Part Three
Findings
In Part 3, we set out some of the main findings emerging from the open policy development programme so far. They bring together and summarise what we’ve discovered through an extensive period of research and insight gathering spanning the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem in all regions and nations of the UK.
General Findings
Appetite for more localised decision-making is a UK wide phenomenon – but it’s complicated and underexplored.
After a year of evidence gathering, we have amassed enough evidence to assert that increased local decision-making is a shared ambition in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It appears that this ambition is particularly pronounced when it comes to decision-making associated with the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem. This is because of the importance that stakeholders, including the public, place on the ecosystem to deliver economic growth on the one hand, and the personal and community benefits on the other.
However, many of the social, economic and governance systems that currently characterise the UK – including variations in approaches between and within regions and nations – can make it difficult for significant decision-making to be coordinated in local and regional contexts.
We did encounter many examples of innovative work to bring the public into decision-making associated with the ecosystem along the way and these have informed our own policy thinking.
This “policy patchwork” is perhaps one of the reasons why more localised control over the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem is underexplored at present – particularly with regards to involving the public in local agenda setting and spending decisions related to culture and creativity.
We observe a distinct lack of regional or pan-regional decision-making infrastructures associated with our ecosystem within all four nations – even in England where devolution is extending to combined authorities and other bodies that have more of wider regional footprint.
Whilst opinions may differ on the extent to which ‘devolution’ should be rolled out to achieve increased local decision-making, most stakeholder groups we spoke to agree that the UK is an overly-centralised decision-making nation generally.
Evidence
All evidence
UK wide collaborations bring benefits – and there is significant potential for more
External stakeholders shared many examples of working successfully with their counterparts in other UK nations. Whilst decision-making and policy regimes may differ considerably in each, the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem extends across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Decisions making made in one can have a material impact in another.
Political level relations between the four UK nations are recognised as having been under strain at times in recent years. The rigid approach that politicians can often apply to the demarcation of their boundaries and jurisdiction seems to be at odds with the borderless way in which stakeholders within the ecosystem operate on a day-to-day basis.
We found that this open policy development programme was a ‘first of its kind’ in terms of bringing the whole ecosystem together for an open and transparent programme underpinned by a mission to co-design devolution policy. New working connections and networks have been made, knowledge, perspectives and approaches have been shared and consideration is now being given to more four nations activity for many.
It was widely felt that this programme should continue to run into the future to ensure that the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem is well-positioned in national dialogues about devolution.
Evidence
All evidence
Regional imbalances in ecosystem investments are universally recognised – and ‘local decision-making’ is offering hope.
One of the most frequent reflections expressed by all stakeholder groups across this programme was an acknowledgement that investment in the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem doesn’t seem to work for all regions and nations of the UK.
This is often associated with a feeling that the wealth being generated by the creative industries (often understood to be the ‘growth sectors’ of the ecosystem) is not being distributed appropriately and that opportunities are therefore not available to everyone.
Many within the ecosystem make a direct connection between the level of infrastructure and capacity in a place already and the ability of that place to draw in future investment. Areas with historically low levels of investment can seem to be trapped in a downward spiral that is felt to be difficult to shift without a different approach to funding.
Arms length bodies and grant-giving bodies in particular see these regional imbalances because of the role they are increasingly being asked to play in “plugging the gaps” that emerge in areas where state and local government funding is declining.
Evidence
Insight Paper – Local cultural decision making in ‘left-behind areas’.
Insight Paper – Arm’s Length Bodies in a devolved policy landscape
Insight Paper: Grant Giving Bodies in an increasingly devolved policy landscape
Insight Paper: Devolution: perspectives from the UK’s creative industries
The creative, cultural and heritage sectors are tightly woven.
We continue to surface evidence of the deeply interwoven and connected nature of the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem, which we tend to see manifesting through discrete and focused issues.
It is perhaps most strongly seen when exploring the conditions that face the creative, cultural and heritage workforce. This includes how the freelance, self-employed and atypical workers move across DCMS subsectors to sustain and evolve their practices and careers. It is also made visible in the skills and career pathways of creative practitioners who cite their lifelong engagement with local cultural, creative and heritage institutions, as vital incubators in their practices and skill development.
In speaking to creative, cultural and heritage organisations across the four nations of the UK, we’ve heard evidence of the complicated web of supply chain funding required to sustain and expand operations: drawing from public grant sources and private and third sector operating models.
We’ve seen different opinions of how and why ‘culture’ is valued locally, with local authority officers and members sharing their perceptions of the wide range of socio, economic (and even environmental) outcomes investment in the portfolios deliver – from health and wellbeing, to tourism and local economy (see below). We also heard an expansive range of definitions of ‘culture’ that the public use to describe ecosystem activities that far surpasses the DCMS SIC/SOC code classifications.
Furthermore, by exploring focused place-based case studies with our research teams, we have begun to unearth the intricate knowledge systems and structures that develop around the creative, cultural and heritage sectors in specific regions. These incude the variety of agents that support the thriving and functioning of creative, cultural and heritage programmes and institutions– ranging from flagship institutions, the grassroot sectors, to the voluntary and community-led.
Evidence
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectorsin Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Research Paper: The future of local cultural decision making: Jack Shaw, Eliza Eaton, Trevor MacFarlane
Decision-Making
Culture, creativity and heritage is valued by local authorities – but increasingly an as ‘enabler’ for wider priorities.
Shifting political and executive perspectives on ‘the value of culture’ within local authorities, changes the way in which service delivery manifests.
We found that our sectors do not have a consistent home within local authority structures – often separated into their component parts across a local authorities’ own strategic priorities and departments.
