RENAISSANCE in the REGIONS: REALISING THE VISIONIn the twenty-first century, the UK’s museums and galleries will have five main aims: to be an important resource and champion for

RENAISSANCE in the REGIONS: REALISING THE VISION Renaissance in the Regions, 2001-2008 Review of the Renaissance Review Advisory Group, 2009

Renaissance Review: 1

Contents Preface Executive summary 1. The original vision 2. Evolution and implementation 3. Achievements 4. Critical issues 5. Changing contexts 6. Recommendations Introduction 1. Background to Renaissance in the Regions 2. The Renaissance Review

Contents Caveats Terminology and definitions Members of the Advisory Group

Part 1: Reiteration of the original vision 1.1 Problems 1.2 Principles 1.3 Intentions 1.4 Roles and responsibilities in the new framework 1.5 Building the new framework Part 2: Evolution and implementation 2.1 Government investment 2.2 The evolution of Renaissance’s priorities 2.3 The implementation of the framework for Renaissance’s delivery 2.4 Renaissance’s finances 2.5 Accountability Part 3: Achievements 3.1 Renaissance’s achievements according to MLA’s quantitative data collections 3.2 Renaissance’s achievements according to other sources Part 4: Critical issues 4.1 Clarity of purpose 4.2 Partnership working within a coherent framework 4.3 Finances 4.4 Planning 4.5 Performance framework 4.5 Reporting on Renaissance’s achievements Part 5: Changing contexts 5.1 Background 5.2 Changing circumstances 5.3 Sectoral developments 5.4 MLA’s changes to Renaissance, 2008/9 onwards 5.5 Horizon scanning


Part 6: Recommendations 6.1 Guiding principles 6.2 New framework 6.3 Implementation References Approach Acknowledgements Abbreviations Appendices Appendix 1 The scope of the Renaissance Review Appendix 2 Preliminary Discussion Document Sara Selwood, Sara Selwood Associates Appendix 3 Renaissance in the Regions: Financial Analysis Adrian Babbidge, Egeria Appendix 4 Renaissance in the Regions: Data Review Adrian Babbidge, Egeria Appendix 5 Review of Renaissance: Expectations Helen Wilkinson Appendix 6 Renaissance Now: Review of hubs and hub partners Julie Carpenter, Education for Change, & Nick Moore, Acumen

Appendix 7 Renaissance Now: Review of the Impact of Renaissance on the Wider Museums Community Julia Holberry & Erica Anders, Julia Holberry Associates Appendix 8 Renaissance Now: Review of Renaissance ‘other programme strands’ Gaby Porter, Gaby Porter + Associates Appendix 9 Analysis of submissions to the Renaissance Review Pooja Sachdev & Acushla Lynds, MLA Appendix 10 Horizon Scanning Peter Tebby, National School of Government, Pooja Sachdev & Acushla Lynds, MLA Appendix 11 Good Practice and Public Value Pooja Sachdev, MLA



Appendix 12 Renaissance Review and MLA Reform Appendix 13 A National Strategy for English Museums Appendix 14 Research and evaluations commissioned by MLA

Preface This extract is reproduced from ‘A cause for concern: Our major regional museums and galleries’, Chapter 1 of Renaissance in the Regions: a new vision for England’s Museums Association Regional Museums Task Force, 2001 During 2000, growing concerns about the state of major regional museums and galleries were highlighted in a number of articles in the press and in a number of keynote speeches, including some by leading figures in the art world…The debate, and the seriousness attached to it by cultural commentators and practitioners at all levels, reflected the importance of museums and galleries to society, both through the collections that they hold and through the social benefits delivered by their activities. The general tenor of the articles and speeches was to highlight that underfunding of the major regional museums and galleries had led to a lack of capacity1 which was restricting their ability to use their collections to provide opportunities for learning, inspiration and enjoyment. Symptoms of this problem include not enough curators with appropriate expertise, high-quality exhibitions being mounted only infrequently, inadequate education services, and a general failure to meet governing-body and user expectations. Most prominent among the proposed solutions was a combination of an injection of substantial central-government funding support with new governance arrangements at local level.

1 By ‘capacity’ the Task Force means sufficient resources (appropriate staff, materials, facilities and other resources) to achieve both their own objectives and those set by others.

These concerns were very much focused on the major regional museums and galleries – the limited number of large museums and galleries which, by virtue of their size (collections, staff and multidisciplinary nature), historical importance (foundation date, collecting hinterland and quality of collections) and status of location (regional capital, population size or economic hinterland), have a pre-eminent position in their region and an ability to deliver significant benefits to the people who live there. There are unlikely to be more than two or three of these in each of the English regions. They include the leading museums and galleries in Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol, Oxford and so on. But there is no universally agreed list, and potentially any significant museum and gallery service could aspire to regional status.

England has some of the finest museums and galleries in the world. Their rich collections, imaginative public programmes, and staggering variety are a great national asset. Governments and museums throughout the world recognise our expertise and innovation in this area, and turn to us for advice. Using Lottery money, many museums and galleries (but by no means all) have reinvigorated their buildings and displays, often experiencing hugely increased visitor numbers as a result. With imagination and resourcefulness, many of those who work for and govern museums and galleries have responded to government agendas on education, social inclusion and access, and have steadily raised standards in these areas and in collections care. However, it is difficult to be resourceful without resources. In recent years, revenue funding for regional museums has been unreliable, with the result that development has been uneven. Historically, too, the nation’s system of museums has developed piecemeal, lacking clear policy or legislative frameworks. As a result, provision of museums is illogical: there are both gaps and overlaps. The resulting ‘rich patchwork’ of museum provision is sometimes


presented as strength in diversity, but too often means that services are provided inconsistently. Valuable work undertaken in one locality is rarely replicated in other parts of the country. Worse still, good practice is often unsustainable. Bright spots of excellence flare up, but many are soon extinguished. The major regional museums and galleries struggle with inadequate core budgets and with challenge funding which appears only sporadically – and at short notice – from a bewildering number of sources. There are other problems. Too many of the objects in museum collections are never seen. Certainly many are on display, and many more are legitimately kept for research. Some others find their way into temporary exhibitions, educational loan boxes, handling collections, and commercial loan schemes. But a great many – far too many – are underused. Too many people who work for museums regard their main task as being to preserve their collections for some unspecified, indeterminate future.

There is also a serious scholarship crisis. Scholarship is not an ivory-tower luxury: it is the combination of knowledge and communication which underpins everything that a museum and gallery does. It is only by maintaining a high level of scholarship that museums and galleries can be authoritative – as the public rightly expects them to be – and can retain their links into national and international networks for loans and the top touring exhibitions. The weakening of scholarship means that the potential for learning, education and inclusion is significantly impaired.

Many major regional museums and galleries also feel that their asset base is being weakened over time. A museum’s asset base is its collections. This is its currency which it uses to convert into social and economic benefits. To maintain and develop its collections it needs to continue to acquire. Opportunities to add historically and scientifically important pictures, objects,

specimens and collections are usually unique and rare. Most of the major regional museums and galleries no longer have acquisition budgets to allow them to acquire or begin acquisitions appeals. As a consequence, parts of our local, regional and national heritage are being lost for all time. The symptoms of crisis are many, but virtually all of the major regional museums and galleries and the smaller sub-regional bodies report serious problems… The Task Force’s objective is to create a long-term, self-sustaining programme which meets the needs (on several different levels) of the entire museums and galleries community and their users. This should be based on a plural-funding approach within a national framework, facilitated by a stream of centrally generated (and monitored) funding to key institutions. No assumptions should be made based upon the current funding status of any individual museum or gallery. This is an opportunity to review the logic of government funding to museums and galleries in the regions. Government funding should be an investment to achieve the following objectives: to create a robust national framework

for museums and galleries; to secure a long-term sustainable future

for museums and galleries; to ensure that museums and galleries

have a valued social purpose; to develop a well-managed national

collection; to mobilise the resources of the

museums and galleries community in the regions to achieve five main aims (see below).

A key outcome will be to ensure that – as a first stage in a longer-term ambition – the major regional museums and galleries are fully equipped to join the national museums and galleries in meeting the challenges of the new century.



In the twenty-first century, the UK’s museums and galleries will have five main aims: to be an important resource and

champion for learning and education; to promote access and inclusion

encouraging social inclusion and cultural diversity, acting as focal points for their local communities, and providing public spaces for dialogue and discussion about issues of contemporary significance;

to contribute to economic regeneration in the regions;

to collect, care for and interpret (on a foundation of research and scholarship) the material culture of the United Kingdom and use it to encourage inspiration and creativity;

to ensure excellence and quality in the delivery of their core services.

This report articulates these objectives and aims, and indicates how museums and galleries can achieve them.

Executive summary Seven years after the publication of the 2001 Regional Museums Task Force Report, Renaissance in the Regions. A new vision for England’s museums, MLA brought the Renaissance Review Advisory Group together to review Renaissance and made recommendations for its future. Scope: The Group’s brief was to:

track the development and achievements of Renaissance in the Regions up to the end of 2007/8, and assess these against its initial intentions as articulated in the 2001 Report;

relate past and current Renaissance priorities and working practices to current and future museum sector priorities; and

make recommendations for the priorities, management and delivery of the Renaissance programme, 09/10–10/11, for which funding is guaranteed under the CSR2007 and beyond.

The Review is intended to inform a bid to the next Comprehensive Spending Review to contribute to the future direction of Renaissance, its planning, delivery, management and leadership post-2011. It complements and reinforces MLA’s current change agenda. The Review covers the regional hubs and various strands funded by Renaissance: the Museum Development Fund; the Leading Archives and Museums programme; Diversify, a positive action training programme; the Designation Challenge Fund; the Subject Specialist Networks and the collections advisory services. It also covers aspects of MLA’s management of Renaissance including its vision; priorities; the distribution of its funding; performance management and accountability. Several programme strands are beyond the scope of the Review. These include those whose support has ceased (Museums and Galleries Month); those which have only recently been funded by Renaissance (Apprenticeships, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, Find your Talent); and other initiatives merely closely associated with it (Accreditation, Strategic Commissioning and its development of generic learning and social outcomes). Sources: The Review draws heavily on existing documentation, a number of specifically commissioned reports, in-depth interviews and on-line submissions. Over 400 people have contributed. Caveats: The Review is subject to a number of caveats which principally pertain to Renaissance’s accountability and information systems.

The documentation available from MLA provided little in the way of critical intelligence. It

was not always able to deduce why Renaissance’s priorities had evolved as they did; Apart from the quarterly data collection and annual exit surveys, which exclusively

pertain to the hubs’ audiences, there is no comprehensive framework for reporting outcomes and no annual review of Renaissance;

Until 2006, little was demanded in the way of financial reporting. The accounts provided for the Review were, therefore, incomplete;

It has not been possible to provide a solid assessment of Renaissance’s overall outcomes on basis of the documentation available, or to compare the position of museums at the end of 2007/8 with that before Renaissance in the Regions.

