. We cannot build an equitable society on the basis that some think they are so exceptional they deserve a disproportionate share of limited resources by right. There is one arts sector with finite resources which we all must share. No one artform has a right to more than another. 

On any rational measure – be it the outputs of ENO v 25 Black- and Brown-led organisations, or the level of funding for classical and opera – a reversal of ACE’s decision makes no sense. It only makes sense if you think opera and classical artforms are exceptional.

 

Who are we and what do we stand for?

Exceptionalism was the original seed of racism. It was the rationale that allowed wealth to be transferred (or stolen) and kept by those with power. Such entrenched inequity (as any reversal would be) is the embodiment of systemic racism which poses such an existential threat to our society. Access to culturally relevant art is a human right; access to a fair proportion of our tax pound which goes to support the arts is our democratic right.  

ACE must not only maintain the cuts to the major arts institutions – including classical music and opera – but also continue to reallocate funds more equitably, given the huge inequity which remains. Not to continue this redistribution it has started would be to undermine the principles we champion as a country, as a democracy and as basic human rights

Those who oppose the cuts talk of cultural vandalism but any reinstatement of funding to classical music and opera and other traditional artforms, given the make-up of today’s society compared to 75 years ago when ACE was founded, would be social vandalism. It would constitute reinstatement of the increasingly deep fractures in our society.  

We are calling on all of those who believe in a more racially and geographically equitable funding system to make our voices heard by signing this petition. Now is the time to show who we are and what we stand for as a sector and a country. If we fail now, we risk losing the gains that ACE have given us and lose the opportunity – for at least another generation -to achieve a fair funding system in the UK. 

 

*We recognise the diversity of individual identities and lived experiences and understand that Black and Brown are imperfect terms that do not fully capture the racial, cultural and ethnic identities of people that experience structural and systematic inequality.

 

This article was first published in Arts Professional.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Wider systemic injustices

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360

I don’t hate the Arts Council (article)

I don’t hate the Arts Council (article)

Through almost monthly blogs, articles and talks on social media over the last two years, I have sought to highlight how Arts Council England (ACE) has consistently failed to achieve racial equity in its distribution of funding. This might be considered slightly obsessive, or as a personal attack based on acrimony. But that isn’t the case.

ACE is an organisation which fascinates me. It seems to be continuously on the brink of transformation around inclusivity, but it never quite makes the leap. From the side lines, I’ve been willing it to make the changes necessary for it to continue to be relevant in the 21st century.

But as they say, ‘it’s the hope that kills you’. But it is ‘hope’. And that doesn’t come from animosity but from a place of relationship. I have a strong, but complex bond with ACE.

A strange relationship

Having initially funded my first project Tribal Tree, they then withdrew funding 7 years later despite the project’s obvious successes. The funding was reallocated to support the redevelopment of the Roundhouse, located just across the road from our building.

I was crushed and unsure what my next career move would be. But it was ACE again, a year later, that sponsored my place on the Clore Leadership Programme. That led to my next project MeWe360 that ACE helped launch with an initial investment of £1m. And eight years later came Create Equity, whose early development ACE also funded.

Having been the cause of an existential trauma, ACE was then a key part of my recovery and growth as a social entrepreneur. But it was also part of my growth as an activist. While at Clore, I carried out research on race, power and identity. That research – a personal enquiry – drives my current thinking on structural inequalities and my motivation to do something about it.

ACE has created this beast that hounds them and continues (at least for now) to fund my projects. It’s a strange relationship: with one hand I gratefully receive its support while with the other I write regular critiques on its inability to fund in a racially equitable way.

Why do I seemingly bite the hand that feeds me? Why not just take the money and be quiet?

Silence, power and racism

My silence would be tantamount to being racist; endorsing a system I know to be racially inequitable for my own benefit.

ACE is the largest funder of the arts in the UK by a long way, with more funding than the other major arts funders combined. Its dominant position means that as well as distributing its own budget (c.£943m in21/22) it exerts considerable influence on how other funders distribute their grants as they regularly support organisations in receipt of ACE funding.

ACE’s scale and ‘financial pull’ means that were it to distribute its funding equitably, a likely outcome would be that all arts funding would become more racially equitable. But the major block is that currently ACE is not able to distribute funding in a racially equitable way. After fulfilling its obligation to fund the major museums, galleries and theatres, it has insufficient money left to do so.

90% of ACE funding is allocated to incumbent institutions. Even if the remaining 10% were diverted to BAME-led organisations, ACE would still not achieve racially equitable funding. This is what I call ‘incumbency bias’ and is not necessarily a problem in itself. My challenge is that ACE remains silent on incumbency bias.

Ibram X. Kendi’s work on anti-racism provides a frame on which to position such organisational silence. To be an anti-racist organisation you must act when faced with processes and procedures that deliver inequitable outcomes. According to Kendi, the act of naming systemic inequalities – simply talking about them – is in itself an anti-racist act.