Overall, we found that the ‘culture’ brief can be housed either within ‘tourism and events’ or increasingly, ‘health and wellbeing’ directorates. Frequently the creative industries are described as separated out from the culture and heritage brief – and increasingly positioned as part of ‘economy’ or ‘innovation’ teams.
Council officers who do remain part of a standalone ‘culture’ team (usually where councils still operated venues directly), raised concerns about a sense of isolation and inability to connect in with other functions of the local authority.
Teams clustered within ‘health and wellbeing’ or ‘tourism and the economy’ shared that the cross-cutting benefits of culture were increasingly understood by other parts of the local authority. However, most officers raised concerns that the “intrinsic value” of culture was being lost, seeing culture used as a tool to achieve other policy priorities as opposed to being a priority in its own right.
This may be being compounded by the ways in which national governments position the ecosystem in their strategies too. For example, Scottish Government declare culture a cross cutting enabler for a wide number of objectives and the Welsh Government have set culture as one of their ‘seven wellbeing goals’ within the Future Generations Framework.
It would appear that there is a prevailing trend amongst local authorities to position culture as a means to end – rather than a means in itself.
Evidence
Insight Paper: The view local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Local councils are still seen as ‘anchors’ for culture, creativity and heritage
Despite the difficult fiscal landscape, local authorities are still collectively the largest investors in the UK’s creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem.
We’ve gathered a lot of evidence to suggest that local authorities are still playing a critical role in supporting healthy ecosystems in many areas. For example, meaningful relationships built on trust and developed over time are leading to more opportunities and nuanced support for sector organisations, in some cases. These relationships are reported to have been particularly important in times of great difficulty, for example during the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent cost of living crisis.
In all four nations, local authorities are developing a growing appreciation of the role that the ecosystem can play in urban regeneration, even if some areas are not able to act on this in the short-term.
The degree to which local authorities are felt to be anchors for the ecosystem varies considerably from place to place. We observe this most obviously when engaging with core city, city or heavily urbanised areas. Other types of places – including rural, semi-rural and coastal areas – see this potential but seem to struggle to connect the ecosystem up with local governance structures in quite the same way.
A lack of a sitting Executive in Northern Ireland has meant that local authorities have had to “step up” and build confidence amongst a struggling ecosystem. Belfast City Council, for example, implemented a multi-year grant fund for core cultural organisations in the area despite a challenging fiscal landscape.
In focus groups with the public, people instinctively identified their local council as the primary decision-making body associated with the ecosystem. Not only this, the public told us that they see the local authority as being the most appropriate tier of government to make such decisions in the future – as opposed to the regional or national levels. This tells us something important about the role that local authorities will be expected to play as devolution evolves, particularly in areas where regional decision-making infrastructures are developing.
Arm’s-length bodies in each of the four nations have invariably told us that they see local authorities as key stakeholders in place. Indeed, most have formal or semi-formal agreements with local authorities (and their representative associations) in the nations they operate within.
Arm’s-length bodies are already working very closely with local governments in a variety of ways, and see local government as “co-investors” in place-based projects. A lot of arm’s-length bodies have explicitly developed place-orientated programmes and investments which usually, though not always, involve local authorities to some degree and, in some cases, explicitly target areas with historically low levels of investment (from multiple sources) into the ecosystem.
The impact of austerity policies on the ability of local authorities to engage with the ecosystem, is not lost on arm’s-length bodies or grant giving bodies. Some senior representatives we spoke to from arm’s-length bodies are more confident with more local and regional decision-making, whilst others are not sure that local governments are ready to take on more responsibilities at the present time. However, a lack of ecosystem awareness, expertise and decision-making capacity in some local authorities, is an ongoing concern for some arm’s-length bodies who have a duty to invest public money wisely.
The grant giving bodies we spoke to have been clear that they do not see it as their place to “plug the gaps” left behind by state and local government investments in the ecosystem. This is not least because their resources would not stretch nearly far enough to support all local authorities, or even those at most risk.
Evidence
Insight Paper – Arm’s Length Bodies in a devolved policy landscape
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Insight Paper: The view local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales sectors
Creative, cultural and heritage services vary from place to place
The creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem is valued differently from local authority to local authority, and the services and functions that local authorities deliver vary considerably too. The regional disparities we see in non-statutory services associated with the ecosystem can be particularly stark.
Many local authorities are still managing venues and assets in-house and providing much needed grant funding and support to ecosystem stakeholders in their areas – from creative industry firms to grassroots cultural organisations. Others still are playing a vital role in co-commissioning large-scale culture-led regeneration projects and delivering programmes to support freelance, self-employed and the atypical workforce.
In Scotland, arm’s-length executive organisations (ALEOs) are taking on more responsibilities for managing the day-to-day delivery of ecosystem provision, seeing local authorities playing more of a governance role.
In England, we also see the rise of the cultural trust model that can be viewed as a strategic necessity by some, and an “outsourcing” of responsibilities for other. The services that these kinds of models deliver seem to vary considerably across culture, creativity, leisure, and sport services, depending on where they are based and the budgets they receive from their sponsoring local authority.
At the other end of the spectrum, some local authorities are simply unable to successfully marshal the ecosystem, usually put down to a lack of expertise, resource and time. In historically underinvested in areas, officers and the public alike can feel like the likelihood of seeing change is limited, without a concerted intervention from the national level.
As set out under our findings on funding later, a crisis in local government finances overall, means that many local authorities are simply having to re-appraise what non-statutory services they can feasibly deliver, causing significant concern for the public and sectors alike.
