responses to this consultation are invited from any ... · web viewplease comment on the proposal...

Arts Council England’s response to Research England’s Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) consultationJune 2019

About Arts Council EnglandArts Council England is the national development agency for the arts, museums and libraries in England. Our mission is 'great art and culture for everyone' and we work to achieve this by championing, developing and investing in arts and cultural experiences that enrich people's lives.

Response

1. Introduction Responses to this consultation are invited from any organisation, group or individual with an interest in knowledge exchange.

If you would like to save a copy of your response, please choose 'print response' on the last page of the survey. We regret that we won't be able to accommodate requests to download and send individual responses submitted.

The responses to this consultation will be analysed by Research England, we will consult with the Knowledge Exchange Framework Technical Advisory Group and the Knowledge Exchange Framework Steering Group.

We will commit to read, record and analyse responses to this consultation in a consistent manner. For reasons of practicality, usually a fair and balanced summary of responses rather than the individual responses themselves will inform any decision made. In most cases the merit of the arguments made is likely to be given more weight than the number of times the same point is made. Responses from organisations or representative bodies with high interest in the area under consultation, or likelihood of being affected most by the proposals, are likely to carry more weight than those with little or none.

We will publish an analysis of the consultation responses. We may publish individual responses to the consultation in the summary. Where we have not been able to respond to a significant material issue, we will usually explain the reasons for this. Additionally, all responses may be disclosed on request, under the terms of the relevant Freedom of Information Acts across the UK. The Acts give a public right of access to any information held by a public authority, in this case UK Research & Innovation. This includes information provided in response to a consultation. We have a responsibility to decide whether any responses, including information about your identity, should be made public or treated as confidential. We can refuse to disclose information only in exceptional circumstances. This means that responses to this

1

consultation are unlikely to be treated as confidential except in very particular circumstances. For further information about the Acts see the Information Commissioner’s Office website, www.ico.gov.uk or, in Scotland, the website of the Scottish Information Commissioner www.itspublicknowledge.info/home/ For further information relating to UK Research and Innovation’s Privacy notice, please visit https://www.ukri.org/privacy-notice/

The deadline for responses to the KEF consultation is midday on Thursday 14 March 2019. Please direct any queries to Sacha Ayres, Senior Policy Adviser, Knowledge Exchange at [email protected] or 0117 931 7385. *

X Tick here to agree and continue to consultation.

2. Respondent details Please indicate who you are primarily responding on behalf of: *

As an individual

Business

Charity / third sector

Department or research group

English Higher Education Institution

Higher Education Institution in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland

X Public sector organisation

Representative body

Subject association or learned society

Other (please specify):

3. Contact details [user] Please provide the name of your organisation *

Arts Council England If you would be happy to be contacted in the event of any follow-up questions, please provide a contact name and email address.

John McMahon, Senior Manager, Policy & Research – [email protected]

2

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.ukri.org/privacy-notice/

3. Contact details [HEI] Please provide the name of your organisation *

If you would be happy to be contacted in the event of any follow-up questions, please provide a contact name and email address.

3. Contact details [individual] If you would be happy to be contacted in the event of any follow-up questions, please provide a contact name and email address.

4. KEF purpose Do you consider that the KEF as outlined will fulfil its stated purposes?

To provide universities with new tools to understand, benchmark and improve their performance.

To provide business and other users with more information on universities.

To provide greater public visibility and accountability. *

Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat

disagreeSomewhat

agree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

To provide universities with new tools to understand, benchmark and improve their performance.

X

To provide businesses and other users with more information on universities.

X

To provide greater public visibility and accountability.

X

3

Please provide a commentary in relation to your scores above. (400 word limit) We welcome the introduction of the KEF, and see value in each of its above-stated purposes.

We also welcome the 7 dimensions/perspectives that underpin the KEF, each of which bears a direct relationship to the organisations that we fund and the sectors for which we hold national development responsibility (the roles and responsibilities of Arts Council England are briefly summarised in section 11, at the end of this submission).