Silence, he says, is the opposite. ACE’s silence makes it complicit in maintaining a racist system. My almost singular focus on ACE over the last two years is not because they are the only holders of silence, but because they are by far the most powerful.

If I were to remain silent (or inactive) in the face of ACE’s inability or refusal to fund equitably, I would also be complicit. Such silence, according to Kendi, would also be a racist act. Uncomfortable as it is, and I sit far from comfortably when writing these articles, there is no hiding place for ACE, or for me, when it comes to taking an anti-racist position.

Champions of a better system

I am a product – at least in part – of ACE’s various funding programmes over the last 25 years. I could reasonably be considered its poster child; one of its too few racial diversity success stories. But to remain silent would be to abandon all the learning and leadership that ACE has enabled over the past 25 years; it would be to waste the money they have invested in me.

Racial inequity cannot be allowed to stand simply through our complicity or silence. It must be challenged. In this sense, we who call for a fair distribution of ACE funds, who point to its policies and practices that prevent it, who suggest possible solutions, should be seen not as ‘haters’ of ACE but as champions of a better funding ecosystem, of which ACE is a major part.

In the upcoming outcomes of its spending review (October 26th), ACE has another chance to reimagine what great arts organisations of the future might look like. And, just as importantly, who will get to build them.

ACE is on the brink of another opportunity to transform itself. My hope springs eternal – that this time it will distribute at least 7% of its NPO funding to racially diverse organisations and publicly commit to racially equitable funding (14.4%) by 2031. And if it genuinely can’t, then it should take responsibility, as the dominant arts funder in the UK, to say so and to cede some of its overwhelming power to others who can.

This article was first published in Arts Professional

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Wider systemic injustices

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360

Cost-of-living crisis: how will it impact diversity in the arts? (article)

Cost-of-living crisis: how will it impact diversity in the arts? (article)

A few weeks ago, I read an article on the crisis facing the arts which prompted me to think about what it might mean for diversity in our sector.

Once again, arts organisations are calling out for bailouts to support them through the ongoing energy crisis. But continuing with previous patterns of bailout will hinder long-term investment in the transition to a more innovative and diverse sector – a necessary transition if we are to weather future crises.

A bailout which preserves the status quo simply makes the sector more vulnerable to future health, political and economic shocks. As with the Covid emergency funding, limited resources need to stretch to meet the needs of the whole sector and choices have to be made about how finite funds are to be distributed.

Targeted support

Ursula von der Leyen (President of European Commission) recently called for help to be given to the most vulnerable people in Europe. The UK has taken a less progressive approach, with plans for blanket bailouts and tax cuts which will leave the richest households with twice as much financial support as the poorest households.

If this is repeated for companies, including arts organisations, this will leave the best funded organisations far better off than medium and grass roots arts organisations.

Those with the largest incomes typically spend a smaller proportion of their budgets on energy. Or they are more able to mitigate any impacts of rising energy costs through having better financial reserves and access to alternative sources of funding or having greater organisational capacity.

And the same is true for arts organisations. For example, Glyndebourne invested £1m in a wind turbine that paid for itself in six years. It now generates revenue by selling back energy to the main grid, reducing its net energy costs.

The Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester received a £4.3m government grant to help it decarbonise, including a water-source heat pump for its buildings and machinery. Hampshire Cultural Trust has used the same grant scheme to put solar panels on four of the museums it runs.

Size matters

Smaller organisations don’t usually have fundraising capacity to apply for anything other than current necessities, much less think about fundraising to futureproof themselves against unforeseen energy hikes or contributing to reducing climate change. They also don’t usually own their buildings and so are vulnerable to the ripple effects of the energy crisis, like rent increases.

As with personal households, the richest arts organisations can find the resources to adapt quickly and reap any economic benefits of early adaption. Without redistributive investment – rather than ‘preservative’ bailouts – the transition to a more ecologically friendly sector becomes an extension of the inbuilt biases of the current system. A further deepening of social inequality.

No one will have it easy; the choices are stark. But the social, environmental and economic crises we face demand long-term solutions not short-term fixes. We cannot continue to pile pressure on those least able to bear it to preserve a broken system.

Black- and Brown-led organisations more at risk

What will it mean for the (already unrepresentative) racial diversity of the sector? What if Black- and Brown-led arts organisations, who are statistically underfunded and more at risk of closure, succumb to this new crisis?

In each new crisis, there is a failure to address the question of whether we can afford to keep the same number of large incumbent arts institutions, especially in London. There is a failure to address whether we can continue to bail out the bricks and mortar venues. Particularly at a time when audiences are in decline and the technology revolution means audiences can increasingly find ways to consume arts and culture virtually.

