A Summary of ITC’s submission to ACE Review following consultation with ITC members
DCMS has launched a survey to support the review of the future of Arts Council England and how creativity is nurtured and developed. As a management association, ITC works to amplify the voices of its members.
In light of the review, ITC invited members to share their experiences in a forum on the 15th April 2025. From this and our own reflections, we submitted our own response, an overview of which can be read below.
ITC (Independent Theatre Council) represents over 400 small and midscale professional performing arts organisations throughout the UK. Most of our members tour locally, nationally and internationally or serve a particular community, often reaching audiences and participants in areas of low cultural engagement. Our sector is committed to providing high-quality engagement in the arts and the best possible working conditions for practitioners.
ACE (Arts Council England) broadly fulfils its current mandate but is constrained by the focus on its portfolio of regularly funded organisations. The overwhelming majority of its funding goes to a few large, metropolitan-based institutions, which limits its ability to increase the accessibility of the arts to the public. It also limits its knowledge and awareness of the broader potential of cultural engagement across the UK. ACE’s mandate does not need to change, but the flexibility to deliver on its own strategy needs to improve.
ACE needs to increase its awareness and engagement with the wider arts sector beyond its portfolio and have more capacity to fund innovation, diversity and under-served communities. The arm’s-length principle needs to be better observed. ACE needs to be better tuned into the cultural needs of the public and arts practitioners rather than limiting the potential of the arts sector by creating bureaucratic mechanisms to attempt to meet DCMS targets.
Let’s Create is a good strategy. The 3 outcomes are well articulated and focused, and the investment principles are correct. ACE needs to be freer to implement its own strategy. Too much of ACE’s investment capacity is tied up in large institutions, which are pursuing their own missions (often quite distanced from Let’s Create). ACE needs more funds that it can distribute to projects to generate new activity that could deliver the strategy.
ACE needs more flexible funds that can genuinely be applied to its essential role as a development agency for arts and creativity. ACE funding is too difficult to obtain, and many excellent projects, ideas, artists and initiatives are being lost. The National Portfolio is log-jammed, and underinvestment has impeded ACE’s capacity to refresh and strengthen it. Project funds and touring funds are hopelessly short, leaving little capacity for ACE to invest effectively in development.
Promoting technological innovation needs to be balanced with the need to protect the intellectual property of artists and practitioners, and a continued valuing of the live cultural experience. Technology needs to aid and enhance cultural provision, not replace it.
The rolling decision-making process for project and touring grants is a problem. Applications are turned down because the ‘pot’ of funds available at that particular meeting is too small for the number and size of applications. No meaningful feedback is given, and companies have to resubmit only to be turned down again.
Recent proposals to limit applications for project funds will make things worse. More money is needed for the project and touring funds, and the process needs to be quicker.
It is very hard to know what will constitute a successful funding bid. Feedback is not meaningful or helpful. Often, the explanation given to project fund applicants is that there was not enough money in the ‘pot’ and there were stronger applications. This may be true, but it is not helpful and provides no learning.
There could be less emphasis on bureaucratic compliance. Most ACE clients are not-for-profit companies and charities with boards that hold them to account. Governance and management need to be trusted by ACE and focus on more meaningful ways of measuring public impact (e.g. well-being and engagement). Currently, there is a lot of duplication of accountability.
ACE has a difficult job to do, but it is by far the most important funder of the art itself. It is a very challenging funding climate at the moment. ACE needs to make decisions quickly and confidently. Often, it feels as though ACE places heavier accountability burdens on smaller organisations and has little influence on the larger ones.
Grassroots local cultural organisations have a strong understanding of their local communities. ACE could learn much by greater engagement with smaller organisations that serve particular groups. There is great expertise in these organisations, and their activities are already delivering ‘Let’s Create’ outcomes.
It is a significant problem for non-NPO organisations that they have no access to RMs (Relationship Managers) and ACE advice. They also have fewer opportunities to share their knowledge and expertise with ACE. The perspective of RMs is therefore limited.
The quality of RMs is variable. Some are excellent, experienced, knowledgeable and responsive. The best usually have experience running arts organisations themselves.
An effective, independent funder of arts and culture is essential. It sometimes seems like there is a duplication of effort between DCMS and ACE. A strong connection between ACE and DFE would be desirable. The role of culture in education has been eroded and needs to be strengthened.
Challenges facing the sector:
- Creative Education – University sector in crisis
- International position of UK culture (Brexit impacts and global conflicts)
- Touring in crisis (nationally and internationally)
- Devolution – culture needs to be a statutory requirement at a local level
- Recruitment – skills shortage at management and technical level
ACE focus needs to implement its own ‘Let’s Create’ strategy effectively (more focus on smaller, grassroots provision, diversity, and community engagement) and make more money available for projects and touring. There needs to be more engagement and awareness beyond NPO, better performance of the role as an arts development agency (funding creativity, innovation) and recognising the importance of touring for reach and arts development.
DCMS has extended the deadline for submissions to 30th June 2025. We encourage members who have not yet responded to do so.