As outlined below, we have questions and some potential concerns about both the metrics used to measure a given institution’s contribution to each of the 7 stated perspectives under the KEF;

And also regarding the methodology used for clustering HEIs into distinct categories, which – as, again, is explored in more detail below – we feel minimises the significance of the arts and humanities across some of the major universities in England. 5. Aims and overall approach of the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) Overall approachThe KEF consultation document describes the overall approach as being an annual, institutional level, largely metrics driven exercise, although noting that narrative will have an important role. More background may be found in the report summarising the recommendations of the technical advisory group. Do you consider this overall approach to be appropriate? *

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Somewhat disagree X Somewhat agree

Agree

Strongly agree

No opinion Please provide a commentary in relation to your scores above. (400 word limit) As above, we welcome the intent and broad thrust behind the KEF.

4

We have engaged with a number of stakeholders whilst considering our response, and have identified several shared areas of concern;

We echo a point raised by others – that the blanket, and currently untested nature of these metrics has the potential to cause a bias against smaller/more specialist institutions whose contribution is less easy to quantify in primarily financial terms.Towards this, we would welcome the expansion to use narrative elements to all 7 of the categories currently included (rather than the two at present, public and community engagement and local growth and regeneration that currently incorporate this data)

Also, we believe that to give a fair and balanced perspective, that the narratives should be assessed and potentially scored in order to make a direct contribution to the metric; rather than the secondary, supplementary role that they currently occupy. A scoring system could be developed with partners through a trial period, and potentially based on peer feedback (acknowledging the challenges/additional complexity that such a process could introduce).

Through any trial period/towards the development of future KEF iterations, we strongly believe that partners external to HE with direct interest in each perspective should be included – otherwise, core factors that external partners value about HEIs may be neglected or omitted.6. Clustering The English higher education sector is very diverse. We therefore propose to create clusters of knowledge exchange peer groups. The proposed clusters and clustering approach is detailed in the KEF consultation document. Please use the following questions to provide your feedback on our proposals.

Please indicate your degree of support for the following aspects of our clustering approach. *


disagreeSomewhat


The conceptual framework that underpins the cluster analysis.

X

The variables and methods employed in undertaking the cluster analysis.

X

The resulting make up of the clusters, i.e. the membership. X

That the overall approach to clustering helps Research England to meet the stated purposes of the

X

5


disagreeSomewhat


KEF and ensures fair comparison. Please provide commentary on any aspect of your scores above. If relevant please incorporate suggestions for alternative arrangements. (400 word limit)

The clustering process is useful, and we broadly agree with the categorisation by scale of institution, research income etc.

We also accept the rationale for a specialist category of arts specialist institutions. We have some concerns that through most of the other clusters, there is a heavy focus on STEM (other than cluster J), and a downplaying of the significance of other subject/research areas.

For example – in cluster V – in general, the largest and most prestigious of England’s Universities – there is an overwhelming ‘key characteristics’ focus on ‘clinical medicine and STEM’;

However, 14 of these 16 institutions are in the TES top 150 institutions worldwide for the study of arts and humanities (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-arts-and-humanities-degrees#survey-answer);

In contrast, *none* of the specialist arts institutions currently occupy places in these rankings (though we might dispute the methodology, and affirm the global quality of these specialist institutions);

Oxford, Cambridge and UCL all inhabit the top 10, whilst Manchester has the largest humanities department of any HEI in the UK;

Additionally, 9 of the 20 Cluster X institutions also occupy the TES top 150 for arts and humanities.

Across both cluster X and cluster V, Arts Council England and other prominent stakeholders in the creative and cultural industries have strong recent and ongoing research projects and partnerships with many of these institutions – often, research intended to be accessible/of benefit to public, charity and commercial-sector partners in across the arts.

We strongly believe that the world-leading arts and humanities pedigrees of the cluster V and X universities should be acknowledged in the ‘key characteristics’ for these groupings, alongside their excellence in STEM.

6

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-arts-and-humanities-degrees#survey-answer

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-arts-and-humanities-degrees#survey-answer

If you are responding on behalf of an institution that is a member of the proposed specialist social science and business (SSB) or STEM clusters as listed below and you wish to provide specific feedback on the appropriateness of these clusters, please identify your cluster membership here.

SSB University College Birmingham Bishop Grosseteste University Heythrop College, University of London London Business School National Film and Television School

STEM The Institute of Cancer Research Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Royal Veterinary College St George's, University of London Cranfield University Harper Adams University Royal Agricultural University Writtle University College

Listed above and wish to provide further comment

Not applicable6a. Proposed SSB & STEM Cluster feedback [Question for those identifying as SSB & STEM cluster institutions]As suggested by the cluster analysis report, we do not believe that the specialist cluster comprising of SSB specialist institutions is a useful or meaningful cluster in its own right.