In both well served and under-served areas, there are, of course, examples of talented local authority officers and sector leaders attracting national attention and repositioning their areas as good places to invest. However, this is not felt to be a sustainable way of local authorities attracting the resources they need to deliver creative, cultural and heritage services.
Evidence
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Insight Paper: The view from the Creative workforce in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland
Arm’s length bodies have critical expertise and institutional knowledge
Stakeholders across the ecosystem, particularly cultural and heritage organisations, have indicated that arm’s-length bodies sponsored by DCMS are fundamental to the health of the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem.
Arm’s-length bodies are felt to have long-term institutional knowledge about how the ecosystem operates and how policies in this space have evolved over time. Sector stakeholders in particular, and local governments with good links to arm’s-length bodies, have stressed how keen they are to ensure that this institutional knowledge is used to best affect as devolution extends.
International representatives we spoke to in roundtables, provided us with a helpful reminder about how exceptional our arm’s-length bodies (in all four UK nations) really are.
Furthermore, we have amassed evidence to suggest that ‘whole place’ style project grants and programmes led by arm’s-length bodies are delivering essential investments and a knowledge ‘crowd-in’ that can provide a local ecosystem with much needed support.
Many stakeholders share a concern that the strategic national level knowledge and expertise sitting within arm’s-length bodies cannot be easily replicated in local government contexts, particularly in areas where finances are under strain.
Others propose that this sectoral expertise will never be developed in local or regional government unless national arm’s-length bodies, and local and regional government work together to build new localised decision-making infrastructures.
Evidence
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Insight Paper: Devolution: perspectives from the UK’s Creative Industries
Insight Paper: International approaches to local cultural decision making
There is clear appetite for increased regional collaboration
Local council officers express a real desire to work in complementary, rather than competitive, ways with other local authorities in their region.
Officers tell us that taking a strengths-based and coordinated approach to particular subsectors in their region, as well as building the confidence to step back from investments that do not necessarily play to their strengths, could be transformation for their regions. The potential for ‘economies of scale’ to be achieved also appears to be a rationale for regional working, particularly when this is linked to community wealth building (which would see procurement being regionally focused).
Local councils in England who sit within combined authority areas report the ‘value add’ of having an ‘upper tier’ of governance. This includes, in some areas, the presence of a specialist combined authority team that can connect cultural officers across a region together, set direction for regional approaches, advocate for their region at a national level and leverage additional funding from national pots to support their local work.
At the regional government level in England, we’ve seen examples of combined authorities coordinating cross-cutting strategies that span wider than local areas, to join together the unique strengths of local authorities into a larger regional ‘offer’. It is felt that the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem could feasibly play a role in new strategies in future – particularly when it comes to developing a clear regional ‘story’ or ‘brand’.
The development of combined authority Local Growth Plans – linked to the UK Government’s Industrial Strategy efforts – are seen as a particular mechanism of interest given that the ‘creative industries’ are identified as a priority growth sector. In some regions, combined authorities are already responding to evolving business models associated with the ecosystem by developing specialist support mechanisms that connect firms up across a larger spatial scale.
Regional level decision makers are demonstrating that they can build programmes that address cross-cutting policy priorities in ways that can overcome siloed working amongst departments within local authorities. This could dock-in nicely with the UK Government’s ‘mission-driven’ approach, if such approaches were to be applied at the local level.
Pan-regional approaches that aim to connect and incubate the ecosystem over wider than regional geographies are of interest to the sector, but significant questions remain about how they should be established and who would/would not be included in decision-making associated with them.
Scotland and Wales appear to be significantly more mature in their regional strategy development capabilities; with initiatives like Regional Economic Partnerships (Scotland) and Corporate Joint Committees (Wales) integrating economic, transport and infrastructure strategy over greater than local areas. City Growth Deals (which featured in the UK Government’s Budget of 2024) have led to new governance structures designed to deliver significant levels of regional investment.
Yet, it appears that the creative, culture and heritage ecosystem does not, in the main, feature in these structures. This means that there is not a unified or consistent leadership for regional working for the ecosystem in the devolved nations. Local governments in the devolved nations have been clear with us that their own ‘KPIs’ mean that they are often focused on their local agendas and that there is currently nothing that incentivises cross regional working.
Evidence
Insight Paper: What do we mean by local decision making?
Insight Paper: Pan-regional cultural decision making
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales sectors
Confidence is growing amongst some combined authorities to take on new powers and responsibilities.
Combined authorities already have powers across a range of policy areas such as transport, housing, skills and infrastructure, depending on the ‘level’ of devolution deal they have in place with the UK Government.
Some combined authorities are now looking to take on further decision-making powers over spend that is currently channelled through UK Government and arm’s-length bodies into their areas. The exact way in which these new powers might work is now being explored in detail by several combined authorities.
Combined authorities foresee several risks and opportunities of taking on new powers associated with the ecosystem. Almost all combined authorities we have spoken to feel that their powers will almost certainly be extended over time – a view that is informed by the trajectory of devolution and the clear emphasis the new UK Government has placed on devolution (e.g. with the imminent arrival of the English Devolution Bill).
Combined authorities that are considering new powers think that any such deal around spending associated with the ecosystem would have to be well timed and backed up with a level of resource and expertise to make it possible to distribute appropriately.
Of course, other combined authorities are instead focusing on developing a strategic convening role for the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem in their region, working with closely with national arm’s-length bodies at a regional scale, while cultivating local level relationships via their constituent local authorities.
Regardless of a combined authority’s individual position on ‘cultural devolution’, it is clear that conversations around the handing over of powers from arm’s-length bodies to combined authorities in England, are taking a significant step up – in part through the work of this programme and its partners.
Evidence
Arm’s-length bodies continue work in place-specific ways but regional approaches are still in their infancy.
