APPENDIX 16
Memorandum submitted by the West Midlands
Regional Museums Council
SUMMARY
At least 26 per cent of UK adults visit museums
at least once a year (BMRB/TGI survey data). They come from all
social classes and their interests are a legitimate area for public
funding.
HLF capital funding for museums has been critical
and is still necessary.
There are few other sources for major capital
funding for museums.
In the West Midlands insufficient impact has
yet been made on identified needs.
The HLF would benefit from developing stronger
working relationships at regional level.
Harmonisation of the respective roles of HLF
and the DCMS regional agency in terms of strategy, policy and
assessment is needed.
Improved communication would improve applicants'
perception of the HLF.
Clearer definition of regional equity would
be beneficial.
A move from large visionary grants towards smaller,
"building block" grants would be welcome in the regions.
(See also Recommendations, Section 5).
1. THE
ROLE OF
THIS ORGANISATION
1.1 The seven English Area Museum Councils
of which the West Midlands Regional Museums Council (WMRMC) is
one, are all companies limited by guarantee and with charitable
status. This RMC is a membership organisation including:
Local authorities which directly or indirectly
support museums
Independent museum bodies
Regimental museum trusts
University museum bodies.
Between them, these organisations run over 130
registered museums, caring for around 4 million objects and receiving
around 7 million visits per year.
1.2 The WMRMC's main source of funding is
the Museums & Galleries Commission which is in turn funded
by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The funding agreement
between the MGC and the WMRMC requires the RMC to deliver Registration,
to raise standards, to deliver information to the MGC and DCMS
and to work with the Government Office West Midlands in order
to deliver the objectives of an agreed corporate plan.
1.3 "Museums serve people by acting,
with others, as guardians of the nation's heritage. The mission
of the West Midlands Regional Museums Council is therefore to
encourage a coherent framework of museum development in the region
which promotes guardianship of collections and improves the quality
of museum services for people to use and enjoy" (WMRC Corporate
Plan, Oct 1997).
1.4 Our aims, several of which complement
those of the Heritage Lottery Fund, are:
"To act as an informed advocate for museums,
promoting awareness of the role museums play in the cultural,
social and economic vitality of the region.
To encourage good governance and management of
museums.
To support and promote standards in order to
help museums effectively use their resources for the widest public
benefit.
To channel resources into museums in the region.
To provide suitable and effective services to
our members.
To ensure WMRMC financial and organisational
viability."
1.5 As the result of a region-wide consultation
which produced our key document "First Principles . . . guidelines
for a framework of museum development in the West Midlands",
our current strategic areas of interest are:
— Collections, audit, rationalisation.
— Conservation, storage, documentation.
— Communication, IT, marketing.
— Audience development, multi-culturalism.
— Education, life long learning.
— Interpretation and display.
— Management practice and improvement.
— Museum financial viability.
Museum contribution to social inclusion and
community development policies.
1.6 Matters arising
The HLFs early concentration on conservation,
as opposed to use, complements WMRMC's desire to see collections
being used for current benefit while being preserved for the benefit
of future generations. We supported this policy.
The elected Board of the WMRMC decided that
this organisation should be involved in Lottery distribution through
the HLF provided that (a) any additional cost was covered and
(b) that such work continued to deliver WMRMC's own objectives.
Unlike the regional arts boards and offices
of the Sports Council, we are not an arm of the HLF. Independent
museums find this a strength, but local authorities are bemused
that they cannot talk to one organisation in the region that represents
all HLF activity.
Over the first two years there was a feeling
among museums that smaller schemes which provided sound building
blocks and long term knock on benefits, would always fare less
well against larger, high profile, total packages.
This perception was echoed by a belief that
a disproportionate number of HLF grants going to museums were
going to the small number of national museums. As only one branch
national is in the West Midlands, this also lead to a belief that
decisions about museum grants were London-centric. (See 4)
THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN HLF AND
THIS ORGANISATION
2.1 Museum applicants to the HLF are usually
our members
2.1.1 There are approximately 160 museums
in the West Midlands of which c 130 operate to Registered standards
and are thus eligible for HLF support. Our researches, where response
rates varied from 80 per cent to 100 per cent, demonstrates definable
areas of need in the following areas of HLF interest:
|
| Museums housed in listed/historic buildings,
| 70 | 138 |
| No believed in need of substantial repair
| 25 | |
| Number of museum storage areas (in 45 museums)
| 139 | |
| No which are below acceptable standards
| 68 | (48%) |
| Number of member museums with substantial documentation backlogs
| 84 | (65%) |
| Number of museums not offering professionally staffed education services
| 60 | (45%) |
| Number with interpretation which does not reach acceptable standards
| 45 | (34%) |
|
We have not yet addressed the level of conservation need
but on previous experience would expect c 25 per cent of the region's
4 million collections to be in need of remedial care.