Work on this Review coincided with many changes being introduced to Renaissance over the course of the 2008 calendar year. MLA’s account of changes being introduced to


1. The original vision The 2001 report of the Regional Museums Task Force recognised that in the absence of consistently excellent and sustainable museum services across England, the sector’s potential to make a real difference to people’s lives would not be realized. Their enquiry into the state of regional museums found that it was characterized by fragmented structures; the absence of regional leadership; poorly articulated aims and objectives; traditions of decision-making based on expediency rather than strategy; the inefficient and ineffective use of resources; and the failure of constituent parts of the sector to work together or share best practice. Localised successes in the fields of education, creativity and social inclusion were unsustainable; morale was low. The sector was failing to attract sufficient high-calibre entrants, was resistant to change, and was over-reliant on transformations brought about by individuals. The financial pressures of museums’ parent bodies had created a conspicuous resources deficit throughout the sector, and declining investment in expertise and scholarship. Museums lacked the sufficient reliable performance data and rigorous evaluation needed to quantify their achievements and were insufficiently valued by funders. Assuming that the creation of a mutually supportive environment in which museums could flourish would enable the sector to provide a first-class services to users, the Task Force proposed that this state of affairs could be reversed and that museums could be an important resource and champion for learning and education; promote access and inclusion; contribute to economic regeneration in the regions; use their collections to encourage inspiration and creativity; ensure excellence and quality in the delivery of core services; modernise and rationalize; and could measure their outputs, outcomes and benefits to reveal that they could indeed make a real difference to people’s lives and contribute to government policy. The Task Force proposed that this might be achieved through a new framework for regional museums based on an integrated system, identifiable leadership in each region, and defined roles. The main components of that framework were to be the regional hubs working in partnership with the regional agencies, and with designated university and smaller museums. Government investment in Renaissance was predicated on increasing museums’ capability to deliver current government objectives and, at the same time, enabling regional museums to be better equipped to form public-private partnerships to secure the long-term stability essential to the delivery of high quality services to users. 2. Evolution and implementation Renaissance is the UK government’s most important intervention in English non-national museums since the Museums Act of 1845, which empowered cities with a population of over 10,000 to levy a halfpenny on the rates to set up Free Museums. It builds on the achievements of the Heritage Lottery Fund, which invested in museums’ buildings and renewed their displays, and the Designation Challenge Fund, which identified the most significant collections built up by non-national museums over the past 150 years. It was inevitable that the implementation of Renaissance would depart from the Task Force’s proposals. There was no formal, forward plan for it, and Renaissance has been subject to a number of factors – most importantly, the amount of funding available, government priorities and choices made by MLA. MLA, for example, assumed that evidence of immediate successes might convince DCMS and the Treasury to fund Renaissance as originally proposed.


As originally envisaged, Renaissance has been delivered though a number of programmes and by a number of protagonists – the most important of which were the regional hubs. MLA’s guidance to them focused on what the Task Force had identified as ‘key benefits’ – education and learning; access and inclusion; regeneration; collections; excellence and modernisation – although some of these were prioritised and others effectively neglected. Renaissance is run by a modest team within MLA, and is supported by other teams, particularly those dedicated to learning and access, standards and workforce development, research and evidence, and – until April 2009 – by its regional agencies. Regional Renaissance boards were introduced to oversee and bring greater transparency to regional decision-making. A retrospective analysis suggests that the weighting attributed to particular areas of activity by the hubs has varied considerably. Levels of engagement with, and support for the wider museums sector have similarly varied from region to region. MLA’s performance indicators have almost exclusively focused on the hubs. Their data has been principally used to make the case for government continuing its support for Renaissance. Beyond its audience data framework, which emphasises children and DCMS’s priority groupings, MLA has neither insisted on, nor specified, measures of success or conventions of reporting. Relatively few risks have been associated with Renaissance. Those that have been identified are high-level, and largely related to the retention of funding and hubs’ delivery. 3. Achievements The quantitative data from the hubs’ regular collections of data and the exit surveys reveals that: Visits to museums in England, which were in decline at the turn of the millennium, began to

recover at the same time that Renaissance funding became available; From 2003 to 2007 hub increases were in line with, or exceeded, those of DCMS-sponsored

museums; The general trend has been for hub museums to out-perform their counterparts in Scotland

and Wales, where there is no equivalent to Renaissance; The increase in visit number reflects more visits by people from the immediate local authority

area; There is evidence of a stable and heavily-used schools service; Hub museums’ visitor profiles of people from ethnic minorities broadly match their proportion

in the population in all regions except London. There is also a correlation between museum visits and the proportion of the population receiving Disability Living Allowances.

Qualitative accounts produced for this Review provide other perspectives on Renaissance’s achievements. Regional museums have come a long way since the Regional Museums Task Force’s report of 2001: they have a political profile - not least amongst politicians and civil servants across Whitehall, elected members and senior officers in local authorities. Their elevated status means that museums are now more capable of levering in other funding, and their capacity to contribute to regional regeneration agendas is better understood and recognised. Regional museums are noticeably ‘more confident in the management and presentation of their collections than they were 5-6 years ago’. Research and evaluation have become an increasingly standard part of their work; they are becoming increasingly modernised and rationalised; have introduced greater cultural diversity and are reaching more audiences through learning projects with children, young people and adults. Volunteering has not only added to museums value and


enabled hubs to engage more effectively with members of the local community, but has helped volunteers to develop their own skills and self-confidence. Beyond the hubs, the Museum Development Officer structure is considered to be achieving ‘real change’

4. Critical issues Although Renaissance’s priorities have understandably shifted over the years, many of those who contributed to the Review considered that Renaissance has lost its way. MLA is accused of ‘always looking at project level, not at the big picture’ and it is unclear what specific contributions its various programmes have made, or are making, to Renaissance’s objectives, It could be argued that Renaissance has not yet amounted to more than the sum of its parts. Partnership was always considered fundamental to Renaissance and its successful delivery depended on a coherent framework structured around a clearly articulated set of relationships. But the roles and responsibilities within that framework have been unclear, and Renaissance has lacked the leadership to address the various issues arising. Although the scale of funding earmarked for Renaissance represents the majority of MLA’s income, the Renaissance manager has never been sufficiently senior to merit a place on the organisation’s executive board. This excludes the post-holder from directly engaging in decision making. Support for Renaissance within MLA has not always been sufficiently forthcoming. The implication is that MLA has not been committed to Renaissance wholeheartedly. Responsibility for Renaissance is distributed amongst various MLA teams, which have managed various of the national programmes. Despite being funded by Renaissance, some of these strands already existed, serve cross-domain agendas and have not been refocused on the specific transformation of museums. While the proportion of individual museums’ funding provided by Renaissance varies considerably, MLA’s relationships with hub museums’ primary funding partners, the majority of which are local authorities, appears to be more theoretical than actual. It has largely ignored the realities of working within local government structures. Indeed, MLA’s accounts of Renaissance’s effectiveness exclude the local-national funding partnerships that it represents. Its priority has been to demonstrate the effectiveness of Renaissance per se, rather than to highlight its integration with other government-funded bodies. Despite the notion of parity that informs Renaissance funding, the Review found that the investment per capita varied from region to region. No allowance is made for either local or regional conditions, or quality of performance. Renaissance’s emphasis on ‘quick wins’ and short-termism both run counter to the Task Force’s original ethos of long-term transformation and consolidation. The terms of their funding have meant that the hubs have been unable to recruit and retain staff, develop their capacity or implement the organisational change that had been envisaged. The fact that over 30% of hubs’ staff are on fixed-terms contracts does not bode well for Renaissance’s sustainability. It is admitted that the follow-up of planning guidance has been weak and inconsistent, and the hubs’ plans have never been used to assess their performance. It remains unclear how much funding has been committed to particular activities. Museums and other service providers have not been formally encouraged to share knowledge or learning. This has resulted in duplication of effort and inefficiency.


As already observed, MLA’s reporting fails to do justice to Renaissance. It has been driven by advocacy but not interrogated for the benefit of either Renaissance or the sector in general. The absence of a framework of performance measures means that data collection has principally, if not exclusively, focused on the hubs’ data collection and exit surveys, whereas those on children and visitors’ demographics and other programme strands have been virtually neglected. There has been no coherent programme of research focused on the overarching benefits of Renaissance to the public.

5. Changing contexts As its title suggests, Renaissance in the Regions was conceived at a time when the government was preoccupied with regional devolution. Other pertinent contemporary initiatives included local government reform, including the introduction of Comprehensive Performance Assessment. An unprecedented degree of public accountability also informed central government reform. Within the museums sector, Renaissance coincided with the introduction of free admission to DCMS-sponsored museums and the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s devolution of its £9m per annum museums and galleries funding stream to the Arts and Humanities Research Board. Leadership was increasingly becoming identified as an issue throughout the cultural sector. Renaissance’s future development will, inevitably, reflect changing political attitudes. The government’s 2007 sub-national review, for example, identified the need for more simplified structures in the regions, streamlined decision-making and improved accountability. Its local government agenda is currently emphasising local distinctiveness and greater engagement by local citizens. These shifts in thinking about the regions are echoed within the DCMS-family. By 2008, the department announced that it was streamlining its own regional structures and highlighting partnership working amongst its own non-departmental public bodies in the regions. MLA is replacing eight of its nine regional agencies with three regional directors of engagement; and the Arts Council is proposing to group its nine, streamlined regional offices in four areas. In terms of local government, Comprehensive Area Assessments have spelt out the end of service-based performance management, replacing this with an outcomes-based system. Within that context, museums are needing to establish what contribution they can make to local authority agendas. This is all the more important given their vulnerability as non-statutory services. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is currently reviewing its museums funding. Changes in central government’s Public Service Agreements, alongside an ongoing debate about the value of instrumentalism and targets, contributed to DCMS shifting its emphasis from ‘measurement to judgement’. Promoted by its 2007 review, Supporting Excellence in the Arts, the department recently piloted self-assessment and peer review amongst its grant-aided museums. Other developments include DCMS-funded programmes. Strategic Commissioning, launched by DCMS/DfES in 2003/4 to broaden access for children and young people and build communities, was intended to ‘complement Renaissance’. DCMS and MLA have been working on a national strategy for English museums, and the Museums Association has been campaigning on the effectiveness of museum collections and museums’ sustainability. Closer to home, a ‘new’ MLA anticipates that its organisational and managerial reforms will have positive implications for Renaissance. It has invested in research to better account for the impact of its sectors and to guide policy and decision-making; its basic management systems and


processes are being overhauled as are its approaches to business planning and performance monitoring. Many of the specific changes made to Renaissance acknowledge the criticisms made during the evolution of this Review. Some are already in place, and MLA intends to implement others in the future.