Whilst the STEM specialist cluster is slightly larger, we recognise that there is a significant divergence in the missions of the institutions.

We therefore welcome specific responses from institutions in these two clusters on this point – do these clusters support the aims and purpose of the KEF for you?

Should members of these clusters be manually reassigned to another, or should some other approach be taken? (400 word limit)

Only to note that there is clear potential for the National Film and Television School to be included amongst the arts specialist institutions, where there are many areas of course and research discipline overlap.

7

7. Perspectives and metrics Knowledge exchange covers an extremely diverse range of activity and it is appropriate that some HEIs will perform more strongly in different areas that align more closely with their mission and strategic goals. We have therefore proposed a range of seven perspectives. The following questions will seek your views on the number and range of perspectives and metrics proposed. Perspectives

Research partnerships Working with business Working with the public and third sector Skills, enterprise and entrepreneurship Local growth and regeneration IP and commercialisation Public and community engagement

Taking into account the overall range of perspectives and metrics outlined in the consultation document, do you agree or disagree that a sufficiently broad range of KE activities is captured. *

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree X Agree

Strongly agree

No opinion

Comments: We welcome the breadth of these perspectives, and agree that they should receive equal weighting.

We would welcome a clarifying rationale for their selection, plus underlying exposition of their individual scope.

As noted above and expanded below, we think that each of the selected categories could be broadened to include additional factors;Also, that each could benefit from the inclusion of a narrative element, to capture additional nuance, and strong contributions that don’t fit easily amongst the other metrics;

Additionally, that a system should be developed to score the narrative elements alongside the other numerical metrics – perhaps, by way of one example, by peer assessment of each institution’s narrative.

8

Taking into account the range of metrics outlined in the consultation document, please indicate [using a % sliding scale] whether you consider that they adequately represent performance in each of the proposed perspectives.

Research partnerships 60Working with the public and third sector 60Skills, enterprise and entrepreneurship 60Local growth and regeneration 60IP and commercialisation 60Public and community engagement 60

Research partnerships

Taking into account the range of metrics outlined in the consultation document for this perspective, please provided any comments on the balance and coverage of the proposed metrics. (400 word limit)

We have a strong interest in this category – Arts Council England makes a relatively substantial investment in research and evaluation across the arts annually (£600k in 2018/19), often in partnership with HEIs alongside arts and cultural organisations, and including overlaps with education, healthcare and a wider array of other adjacent sectors.

We would welcome additional acknowledgement of inter-university partnerships; international partnerships; and the inclusion of a supplementary narrative element, to refine this metric.

Working with business


Arts Council England is the national development agency for the arts and culture, and our sectors have substantial overlapping interests with/collaborations across the wider creative industries.

Collectively, the creative industries contributed £101.5bn to the UK economy in 2017

9

– a 7% increase on the previous year.

Since 2010, the GVA of the creative industries has increased by a massive 53.1%. The sector now generates 5.5% of the UK economy.

There are more than 284,000 businesses in the creative industries, Creative industries businesses account for 11.8% of all businesses in the UK.

Almost 95% (94.8%) of creative industries businesses are micro businesses (less than 10 employees).

(figures from the Creative Industries Federation)

Accordingly, we see access to the knowledge base of HEIs as a key ingredient to the continued growth and success of these sectors.

However, given the number of SMEs, micro-enterprises and sole traders in these sectors, we feel that business and consultancy income is an incomplete measure here; we also consider that the volume of relationships (partnerships, contacts and enquiries) should be included here;

Plus, the HEI’s role in business support and incubation more widely;

Perhaps also, the number of graduates/alumni establishing themselves as sole traders or small businesses over a set time period after graduation.

As above, we feel the addition of a narrative element would help to capture this important contribution.

Working with the public and third sector


Again, this is an area of great relevance to the sectors that we support and serve; indeed, almost all of the 829 organisations nationwide that receive regular (National Portfolio) funding from the arts council are registered charities; as are most of the 2,600 accredited museums and over 3,000 public libraries for which we have development responsibility.

The artists, organisations and cultural practitioners also work in close partnership with other organisations across the 3rd sector; and the voluntary, community, civic and faith sectors also plays a substantial role in peoples’ everyday engagement with the arts, culture and creativity.