Arm’s-length bodies across the four nations told us how they have been working in place-conscious ways for some time. Senior representatives we spoke to outlined the many ways in which these interventions have been supporting places to build up their ecosystems and, in some cases, promote cultural democracy.
However, there has been a self-reported increase in the focus that arm’s-length bodies are giving to place-first investments and programmes. This is, in part, explained as being a response to evolving policy priorities and the political environment set at the national level.
Arm’s-length bodies across the four nations recognise that regional working is underdeveloped or has been rolled back, when compared to previous governance arrangements. They also recognise that funding remains unevenly distributed (at least on a per head basis) across the regions and nations.
Arm’s-length bodies in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales shared that they felt connected to ‘local communities’ because of the relatively manageable size in terms of geography and population. There is however, criticism from wider sector and local authority stakeholders, that funding remains disproportionate across the nations.
Arm’s-length bodies in England have been trialling ‘one-stop-shop’ models that bring multiple agencies together to make it easier for local authorities to understand what support is available to them. Furthermore, Arts Council England have made attempts to identify and address historically underinvested areas through their ‘Priority Places’ work.
While emerging services agreements between arm’s-length bodies and trailblazer combined authorities are being trialled, there is still a sense that we are in ‘unchartered waters’ when it comes to how arm’s-length bodies in England will adapt to increasingly devolved decision-making with metro mayors at a regional level.
Evidence
Insight Paper: Arm’s Length Bodies in a devolved policy landscape
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales sectors
Models of place-based ecosystem governance are developing but they lack long-term investment.
Innovative governance initiatives at both regional and local levels (e.g. Cultural Leadership Boards, Cultural Compacts) are connecting the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem to each other and wider stakeholders within place – including private sector partners.
We’ve heard how such partnerships are proving vital in linking together multi-stakeholders or agents from different sectors, to develop shared programmes and projects that tackle pervasive problems and work together towards shared local policy priorities.
However, there are varying views on precisely what their formal ‘decision-making’ role might be; no long-term plan for their continued existence; and a lack of representation from wider civil society, smaller organisations, workforce representatives and the public.
Cultural Compacts are building innovative cross-sector collaborations in place, including with the private sector, to develop shared approaches to support the sectors. Their decision-making functions vary from place to place. Some are leading the development of cultural strategies that get picked up by local authorities, whilst others are aiding a free flow of information within the sector.
Bespoke local council-led initiatives are engaging key sector stakeholders (such as local universities, creative firms and national portfolios and their equivalents), in governance and networking groups that are designed to promote join-up across the ecosystem in their area and provide a platform for the council to consult.
While we have identified a strong appetite for more connected governance mechanisms, as of yet, there is little vision about how these structures might be sustainably funded or how they can be made more inclusive – for example, to grassroots organisations and the freelance workforce in an area.
Evidence
Insight Paper: How are property developers supporting local culture decision making?
Insight Paper: The role of cultural strategies in local cultural decision making
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales sectors
Insight Paper: The view from the Creative Workforce in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland
The UK lags behind in understanding local cultural decision-making and governance.
In an international roundtable convened with British Council, we convened sector bodies operating in more devolved policy landscapes around the world.
By comparison, the four UK nations lag far behind many global counterparts when it comes to coordinating cultural decision-making across local, regional and national governance.
However, our international colleagues also shared that the further empowerment of local communities to be able to be more engaged in local cultural decision-making is also an area of interest to them.
Many of the roundtable contributors welcomed the opportunity to convene and share their experience of local cultural decision-making with comparable and non-comparable nations, and there was a clear ambition to continue this conversation from here.
There is a generalised anxiety about local accountability.
Stakeholders across the ecosystem have communicated a concern that, where decision-making associated with the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem be entirely devolved to local areas, there would likely be very few formal accountability measures in place to protect it.
Sector organisations, and even local authority officers themselves, told us that investment in culture, creativity and heritage is likely to be difficult for some local authorities to make, if the current economic climate were to persist. Without a statutory requirement for creative, cultural and heritage services (save for libraries), local leaders are not always trusted to make decisions that will work well for the ecosystem itself.
Some stakeholders point to the potential for decision-making to be inappropriately politicised by bad faith actors who may use new localised decision-making platforms for their own ends. This appears to have been felt particularly acutely amongst members of the ecosystem workforce with protected characteristics, as well as leaders of organisations who work with underrepresented and underserved groups.
Evidence
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales sectors
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales?
Clear and joined-up leadership is crucial for growing local creative, cultural and heritage ecosystems.
High quality leadership has been often cited as an important ingredient in successful local ecosystem development.
The likelihood of an areas to be involved in programmes like City of Culture, develop a cultural strategy or lead a major culture-led infrastructure project, looks to be heavily reliant on political and executive level leaders, who have gone out of their way to ‘back’ initiatives in their locality.
On the other hand, we have also found evidence that, where there is a lack of infrastructure (physical and non-physical), the leaders from within the sectors themselves have initiated and led projects ‘from below’ on behalf of a place, catalysing the interest and investment of bigger local actors and national bodies too.
What emerges is the importance of joined-up, inclusive local leadership that can convene interdisciplinary expertise, credibility, political capital and resource, to raise the profile of the ecosystem.
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales sectors
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales?
Insight Paper: How are property developers supporting local culture decision making?
Insight Paper: Local cultural decision making in ‘left-behind areas’
Culture-led place shaping
Cultural strategies and national cultural festivals are acting as catalysing tools for the development of local cultural capacity, but limited evidence of sustained change.