6. Recommendations Renaissance has already contributed to arresting the decline of many regional museums and halting their financial and political neglect. But in order to effect the comprehensive transformation that the Task Force visualised, museums needed to change from introspective institutions – preoccupied with their resource problems (genuine though these were) – to outward looking organisations: confident, ambitious and articulate about the values they create for society. The recommendations of the Renaissance Review Advisory Group have been informed by a number of fundamental assumptions: In common with the Regional Museums Task Force, it regards Renaissance as a mechanism

for achieving the long-term and sustainable transformation of museums. It holds that partnership working and the sharing of best practice should contribute to overcoming the fragmentation of the sector and ensure greater quality of delivery, efficiencies and effectiveness;

Organisational and cultural change are fundamental to achieving the best possible outcomes for the public service delivery;

The role of museums is even more important in an economic downturn, and in the face of growing unemployment, when individuals and communities need, more than ever, the combination of solace and stimulus that they provide.

At such times, Renaissance should not be asking for increased funding, but should be consolidating its investment and putting it to better use. Long-terms plans for Renaissance should be put into place for post-2011 spending review bids, based on evidence of change and the clear articulation of future benefits.

Without support for Renaissance, the proposed National Museums Strategy is unworkable. The Review’s recommendations have been deliberately conceived in terms of enhancing and delivering that strategy, and embrace DCMS-sponsored museums, museums with designated collections, and the wider museums sector.

It considers that Renaissance can achieve significant cost savings, eliminate duplication, and make efficiencies in terms of revising its regional structures. Greater simplicity will facilitate greater effectiveness.

Guiding principles Commitment to funding: Renaissance currently adds about 13% to the revenue budgets of participating museums. Although this may seem too small a proportion to make a significant difference, Renaissance funding unlocks far more of the potential value of the locally funded museum core than this might suggest. Uncertainty as to whether Renaissance constitutes a permanent core responsibility of government or a fixed-term programme has created a situation which has, arguably, militated against the long-term transformation of museums.

R1: The Review recommends that DCMS: explicitly commits to the long-term funding of Renaissance

Clarity of purpose: The realisation of the original vision for Renaissance was, understandably, inhibited by compromises required by the levels and timing of the funding received.


The Review recognises a need for greater transparency, operational simplicity, effectiveness and efficiencies; a more forthright commitment to sustainability, and the development of an evaluation framework which will enable Renaissance’s overall progress and achievements to be identified, evidenced and improved upon. R2: The Review recommends that:

the overall vision for Renaissance as a national initiative is revisited, revised and restated, and a long-term plan for Renaissance is published;

structural and cultural change within the museums sector is accelerated, for example, through a greater commitment to partnership working, both within and outside the sector; the greater sharing of expertise, experience and resources;

more effective use is made of museum collections; museums’ appetite for innovation, risk and commercial and social entrepreneurship is

increased; Renaissance focuses unambiguously on museums’ unique contribution, undiluted by

government’s commitment to a cross-domain agenda. Coherence: The Review has identified considerable potential for greater consistency within Renaissance’s management and delivery systems.

R3: The Review recommends that: all aspects of Renaissance management and delivery are congruent with its

mission; that there is complete and logical alignment between Renaissance’s aims, its

strategic objectives, implementation and performance assessment; each programme strand is thoroughly justified in relation to Renaissance’s aims

and objectives, is regularly monitored, analysed and the results acted upon. Partnership working: Partnership working was always considered fundamental to Renaissance at a number of different levels – in terms of the relationships between funding partners, DCMS-sponsored museums, and Renaissance-funded museums and the wider museums community and others outside the sector. It is essential to the realisation of the National Museums Strategy.

R4: The Review recommends that the management of Renaissance: engages in high level partnerships with primary funding partners – namely local

authorities and universities, and that this is reflected in binding agreements with all Renaissance-funded museums including independents which would guarantee an auditable level of funding from both sides. Within the context of those arrangements, Renaissance should contribute to the realisation of local policy goals;

both extends and simplifies its current practice of partnership working to embrace other organisations including social entrepreneurs, health trusts and the voluntary sector;

more thoroughly integrates MDOs in Renaissance than it has to date; ensures the more effective sharing of resources, expertise and collections.

At a higher level:

R5: The Review recommends that DCMS: integrates the partnership working between national and non-national museums,

supported through Strategic Commissioning, with Renaissance, in order to


re-examines Renaissance’s focus on education in light of wider programmes to engage children and young people across the whole cultural sector – namely, Creative Partnerships and Find your Talent.

Renaissance has been driven by the standard practice of museums providing services which they believe people want, or which they proactively co-create with other. However, the Audit Commission’s notion of ‘intelligent commissioning’ implies that Renaissance might build long-term relationships with ‘suppliers’ or providers rather differently in future.

R6: The Review recommends that Renaissance instigates organisational change whereby museums:

actively explore other models of delivery, including the more effective development of museums as the providers of services commissioned by others – for example, by Children’s Services or Primary Care Trusts; and

might commission others to deliver on their behalf, for example, in order to reach particular communities.

New framework Renaissance’s successful delivery was always considered to be dependent on a new, integrated framework, based around sound regional leadership and on a clearly articulated set of relationships. However, such a framework is not yet fully in place. As the proposed National Museums Strategy and MLA’s own statement of intent have made clear, there is still considerable potential for the promotion of partnerships, and the strengthening of the links between all museums and the rest of the cultural sector.

R7: The Review recommends: the dismantling of regional hubs and their replacement by flexible partnerships, centred

around a small number of core museums; greater recognition of the place of the wider museums sector within the new framework; the winding up of the Regional Renaissance Boards and the establishment of a National

Renaissance Board the placing of Renaissance at the centre of the National Museums Strategy.

Core museums and partnerships programme: The Review raises a number of questions about the effectiveness of the hubs: the sharing of skills and resources; the extent of museum learning; the distribution, and retention, of funding within individual regions; the variable performance of regional leadership; and the additional value that Renaissance funding has brought. Moreover, good practice points to the importance of museums’ creating specific partnerships in order to achieve carefully defined and shared objectives, and questions the value of partnerships prescribed from the centre.

R8: The Review recommends that the hubs are replaced by a network of 10 to 12 core recipients selected on the basis of various criteria, including: the size and nature of the population which they serve, and their accessibility to it; the quality of their collections; the expertise of all their staff, management competence and the support of their

governing body. a demonstrable commitment to their own transformation and commitment to the

development of other museums and services.


R9: The Review recommends that core museums have a duty of care: to other museums, both as a first port of call and for those requiring specialist

advice; to provide a properly resourced administrative and management facility at the heart

of each partnership.

It is envisaged that core museums work in flexible partnerships with other museums and agencies to deliver programmes based on the achievement of three to five agreed outcomes. These partnerships should:

embrace DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries, and other regional and local museums;

not necessarily be restricted to specific regions; share and expand expertise, innovative and excellent practice; vary according to the pursuit of particular outcomes.

Challenge fund: It is anticipated that, in departing from the regional hubs model, not all regions will necessarily have a core museum. This may be mitigated by the proposed Challenge fund. This is intended for museums previously perceived to have been at the margins.

R10: The Review recommends the instigation of a Challenge fund: to provide for individual museums, or those bidding in partnerships; that may solicit applications from museums in Renaissance ‘cold spots’; that complements national, regional and core museums’ partnerships.

National programmes: Given the lack of clarity as to how various of the strands of the national programmes are contributing to the aims and objectives of Renaissance

R11: The Review recommends that: the national programmes are redesigned to enhance organisational and cultural change; MLA should not shy away from terminating contracts, or changing the terms and

conditions of agreements with existing service providers. Within the context of the national programmes

R12 The Review recommends changes to the Museum Development Officer network, including that: the provision of MDOs is reconceived as a national framework; its central function should include research, development, the ability to bring in support

from external sources; the network should be supported by a single advice point.

National Renaissance Board: This Review has highlighted the need for the governance of Renaissance to be overhauled:

R13: The Review recommends that: the existing regional Renaissance boards are abolished and a National

Renaissance Board established; the National Board’s functions should encompass strategic oversight of

Renaissance; MLA should report to the National Renaissance Board on matters pertaining to

Renaissance;


the Board’s chair is a DCMS appointee and its membership involves wider representation than is currently accommodated by the regional Renaissance boards.

National Museums Strategy: The Renaissance Review Advisory Group’s recommendations have much in common with the latest iteration of the proposed National Strategy for Museums.

R14: The Review recommends that: the proposals for the National Strategy for Museums are reconciled with those of

the current Review, and Renaissance is recognised as the embodiment of the Strategy.

Implementation The Advisory Group’s recommendations address the criticisms made of Renaissance’s implementation and propose new approaches to bids, planning and the key concerns of the future management of Renaissance including communication; funding; accountability; performance management; evaluation and data collection. Bids and planning: Renaissance’s planning procedures have been characterised by the hubs as over-bureaucratic: flawed by virtue of short planning horizons and over complicated procedures. They have taken no account of existing strategic and business planning regimes of parent organisations or of hub partners’ own accounting and auditing systems. The follow-up of plans is acknowledged to have been weak and inconsistently applied. The absence of reporting against hubs’ previous targets raises questions about the value of the planning process. The focus has implicitly been on museums rather than people.

R15: The Review recommends that bids for core museums and their partnerships constitute expressions of interest and that detailed implementation plans are developed, including:

a base-line, self-assessment and identification of museums and their communities’ needs;

planning against the expectation of five years’ funding; the justification of key partners, including those from civic society; the submission of organisational development plans which demonstrate how

museums are embedding the key aims of Renaissance in their core structure and practices;

an outline of the local requirements of data collection, to be dovetailed into an agreed national framework.

R16: It recommends that:

these plans are scrutinised by the proposed National Board; and that successful applicants produce memoranda of understanding with their partner

organisations; and annually update planning documents Management: The management of Renaissance has veered between light-touch and micro-management. Despite the changes that MLA proposes making, Renaissance’s status within MLA remains low – as indicated by its manager’s lack of seniority.