As above, we feel that commercial revenues alone don’t capture Higher Education research’s current or potential contribution to these sectors;

10

As such we again recommend that the metrics are broadened to include ‘contacts’, partnerships and enquiries; and that a narrative element is also added here.

Skills, enterprise and entrepreneurship


HE makes an enormous contribution to the artform and ‘administrative’ talent pipeline for the arts, cultural and creative industries in the UK, as well as to the further study and continuous professional development of those already working in these sectors.

2016/17 saw over 175k enrolments to creative subjects in UK universities (fig. HESA);

There are more than 2 million (2,008,000) jobs in the creative industries. Creative jobs have increased by 28.6% since 2011.

The creative economy accounts for 1 in 11 jobs across the UK and employ 700,000 more people than the financial services. In 2016, over 3 million (3,034,000) people worked in the creative economy.

(figures from the Creative Industries Federation)

The proposed metrics seem strong, but as for all categories, we would also recommend the addition of a narrative element here.

Local growth and regeneration


Note there is a separate question to consider the use of supplementary narrative.

The arts and culture are powerful drivers of local growth and regeneration. Arts Council England works closely with local and regional government, LEPs and other partners around this agenda;

And invests directly in a network of 829 National Portfolio Organisations across England (£408m per year); plus additional support through targeted programmes like the Cultural Development Fund (£20m from 2019-2022), the Great Place Scheme

11

(£7.5m) and Creative People and Places (£91m from 2012-2021), as well as the Cultural Cities Enquiry.

In addition to revenue, we believe the number of a HEIs partnerships regarding local growth and regeneration (eg representation on LEPs, relevant boards of city/county councils and devolved authorities, etc). Additional consideration of further potential metrics should be also given.

IP and commercialisation


Considerations of intellectual property are as integral to the arts, and indeed to heritage collections, as they are to research and science. However, the value is not always easily translated into monetary form.

At the time of writing we have not had the opportunity to consult on this issue, but would welcome a broader discussion about an expanded set of metrics that could further capture the specific nature of IP in the creative and cultural industries.Again, a narrative element would also be valuable here.

Public and community engagement


Note there is a separate question to consider the use of supplementary narrative.

Public engagement, whether through audiences, learners, volunteering or other types of participation, is obviously fundamental to the role of the arts and culture in our society, and the arts play a substantial role in how museums engage the public.

For example, there are around a 100 university museums in the UK regularly accessible to the public, with a further 300 or more that are used mainly for academic research and teaching. University museums in England comprise 4% of the UK museum sector, yet they are custodians of 30% of all the collections ‘Designated’ by DCMS as being of national or international importance. A significant proportion of universities also have theatres, cinemas and other types of performance space.

Having discussed with partners including the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement, we consider the proposed network to be too narrow at present;

12

These types of activity don’t encompass the full range of activities undertaken by HEIs; can be difficult to track accurately; and can obscure the strong role played by HEIs that don’t possess the venue assets required.

We fully agree with NCCPE that the HE-BCI metric (Does your HEP have a strategic plan for public and community engagement?), self-reported on a 5-point scale, could be included here;

And that methods to quantify categories such as the following, amongst the metrics already proposed, could also add great value:• Providing community access to your facilities and expertise.• Involving communities in your research and teaching• Commitment to partnership working and social responsibility• Working to the highest professional standards

8. Supplementary narrative We consider that for two perspectives, that on their own, the existing metrics do not provide sufficient measure of the scale and variety of activities undertaken by higher education institutions (HEIs).

We intend to work with the sector to develop, where possible, metrics that will capture the outcomes derived from all types of knowledge exchange in the future. In the mean time we propose to supplement both the Local Growth & Regeneration and Public & Community Engagement perspectives by requesting a narrative statement from each provider to set out the main strategic goals, activities, outputs and potential outcomes achieved.

Do you consider it appropriate for HEIs to provide narrative text to support the metrics in perspectives that don't currently have fully developed metrics? *

X Strongly disagree

Disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree

Strongly agree

No opinion

Public and community engagement narrative

13

Overall, is the guidance on the provision of narrative text for this perspective clear. *

Strongly disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly agree

No opinion

Please comment on the proposal to include narrative from HEIs for the public and community engagement perspective, in particular: - where further clarification is required- where refinements could be made- whether there are areas where more consistency across HEIs could be achieved (400 word limit)

In this section, we strongly endorse, and repeat, the submission of the NCCPE.