The development of local cultural strategies is acting as a catalyst for developing local ecosystem capacity. By this, we mean prompting local areas to: develop deeper understandings local, regional and national stakeholders; build new decision-making and governance platforms; design frameworks for data collection and infrastructure mapping; and act as a ‘focal’ point of consultation and engagement with local communities.
In examples shared by our research teams and programme partners, there appears to be a link between areas bidding for the City of Culture programme and the development of a clear cultural strategy with a focus on engagement with the public on local cultural decision-making.
Grant-giving bodies also told us that a clear cultural strategy or larger scale cultural programme of cultural activity in a local area can “give confidence” to philanthropists, which can lead to meaningful and longer-term investments in a place.
Belfast City Council’s cultural strategy is perhaps one of the strongest examples we came across, of the development of a strategic document both engaging the public in a conversation about the identity of their local area, as well as leading to longer-term ecosystem infrastructures. ‘Belfast Stories’ will now host the dialogue between the public in a permanent exhibition.
A clear potential for cultural strategies – but a focus on outputs rather than outcomes prevails.
We have observed an uptick in interest across local councils and sector partners in cultural strategy development across each of the UK’s four nations.
Research by the University of Southampton in 2023 confirms that in England, at time of writing, there were 147 cultural strategies and that the “…concentration of publications in the last three years from 2020-2022 provides evidence of the drive for places to have current cultural strategies”. 1
We’ve detected more places are developing cultural strategies in all four nations of the UK, including in some of the places represented in the partnership. Evidence suggests that cultural strategies are helping to unlock external investment, acting as catalysts for community dialogue and serving as a vehicle to bring forward more participatory methods of engagement.
However, the shape and content of cultural strategies varies considerably – in terms of scale, approach and who is instigating. Much of the content within cultural strategies focuses on broad ambitions and suggested outputs (including festivals and programmes) – with little focus on measured outcomes, monitoring or sustained engagement over the longer-term.
There is increased appetite for ‘culture-led regeneration’ schemes – but long-term plans for sustainable operation are lacking.
We have explored a number of culture-led capital regeneration schemes – including those initiated from the Cultural Development Fund (CDF) through to Levelling Up Fund schemes from within the programme partnership.
It is clear that the previous UK Government understood the contribution that such schemes could offer in terms of helping to regenerate local areas. Many developments incorporating cultural assets were supported in recent rounds of the Levelling Up Fund, for example.
However, the on-going sustainability of running these sites has often not been taken into account. The maintenance and success of new capital development programmes clearly requires longer-term resources to be made available if ongoing programming is to be made possible.
A lack of revenue resource with grants schemes means that the viability of large-scale capital projects associated with the ecosystem, are too often reliant on dedicated teams and individuals who are forced to find funds from many different pots and across multiple stakeholders.
Evidence
Insight Paper: Pan-regional cultural decision making
Research Paper: Dr Cara Courage, Professor Catherine Richardson, University of Kent, and Dr Lucrezia Gigante, Culture-led capital development programmes as sites of local decision making
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Insight Paper: How are property developers supporting local culture decision making?
Cultural regeneration schemes – particularly those with a heritage focus – are acting facilitators of public engagement.
We’ve seen exciting examples of capital redevelopment projects, involving the restoration of historic assets or within historic areas/neighbourhoods. These projects seem to be acting as powerful focal points that help convene and engage local communities in meaningful consultation.
We’ve heard how local authorities and universities have been collaborating with local and national partners to establish ‘Urban Rooms’ – physical locations that house ongoing conversations with the community about the past, present and future use of space, while encouraging built environment students to understand the role of development as a civic service.
However, there appears to be limits to the effectiveness of these approaches in terms of facilitating ‘decision-making’ (i.e. beyond consultation), the breadth of community members represented and the funding streams that could support such initiatives.
It is also clearly difficult to fund and sustain public engagement beyond life cycles of singular projects.
Evidence
Client Evaluation: University of Kent, New approaches to integrated place shaping
Research Paper: Dr Cara Courage, Professor Catherine Richardson, University of Kent, and Dr Lucrezia Gigante, Culture-led capital development programmes as sites of local decision making
Insight Paper: The role of cultural strategies in local cultural decision making
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Creative, cultural and heritage projects can be used as catalysts for integrated place shaping.
We find that interdisciplinary projects that draw in the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem, and particularly those involving the built environment, can act as focal points for significant integrated local cultural decision-making and place shaping.
We found examples where cultural practices, programmes and projects have opened up opportunities for collaboration between local planning authorities, higher education institutions, creative workforce and local communities.
Evidence
Research Paper: Dr Cara Courage, Professor Catherine Richardson, University of Kent, and Dr Lucrezia Gigante, Culture-led capital development programmes as sites of local decision making
Client Evaluation: University of Kent, New approaches to integrated place shaping
Property developers value creative, cultural and heritage infrastructures when building successful places and spaces.
It is clear to almost all stakeholders we spoke to that the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem is crucial to generating and sustaining vibrant local places and spaces.
The developers we engaged in this programme are clearly interested in playing a more collaborative role in developing cultural infrastructures with ecosystem stakeholders.
Multi-agency partnerships could help bridge the gap between capital and revenue funding.
While developers understand the power of the ecosystem in animating spaces and places, the land development process in the UK makes delivering creative, cultural and heritage infrastructures and achieving scheme viability difficult to balance.
A new approach to challenge the traditional ‘race to the bottom’ that characterises the land development process in the UK is needed to achieve this.
We’ve heard how ‘risk-sharing’ local partnership development vehicles, procurement reform, and ensuring arm’s-length bodies for the sectors are involved in project development could be key to developing better, sustainable schemes and outcomes – and enable genuine public participation from the outset.