R17: The Review recommends that the management of Renaissance: is driven by the pursuit of outcomes;


is directly administered at a very senior level (and that the Programme Manager is on MLA’s Executive Board);

is explicit, transparent and public about its expectations of assigned roles and responsibilities within the proposed new framework, and the integration of core museum partnerships, centrally-managed, national programmes and the challenge programme;

is proportionate in its demands of individual museums on the basis of the percentage of funding provided to them;

is characterised by closer, more coherent and joined-up working internally; improves its oversight of the national coverage of outcomes; monitors the

delivery of the programme; reports annually on progress against plans and undertakes regular periodic peer, stakeholder and user review; and

ensures the provision of support for developments at local level, as necessary.

R18: The Review recommends that DCMS requires Renaissance to be peer reviewed along the lines of the reviews being

proposed for its sponsored museums and galleries. Communication:

R19: It is recommended that communications are improved amongst all of those involved in the management of Renaissance; and across the delivery framework, particularly partnership projects and in relation to

the wider museums community; and that ‘best practice’ is shared through regular conferences and events.

Distribution of funding: The distribution of Renaissance funding was initially based on a split between the phase 1 and 2 hubs, and regional populations. It did not reflect local or regional needs. Performance and funding have not been linked. MLA has never been explicit as to how Renaissance funding is expected to contribute to museums’ sustainability. Most Renaissance-funded posts are fixed-term and are vulnerable at each funding round. Funded museums are considered to have had relatively low awareness of the need to implement different business models or to diversify their portfolio of funding sources.

R20: The Review recommends that funding for Renaissance is regarded as investment rather than subsidy and that, as such, it is divided between:

funding for core museums and their partnerships; challenge funding; and the national programmes including an enhanced MDO network.

R21: The Review recommends that the distribution of core museum and partnership

funding: distinguishes between what may be retained by core museums and that which is

passed on through its commissioning of other museums; is based on funding agreements made for a minimum of three years; is set up so that a proportion of funding is distributed ahead of spend with final

payment held back, as standard.

R22: It is recommended that Renaissance spending:


is made more efficient and produces better value for money in terms of sustainability;

supports museums by contributing to the greater security of their non-statutory funding.

helps museums to establish their position at the centre of local communities and their role in place shaping and local identity.

Accountability: Although MLA is planning to account more effectively for Renaissance’s spending related to outcomes

R23: The Review recommends that DCMS: requires a publicly-available, annual report on Renaissance that specifically

describes its operations, innovations, spending and achievements.

And that the management of Renaissance: creates a records management policy and processes; accounts for museums’ spend against plans and outcomes; imposes a standard accounting system across Renaissance; ensures that core museums are responsible for the financial management of

their partnerships; insists on the consistent qualitative and quantitative reporting of all outcomes,

irrespective of whether these fall within any overarching data collection regime. Performance management: In the absence of a coherent and logical framework of performance measures, MLA’s reporting has not done justice to Renaissance’s achievements, nor has it been able to critically assess Renaissance’s overall progress.

R24: The Review recommends that Renaissance is performance managed in a way which:

accommodates DCMS and DCLG requirements; accounts for qualitative and quantitative performance; involves some aspect of initial self-assessment by those delivering it and which

is, therefore, partly self-determined; is subject to oversight by the National Renaissance Board.

And that: the relevance of the data which is currently gathered is revisited in consultation

with contributors in order to understand what data and intelligence would help them, and what might be rationalised and/or simplified;

data is dovetailed into an agreed national framework, the quality of which is set by adoption of a set of statistical standards;

the data collected is translated into intelligence which is disseminated to contributors and others; is formally published; and is put to constructive and strategic use in Renaissance’s development;

the development of Renaissance’s peer, stakeholder and user review will draw on the exiting AHRC model, the results of DCMS 2008 pilots and Arts Council England’s current consultation.


Introduction The original vision for Renaissance in the Regions, as set out in the Preface, envisaged a network of excellent civic museums, with internationally important collections, serving England’s major population centres. Eight years on, that vision not only still stands but is appreciably prescient about the challenges facing English society and the increasing importance of museums in addressing them. Renaissance is the UK government’s most important intervention in English non-national museums since the Museums Act of 1845, which empowered cities with a population of over 10,000 to levy a halfpenny on the rates to set up Free Museums. It builds on the achievements of the Heritage Lottery Fund, which invested in museums’ buildings and renewed their displays, and the Designation Challenge Fund, which identified the most significant collections built up by non-national museums over the past 150 years. Renaissance in the Regions was crucial in enabling central government, for the first time, to contribute revenue to the running costs of the key museums in England’s most important cities – the greatest museums in the most populous areas of the country. This revenue will ensure that the museum sector continues to thrive and make its unique contribution to the development of English society. Part of the rationale for Renaissance was about extending the reach of these museums. About 70% of their visitors are from outside the area of the local authorities which fund them; about 30%, are UK and overseas tourists, reflecting the importance of civic museums for the national tourist economy. Each of these museums has manifestly located itself at the heart of its communities. Discounting tourists, these museums attract substantial numbers of C2DE, disabled and BME visitors – the latter two groups in proportions higher than their percentage in the local community. Local visitors return, on average, nearly four times a year. Their social, health, and educational impacts are not supplementary to their cultural function, but intrinsic to the kind of culture embodied by civic museums, which is enriching, inspiring, democratic, inclusive and humane. Improvements in quality and access, combined with the maintenance of free entry, means that their role will become even more important during an economic downturn, when individuals and communities need, more than ever, the combination of solace and stimulus that museums provide. Renaissance has added about 13% to the revenue budgets of participating museums. This may seem too small a proportion to make a significant difference, but Renaissance funding unlocks far more of the potential value of the locally funded museum core than the scale of its investment might suggest. Museums are very labour intensive – greeting visitors and providing security, running activities for schools and families, research and mounting exhibitions are all skilled tasks which cannot be mechanised – and historic buildings and collections are expensive to maintain. The result is that as much as 90% of budgets are taken up with staff and building costs. Renaissance, in effect, more than doubles the variable budget of these museums, enabling them to mount better exhibitions, to research and conserve more objects, to provide more and better activity programmes, and to engage in professional marketing and strategic outreach. This Review is intended to support the next stage of Renaissance and to enable it to fulfil its potential to bring sustainable benefits to people through a transformed museums sector.


1. Background to Renaissance in the Regions Prompted by the need to address the state of major regional museums and galleries in England, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport brought together the Regional Museums Task Force. Its 2001 report, Renaissance in the Regions: a new vision for England’s museums, recommended government investment to:

create a robust national framework for museums and galleries; secure a long-term sustainable future for museums and galleries; ensure that museums and galleries have a valued social purpose; develop a well-managed national collection; mobilise the resources of the museums and galleries community in the regions so that

they would become an important resource and champion for learning and education. (RMTF, 2001: 21).

Renaissance in the Regions was conceived as a long-term programme that would address what the Task Force had identified as the needs, as well as the aims, of regional museums in the 21st century. The government’s commitment to its vision was demonstrated by its earmarking specific funding for Renaissance in the Regions. Over the course of the 2002 and 2004 Spending Reviews and the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, it has committed almost £300m to Renaissance until 2011. Eight years after the publication of its report, the aspirations of the Regional Museums Task Force can be seen to have anticipated much of the thinking that currently informs cultural policy and other aspects of public policy. Quite apart from its emphasis on access and learning, creativity and economic regeneration, the report refers to the need for partnership working, an enhanced sense of local community, sustainability, quality, ‘excellence’, capacity building, peer review, acquisitions and the effective use of collections.

2. The Renaissance Review In 2008, MLA invited the independent Renaissance Review Advisory Group to review Renaissance in the Regions and make recommendations for its future. Its brief (Appendix 1) was to:

track the development and achievements of Renaissance in the Regions up to the end of 2007/8, and assess these against its initial intentions as articulated in the 2001 Report;

relate past and current Renaissance priorities and working practices to current and future museum sector priorities; and

make recommendations for the priorities, management and delivery of the Renaissance programme, 09/10–10/11, for which funding is guaranteed under the CSR2007 and beyond.

In practice, this Review, which has been written for the MLA Board, covers the regional hubs and various strands funded by Renaissance: the Museum Development Fund; the Leading Archives and Museums programme; Diversify, a positive action training programme; the Designation Challenge Fund; the Subject Specialist Networks and the collections advisory services. It also covers aspects of MLA’s management of Renaissance including its vision; priorities; the distribution of its funding; performance management and accountability. It should be noted that the Review is not comprehensive. Several programme strands linked to Renaissance are beyond its scope, including Accreditation, Strategic Commissioning, Apprenticeships, the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Find your Talent. Museums and Galleries


Month, which Renaissance funded until 2008 has been reviewed elsewhere (Morris Hargreaves McIntyre, 2008). The Review was conceived in three phases. The present document reports on Phase 1. Subsequent work on the Review was intended to build on its findings and include an audit of guidelines, decision-making processes and finances; to review what is known about Renaissance users’ qualitative experience, as well as considering what the programme should be delivering to the public, local, regional, national and international communities. Finally, Phase 3 was intended to comprise research which fills gaps identified in previous phases. The Recommendations suggest refocusing some of this work to cover the development of peer review and focus on digitisation. The Review as a whole has been designed to inform a bid to the future Comprehensive Spending Review, CSR2011 and to contribute to the future direction of Renaissance, its planning, delivery, management and leadership post-2011. It has been written to complement and reinforce MLA’s current change agenda. Contents The present Review considers the state of Renaissance at the end of 2007/08 in respect of both its past and potential future. Given the time that has elapsed during the course of the Review, it also refers to developments since 2007/08. Part 1 revisits the Regional Museums Task Force’s original vision for Renaissance in the

Regions; Part 2 considers the evolution and implementation of Renaissance up to the end of 2007/8; Part 3 considers its achievements; Part 4 raises a number of critical issues in the light of the experience of Renaissance; Part 5 examines the changing contexts for Renaissance, in terms of central and local

government agendas in particular, the interests of the sector, and the changes that MLA has already introduced, and is proposing to make to Renaissance;

Part 6 outlines the recommendations made in this Review and the rationale for them. They include changes to the management of Renaissance and proposals for a new framework.

This Review considers a number of themes which were initially identified in a series of pre-Review conversations with various constituencies (Appendix 2). These relate to the perceived loss of Renaissance’s original vision and lack of clarity as to its direction; its management; the processes of planning and decision making; performance management; data collection; communications; and funding, transformation and sustainability. It draws heavily on various examinations which were specifically commissioned for it, often summarising them. These, attached as Appendices 3 to 8, include:

Preliminary Discussion Document by Sara Selwood, Sara Selwood Associates; Renaissance in the Regions: Financial Analysis by Adrian Babbidge, Egeria; Renaissance in the Regions: Data Review by Adrian Babbidge, Egeria; Review of Renaissance: Expectations by Helen Wilkinson; Renaissance Now: Review of hubs and hub partners by Julie Carpenter, Education

for Change & Nick Moore, Acumen; Renaissance Now: Review of the Impact of Renaissance on the Wider Museums

Community by Julia Holberry & Erica Anders, Julia Holberry Associates; and Review of Renaissance ‘other programme strands’ by Gaby Porter, Gaby Porter +

Associates.