‘While we agree with the value of requesting a linked narrative, we would like to see it working harder on several fronts. Rather than using the rather generic headings proposed in the consultation we suggest that the narrative template should:

Focus HEIs on a set of indicators that represent good practice in engagement, inviting them to self-report against these

Ensure these indicators address the critical dimension of support which external partners most value

Require that HEIs provide evidence and links for key indicators, to ensure transparency and usability

We have published a draft template on our website. We include below a sample of the kinds of indicators we are suggesting, derived from the existing literature:

1. Providing community access to your facilities and expertise. We have taken every effort to make our campus accessible and welcoming for

the public We have taken every effort to enable the public to access and make use of our

sporting, cultural and other facilities and assets, and to signpost these opportunities

We have a transparent process for communities to contact the university and to have their enquiries dealt with promptly and professionally

2. Involving communities in your research and teaching We provide a clearly signposted and high quality portfolio of learning

opportunities for the public, which are robustly evaluated We seek to actively involve the public in our research and knowledge exchange

14

activities, and provide expert support to facilitate this

3. Commitment to partnership working and social responsibility We have a systematic and managed approach to partnership working with civic,

community and cultural partners in our region, and beyond We have developed a set of principles which underpin our approach to

partnership working, addressing issues such as payment, IP, equity and sustainability

Our procurement and employment practices seek to maximise benefits for our local communities

We have a strategy in place to direct our efforts to address equality and diversity in our interactions with wider society, and processes in place to monitor this

4. Working to the highest professional standards There is a strategic and operational plan in place for PE/CE There is a budget allocated to PE / CE with explicit and ambitious targets There is regular and systematic reporting on the activity and its impact, with

agreed KPIs There are specialist staff employed to provide support and advice

We are aware of the risks that self –reporting will encourage HEIs to overestimate / inflate their performance, for reputational gain. If the KEF is implemented as a self-improvement tool and is not linked to funding, then this risk would be mitigated. We also suggest that HEIs be asked to provide links to evidence to support their self-assessment. A further safeguard would be to undertake a review of a sample of the submissions to monitor activity.’

Local growth and regeneration narrative Overall, is the guidance on the provision of narrative text for this perspective clear. *

Strongly disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly agree

No opinion

Please comment on the proposal to include narrative from HEIs for the local growth and regeneration perspective, in particular:

15

where further clarification is required where refinements could be made whether there are areas where more consistency across HEIs could

be achieved (400 word limit)

Again, similar to the NCCPE, we believe that the recommendations of the Civic University Commission offer a valuable blueprint for factors that could not only be adopted within the narrative element for this category, but which could also be considered as quantifiable metrics.

Arts Council England’s response the commission can be found here:

https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/download-file/Response%20to%20UPP%20Foundation%20Civic%20University%20Commission%20response_0.pdf

Again, we repeat the NCCPE’s suggested metrics for the commission’s categories:Supporting the educational growth of a place: which encompasses the institution's interaction with school aged population, and with mature learners, such as adult, community and lifelong learning; and to support skills and employment outcomes for local people

• Our widening participation and ‘outreach’ activity seeks to actively contribute to attainment and employability of local populations

• We have a strategic approach to deploying our staff and student expertise, research and other assets to boost overall attainment in our region

• We take a strategic approach to meeting the skills and development needs of local employers and facilitate knowledge exchange through student placements in local organisations

• We provide a clearly signposted and high quality portfolio of learning opportunities for local people at various stages of life, which are robustly evaluated

• We seek to actively involve local publics and partners in our research, teaching and knowledge exchange activities, and provide expert support to facilitate this

Supporting the economic life of a place: which encompasses the institution acting as a model employer and its procurement practices, its local ‘convening’ role, and its role as a leading and model economic actor

• We are a living wage employer (4 or nothing)• We actively support staff and students to take up voluntary roles in the

community• Our procurement policies activity seek to deliver value to our locality• We contribute actively to a range of local strategic partnerships (e.g. LEPs)• We provide significant support to local spin out companies and SMEs and

help with attracting and retaining inward investors• We ensure our estate development plans have maximum impact on local

place making and economic development

16




Supporting the cultural wellbeing of a place: which encompasses the institution’s participation in and contribution to the cultural life of their areas; support for the cultural and creative and heritage sector through work with local partners and helping them to contribute to ‘place making’