Evidence
Insight Paper: How are property developers supporting local culture decision making?
Research Paper: Dr Cara Courage, Professor Catherine Richardson, University of Kent, and Dr Lucrezia Gigante, Culture-led capital development programmes as sites of local decision making
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales?
The creative, cultural and heritage sectors play an important role in generating local identity.
We see evidence that the creative, cultural and heritage sectors are helping support and negotiate local civic identity. Creative practices seem to engage a wider range of voices, enriching the narratives that shape diverse and pluralistic place identities.
Local authorities, combined authorities and local political leaders (including elected or prospective metro mayors) are leaning into the history, geography and landscape of local areas to develop local strategies and attempt to unite wider than local communities together. The creative, cultural and heritage sectors are also being positioned as key to forging new contemporary understandings of local identities.
In Scotland and Wales, we see a concerted effort to develop the Scots and Welsh language. In Northern Ireland, Belfast 2024 is hosting creative and cultural programming that is helping the city to explore its difficult recent history – with Little Amal making a poignant visit to a peace wall in West Belfast in May 2024.
In England, combined authorities are leaning into the history and culture of regions to re-establish regional identities that can be underdeveloped in parts England.
Evidence
Insight paper: How are property developers supporting local culture decision making?
Research Paper: Dr Cara Courage, Professor Catherine Richardson, University of Kent, and Dr Lucrezia Gigante, Culture-led capital development programmes as sites of local decision making
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales?
Funding
Local government capacity to deliver ‘in-house’ cultural services is under threat
We’ve seen evidence that funding reductions in local government budgets, which are said to be caused by ‘austerity policies’ and the economic climate, have meant:
- Outsourcing of services to third party bodies and contractors*
- Reducing or eliminating dedicated cultural officer positions
- Reducing engagement activities with the sector including grassroots and relationship development
- ‘Job title sentences’ – with the merging of portfolios (as above) and staff expected to take on more within their existing role
We heard that even if culture was listed as a priority by the council, strategic and/or political ambitions did not match up with the allocation of internal resources. This seems to be creating something of a delivery gap between local ambitions for culture and the ability of local government to deliver on them.
ALBs shared with us how this is impacting their internal funding decisions, where local authorities are increasingly seen as ‘risky stakeholders’ to invest in.
Furthermore, a lack of expertise and decision-making experience at the local and combined authority levels was seen as a real concern for arm’s-length bodies. Some are worried that local authorities are underprepared to receive additional funding.
The large number of arm’s-length bodies and grant giving bodies we spoke to explained that local government funding and capacity is vital to the work they do and were particularly concerned about a decline in the number of officers picking up these important portfolios.
*e.g. In Scotland, local authorities are increasingly discharging their services to ALEOs – usually constituted as charitable organisations – who are running cultural, heritage and leisure venues across Scotland.
Evidence
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Insight Paper: Grant-giving bodies in devolved policy landscape
Insight paper: Arm’s Length Bodies in a devolved policy landscape
Insight Paper: Pan-regional cultural decision making
Insight Paper: Views from the Independent Museum & Galleries sector on local cultural decision making
Insight Paper: Library service in an increasingly devolved policy landscape
Arm’s-length bodies are making crucial place-based investments – but can’t replace local authority funding.
Place-based programmes (e.g. Creative People and Places, The Place Partnership Programme, Heritage Action Zones, Culture Collective) are providing crucial support to develop innovative local approaches – including community-based participation and local partnership building – that simply would not be possible without the support of arm’s-length bodies.
However, arm’s-length bodies (and grant giving bodies) from all four UK nations were united in the view that they do not see it as their job to simply “…backfill local authority cuts”.
We’ve heard continued criticism about the distribution of funding by arm’s-length bodies across the four UK nations. Arm’s-length bodies in England are thought by some to be consistently overlooking ‘in-region disparities’, while the pre-existing agglomeration of national portfolio organisations is felt to reaffirm regional divides.
Evidence
Insight Paper: Arm’s Length Bodies in a devolved policy landscape
Insight Paper: How are property developers supporting local culture decision making?
Client Evaluation: University of Kent, New approaches to integrated place shaping
Insight Paper: Grant-giving bodies in devolved policy landscape
Insight Paper: The view from the Creative Workforce in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland
Project-based, competitive, short-term funding is causing burnout across the ecosystem.
Firms and the self-employed are increasingly having to bring in a mixture of commercial revenue, public funding and philanthropic support to cover core operating costs, whilst also pulling in grant funding to support their project work.
In our conversations with the creative, cultural and heritage sectors across the four nations, we repeatedly heard sentiments like “it shouldn’t be this hard”. Organisations and the workforce, including freelancers, have communicated a sense of “burn out” that makes it difficult for them to secure and deliver work.
A primary reason for this seems to be that arm’s-length body project grant-funding can be short-term and usually doesn’t cover core operating costs. The creative professionals we spoke to described the challenges of the current funding landscape, including the specialist skills required to put a high quality grant application together.
While freelancers and creative business are adapting to these challenges by adopting Community Interest Company and Co-Operative models, for example to access charitable rates relief, they feel that they still need to work incredibly hard to fit pieces of complex funding puzzle together.
Evidence
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Insight Paper: The view from the Creative Workforce in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland
Research Paper: Dr Vishalakshi Roy, University of Warwick
Competitive approaches to funding allocation appears to benefit well-resourced authorities.
Local authority officers described how bid writing required major investment from the council, reflecting on the vastly different criteria and scoring for applications and the resource intensive process for pitching ideas and preparing applications.
Many of them felt it was those authorities who were already well staffed that were successful in application writing, perpetuating a cycle that sees investments going to the well-established and better-resourced areas.