It also draws on a number of pieces of work by MLA (Appendices 9 to 14), which with the exception of Appendix 13, A National Strategy for English Museums, were all prepared specifically for this Review:

Analysis of contributions to the Review from the wider museums community; Horizon Scanning; Good Practice and Public Value; Renaissance Review and MLA reform; and Bibliography of Renaissance reports.

The work of the various consultants, and the present overview itself, draw on primary and secondary sources. The primary sources include existing documentation and data provided by MLA and service providers. These include board papers, spending review submissions; funding agreements with both DCMS and service providers; evaluation and other research documents; financial accounts compiled especially for the Review, and MLA’s own statement of changes being made to Renaissance (Appendix 12). Extensive research was undertaken for the Review including in-depth interviews, focus groups and invited submissions. Those directly involved included MLA’s executive board; the former Renaissance team and officers associated with Renaissance; the hubs and hub partners; non-hubs; service delivers; DCMS; primary funding partners; stakeholders and the wider museums community. In the event, over 400 people have contributed to the Review. Our policy has been to protect the anonymity of interviewees and other contributors in exchange for frankness. Details of the approaches used are provided under Methodology. Secondary sources used include research commissioned by MLA and hub partners (Appendix 14). The commissioning of the Phase 1 Review in early 2008 coincided with MLA taking on a number of other challenges. A DCMS peer review (2004), had been critical of the structure and performance of the organisation; the MLA Board and DCMS were concerned that MLA had been insufficiently effective; a relatively new senior executive was faced with the requirement for the organisation to move its headquarters functions out of London; having to manage the consequences of its CSR2007 settlement, which involved embarking on considerable organisational change, including the winding down of eight of its nine regional agencies by April 2009; and the negotiation of transitional arrangements for the responsibility and management of Renaissance functions with the regional hubs. During this period, MLA experienced a considerable turnover of staff and those directly responsible for strands of Renaissance were not always available to us. By October 2008, the Renaissance team which was relocated in MLA’s Birmingham office, had been almost entirely replaced. Caveats This Review is subject to a number of caveats which principally pertain to Renaissance’s accountability and information systems.

Although the documentation provided for this Review was voluminous, it was also

incomplete and provided little in the way of critical intelligence. It largely consisted of funding guidance and agreements, applications, progress reports and advocacy documents featuring outputs. Discrepancies in the financial information provided were occasionally encountered (see, for example, Porter, 2009: 8). Documentation for some of the programme strands to be covered by the Review was incomplete.


Apart from the quarterly data collection and annual exit surveys, which exclusively pertain to audiences, there is no comprehensive framework for reporting outcomes and no annual review of Renaissance. Valuations of programme strands have been largely ad hoc. Although hubs were asked to report on outputs against their objectives, the framework within which they did so was not fit for purpose and nothing was done with the data; they responded variously to MLA’s invitation to define measures of success for each activity or work package undertaken. An estimated 750 projects were supported by the hubs between 2003/4 and 2007/8 (Babbidge, 2008a: 8), many of which used different measures of success. Within the resources available, it has not been possible for the Review to undertake a complete primary analysis of these.

Until 2006, MLA demanded little in the way of financial reporting. The East Midlands

hub’s expenditure prior to 2006/7 is expressed under a set of headings which are incompatible with those used by the other hubs. It has accordingly been excluded from MLA’s financial analysis prepared for this Review2 and from several sections in the present Review itself.

The scope of this investigation inevitably reflects the documentation available to us. It

has not always able to deduce from this why Renaissance’s priorities had evolved as they did, or how decisions were taken. Records of past MLA initiatives that we considered to be relevant, such as the 2012 Horizon Scanning exercise, were apparently lost.

It has not been possible to provide a solid assessment of Renaissance’s overall impacts

on the basis of the documentation available. Various strands have not yet been evaluated by MLA, such as Subject Specialist Networks and Collections Link; others have only been partially assessed (Leading Archives and Museums Programme) or were assessed some time ago (such as Branstock’s 2001 evaluation of Designation Challenge Funding). Consequently, some of Renaissance’s achievements may have gone unrecognised, opportunities for improvement may have been missed, and aspects of the impact of the investment in Renaissance may not have been discerned.

We sought to obtain information not held by MLA, including documentation for

programme strands from service providers. Other information sought included national data sets. Although we were supported in those endeavours, the absence of a single, well-organised focus for museum sector intelligence at MLA meant that more original research was necessary than had been envisaged.

We had hoped to be able to compare the position of museums in the English regions

before Renaissance in the Regions with how it stood at the end of 2007/8 in order to record its achievement adequately. However, many of the sources of information used for the Regional Museums Task Force report, and upon which many of its conclusions were based, were discontinued at the advent of Renaissance. Comparable figures have not been available, either from the Renaissance data collections or elsewhere. Very little has been done to gather information of the breadth and depth that characterised the Task Force report.

Work on this Review coincided with many changes being introduced to Renaissance over

the course of the 2008 calendar year. The discussions of the Renaissance Review Advisory Group contributed to the developments in the 2009/10 planning guidance, and changes being introduced to Renaissance (summarised by Roy Clare, MLA’s Chief

2 Email from Tania Lyn to Sara Selwood (10.09.2008)


Executive, Appendix 12) have been taken into consideration in relation to this Review’s proposals for the future.

Terminology and definitions In writing this review, we have deliberately avoided the use of the terms ‘project’ and ‘programme’ to describe Renaissance. They are regarded by some as contentious, not least because they suggest that Renaissance is fixed-term rather than permanent revenue steam. The term ‘strand’ is used to refer to the various programmes funded by Renaissance. Although MLA’s website defines the hubs as a cluster of four to five museums, implying a total of between 36 and 45 museums, this is somewhat misleading. Hubs often include museum services as opposed to museums. By the end of 2006/7, the hubs were returning data based on 167 sites (Babbidge, 2008b: 22). The term ‘museum’ is used in this report to refer to museums, galleries and occasionally museum services. ‘Output’ is used to refer to the immediate results of a delivery or service which has been measured quantitatively and can be assembled from recording systems. For example, 300 instances of children participating in an education programme. ‘Outcome’ is used to refer to the eventual changes that it is hoped an activity might generate. ‘Impact’ is taken to be more immediate and shorter-term. For example, whereas the impact of Renaissance projects should be to improve skills and knowledge across conservation management and maintenance; the outcome should be the transformation of museums’ organisational capacity. The term ‘service provider’ is used to refer to an entity that provides services to other entities. In terms of Renaissance, it is used to describe contactors, such as the Museums Association’s delivery of the Diversify programme. It is also occasionally used more broadly to refer to museums funded by Renaissance and charged with providing a service to the public. Although Renaissance started life in relation to Re:source, the agency’s later title, MLA, has been used throughout. References to Re:source are the exception rather than the rule. Regional MLAs are referred to as the ‘regional agencies’. References are occasionally made to the time of writing. This was December 2008 to January 2009. Abbreviations have been deliberately avoided in general. However, those that are included are listed at the end of this Review. Members of the Advisory Group Tim Challans, Assistant Director, Leisure, Culture and Lifelong Learning, Walsall Council David Fleming, Director National Museums Liverpool Nicola Johnson, Director Sainsbury’s Centre for Visual Arts Diane Lees, Director General, Imperial War Museum Mark O’Neill, Head of Arts and Museums and Galleries, Culture and Sport, Glasgow Sara Selwood, Chair Hedley Swain, Director of Programme Delivery, MLA Mark Taylor, Director, Museums Association Observer: Julie McGuinness, Audit Manager, National Audit Office


Part 1: Reiteration of the original vision One of the functions of this Review is to assess the development and achievements of Renaissance in the Regions up to the end of 2007/8, against its initial intentions as articulated in the Regional Museums Task Force’s 2001 report. This section revisits the original vision and expectations of that new vision for England’s museums. In doing so, it:

considers the problems identified by the Task Force;

outlines the principles that informed its recommendations;

sets out its intentions;

summarises the roles and responsibilities within the new framework that it proposed;

describes how it envisaged that the new framework would be built. This reiteration cites parts of that that report verbatim, but in a reorganised and edited form.

1.1 Problems The Regional Museums Task Force recognised that without consistently excellent and sustainable museum services across England, the sector’s potential to make a real difference to people’s lives would not be realised. In general terms, it perceived the barriers to that as including fragmented structures that had led to a lack of leadership for the museums community in each region, poorly articulated aims and objectives for the community, a failure to address government policy objectives in a consistent and sustainable way, decisions based on expediency rather than strategy, and an inefficient and ineffective use of resources. More specifically, it identified:

The failure of constituent parts of the sector to work together, maximising the benefits of the resources which were available to them separately;

Admirable but unsustainable localised successes in the fields of education, creativity and social inclusion;

The reinventing of the wheel, constant danger of duplication, failure to learn from the experience of others, inefficient use of resources and far too little sharing of best practice – all of which were compounded by ‘over-trading’: the tendency for many museums to try to do everything rather than being excellent at any one thing;

Low morale and the sector’s failure to attract as many high-calibre entrants as needed;

The museum culture’s resistance to change and over-reliance on individuals to act as change agents;

Local authorities, universities and other governance bodies being under increasing financial pressure and a serious resources deficit throughout the sector which was particularly acute in the major regional museums;

Declining expertise and scholarship, creating serious barriers to both to access and to getting the most out of collections. In many museums, collecting had stopped and there were no funds for acquisitions. This particularly affected modern (post-WWII) and contemporary collecting and was reflected in a certain reluctance to address modern and contemporary issues in exhibitions and other activities;


Regional museums being underpowered in terms of ICT. The content they hold had enormous potential to feed learning networks and national initiatives such as Culture Online, but little digitised learning content was, as yet, available;

A general lack of reliable performance data and rigorous evaluation which meant that achievements remained unquantified and were insufficiently valued by those who took the decisions about funding.

1.2 Principles The Task Force realised that that changes were needed in order to develop a mutually supportive environment in which museums could flourish. It proposed a framework, with identified roles and responsibilities, which was intended to encourage collaboration and support the innovative and effective. Its recommendations were predicated on a number of principles:

Over and above their traditional role in developing and interpreting their collections and safeguarding them for future generations, museums could make a real difference to people’s lives by using their collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment;

Major regional museums could make a full contribution to meeting local, regional and national policy goals;

The problems of the major regional museums were inseparable from the wider issue of all museums working together to provide first-class services to users;

In order substantially to strengthen major regional museums and capitalise on the potential of museums to deliver innovative and sustainable public services, especially in education and learning, the ways in which museums work together needed to be fundamentally redefined;

While additional investment was required in order to move museums from where they were to where the Task Force would like them to be, reform and modernisation within the museum community would be necessary in order to secure better value from existing resources;

There was a need for government and museums alike to be clear about what that additional investment should deliver.