2.1.2 Therefore, the museums which we exist to serve
have substantial development needs, both in terms of improved
services to the public and in the care of the nation's inheritance
for posterity. As the regional body with responsibility for helping
museums to address these issues, we have long recognised that
existing funding regimes cannot even maintain the status quo,
let alone address backlogs and stimulate positive opportunities
for improvement.
2.1.3 The importance of the Heritage Lottery Fund against
a background like this cannot be over estimated.
2.1.4 Matters arising
We provide the missing link between applicant's vision and
HLF's assessment. The HLF takes insufficient account of the amount
of assistance and support which applicants require to put together
a good application. Although the Regional Team is now excellent
and experienced, and willing to field enquiries, they could not
possibly deal with all the support that is needed and might not
recognise regional priorities.
2.2 It is our job to give advice to applicants about museum
funding sources
2.2.1 As a membership body, WMRMC is bound by its charitable
objectives to assist museums to improve. The Board and staff of
WMRMC deem this to include advising its members on issues relating
to business viability including funding. Therefore we have for
many years passed on information on all sorts of funding opportunities
and, where necessary, explained criteria and eligibility, highlighting
grant sources which are targeted at current museum issues. The
funding bodies have universally welcomed this role as an intermediary
and we are often specifically asked to act as advocates for other
people's funding schemes.
2.2.2 Thus, when the Heritage Lottery Fund approached
the MGC and AMCs to assist them in the delivery of their objectives,
this was a role to which we were well accustomed.
2.2.3 This particular relationship has proved to be somewhat
different due to the scale of (a) the size of the more "visionary"
bids (b) the number of major projects requiring strategic advice
at any one time (c) the large number of smaller organisations
seeking basic level support from their usual friends in the region,
the WMRMC.
2.2.4 None of this work in advising museum applicants
in the West Midlands was paid for by HLF but the WMRMC Board all
agreed that, if the future included Lottery funding, and our job
was to help museums to move forward, then our members would expect
us to work for them in this way.
2.2.5 In order to cope with the considerable extra work
load WMRMC created a new, part-time post of "Public Funding
Adviser" who advised applicants while maintaining a tall
Chinese Wall between his work for members and the assessment of
bids which was done by the Directorate for HLF (see 2.3 below).
This system has now been discarded (see 4.3).
2.2.6 In retrospect, the WMRMC believes that helping
its members to understand and exploit Lottery issues has been
vitally important as one of the many tools available to us in
addressing development issues. The availability of Lottery funding
through the HLF has produced a "could do" spirit, even
if this has been eroded by the actual results so far. (See 4.3).
2.2.7 Matters arising
We believe that the HLF is enabling improvements in public
service, developments which are also DCMS departmental objectives.
Its work has been critically important in stimulating and inspiring
new visions for an extremely popular sector.
2.3 WMRMC is an advisory body, assessing bids for the HLF
2.3.1 The HLF uses us as advisers when assessing museum
bids. After two years of adjustment we now comment chiefly on:
— Relationship to local and regional strategies
— Concept and design quality—with respect
to interpretation and exhibition
— Organisational strength.
2.3.2 We also provide local knowledge with respect to:
2.3.3 We assess bids to the HLF under contract to them.
A fee of £350 per day is paid on the basis of pre-determined
time periods. The nature of the contract has been unsatisfactory
and is discussed under Matters Arising, below.
2.3.4 The new system of Service Assessment Checklists
is an improvement which helps us to use our time more efficiently.
2.3.5 In order to be totally transparent, WMRMC has always
told applicants what its relationships are with HLF and who we
are working for at any given point. In the early days this was
rigorously separated out, but an in-depth review (see 4.3) in
1997 demonstrated that neither WMRMC nor the applicants nor HLF
believed that this had been beneficial to delivering maximum support
to museums in the region. Therefore, since October 1997, advice
to applicants has been delivered at Directorate level within WMRMC,
but the person who leads on advising each museum NEVER leads on
doing the assessment for HLF. We have also published our priorities
(See appendix*)[12] which
have been welcomed by both our members and the HLF.
2.3.6 Matters Arising
Although we are a DCMS agency we are treated for contract
purposes just the same as commercial consultancies.