Furthermore, evidence form the Levelling Up Fund allocation has shown that some local authorities were not internally resourced to administer spending which has resulted in delays to fund draw down and project completion.
Evidence
Devolution: Perspectives from the UK’s Creative Industries
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Insight Paper: How are property developers supporting local culture decision making?
Funding streams can be asynchronistic and unfocused.
Stakeholders both accessing and distributing funding associated with the ecosystem, have told us that about the short-term nature of funding profiles and the disjointed approaches to different pots arriving into local areas.
Both local authorities and sector stakeholders reflected on the jigsaw puzzle of different funding pots across multiple agencies working to different timeframes.
All stakeholders, including funders themselves, reflected on how much further funding could go if you could align local spending pots and commit these for longer periods – therefore reducing waste and duplication.
All stakeholders we spoke to reflected on the need to ensure data driven and needs-based approaches to funding, ensuring that areas receive the right amount of investment depending on their stage of ecosystem development, rather than applying a ‘blanket’ proportional distribution.
Evidence
Devolution: perspectives from the UK’s Creative Industries
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
There are mixed views on UK Government held funding pots being distributed across the devolved nations – but opportunity for more engagement and partnership working evident.
In conversations with the sectors, the workforce and local authorities across the devolved nations, we’ve seen evidence of mixed perceptions towards centrally held UK Government funding pots.
While some stakeholders see UK Government funding for the ecosystem as a circumnavigation of devolved governments for whom culture is a devolved policy area, others have seen it as a welcome source of additional funding that would otherwise be unavailable though devolved nation budgets.
For example, we heard positive reflections from local authorities in Scotland of partnership working emanating from the City Growth Deals and packages of funding coming from UK Government that have supported the creative and cultural sectors directly.
We’en sector stakeholders in Northern Ireland make an explicit ask to be more involved in UK Government decision–making forums and international platforms, interest from arm’s-length bodies to connect in with their four nations counterparts and a genuine enthusiasm from local authorities to exchange learning and explore common issues across the nations.
Evidence
Insight Paper: The view from local government in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Insight Paper: The view from the cultural and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales?
Insight Paper: How are property developers supporting local culture decision making?
Local Voice
There is appetite for participatory decision-making within local authorities and the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem but there are few platforms available.
We’ve explored the literature and have amassed case studies that exemplify authentic co-designed decision-making platforms that involve local communities and the public.
We’ve also seen increased awareness of, and ambition for, community ‘consultation’ and ‘engagement’ in local authority projects and organisational programming. This includes involvement in the development of cultural strategies, empowerment through Urban Rooms in capital development projects, and opportunities to join youth advisory boards.
We also see a clear signalling from leaders of both local governments and sector organisations, that community involvement in decision-making to promote equitable and representative programming is now as ‘a must’ for all civic organisations.
Yet, while there are clearly advocates of increased empowerment and co-design innovation, we’ve found that local authorities and flagship cultural organisations are still in the early stages of involving community members and the public in decision-making processes.
With increasingly limited resource flowing into local authorities (see theme 3), their focus often remains on delivering statutory services and, where relevant, keeping the venues and assets they own and/or are responsible for running.
This is a missed opportunity because research shows that participatory decision-making can enhance the legitimacy of public institutions – including cultural institutions – increasing engagement from marginalised communities and populations.
The workforce find it particularly hard to get involved locally in local cultural decision-making processes.
The people who work in the UK’s creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem – whether employed, self-employed, or both – are fundamental to its success. Despite this, routes to engagement with local cultural decision-making are not always clear or accessible to them.
Workers from across the UK and different DCMS subsectors we engaged with via a series of Workforce Workshops, have already disclosed their uncertainty about how to access decision-making spaces in their area. In some cases, workers don’t feel “qualified to be involved in decision-making processes”.
Those who had participated in decision-making forums, often described their involvement as “self-initiated”.
Involvement with local decision-making appears to be dependent on individual relationships, social capital and visibility. Workers told us that this often means that, due to a lack of permanent structures to enable the cultural workforce to engage with local decision-making, the power often lies with the small circle of people and organisations who possess the social and cultural capital to access these conversations and platforms.
There are also dramatic differences in the way work related activity is experienced across the ecosystem, and workers are not always bound to a particular place. For example, there are questions around how a freelance worker on a national touring production might meaningfully participate in decision-making associated with their home locality.
Competition could, of course, see regions improving terms and conditions to attract workers from these sectors to their areas. However, this would likely also see a ‘talent drain’ from areas that are likely to have less cultural infrastructures already, which would ultimately come at the expense of the local community and compound regional inequities.
Some sector workers ‘decision-make’ in other ways in their locality – for example, by sitting on boards of charities and other organisations. Nonetheless, the time commitment and cost of this, particularly for freelancers is a significant barrier.
Significantly, some of the creative practitioners we spoke to actively advocated for members of the public to be supported into decision-making boards within creative, cultural and heritage organisations.
Precarious working conditions and reduced trust in decision-making processes per se – particularly following the experiences of large parts of the workforce during the Covid-19 pandemic – could limit the confidence of some workers in the ecosystem, and particularly freelancers, from participating in local cultural decision-making processes at all.
Evidence
Insight Paper: The view from the Creative Workforce in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland
The public has a different understanding of how the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem manifests in place.
The team at Thinks Insights and Strategy worked with us to explore what a representative sample of the general public from across each of the programme partnership locations feel about increased local cultural decision-making.