• We seek to maximise opportunities for our staff and students to actively participate in the cultural life of our region

• We have taken every effort to enable the public to access and make use of our sporting and cultural facilities and assets, and to signpost these opportunities

• We make a significant contribution to the vitality and sustainability of local cultural and creative industries

• We have a strategic approach to supporting local cultural and heritage infrastructure, for instance museums and public libraries

In addition, we recommend that HEIs be invited to report on their overarching strategic approach and investment into this area:

Strategic investment to maximise our local impact• There are partnership agreements in place that have been co-designed with

local stakeholders that articulate shared targets and goals for your activity• There is regular and systematic reporting on the activity and its impact, with

agreed KPIs• There is a senior leader with formal responsibility for local growth and

regeneration (or that responsibility is distributed clearly across several senior staff)

• There is investment in expertise and resources to support effective monitoring and evaluation, and a systematic approach to gathering evidence

The role of further narrative or contextual information We welcome responses on what other types of narrative or contextual information would be helpful.

You may wish to consider, for example:

Should the HEI or Research England provide other narrative information?

How should we use other contextual information, such as information on local economic competitiveness described in section 5 of the cluster analysis report?

Would other perspectives benefit significantly from further narrative information?

Would the benefit of adding further narrative information be outweighed by the burden of doing so? *


disagreeSomewhat


Overarching X

17


disagreeSomewhat


institutional statement - provided by the HEIOverarching institutional statement - provided by Research England

X

Comments: 9. Visualisation We have provided further information including example visualisations of the KEF within the consultation document.

Visualisation Please indicate [using a % slider scale] your level of support for the proposed method of comparison and visualisation

Each of the seven perspectives is to be given equal weighting. 100

Metrics under each perspective are to be normalised and summed. 80

The performance of each HEI is to be expressed in a radar chart in deciles, relative to the mean average decile of the peer group. 80

Perspectives are not intended to be aggregated into a single score. 100

Narratives are to be presented alongside the metric score, making it clear that metrics in the two perspectives of public & community engagement and local growth & regeneration are provisional, and should be read in conjunction with the narratives. 100

Visualisation is to be delivered through an interactive, online dashboard which will allow exploration of the data underlying the ‘headline’ results in various ways. 80

Please comment on the presentation and visualisation proposals, for example:

where further clarification is required where refinements could be made whether there are areas where more consistency across HEIs could

be achieved- how narratives could be incorporated?(400 word limit)

No comment10. Implementation We will pilot the implementation with a group of HEIs as described in the consultation document. Please provide any comments about the implementation of the KEF. (200 word limit)

We welcome the proposed timeline, and incorporation of a pilot phase. Arts Council England would welcome the opportunity to participate/contribute perspectives as an

18

interested stakeholder as the pilot phase develops.11. Any other comments If you have any other comments, please share them here. (400 word limit)

Arts Council England is the national development agency for the arts, museums and libraries in England. Our mission is 'great art and culture for everyone' and we work to achieve this by championing, developing and investing in arts and cultural experiences that enrich people's lives.

We are a large, wide-ranging funder. We supported 3,861 projects with over £71m in 2017-18, through our open programme of Arts Council National Lottery Project Grants. 829 organisations receive regular core funding from us (£408m per year) – our National Portfolio Organisations. We have a wider, varied portfolio of targeted/strategic programmes.

We also serve as England’s national development agency for the arts, public libraries (over 3,000 in England) and museums (over 2,600 in England), and so our sector development responsibilities bring us into contact with/call for us to identify and share good practice from organisations not directly funded by us, but which operate within our ‘footprint’.

As a funder, we regularly support projects that entail the creation of consortia between arts organisations and other partners, often including universities, the commercial creative industries, local government and the third sector, as well as in education, healthcare, youth services, criminal justice etc.

We make a substantial investment in research and evaluation on the impact of the arts (£600k in 2018/19), often in partnership with HEIs alongside arts and cultural organisations.

We also award regular funding through our National Portfolio to 20 arts venues across 17 universities in England (total grant value of £7.13m per year);

Between April 2013 and June 2018, we invested £5.98m in 185 projects across 78 English HEIs through our open programme of National Lottery-supported project grants;

And – over the same time-period - £29.44m in 86 projects across 37 English HEIs through our targeted strategic grants programmes.

19

responses to this consultation are invited from any ... · web viewplease comment on the proposal...

Documents