We are paid at a lower rate than the consultants although
we give considerable added value in providing local knowledge
and acting as an intermediary/translator between the HLF and the
applicant. The HLF considerably under estimates the time needed
for assessment.
2.4 WMRMC might, in the future, put in bids itself
2.4.1 In the past WMRMC was not eligible to apply on
behalf of our members because we would not have been the owners
of the heritage assets.
2.4.2 Under the new regulations we could bid in different
ways:
(a) as lead body for a group of museums seeking to devise
a network project eg IT access
(b) as a body in our own right to provide a developmental
service to the whole membership eg educational development
(c) as a lead body in funding collections survey work,
collections rationalisation or documentation projects which lead
to improved access.
3. THE DISTRIBUTION
OF FUNDS
BY THE
HERITAGE LOTTERY
FUND
3.1 Policy development
3.1.1 The DCMS has not formally adopted the policies
delineated by the previous administration in "Treasures in
Trust". There is a policy vacuum at national level which
is reflected in the absence of a strategic approach to museums
in the UK. The DCMS has made commendable steps in its relationships
with its NDPB museums, but this only affects less than 20 museums
out of around 2,400.
3.1.2 The MGC is currently working on a draft policy
statement which defines, for the first time, what people would
wish to see ALL museums delivering on behalf of the public. This
is a good start.
3.1.3 The Government now requires the HLF to act strategically,
but, in the absence of clear national policy, it is possible that
the HLF could find itself having to create national strategy.
3.1.4 At regional level, although WMRMC may still be
unique in the level of detail which is included in its regional
strategy "First Principles", this still does not identify
priorities. Following further research we feel that we are now
very close to being able to identify those priorities on the basis
of real data.
3.1.5 Matters arising
In the past we have been actively encouraged to be involved
in the HLF's discussions on their policy. This has worked well.
We need to be directly involved in future discussions relating
to regional strategy. We would wish to be sure that, even though
similarly detailed data may not be available in other regions,
grass roots knowledge underpins any future strategy for museums
in the UK.
3.2 Criteria
3.2.1 We would like to pay credit to the clarity of the
Application Pack although it is, inevitably off putting to some
of our smaller, voluntary members.
3.2.3 In general, the criteria do cover areas of activity
which we would wish to see our members developing and where external
support is needed.
3.2.4 While the extension of powers to enable revenue
grants is welcomed by some of our larger independent members,
we do have reservations vis:
— Raising expectations which later prove undeliverable
is unfair
— What proportion of the museums "pot"
will be diverted for this purpose?
— The resultant reduction in funds available for
capital projects
3.3 Procedures
3.3.1 Pre application advice. See comments under 2.2
3.3.2 Case work Officers:
— Individual HLF officers have now developed considerable
skills. They are generally helpful to applicants but applicants
may not always be aware that this advice is available until we
tell them so. Case work officers appear to be under considerable
pressure and over work may not be beneficial in the long term.
3.3.3 Regional Teams
— We are very satisfied with the cohesion, interest
and dedication of our Regional Team to the interests of the sector
in our region.
3.3.4 Expert Panel
— We welcome the HLF's own moves to reviewing membership
and roles of the Expert Panels.
3.3.5 Development of bids
— Although funding is now much more tightly focussed,
some applicants are still following up on guidance received from
HLF expert panel or officers in a more expansive era. Encouragement
to enlarge bids, taking in problems which might have been addressed
at a later stage, sometimes creates problems for the bidding organisation.
Due account must always be taken of the scale and nature of the
organisation. While it is easy to explain changes in HLF policy
at officer level, some may then find it difficult to explain reduction
in ambition to local authority committees, or to Trustees, who
sometimes see it as "failure of nerve".
3.3.6 Decisions
— Decisions still seem to take longer than applicants
expect. The applicant is aware of key meetings in the process,
but not always of their respective importance. We are pleased
that decision letters are now specific and leave less room for
misinterpretation.
3.3.7 Monitoring
— WMRMC has acted as project monitor on very few,
well-selected occasions and we feel that, in view of our limited
staff resources, our areas of specialist knowledge and wish to
concentrate our work on the areas of most benefit to museums,
this is a satisfactory situation.
3.3.8 Payment
— We still know of delayed payments which could
seriously imperil the viability of the organisation. If the HLF
genuinely wishes to help smaller projects in the future, they
will have to improve this aspect of their administration.
4. IMPACT UPON
OUR SECTOR
4.1 Has it addressed the needs of our sector to date?
4.1.1 The criteria have, to date, been perfectly suitable
to address the shortcomings which we had identified in our research
into the needs of the region.