The public told us that cultural activities have the power to bring local people together, showcase shared heritage and celebrate the uniqueness of their place. In particular, hyper-local activities like food festivals, historical landmarks and sporting activities are felt to best “represent” an area, give rise to a sense of community cohesion and be particularly “accessible”.
The public want to be able to engage more readily with the cultural activities they enjoy. Self-reported barriers to participation include a limited awareness of cultural programming, prohibitive costs, lack of transport options and inadequate provisions for disabled people and people with additional needs. The decline of free, or low-cost community events and the closure of local civic and cultural centres due to funding cuts, was also cited extensively across all four nations.
In a series of deep-dive focus groups, we asked the public to define local ‘culture, creativity and heritage’ for themselves. They responded with a wide range of activities that often took place locally, including sporting events, religious festivals, civic gatherings, music festivals and local markets. Sport, in particular, was often foremost in the minds of the public throughout the sessions.
Importantly, very few of the participants made a direct connection between culture and heritage on the one hand and creativity (or the ‘creative industries’) on the other. This is important within the context of this programme because the ‘ecosystem’ framing we have applied, is clearly not one that the public would necessarily apply for themselves.
The public take a nuanced view on how they would like to participate in local cultural decision-making.
Members of the public generally understand ‘local cultural decision-making’ to mean the process by which local authorities allocate funding and organise cultural activities.
In the main, the public told us that local councils – and in more rural areas, parish councils – are the most appropriate level of government to make decisions about the creative, cultural and heritage life of their area.
Regional bodies like combined authorities, were instinctively felt to be too distant from local communities to be able to make effective decisions. One of the reasons for this appears to be a lack of understanding amongst the public about what combined authorities do and what different tiers of local government would do in this policy area.
Importantly, the public do not immediately equate the term ‘local cultural decision-making’ with their own personal participation in formal governance mechanisms. Indeed, none of the people we spoke to had participated in local cultural decision-making themselves. This appears to have been driven by a lack of knowledge about or opportunity to do so in their areas. However, another factor appears to be a perception that members of the public lack influence over decision-making processes.
Opinions amongst the public about the role that public could, or should, play in decision-making associated with the local creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem vary considerably.
Some feel strongly that the public should have “more of say” about what happens locally but come short of calling for formalised decision-making powers and responsibilities. Others simply feel like established decision makers should be more open about how decisions are arrived at. There are also those who feel like public involvement in decision-making is just impractical, citing personal and structural barriers like child and/or other caring responsibilities, lack of time and financial constraints.
Nonetheless, the participants we spoke to told us that the involvement of the public in local cultural decision-making would likely lead to increased transparency and a better trade-off between programming, that prioritises economic viability and the needs of local people.
“Decision-making partnerships” between local authorities and cultural organisations, creative businesses, civil society groups and individuals with a passion in the area were proposed as ideal vehicles for improving local provision.
Interestingly, the public expressed a real respect for the expertise of professionals working in the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem.
Collecting perspectives from across the focus groups, we draw attention to several principles that the public would expect to see in a high quality local cultural decision-making partnership.2
Those who feel their needs aren’t being met want more of a say in local cultural decision-making.
Where individuals expressed an interest in being involved in decision-making, it appeared that they either had a clear stake or vested interest in the issue at hand. This included having children or being from a minoritised community who felt their preferred cultural provision was underrepresented.
Others were simply “time poor” and could see themselves getting involved when they had more time in the future (such as at retirement), or more of a vested interest (which they identified as meaning having children).
Similarly, some of the creative practitioners we spoke to expressed an interest in being involved in local cultural decision-making. This was particularly the case when they were unclear on how to access decision-making spaces in the first place. Creative professionals with ongoing engagement with decision-making described it as “self-initiated” and “time-consuming”.
We found some members of the public expressed no desire to be involved in decision-making associated to culture – these usually, in our sample, were white and male participants.
Evidence
The term ‘local’ is understood very differently across the creative, cultural and heritage ecosystem
The ambiguity of the term ‘local’ means that it can be interpreted in several ways – for example, as a spatial scalar (i.e. to denote neighbourhood, city, regional, devolved administration levels) as well as the constituencies.
For organisations with a UK-wide presence, engaging at the ‘local level’ might mean adopting a networked approach to work at the devolved national or regional levels, while remaining quite removed from local communities.
Similarly, we have seen examples of cultural strategies led by and designed for local cultural and creative leaders, alongside co-production projects centring on local voice understood as the input of local communities.
Wider academic literature also points to some of the complexities associated with question of what constitutes ‘local cultural policy’.
Creative engagement could be a vehicle strengthening public engagement in decision-making and generating new connections to place
From our Insight gathering activities, we’ve seen approaches to public engagement and consultation that use creative practices themselves to generate debate and discussion.
Creative practices such as storytelling, engaging with historical artifacts, photography and design have strengthened both personal skills and increased individual connection to place.
There appears to be huge potential for local decision makers to employ the creative practices for including the public in debate on issues locally and establishing public discourse on shared place identity.
The debate around ‘cultural rights’ is building.
We know that this is a topic of an interest within the research community and cultural, creative and heritage sectors, and that Scottish Government have committed to explore the implementation of The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) as part of a future Human Rights Bill.
In 2015 the Welsh Government established the Well-being of Future Generations Act. The Act required public bodies in Wales to “think about the long-term impact of their decisions, to work better with people, communities and each other”. The Act sets Culture and Welsh language as one of the seven ‘well-being goals’ that public authorities must work towards.
While our research shows there is long way to go in understanding the applications and implementation of any UK-based legislation enshrining ICESCR Article 15 “The right to take part in cultural life” at the local level, we note the debate on the issue is rising and could be a fruitful area for us to explore further as part of the Local Voice theme of the programme.