and reducing the dependence of museums on government funding (DCMS 2011, 4). Cameron also claims a vision for greater citizen engagement in government, calling for a “Big Society” where citizens have a greater say in what and how public services are delivered. Ultimately this goes beyond the volunteerism that is already essential to many museums. In acknowledging that GDP is an “incomplete way” of measuring the country’s progress, current Prime Minister Cameron charged the Office of National Statistics to develop measures around well-being and life satisfaction to inform social and economic policy:
From April next year we will start measuring our progress as a country not just by how our economy is growing, but by how our lives are improving; not just by our standard of living, but by our quality of life (Cameron 2010).
The indicators were due to be announced in late 2011, but museums have begun to lobby for public participation in museums to be acknowledged as contributing to national happiness (Thompson et al. 2011).
Other than continuing reports of serious budget cuts, the main focus of discussion over the winter of 2011/12 was how the Arts Council would assimilate Renaissance funding into its existing programs and who would benefit from it. Arts Council England (ACE) agreed that Renaissance would retain its own identity for the short term but that fewer museums would be funded directly. In effect the Hub system was dismantled and museums were invited to apply for direct funding under the new regime. Sixteen museums were duly accepted as “major partner museums” (there had been 42 Hub museums) on the basis of criteria allegedly about excellence. There were relatively few surprises; Sheffield Museums Trust lost out and the East Midlands “region” is unrepresented. (Regionalism is once again out of favor with Conservative-led governments.)
On the whole, the museums sector seems to have accepted the slimming down of the regional English premier league. Those who lost out have had the pill sweetened by the offer of transitional funding (for one year) to help them scale down, and sector favorites, the Museum Development Officers,3 have survived while a Strategic Support Fund is going to be available for all English regional museums to bid into. It is too early to say anything sensible about culture change within ACE, which is bound to find it difficult to remain unchanged if it is to successfully bring museums into the fold (not to mention libraries). In March 2012 the government announced that the much respected Liz Forgan was not going to be offered another term as Chair of ACE. Forgan had been appointed under New Labour and was strongly associated with them, but she had also served at Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and had a good understanding of museums. The government talked of the future challenges of philanthropy and technological change, raising the specter of Forgan being succeeded by a digital entrepreneur rather than someone who can relate to arts and museums. In the event, she was succeeded on January 31, 2013 by Sir Peter Bazalgette, formerly creative director of Endemol, the company behind the television series Big Brother.
Case study 1: The Heritage Lottery Fund
Intentions
As part of the development of the National Lottery, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) was set up by the National Lottery Act 1993 to give grants to a wide range of projects involving the local, regional, and national heritage of the United Kingdom. The HLF distributes a share (determined by the government, currently 18 percent) of the money raised by the National Lottery for “good causes.” The trustees currently have three core aims for HLF, which define in broad terms how they are trying to improve quality of life through the heritage. These are to:
conserve the UK’s diverse heritage for present and future generations to experience and enjoy;
help more people, and a wider range of people, to take an active part in and make decisions about their heritage;
help people to learn about their own and other people’s heritage.
At the beginning there was a reluctance to either define “heritage” or lay out clear aims and objectives. Its emphasis focused on conservation, and particularly the conservation of historic buildings and their contents. But in addition to eventually agreeing on these aims – which are as good a summary of New Labour policy toward the heritage as you are likely to find – the government issues HLF with policy directions under the 1993 Act. The current directions took effect in 2008. As before, these are matters “to be taken into account” when distributing money.4 They include:
asking HLF to assess the needs of the heritage when deciding upon priorities;
involving the public in making policies, setting priorities, and distributing money;
increasing access and participation;
inspiring children and young people;
fostering initiatives that bring people together;
supporting and encouraging volunteering;
encouraging skills development; and
reducing economic and social deprivation.
The HLF has to report back to government on these policy directions, detailing how they are addressing them, evidenced by statistics where applicable. A brief summary of HLF responses may be found in the HLF Annual Reports.
Administration and delivery mechanisms
HLF is administered by the Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF), the fund of last resort for the UK’s heritage, coming to the rescue by funding emergency acquisitions. NHMF allocates around £10 million of government grant-in-aid money per year to our national heritage. But since it first allocated grants in 1995, HLF has had far greater impact on museums and galleries than its parent body. It has distributed about £1.3 billion in capital and revenue grants, which have touched the majority of accredited museums, enabling them to invest in buildings, renew their displays, and develop new or improved educational and outreach programs.
Achieving a careful balance between income, awards, and commitments is a constant source of concern for HLF. Table 3.1 shows how even over a short period (five years) it is impossible to assume stability. Trustees can make awards in a year greater than one year’s income, because they have held back funds in the bank. The sudden fall in awards in 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 is mostly explained by developing a new system of assessing applications in two rounds: Round One passes are not committed awards and therefore do not count. The figure will rise again in 2010/2011 because most of the projects passed at Round One will by then have passed Round Two and will have been awarded a grant.
TABLE 3.1 Heritage Lottery Fund financial and staffing profile 2005/6–2009/10
| Financial year | Trustees’ awards (£m) | Income from National Lottery (£m) | NLDF investment income (£m) | Total income (£m) | Average number of employees |