4.1.2 In practice, few of our 131 museums have benefited.
By May 1998 17 museums had received HLF grants out of a total
of 25 registered museums in the region. Of those, three were for
feasibility studies and seven for acquisitions.
4.2 Have the sector's needs been resolved?
4.2.1 We are able to give details only in those areas
where we have done research. Note that these figures are based
on a minimum of 80 per cent response; some studies covered 100
per cent of membership.
|
| 4.2.2 | | Total
| HLF funded |
| Museums housed in listed/historic buildings, total
| 70 | |
|
| No estimated in need of substantial repair
| 25 | 5 |
| 139 number of museum storage areas (40 museums)
| | |
| No which are below acceptable standards
| 68 | 4 |
| Number of museums with substantial documentation backlogs
| 84 | 3 |
| Number of museums not offering professionally staffed education services
| 60 | 4 |
| Number with interpretation which does not reach acceptable standards
| 45 | 4 |
|
4.2.3 We are beginning detailed research into specific
types of collection which will, we believe, throw up similar data.
For example, 41 museums or museums services in the region hold
costume and textile collections amounting to some 60,000 items.
A significant indicator of the state of those collections is that
there is only one part-time textile conservator employed in the
region's museums and no dedicated costume curators. At a rough
estimate, about one third of these collections will need either
preventive or bench conservation. The need for funding to allow
these items to be preserved for future use is urgen.t……….
4.2.4 Under existing criteria, in this region we know
of 20 bids which are already planned to be submitted in the next
three years, at this early stage they total some £45.4 million.
Even excluding one super bid of £30 million, this leaves
a substantial sum to be found.
4.2.5 In addition, RMC officers know of 19 further projects
which are in urgent need of development. While many of these are
small (under £50,000), and two are unlikely to be realised,
10 are substantial and important projects of which at least two
will run to over £3 million each.
4.2.6 Matters arising
Therefore, in our view, insufficient impact has been made
upon the existing capital needs of museums in our region. While
we welcome the extension of HLF guidelines to include revenue
grants we must emphasise that this cannot be at the expense of
tackling the enormous capital deficit. In other words, we need
more money—museums have not been "done".
Even in that area where the HLF has concentrated its efforts
(capital building work), at a generous estimate, in our region
only 20 per cent of the buildings in need have been touched and,
unfortunately, the five which have been done, worthy though they
are, are all relatively small and the major problems still remain.
This is probably due to the difficulties of raising matching funds
for schemes of the sheer scale of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery,
Aston Hall or Tamworth Castle.
4.3 Has there been "fairness"?
4.3.1 "Walls and Whispers—Factors affecting
the success and failure rates of museum lottery application bids
in the West Midlands". By late 1996 the Board of WMRMC believed
that museums in the West Midlands were not getting their "share"
of HLF funding. The above study was commissioned to investigate
the apparent under performance and to establish whether anything
that the WMRMC was doing was affecting this in any way. The study
was part funded by the MGC and HLF, both of which had also recognised
the imbalance and produced for internal use in May 1997.
4.3.2 Four different performance criteria were examined
and each showed, in varying degrees, that museums and galleries
in the West Midlands were under-performing. However, "all
attempts to correlate the region's under-performance with that
of some particular problem have failed to prove convincing . .
. Under-performance is the result of many different factors combining
in different ways in each case . . ." The report also said
"There is little evidence to support any criticism of the
way in which the WMRMC has either advised or assessed its members
. . . However, the "Chinese Walls" approach to splitting
advisory and assessment work seems unnecessarily complicated".
As a result of this report we revised our internal procedures
as described at 2.3.5 above.
4.3.3 We have put extra Directorate time into encouraging
HLF bids, and helping applicants to understand the criteria. We
acknowledge with gratitude the assistance that we had from the
HLF Midlands regional team in this work.
4.3.4 However, unless the HLF statistician addresses
this issue, or we divert funds to commission a follow up study,
we are unable to say with confidence whether this has been a success.
WMRMC staff have generally found themselves in agreement with
the views of the HLF regional teams, although some final decisions
have been disappointing.
4.3.5 Matters arising
The Regional Team for the Midlands is gaining in experience
and confidence. We work well together and respect each other's
roles. However, we are not always sure that their views are given
sufficient weight by the Expert Panels. There is also some concern
about how loss of regional knowledge following future staff movement
will be addressed.
