A Strategy for Arts and Social Inclusion
Report of a consultation meeting between Creative Exchange Partners and the Arts Council of England on the draft strategy for the Arts and Social Inclusion

Held at The Arts Council of England
26TH JANUARY 2001


Introduction
Opening Comments
Comments from Creative Exchange Partners
Response from ACE
Open Discussion - SWOT analysis of Strategy
Recommendations
1. Introduction

Creative Exchange facilitated a consultation meeting between partners/contacts and the Arts Council of England on 26 January 2001 to discuss the draft strategy for the Arts and Social Inclusion.

Creative Exchange is an international network of partners working with the arts in social development worldwide. This opportunity offered Creative Exchange partners and contacts - some of whom do not fall into the natural stakeholder group of ACE - to comment on the draft Strategy.

The meeting was attended by 23 partners and contacts working in this field in England . They included individual practitioners, arts organisations, development agencies, networks and academic institutions.

Aims of the Meeting were:
  1. To discuss whether the proposed strategy will enable the arts to address social inclusion in an effective and sustainable way.
  2. To comment on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the strategy.
  3. To propose amendments and improvements to the Arts Council of England.

The meeting opened with views from four different perspectives: community arts sector, social development sector, training and professional development, and practitioners.

There followed a presentation by Nikki Crane, Social Inclusion Officer for ACE, prior to an open discussion on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the strategy.
2. Opening Comments

Helen Gould, Creative Exchange Coordinator

The strategy had aroused concern among some practitioners and organisations, but the dialogue with the Arts Council of England was a welcome step and signalled that the arts funding system was willing to listen and was open to debate. Three questions were posed to help frame analysis of the strategy:

  1. Does this strategy enable all of stakeholders who are in fact involved in the Arts in Social Inclusion in this country to contribute to Arts and Social inclusion?
  2. Are the definitions of Social Inclusion appropriate?
  3. Are the frameworks for partnerships, resourcing and delivery sufficiently inclusive?


Creative Exchange had already submitted comments on the strategy, which questioned whether Regularly Funded Organisations (RFOs) alone should be responsible for delivering the strategy, or whether the arts funding system only had a responsibility to work with regularly funded organisations.

It expressed concern about whether methods of evaluation in the arts funding system were appropriate to capture the needs of communities and excluded groups, and to measure the impact of arts projects in addressing these needs.

It was important that funding available for the Arts in Social inclusion was reaching where it was needed, particularly in the case of RFOs, and not just spent on deficit funding. It was also important that the right organisations were funded to deliver, as beneficiaries might be negatively affected by poor work.

However, delivering the Arts in Social Inclusion was not just about funding organisations to deliver projects, but about capacity building the sector; it was about investing in research and evaluating impacts; about the continuing professional development of this sector on a sustainable basis.

Above all, the Strategy for the Arts in Social Inclusion could not afford to fail the disempowered and excluded people and communities who stood to benefit from it.
3. Comments from Creative Exchange Partners

Jules Cadie - Mailout

It was important to recognise that the Arts and Social Inclusion field was a cultural continuum which went way beyond the Arts Council of England and the arts funding system. This system was a closed 'loop' to many organisations. While the strategy focused on working with Regularly Funded Organisations, the majority of organisations delivering social inclusion work were outside 'the loop' and were therefore largely excluded from debate about and funding for the Arts and Social Inclusion. It was important that there should not be funding for social inclusion work which did not address social inclusion.

There was a great difference between participatory arts practice, which was a dynamic agent of social change, and doing arts work in the community, which was more passive and which only engages existing audiences. The arts funding system had a tendency to be reactive, in a social and political sense, while participatory arts practice tended to work from the bottom-up, with non-traditional audiences, addressing social and political issues from their root causes, and was therefore more pro-active.

There were some highly skilled and experienced organisations and practitioners in the field for whom the strategy presented a danger: Having 'lived scared' for many years they now found that they were being called upon to pass on their skills to RFOs. Not only was resourcing RFOs an expensive way of delivering, but there was a danger that RFOs could duplicate the role of existing local expertise/projects and make them redundant. It was important therefore that the strategy ensured that it was supporting this existing body of expertise and targeting funding on organisations outside the loop.