1.3 Intentions The Task Force articulated seven aims for the UK’s museums in the twenty-first century These were to:

be an important resource and champion for learning and education;

promote access and inclusion;

contribute to economic regeneration in the regions;

use collections to encourage inspiration and creativity;

ensure excellence and quality in the delivery of core services;

implement modernisation and rationalisation;

measure outputs, outcomes and benefits.


1.3.1 To be an important resource and champion for learning and education Museums needed to adopt a coordinated approach to support formal and informal learning at all levels, increasing access to learning and education resources:

The most important regional museums should become beacons for excellence in learning, providing a comprehensive service to schools, support for adult learners and an example for other museums to follow;

The Sharing Museums Skills Millennium Awards Scheme – administered by Resource (hereafter, MLA) – which provided for the secondment of museum staff to acquire new skills – should be extended to enable teachers and curators to share knowledge and understanding of each others’ learning environments and to develop teaching skills;

Every primary school should be given the chance to work with museum objects as part of their core curriculum entitlement.

1.3.2 To promote access and inclusion Given that no one can learn from collections unless they have access to them, the Task Force argued that improving access, both physically and intellectually, for a wider audience – more representative of each region’s population – was essential:

It proposed that in the future museums must do more to unlock the full potential of collections and must become inclusive places for learning and inspiration. ICT was perceived as having an important role to play in widening access beyond the walls of museums for those who are prevented from visiting in person, whether by disability or geography;

If its recommendations were acted on, the Task Force expected the number of visits each year to the major regional museums – many of them in areas of high social deprivation – not only to increase significantly but for the profile of users to become much more representative of the population as a whole, and for the social and economic benefits to individuals and communities to be substantially enhanced;

Major regional museums should develop outreach services, underpinned by research, involving communities in the work of collecting and interpreting objects so that exhibitions tell their stories, interpret their experiences and contribute to local community issues; and to undertake far more extensive loans of individual objects and of permanent and temporary exhibitions;

The Task Force also recommended that a ‘Cultural Champions’ programme should be mounted in each region, specifically designed to increase the confidence and self-esteem of young people living in the most deprived areas;

Statutory access improvements required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 needed to be tackled; and

A new and comprehensive approach to visitor surveying should be developed to measure user trends and test visitor satisfaction.

1.3.3 To contribute to economic regeneration in the regions Museums are a major reason for tourism to the UK. They also function as catalysts for urban regeneration, as elements of specific redevelopment schemes or as part of the wider renewal of a city’s profile. Major museums could have a role in developing a clearer sense of regional identity


– part of developing a sense of place. The Task Force proposed that for this to happen they needed to work in partnership with the Local Learning and Skills Councils, Urban Regeneration Companies, local authorities and private sector interests to bring forward regional programmes to develop skills for young people focused on using museum collections. 1.3.4 To use collections to encourage inspiration and creativity

Creative Partnerships – managed by Arts Council of England – already presented an opportunity for museums to work with others in a creative way, using their collections to reveal the links between past, present and future, and to create, gather and retain knowledge based upon cultural artefacts.

Culture Online was envisaged as potentially helping to make the resources of museums available through information and communication technology for the purposes of learning and enjoyment both at school and throughout life. Both will need a coordinated input from museums.

To enhance the contribution of museums to the creative industries, the Task Force recommended a Creativity Fund for Objects which would encourage museums to take existing collections and give them contemporary meaning by using them to stimulate new designs for the twenty-first century. This would involve working with communities, designers and artists. This should enable museums to encourage the development of skills which can contribute to the creative economy.

1.3.5 To ensure excellence and quality in the delivery of core services The diversity of museums in the regions was recognised as a real strength, with the best contributing considerably to a sense of place. But inconsistency of provision was diluting the reputation of the ‘brand’ to the detriment of all. This could best be tackled through the development of centres of excellence which could develop and spread best practice. Excellence and high quality in delivering core services A major priority was, therefore, to achieve a consistent quality in all regional museums and to encourage major museums to achieve excellence in at least most of their core activities. It was considered that the sector already had quite sophisticated performance standards which addressed problems of uneven standards. The development of the hubs as centres of excellence which developed and invested in best practice would be vital. Best practice in this context might include the production of high-quality exhibitions and innovative approaches to learning – for their own users, for smaller museums, and through them for all the people who live in or visit the region. MLA could disseminate best practice through its website, case studies, database, mapping and publications. But the Task Force recognised that dissemination through experience or observation, with advice to and support for smaller museums so that they too could deliver improved services to their own users, was even more important. This could only be organised at regional level. Mapping The regional mapping of museums – covering the content, scale and importance of collections and the standard of public services – was perceived as an essential tool for assessing quality of services and service delivery, setting quality targets and measuring progress towards them. The Task Force recommended that extant regional mapping processes should be extended to


cover the whole of the UK, and subjected to rigorous common standards and methodologies. MLA should be responsible for this. Visitor-services grading scheme The Task Force also recommended that MLA develop the idea of creating a visitor-services grading scheme along the lines of schemes already operated in tourism to ensure the quality of accommodation and facilities. Such a quality-assurance scheme would guarantee quality standards to users and encourage improved standards among museums. Education and learning standard An education and learning standard was being developed by MLA at the time of the Task Force report. Its implementation would be a crucial step in guaranteeing consistent standards of service delivery for users. The Task Force recommended that the final agreed standard might constitute a suitable model for other quality standards. Audience-development standard The Task Force recommended that MLA should investigate means of ensuring regular audience testing, coordinated regionally by the appropriate regional agency, to ensure the efficient use of resources and gathering of data. Without this, no museum or gallery could know exactly what its users or non-users wanted, or what users thought about the institution’s provision. To support this development, MLA should produce standardised audience-development packages to simplify the collecting of audience data and to ensure that the collection of core data employs common protocols and uses similar terminologies. Excellence Excellence would be recognised by other means – not least, peer review (the Designation Scheme already relied on this). The Task Force felt that there was probably insufficient use of peer-review techniques in the sector and recommended that MLA investigate how these techniques might be developed and merged with the ranking or scoring assessments to produce a means of encouraging and assessing quality and excellence. 1.3.6 Modernisation and rationalisation For government intervention to be effective, the sector had to be prepared to reform itself, modernise and rationalise. Outstanding leadership and excellent management were required to set clear objectives, motivate a wholehearted commitment to the necessary reforms, and address the issue of rationalisation – of both collections and museums. Organisational leadership At the time of writing its report, the Task Force had observed that, with obvious exceptions, management and leadership were of insufficient quality to deliver on expectations; that there was a malaise throughout the non-national museum community, and a leaching away of able but disillusioned people. This was particularly evident in larger local-authority museums. It regarded it as essential that appropriate training programmes were in place to reassure external funders that their money would be well spent and to secure the sustainability of regional museums. It proposed:


Management-development networks, based around the major regional museums, the existing area museum councils, or regional cultural consortia;

For senior leaders in museums and support organisations, a combination of exposure to external thinking, updating on current leadership practice from within and outside the sector, and an opportunity to exchange experiences with peers through a process of co-mentoring;

For other levels, a multi-layered approach towards leadership development involving mentoring support and formal training opportunities.

The Task Force noted that new skills and learning could only be embedded within organisations if there was an effective culture which encouraged risk-taking and experimentation, and the development of individuals’ capacity and confidence as project and programme leaders at all levels. Changing the culture of museums Museum culture has been identified as a major barrier to change. If the product was to change, the culture must change too. The Task Force believed that creating new governance models and providing healthy funding streams would go some way to supporting a new management culture with:

a clear organisational purpose, understood by all staff;

explicit values that are clearly aligned with the organisation’s purpose;

a flat and non-hierarchical staffing structure;

teamwork;

empowered staff, with decisions being made close to the point of service delivery;

an imaginative and creative working climate, which encourages risk-taking;

transparency;

staff who are able to operate flexibly and responsively;

orientation towards projects and a focus on outcomes;

a habit of importing new skills and new people to work within the organisation, so that the organisation can change size and shape as need dictates;

diversity amongst core staff and volunteers;

demonstration of a professional approach – being organised, being reliable and meeting others’ expectations, and investing time in individuals’ development.

To help bring about this about, the Task Force recommended that major regional museums consider setting up ‘change champions’ – groups of staff perhaps occasionally assisted by outside facilitators – to lead on change from within. Clear objectives for change should be developed as part of a tailored change programme for each institution, to permit evaluation of outcomes over two to three years. Facilitators would work closely with the change champions, director and senior staff, to:

act as a sounding board and mentor for the museum director and the senior team;

facilitate planning activities;


facilitate teams and introduce new ways of working;

mentor and coach other managers within the organisation;

mentor and coach senior managers in the regional museum network;

facilitate a board-development programme;

run internal development programmes aimed at introducing new behaviours and practices at all levels in the organisation.

Creating a more diverse workforce The staff profile at curatorial and management level was still predominantly white and middle class. The majority of museum employers had not yet recognised in their recruitment practices the value of a socially and culturally diverse staff group. Institutional prejudices needed to be challenged effectively, in particular class and educational barriers to museum careers. It would be important to find out how to inject talent and diversity into museums in ways that did not necessarily involve a deliberate career choice or change. The Task Force recommended:

New traineeships which targeted ethnic-minority applicants and involved postgraduate museum-studies programmes working in partnership with the major regional museums;

A Different Voices programme, comprising paid contracts or short-term attachments to museums from communities that are not traditional users of museums and also from the creative industries – including film, advertising, TV, etc.

The principal benefits of these would be to:

expose museums and their staff to a variety of people with different social, ethnic and career backgrounds who can inject new thinking and skills;

challenge and shift organisational culture;

open up museums to their users and make them more transparent in their practices.

Rationalisation Planned rationalisation is an aspect of the proper stewardship of resources, when public objectives can better be served by consolidation across a city, region or field of collecting. A cycle of natural change could also result in the opening and closures of smaller museums, many of which may not be subsidised and call on very little public support. More complex issues arise when a medium-scale or larger museum is proposed for closure. Regional leadership is then essential to lead a strategic assessment of the case for rationalisation. Two sets of criteria should be considered when assessing whether a museum is really still required within a region: the specific conditions and the broader criteria. The Task Force identified ‘over-trading’ as a problem – trying to do too much with the available resources. Museums have a limited and normally fixed funding base, but they are full of bright people who would like to be able to do more. Unfortunately, creativity and demand are not linked automatically to supportive funding. Governing bodies and managers should focus on what can be delivered, and must not be afraid to say that at present they can only do this and cannot do that.