In local authorities it is notable that the champions for
projects which would bid to either the Arts or Sports Lotteries
are managing to attract Committee support to their schemes ahead
of HLF projects. This may be due to the lower status of museum
staff within local authority hierarchies but is more likely to
reflect the lack of a regional focus by the HLF. Both Sports and
Arts have offices in the regions and have built up relationships
with local authority lottery officers. While WMRMC can assist
on museum issues, we are not empowered to represent the HLF, or
to give definitive information. This has weakened the cause of
those who wish to push HLF bids when competing for limited match
funding within a local authority.
4.4 What have the opportunity costs been?
4.4.1 We cannot accurately quantify the cost of preparing
HLF bids. Inevitably, more emphasis is laid upon this issue by
failed applicants but even those which have succeeded have commented
to us about the cost of the exercise.
In examining this issue the Committee might like to consider:
— Whether delegated teams are required to create
bids and if so, what happened to their routine work in the interim?
— What effect this concentration had upon relationships
between the museum service and other departments within a local
authority?
— What up-front costs were incurred (eg architects,
quantity surveyors etc)?
— Whether, in the case of bids which subsequently
failed, these costs could have been avoided by earlier intervention?
4.4.2 Matters arising
The new, two stage process for large bids is welcome. However,
the HLF should recognise that it does not reduce the amount of
preparatory work by very much, and that it is accompanied by the
introduction of the conservation plan regime, which although professionally
sound, still requires considerable input of resources. Consideration
should be given to extending the two stage process to smaller
bids.
More advice on the ground, earlier in the process would help
applicants. This should be considered as part of the process and
costed in, as it appears to be in Sports and Arts. WMRMC currently
does this for museums but, without resources, its help is supposed
to be limited to its members. We are not mandated, nor funded,
to help non-member museums, heritage centres, archive offices,
interpretive sites or town trails all of which seek our advice,
and which we do, in fact assist in the best interests of the country's
heritage. This anomaly should be sorted out.
4.5 Impact upon WMRMC and its services to members
4.5.1 Initially we discovered that desk research for
the HLF had eaten into our museum advisory visits which we deemed
to be unacceptable. After the "Walls and Whispers" report
we made procedural adjustments in October 1997 which has redressed
the balance to our satisfaction.
4.5.2 However, reflection on the impact of both our work
for the HLF and their delivery of funding to the region over the
last three and a half years leads us to believe that an internal
review of WMRMC staff priorities in this area is now due.
4.6 Has it delivered value for money?
4.6.1 There is no question that the choice of heritage,
and in particular, museums, has been a great success. People care
passionately about their heritage and museums are a cherished
part of our national culture. The Heritage Lottery Fund has allowed
exciting new projects to come to fruition and the sector is now
able to demonstrate to what extraordinarily good use it can put
funding of this scale when it is offered.
4.6.2 Although there is criticism of some of the procedures,
this should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the museum
world, its millions of supporters and future generations, would
be far less exciting and productive without the Heritage Lottery
Fund. However, as far as museums are concerned, the job is only
just begun.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND
PROPOSALS FOR
THE FUTURE
(a) No change should be made to the proportion of HLF
funds directed towards museums because the task has only just
begun.
(b) Radical policies are needed to redress the emphasis
on National museums, and the London-centric result.
(c) In order to produce better bids from the regions,
more resources need to be deployed in advising applicants through
regional agencies.
(d) In the case of museums, the AMC network should be
better exploited but this will require transfer of funding.
(e) The DCMS must decide which organisation is responsible
for defining both policy and strategy towards museums in this
country.
(f) The HLF, which has its own objectives, would not be
a suitable body to define policy but could be a powerful deliverer
of DCMS strategy.
(g) As always, strategy works best when created from the
ground up. The knowledge of regional, strategic bodies must strongly
inform future national decisions.
(h) All HLF criteria should involve an insistence upon
an element of "legacy" in all projects.
(i) Changes in criteria should be flagged up long enough
in advance to avoid wasteful work on the part of applicants.
(j) Procedures should be designed to further the interests
of the applicants not the ease of audit.
(k) Regional equity must be taken into account in the
future.
(l) Regional knowledge, whether from the RMC or the HLF's
own regional teams, should carry equal weight with the views of
the "Expert" Panel.
(m) A way should be found to provide a human, regional
HLF presence.
(n) The threshold for requiring a two stage application
should be lowered.
(o) Local advice for non-museum interpretative heritage
needs to be made available.
(p) More flexibility in relationships with other providers
of match funding eg Europe would be beneficial.
June 1998
12
* Not printed. Back
| 