There was a need for profile raising within this field for example, on how the arts could contribute to the work of local authorities, lifelong learning and after/outside school activities. It was important that there was support for organisations such as Mailout who were putting people outside the loop in touch, and it was also important that ACE staff engaged with practice and practitioners outside the loop. ACE might achieve this is through regional seminars bringing Social Inclusion stakeholders together.

Judy El-Bushra - The Agency for Cooperation and Research in Development (ACORD)

ACORD had interpreted the strategy as a development organisation, and as a result had a different interpretation of and approach to inclusion.

Through its work, ACORD had discovered that the focusing on poverty as an indicator of social inclusion was limited since it failed to address the non-economic causes of exclusion, and led to an over-simplification of the causes and relationships that result in exclusion. As a result it had shifted away from addressing poverty to addressing social justice.

ACORD had recently developed a programme Tools towards Social Justice which evaluated forms of social inclusion in Namibia around child rights, racism and sexism. It had a three-pronged approach - analysis of modes of exclusion, information gathering about the causes of exclusion and using information as a framework for building a strategy to address exclusion.

The framework explored discriminatory relationships and exclusion from the point of view of different groups. It did not make assumptions about the causes of exclusion or about who were the excluded and the excluders. The framework evolved through participatory discussion and analysis. It was an important tool because it enabled the agency to make informed decisions on how to act to address inclusion, on the causes and consequences of exclusion. ACORD was happy to disseminate its lessons learned from this approach if ACE was interested in using it as a model to inform the further development of the strategy.

Addressing exclusion required many different approaches: working with excluded groups, working with non-excluded groups to promote inclusion, and working with institutions and authorities. The strategy needed to support work in all these areas.

The issue of 'instrumentality' was raised. Was there a real distinction between mainstream arts activity, and arts work addressing social inclusion?

*Judy El Bushra later offered the Tools towards Social Justice project as a model for replication internally within the arts funding system to help develop a more comprehensive approach to inclusion.


Dave Pammenter - Centre for the Arts in Development Communications

Dave Pammenter challenged the arts funding system to explore its own rational for and involvement in the strategy: Who controls the agenda for the Arts and Social inclusion and why? What is the role of the arts Council of England in social transformation - can it deliver inclusion? What is the definition of poverty, and how does one define who is excluded? He pointed out that the arts funding system had been down this route before in the 1970s. How could it make this approach sustainable?

There was a need to look at values, ethics, and issues of rights and governance in delivering the strategy. Above all, it was critical to engage in a grassroots dialogue with the 'marginalised' to find out what they wanted to achieve from such a strategy. If we want people to participate, then we have to be prepared to hand over influence and power. If the arts funding system is looking towards a sustainable strategy, then it may need to consider a new kind of cultural policy rooted in social transformation.


Candida Blaker - Consultant in social development and arts

Candida Blaker focused on exploring key messages in the strategy.

What was the meaning and scope of social inclusion? It was not just a lack of resources but citizenship, power, social transformation, visibility. The arts funding system needed to be clearer about its definitions and about how the strategy interconnects with access and equity - how does it lock with cultural diversity, access, education and disability?

What is the content? Who is the audience? Who participates? Was there a distinction between participatory and amateur? The introduction signalled that the arts funding system was focusing on issues of quality and instrumentality, where a clearer and more positive message might be welcome.

Where is the profile raising? There is a need for advocacy, for information about best practice, about high quality in addressing social inclusion, for creative an enabling environment. There's a need for broader networking with social agencies.
4. Response from ACE

Nikki Crane Arts and Social Inclusion Lead Officer, ACE

Nikki Crane explained the background to the consultation meeting: there had been four mapping and networking meetings during Autumn 2000 which signalled a huge shift in the way the Arts Council was integrating ideas into policy.

The consultation aimed to make the Arts Council of England less remote and get views from as broad a range of people as possible on the arts and social inclusion. There would be further consultation with focus groups, leading to conferences on training and networking. No definitions had been set: action research was taking place which may alter the definitions.

However, it was an important act of commitment by the Arts Council to appoint a lead officer liasing with the senior management team to mainstream social inclusion across the arts funding system.