Reducing fixed-asset costs to ensure sustainability and a viable future for the core service was regarded as essential, but change through rationalisation needs enormous care. Issues concerning collections need to be disentangled from those concerning museums as institutions, as well as from the frequent complication of the proper use of historic buildings. Differing demands of local users mean that one solution will not necessarily fit all situations. Notwithstanding the difficulties, the Task Force regarded the climate across the domain as being very much more conducive to well-considered change than in previous years. Information and communication technology ICT was perceived to be transforming every facet of museum activity and extending right to the very heart of the museum, potentially challenging its fundamental nature. The Task Force considered that museums were being reinvented as both physical and virtual spaces in which people could interact with objects, discover their stories, and learn. Interweaving the real and the virtual creates a powerful brand, and would enable museums to occupy centre stage in cultural cyberspace. But although the use of technology was recognised as potentially enriching visitors’ experience in many ways, at the time of its report, the Task Force considered that too little digitised learning content was available. It considered that training and development were crucial. Museums’ innovative and exciting ICT projects were seen to have been constructed on the basis of the enthusiasm of a single self-trained member of staff, but were unsustainable without resources. To enable the development of such work, fresh skill sets needed to be developed beyond generic software training. As staff in museums developed new skills and evaluated the success of their projects, they would play a key role in raising standards throughout the domain. The Task Force believed that local autonomy to innovate within a national framework of standards and best practice should result in an exchange of specialist expertise and the dissemination of new skills. Technologies would connect collections of local, regional, national and international significance, and should act as the glue between the twin imperatives of museums: the care of their collections and engagement with their communities. Museums would not be forced to choose between addressing ‘the basics’ and rising to the challenges of access. Investment for the future Museums were recognised as being keen to play their part in the ICT revolution, but they were considered to be underpowered and, in their present practice, inconsistent. To be in a position to exploit these opportunities, major museums had to be adequately resourced. This would mean planned investment in infrastructure and kit to enable visitors, including those with special interests, to enhance and extend their visit through virtual access to exhibits not on display and to all the supporting information on the Internet. Investment in ICT was also needed to enable museums’ staff to communicate and share information, if the goal of developing the sector as a whole through the example of best practice was to be realised. Some specific initiatives – such as the provision of a national one-stop shop of information and standards, e-learning and professional development – were potentially exciting but needed much more thorough investigation. Much of this was regarded as a task for MLA.


1.3.7 Measuring outputs, outcomes and benefits Measuring the social and economic benefits of investment in culture was appreciated as being notoriously difficult. At the time of the Task Force report, there was no appropriate model available and the general quality of data and information capture and analysis in the museums domain was notoriously poor. The Task Force recommended that MLA should take responsibility for:

creating an appropriate model which would include a robust set of indicators to measure achievement of the deliverables offered by museums;

establishing baselines against which future performance could be measured;

ensuring that those organisations within the framework which would have to collect and disseminate data and information had the capacity (preferably electronic) to do so. The result should be a reliable body of data and information which would demonstrate to government that museums in the regions can deliver against key policy goals.

The Task Force endorsed the suggestion that users and visitors should be involved in the process of defining success. This could be the most potent way of shifting the focus of services away from exclusively professional values and objectives and towards user-based values and objectives. A key deliverable might be the development of user-based performance indicators which would be reviewed at the end of three years. In addition, impact-evaluation indicators would need to be developed to address the contribution that museums make to skills development and to tourism.

1.4 Roles and responsibilities in the new framework In order to address the problems set out above the Task Force devised a new framework for museums in the regions based on the following:

an integrated system;

identified leadership for the museums community in each region; and

defined roles for each element within the framework. 1.4.1 Regional hubs The key radical change proposed by the Task Force was the creation of a network of regional hubs. This would involve developing the leading regional museums as centres of excellence and leaders of their regional museum communities. It proposed that: Regional hubs would consist of one museum and gallery service and no more than three satellite partners:

They would be primarily based in our great cities, but not exclusively so. The regional hubs would respond dynamically to new agendas which put people and communities first;

They would become examples of best practice and places where innovative ideas are piloted and developed with a view to wider application;

The leadership of regional museums should rest with those who deliver services to users;


Regional hubs would be expected to commit themselves to becoming beacons of excellence in exchange for investment of public money. For the Task Force that meant aspiring to – and eventually achieving – the highest standards in exhibition content and presentation, learning, education and outreach services, collections management and other key museum activities.

1.4.2 Partnerships Regional hubs would need to work in partnership with other elements of the institutional framework which the Task Force proposed. The Task Force believed that this framework had the potential to transform public service delivery at those museums selected as regional hubs and that it would provide strong sectoral leadership, clear roles and responsibilities and mutually supportive relationships for the benefit of users. The benefits of the regional hub system would be spread to the smaller museums by the regional agencies and the designated and university museums. The development of the framework also provided the means by which public funding support for museums might be rationalised and better value for money secured. The Task Force identified the following partnerships: The regional agencies These should concentrate on their strategic regional role and on those development functions for which there were synergies across museums, libraries and archives, including learning support. In future there should be a clear distinction between responsibility for service delivery (which should rest with the regional hubs) and strategic and cross-sectoral development (which should rest with the regional agencies). The designated3 and university museums The Task Force believed that the Designated Museums Challenge Fund had done much good and should continue as a means of strengthening key collections. It envisaged that some, but not all, designated and university museums would become part of the regional hubs, but that

the regional hubs should look to the designated and university museums as their natural partners in raising standards and the quality of service to users; and that

the designation process needed to be revised to admit a small number of additional museums.

Smaller museums The Task Force intended that smaller museums should benefit from the new framework as a result of MLA and the regional agencies:

disseminating best practice information so that they could also can deliver improved services to users;

encouraging them to participate in region-wide schemes to help solve professional problems;

providing direct assistance (at no or very low cost) with learning and inclusion initiatives and external funding opportunities; and

3 The Designation Scheme (launched in 1997) identifies the pre-eminent collections of national and international importance held in England's non-national museums, libraries and archives, based on their quality and significance. http://www.MLA.gov.uk/programmes/designation/00desig/ (retrieved 6 June 2008)


http://www.mla.gov.uk/programmes/designation/00desig/

providing improved training and development opportunities. However, the Task Force warned that the vast majority of regional museums would not receive direct government funding. As ‘local’ museums it was considered appropriate that they are both valued and supported locally, whether they are governed by local authorities or are independent. Other elements of the framework It was envisaged that regional hubs would also have to work with universities, schools, learning and skills councils and with other DCMS sectors such as performing and visual arts, built heritage and tourism.

1.5 Building the new framework 1.5.1 Selection of hubs The Task Force proposed that the regional hubs would be selected according to the following criteria:

status (including registered status and having designated collections);

location (geographic proximity to other registered museums in the area, recognition as an administrative centre, population catchments and social deprivation indices); infrastructure (the knowledge, ability and professional qualifications of staff, the size and width of collections, and physical capacity);

capacity and commitment (the governing bodies’ commitment to core funding, numbers of visitors, evidence of investment in staff development and training and ability to manage external partnerships); and

endorsement and recognition of services (recognition of standards of good practice). 1.5.2 Financial offer The Task Force proposed that:

A financial offer would be made to the selected regional hubs for an initial period of three years;

In response they would have to submit a strategic plan which would show how the regional hub would develop its regional leadership role;

Funding would be based on a detailed funding agreement which would set out what the regional hub would deliver;

The regional hub’s governance body would be expected to maintain existing levels of core funding and to use the prospect of government funding to lever in additional local support;

In return for public money the governance bodies would be invited to consider ways in which governance arrangements should be modernised in order to release the potential of the hubs as agents for change and beacons of excellence.

1.5.3 Fitness for purpose In order to become fit for their new purpose, regional hubs would have to undertake a


consolidation and transformation programme which would include:

a strategic stock-take to identify needs for capacity building;

product development, including optimising access through ICT;

business development, including income generation; market development, including a genuine commitment to social inclusion and the placing of marketing and education at the heart of the museum’s business plan;

human resource development, including the adoption of new training policies and a commitment to professional development; and

sectoral development, including meeting the developmental needs of other museums in the region.

1.5.4 Investment in change Alongside central government support it was considered vital that lottery distributors, museum governing bodies, private sector companies and charitable foundations played their part.

Central government support was envisaged as being vital to the delivery of current government objectives and, at the same time, essential for enabling the regional museums to be better equipped to form public-private partnerships in order to secure the long-term stability that is essential to the delivery of high quality services to users;

Additional funding would be needed for the specific purpose of enabling museums to provide the statutory access improvements required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Since any public investment needs to be based on a clear understanding of what that investment is expected to deliver, MLA should:

develop a robust set of indicators to measure achievement of the social policy outcomes offered by museums;

establish baselines against which future performance can be measured; and

ensure that the organisations within the framework have the capacity (preferably electronic) to collect and disseminate data and information.


Part 2: Evolution and implementation As Part 1 demonstrated, the Regional Museum Task Force envisaged a number of roles that MLA might assume in relation to the development of Renaissance. These included continuing to develop national standards; to address the problem of underused collections; lead national initiatives to bring about organisational change; establish a mechanism for rationalisation; facilitate partnerships; collect data, and lead on a national strategy for museums and galleries. It was inevitable that the implementation of Renaissance would depart from the Task Force’s proposals. But, unfortunately, MLA has never produced a formal, forward plan setting out which of the Task Force’s proposals it accepted, which it rejected, and what it hoped that the various strands might achieve and how their sustainability might be secured. A detailed implementation strategy, prepared by Stuart Davies, then Head of Strategy at MLA, and the unnamed author of the Task Force report, was never used (Davies 2002).

In the event, not all the Regional Museum Task Force’s recommendations were taken forward. According to an MLA Board paper, the organisation was unable to develop aspects of Renaissance that required national coordination and leadership due to the severe constraints on its operational budget (Wilkinson, 2007). It was vital for the Renaissance Review to understand exactly what Renaissance came to comprise and how it has been organised. This part of the Review, therefore, tracks the realisation of Renaissance, and assesses it against the Regional Museums Task Force’s intentions. It describes:

the scale of the government’s investment in Renaissance;

the evolution of Renaissance’s priorities;

the cornerstones of its implementation – its framework for delivery, namely its programmes and the roles and responsibilities assigned to its various protagonists; its management, finances and accountability.