Given finite funding, any energy or cost of living bailout for large arts institutions would be at the expense of diversity in almost all its aspects; fewer smaller venues, fewer Black- and Brown-led venues, fewer regional venues and less investment in online art platforms.

Growing the diversity of our sector (in all its dimensions), rather than preserving what is already there, we should be looking to what will make our sector thrive and be more resistant to future shocks like Covid, energy hikes and economic downturns.

If we dare to look hard enough, we see that each crisis highlights underlying inequalities in our system. As such, each could be an opportunity to change the fundamentals, not to simply maintain existing structures, which ultimately are unsustainable.

 

Article published in Arts Professional, 26th Sep 2022

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Wider systemic injustices

We Need To Talk About Race Kevin Osborne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360

Campaign for Arts Council England to Fund in a Racially Equitable by 2031 (5 LinkedIn posts)

Campaign for Arts Council England to Fund in a Racially Equitable by 2031 (5 LinkedIn posts)

WHY ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND MUST MAKE A STEP CHANGE IN ITS FUNDING TO BLACK AND BROWN ORGANISATIONS, STARTING THIS YEAR Kevin Osborne

WHY ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND MUST MAKE A STEP CHANGE IN ITS FUNDING TO BLACK AND BROWN ORGANISATIONS, STARTING THIS YEAR.

Published Wednesday 1st June, 2022 on LinkedIn

The war in Ukraine, the cost-of-living crisis, the Northern Ireland protocol, levelling up and partygate have pushed Black Lives Matter from the headlines. And the priority given to underlying racial inequalities – in education, criminal justice and the arts – has gone too. As some predicted, the pendulum is swinging back to the ‘old normal’.

In October 2022 the largest public funder of the arts (Arts Council England) will announce the successful applicants to its £1.64bn* National Portfolio funding programme. The funding of BAME** organisations within this scheme is currently at a shockingly low 2.4% (it should be 14% to be racially equitable).

Small incremental increases won’t be enough. Even if Arts Council England increased its funding to Black and Brown organisations at 2% above inflation in all future funding rounds, it would still take 140 years to achieve racially equitable funding. This is untenable. Equity delayed is equity denied.

We are calling on ACE to make a step change increase in funding to at least 7%. It has taken 75 years to achieve the current low level, so a rise to 7% in a single funding round would be a significant step to making racially equitable funding a reality.

These funding applications are being assessed now and decisions will be made by the autumn. So, we are running a social media campaign over the next 4 weeks to drive our aim to achieve equitable funding in the arts by 2031, starting with a significant increase this year.

* This figure has been updated from an estimated £1bn to the more accurate figure of £1.64bn of public and private grants that is spent on arts and culture each year.

** 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.

DIVERSITY AT THE QUEEN’S PLATINUM JUBILEE CONCERT – GOOD REPRESENTATION OR CYNICAL EXPLOITATION?

Published Wednesday 8th June, 2022 on LinkedIn

Black and Brown artists were over-represented at the platinum jubilee concert last weekend. These communities have an abundance of talent and, when called upon, are proud to contribute to national celebrations and cultural moments. These include the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2012 Olympics, the wedding of Meghan and Harry as well as the platinum jubilee concert. Seen by millions at home and billions abroad, these spectacles project the story we tell ourselves – one of an integrated, harmonious and diverse society.

But this isn’t the real story. The underlying contradictions are stark. Only 2.4% of Arts Council England‘s funding goes to BAME* organisations. If this level of investment had been reflected on the jubilee concert stages, Black and Brown performers would have barely been visible. While we are rolled out in large numbers to perform on a world stage, we’re almost invisible when it comes to funding at home.

As the Queen celebrates her platinum jubilee and ACE marks its 75-year reign, it’s time to validate – through an equitable funding system – the diverse culture we are happy to promulgate globally. If the cultural and artistic output of Black and Brown creatives is good enough for Queen and country, it must surely also deserve equitable investment.

In October this year, ACE will announce the successful applicants to its £1.64bn** National Portfolio funding programme. We are calling on them to make a step change increase in funding to BAME arts organisations, from a shockingly low 2.4%, to at least 7%. A rise to 7% or more in a single funding round would be a significant step to making racially equitable funding a reality in our lifetimes.

These funding applications are being assessed now and decisions will be made by the autumn. So, we are running a social media campaign throughout June to drive our aim to achieve equitable funding in the arts by 2031, starting with a significant increase this year. Make your voice heard and show your support by liking, sharing and commenting every Wednesday 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.

** This figure has been updated from an estimated £1bn to the more accurate figure of £1.64bn of public and private grants that is spent on arts and culture each year.