It would be foolhardy to ignore Regularly Funded Organisationsif it was appropriate, but it was clear that it needed to be done more sensitively. There was a need to work with existing organisations and bring on stream new organisations. Partnerships would be critical because RFOS could lend resources and credibility to expert organisations.

There was a need for a clear evidence base and while there was much good work this was an area that ACE clearly needed to invest in developing. It was clear that social inclusion required new approaches to measuring quality in the context of fitness for purpose: what amounts to success for the Arts and Social Inclusion?

The action plan following the mapping meetings involved action research pilot projects to develop evaluation and partnerships. ACE would be participating in meetings on the Arts and Health (February 2001) the Criminal Justice system in late 2001. It would also be developing databases and contacts.

Nikki's response led into a frank and open exchange of views on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the strategy in its present form. It was suggested and agreed that the points raised in the discussion should be taken forward by Nikki and, if possible, expressed to the Senior Management team.
5. Open Discussion SWOT analysis of Strategy

Issue

Strenghts

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats
Arts funding system ASI heralds revolutionary change in the system Arts organisations need to change their product and process to deliver ASI Change Arts funding systems through proper impact evaluation of ASI Current systems don't monitor or respond to change
Role of the Arts in social inclusion . Artists are currently being excluded from the social debate Arts can expressviews and build profile of excluded groups Potential backlash over terminology/role of Arts from different areas of Arts sector
Funding Ringfenced funding for Arts and Social Inclusion Funding currently Art-form based, assessed and delivered Funding for networking and professional development for Arts and Social Inclusion RFOs may look to Arts and Social Inclusion for deficit funding
Funding for non RFOs Non RFOs skilled at building partnerships Specialist ASI flagships are currently underfunded Enable ASI specialists to be the R&D cutting edge Under capacity of specialist practitioners and organisations. Will RFOs be funded to do out work?
Responding to community needs . Communities dynamic and changing Non RFOs more flexible and responsive RFOs more fixed and reactive
Ownership of strategy ACE can build broad coalition of support ACE currently has ownership of strategy Develop network of ownership of strategy Lack of ownership limits implemetation
Communication of strategy ACE Strategy can help communications between Arts sector and excluded people No engagement of excluded people in process of developing strategy Enable excluded groups and people to participate in strategy development Loss of credibility if strategy fails to include excluded people
Reaching excluded groups Many organisations and practitioners outside "the loop" are already in touch with excluded groups ACE does not talk directly to excluded people. The "loop" excludes the excluded Non-RFOs can offer ACE access to excluded groups Danger that "loop" will remain exclusive
Reflecting views Call on a broad range of views and agendas Make sure new organisations do not replicate existing groups Opportunity to reflect widest range of views in strategy Don't expect organisations working for social inclusion to deliver policy
Getting the message right ACE can champion Arts and social inclusion Need a clear definition on social inclusion Opportunity to get views of excluders and excluded Potential becklash against so-called "instrumentality"
Taking forward the strategy . Notions of conferences currently too narrow Residential conferences with Arts-activity forums and skill sharing .
Developing policy . . What are the lessons learned from past failures? Past failures can promote mistrust
Training . Most of system is trained in a way where collaboration becomes a threat Training should be cross-sectoral Missed opportunity if training is not cross disciplinary
Continuing professional development . No existing standards or professional development initiatives in this fields Opportunity to support development of a CPD hub for ASI .
6. Recommendations

1. Clarify the message - what is social inclusion really about? How does the arts address it? How does the arts funding system practice inclusion?
2. Review the issue of funding for/delivery through Regularly Funded Organisations - ensure they are not duplicating the work of specialists
3. Consider the establishment of a CPD hub for Arts and Social inclusion
4. Organise regional seminars/networking events on arts and social inclusion
5. Consider transferring models/strategies for developing/reviewing policy from social sectors e.g. ACORD's Tools for Social Justice framework
6. Develop dialogue with excluded and marginalized groups directly through RFO/non-RFO groups working with them, as there is a need for the strategy to be responsive to people whom it is intended to benefit
7. Sample groups through 'non-loop' expert organisations and use their specialist expertise in the process e.g. use participatory arts methods to consult with groups and enable them to communicate/feed back their views
8. Consider how ACE/funding system needs to change its methods of evaluating success. Does this imply that arts organisations need to change?
back to top