WHY ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND MUST REDUCE FUNDING TO WHITE-LED ARTS AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS Kevin Osborne

WHY ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND MUST REDUCE FUNDING TO WHITE-LED ARTS AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

Published Wednesday 15th June, 2022 on LinkedIn

Currently, 2.4% of  Arts Council England (ACE) funding goes to Black- and Brown-led organisations. This should be 14% to be in proportion to England’s BAME* population. In October 2022 Arts Council England will announce the successful applicants to its £1.64bn** National Portfolio funding programme.

To achieve a racially equitable distribution of grants under this scheme, ACE must take bold decisions and reduce funding to the larger White-led organisations in its portfolio.

These institutions continue to receive a disproportionate amount of the sector’s finite resources. As a result, equitable funding is denied to Black- and Brown-led organisations.

We call on the Arts Council leadership to take the decisions necessary to award a minimum of 7% of its grants to Black- and Brown-led organisations. It has taken 75 years to get to the current low level, so an increase to 7% in a single funding round would be a significant step.

ACE is making these funding decisions over the next few weeks. We are running a social media campaign each Wednesday to make the case for equitable funding. Make your voice heard and show your support by liking, sharing and commenting every Wednesday 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.

** This figure has been updated from an estimated £1bn to the more accurate figure of £1.64bn of public and private grants that is spent on arts and culture each year.

WHY WHITE LEADERS OF ENGLAND’S LARGE CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS SHOULD ACCEPT REDUCTIONS IN THEIR FUNDING FROM ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND Kevin Osborne

WHY WHITE LEADERS OF ENGLAND’S LARGE CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS SHOULD ACCEPT REDUCTIONS IN THEIR FUNDING FROM ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND

Published Wednesday 22nd June, 2022 on LinkedIn

We are familiar with the term climate justice – the idea that you can’t have a sustainable planet ecologically without a fair and just settlement for everyone.

In the same way, we can’t have a thriving arts sector without reflecting and respecting the racial diversity of our population. Not just in words but in the financial sacrifice necessary for equity and long-term sustainability.

So, while it is incumbent on Arts Council England to redistribute its funding, it is also the responsibility of the leaders of our large cultural institutions not to resist  the necessary reductions in their funding. To do so would not only be unjust but, in the case of many who shout for equity, hypocritical.

They cannot continue to consume a disproportionate amount of the sector’s financial resources while  at the same time talking of a need for financial equity.

We call on the White-led institutions who are funded by ACE to support our call for at least 7% of ACE £1.64bn* NPO fund to go to Black- and Brown-led organisations and to accept any cuts to the level of their funding with equanimity.

They need to put their words into action, to take an ethical stand, and act for the long-term benefit of the wider arts ecology – rather than the short-term self-interest of their own organisations.

ACE is making funding decisions now. We are running a social media campaign each Wednesday to make the case for equitable funding. Make your voice heard and show your support by liking, sharing and commenting every Wednesday on LinkedIn.

* This figure has been updated from an estimated £1bn to the more accurate figure of £1.64bn of public and private grants that is spent on arts and culture each year.

WHY THE Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) SHOULD SET Arts Council England (ACE) TARGETS FOR RACIALLY EQUITABLE FUNDING AND IF IT FAILS TO, WHY ACE SHOULD SET TARGETS THEMSELVES Kevin Osborne

WHY THE DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT (DCMS) SHOULD SET ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND (ACE) TARGETS FOR RACIALLY EQUITABLE FUNDING AND IF IT FAILS TO, WHY ACE SHOULD SET TARGETS THEMSELVES.

Published Wednesday 29th June, 2022 on LinkedIn

To date there has been no real transparency or accountability by ACE on the woeful underfunding of Black- and Brown-led organisations. Despite repeated promises and initiatives for change, investment has remained stubbornly at about 2.4% or less for 75 years. It should be 14% to be equitable.

We tend to measure what matters. And for today’s government, the Levelling Up agenda matters. So, the DCMS has instructed ACE in this next funding settlement to help deliver that agenda. It has set specific financial targets, named specific places and given dates for delivering geographic equity. It must do the same for racial equity.

If DCMS won’t do this, then ACE should demonstrate its commitment to fairer funding and set its own targets for achieving racial equity in a reasonable timeframe. 75 years is a long wait for equity in the arts.

In October 2022 ACE will announce the successful applicants to its £1.64bn* National Portfolio funding programme. We are calling on them to set a target of at least 7% of grants from this scheme to go to Black- and Brown-led organisations – and to measure and publish its performance against these targets. It has taken 75 years to get to the current low level so an increase to 7% in a single funding round would be a significant step to making racially equitable funding a reality.

ACE is making funding decisions now. We are running a social media campaign each Wednesday to make the case for equitable funding. Make your voice heard and show your support by liking, sharing and commenting every Wednesday on LinkedIn.

* This figure has been updated from an estimated £1bn to the more accurate figure of £1.64bn of public and private grants that is spent on arts and culture each year.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Wider systemic injustices

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360