The period intended to be covered by the Review was up to the end of 2007/8. Changes introduced to Renaissance in 2008/9 onwards, as well as MLA’s intentions for the future, are set out in Part 6: Changing Contexts and Clare (2009).

2.1 Government investment At the time of writing, the latest data available on the public funding of museums in England refers to 2006/7. In addition to the sources listed in Table 2.1, the Ministry of Defence also regularly funds museums, providing an estimated £15.8m in 2006/7 4; and Arts Council England provided £5.6m to institutions with permanent collections, which it counts amongst its visual arts’ Regularly Funded Organisations. Of those known sources, Renaissance funding constituted about 5%.

4 Based on their annual reports, MoD funding for English national armed forces museums for 2006/7 was £14.792m, plus approximately £1 million in support of regimental and corps museums in England (Email to Sara Selwood from Adrian Babbidge, 05.02.2009).


Table 2.1 Documented funding for museums in England, 2006/7 7.1.1. 7.1.2. £ 7.1.3. HLF (a) 7.1.4. 66,123,000 7.1.5. AHRC (b) 7.1.6. 10,382,000 7.1.7. DCMS (c) 7.1.8. 349,642,000 7.1.9. Local authorities (d)

7.1.10. 184,561,000

7.1.11. Total 7.1.12. 610,708,0007.1.13. Renaissance 7.1.14. 32,000,000

Sources: a) HLF; b) AHRC (2008:54). Museum and Gallery Awards includes core and project funding; c) DCMS (2008b:46) excluding MLA core funding but including Renaissance; d) Net Current Expenditure, Communities and Local Government Revenue Outturn (RO) returns 2006-07 - RO5 data Other sources of funding are available for collections, which were a focus of the Regional Museums Task Force. Since 1998, around £37.5m has been available for contemporary art collections alone (Selwood, 2008a: 21). The current Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) scheme, Collecting Cultures, is investing £3m in programmes of strategic acquisition that will develop existing museums and gallery collections for public use, and enhance the professional knowledge and skills of people working in museums and galleries5. By the end of 2007/8, central government had earmarked £149.2m for Renaissance in the Regions. This included £2.2m, from the then Department for Education and Skills, for the delivery of education programmes to school children (2002-06). DCMS has committed a further £117m to Renaissance from 2008/9 to 2010/11, bringing the total investment in it to £293m (Table 2.2). Table 2.2 Renaissance funding

£m 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11 Total DCMS funding

SR 2000 9.361 12.408 10.000 10.000 41.769

SR 2002 10.000 20.000 30.000

SR 2004 32.000 45.000 77.000 CSR 2007 37.600

39.001

40.100 116.701

DfES funding 1.200 1.000

2.200

Total 9.361 13.608 21.000 30.000 32.000 45.000 46.215 47.463

48.744 293.391

Source: Adapted from Babbidge, 2008a: exhibit 2; DCMS (2007b) Government funding for Renaissance will have exceeded the Regional Museums Task Force’s aspirations by 2010/11. However, within the time frame originally proposed, it fell short by £155m (Table 2.3). This has inevitably impacted on what could be expected of Renaissance, as summarised below (and explored by Wilkinson, 2008). Table 2.3 Renaissance funding compared to Regional Museums Task Force’s proposals

2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 Totals RMTF Report 10 20 71.3 78.4 87.5 257.2 SRs Settlement 10 10 20 30 32 102 Difference 0 -10 -51.3 -48.4 -55.5 - 155.2

Source: Adapted from Babbidge, 2008b: Exhibit 1

5 http://www.hlf.org.uk/English/HowToApply/OurGrantGivingProgrammes/CollectingCultures/ (retrieved 05.02.2009).


http://www.hlf.org.uk/English/HowToApply/OurGrantGivingProgrammes/CollectingCultures/

2.2 The evolution of Renaissance’s priorities The consolidation and transformation programme … will be a comprehensive programme of enabling regional hubs to achieve their potential through accepting the need for change, with provision of additional resources as an interventionist measure to address past erosions. (RMTF, 2001:121)

Although Renaissance was conceived as a way of comprehensively transforming museums, in practice, its evolution has been shaped by a number of factors over and above the amount of funding available. These include government priorities and the choices made by MLA. The following paragraphs consider the targets cited in MLA’s funding agreements with DCMS and its development of what the Task Force had identified as ‘key benefits’. These allowed MLA ample room for manoeuvre: although some elements of Renaissance were fully worked out in the Task Force’s report (for example, the hubs’ roles and structure), other ideas were presented as outline suggestions. Not surprisingly, Renaissance adhered closely to DCMS’s PSA and ministerial priorities. MLA was also keen to demonstrate Renaissance’s immediate effectiveness. It assumed that evidence of rapid and tangible success, gathered in time for the next Spending Review, might convince DCMS and the Treasury of the case for funding Renaissance as originally proposed. Its SR2004 submission thus focused on very recent results: ‘as a result of increased investment, use of museum school services has increased in just two months by an astonishing 28%.’ (Marshall, 2004: 14). This approach was at odds with the Task Force report’s emphasis on long-term transformation and consolidation of regional museums, but continued to drive MLA’s reporting of Renaissance. 2.2.1 The evolution of targets specified in MLA’s funding agreements In practice, Renaissance’s priorities were shaped by DCMS’s Public Service Agreement targets (set out in Babbidge, 2008b: exhibit 3) and its funding agreements with MLA. As Table 2.4 shows, the department’s emphasis on priority groups and children was particularly evident. It was understood that these priorities would be delivered principally through the hubs: each was allocated individual targets, apportioned on the basis on the percentage of funding to be received. Table 2.4 DCMS/MLA targets, 2003/04-2010/11 MLA funding agreement 2003/04 - 2005/06 2006/07- 2007/08 2008/09 – 2010/11 Visits Regional museums will

attract a total of 0.5m visits by new users predominantly by social class C2DE and ethnic minorities by the end of 2005/06

Increase by at least 2% the number of visits to hub museums

Increase the overall number of visits to Renaissance hub museums (baseline year 2006/07)

Priority groups

Increase by 350,000 the number of visits by people from priority groups to hub museums

Increase the number of visits by adults from priority groups (BME/NS SEC groups 5-8/Disabled People) to Renaissance hub museums (baseline year 2006/07)


Children An increase in the number of contacts between children and regional museum hubs by 25% by 2005/06

Increase by 25% the number of contacts between school-age children and regional museums ( base year: 2003/04)

Increase the number of participation contacts between school age children in years 1-11 and Renaissance hub museums (baseline year: 2006/07)

Commissioned educational activities undertaken by regional hubs in partnership with schools with pilot projects running in 2003/04, evaluated using impact research methodology piloted in 2002/03 and fully rolled-out from 2004/05

Participation

Increase the number of instances of adults and child visitors to Renaissance hub museums participating in on-site activity (baseline year: 2006/07)

Sources: DCMS, 2003 DCMS, 2006a DCMS, 2008b 2.2.2 The evolution of Renaissance’s ‘key benefits’ Other priorities for the hubs are set out in MLA’s planning guidance (issued for 2003/4, 2004/6, 2006/8 and 2008/9), which describes the criteria for their business plans. These were somewhat narrower than the ambitions of the Regional Museums Task Force, but focused on what had been identified as ‘key benefits’ - education and learning; access and inclusion; regeneration; collections; excellence and modernisation. Wilkinson has observed that MLA’s priorities have become increasingly simplified, although the hubs were expected to use a complicated framework to shape their work (2008: 15). A number of the Task Force’s proposals were dropped before the initial planning guidance was issued to the hubs for 2003/4 (detailed in Wilkinson, 2008: table 2). Its idea of a Continuing Professional Development programme for teachers was transferred to Strategic Commissioning, another DCMS-funded scheme managed by MLA. Education Despite the fact that Renaissance was conceived as a ‘comprehensive programme’, DCMS and DfES ring-fenced £15m for schools education. Their insistence that 50% of Renaissance’s funding should be committed to education outputs skewed its ethos and direction. Although the 2003/4 guidance emphasised eight ‘Renaissance priority areas’, education was one of only three priority areas applied to the Phase 2 hub. All hubs were required to commit to discrete Education Programme Delivery Plans. The Regional Task Force had, however, envisaged museums’ educational remit as being rather wider than this implied:

Educationally museums and galleries do much more than serve school children…They are places of informal learning for people of all ages and backgrounds, at all levels of


capability and interest, and make learning enjoyable and entertaining…The informality, openness and flexibility of museum learning means that people can make their own discoveries and create their own meanings as they are inspired to begin to make sense of new subject. (RMTF, 2001: 37)

And Davies’ putative forward plan had argued that:

A ‘renaissance’ can only be achieved if these four priorities [education, community development, modernisation and national/regional partnerships] proceed together – they are inter-dependent on each other for success. You cannot ‘pick’ one and say – ‘we will do that’. You will lose quality and the programmes will not be sustainable, nor will many of them be deliverable. You cannot, for example, deliver education (‘curriculum enrichment’) programmes without modernising the museums, developing links into the community and drawing on the strength and resources of the Nationals. (Davies, 2002a: 4, cited Wilkinson, 2008: 6)

MLA proposed that from 2006 the hubs’ Education Programme Delivery Plans should integrate lifelong learning and informal learning and should address the broader learning agenda through the work on interpretation, access to information and knowledge. But, in the event, this was never made explicit. Despite evidence of an aging population, the government’s emphasis on children and young people prevailed and in 2006/8 the planning guidance required the hubs to extend their services to pre-school children and 16-19 year olds (MLA, 2005a). Economic regeneration The Regional Museums Task Force’s report argued that museums could contribute to their regional economies. It concentrated on tourism, although the Task Force also referred to museums’ capacity to contribute to an emerging agenda around place-shaping. Regeneration was not included amongst the eight priority areas set out in the planning guidance for 2003/4 -2005/6 (summarised by Wilkinson, 2008: table 1b), and only re-emerged in the 2006/8 guidance as one of the underpinning visions and guiding principles. By that time, its emphasis was on socially focused neighbourhood renewal and community cohesion agendas, in line with government priorities that had evolved in the intervening years. Collections The Task Force’s report stipulated the need to strengthen regional museums’ collections and make them more accessible to audiences. It argued for greater investment in collections care and scholarship; for museums to use their collections in more flexible and creative ways; for more resources to create exhibitions; for exhibitions to reflect themes of pressing interest to local communities and for museums to work with the creative industries in novel ways including serving as a resource for the creative industries. Although collections are a consistent theme in the guidelines, a former member of the Renaissance Team observed that MLA has never determined a clear role for itself in relation to the use and development of museum collections, not least because it has never established ‘…how (museum) collections could be managed and used, and the extent to which this has to develop if museums themselves are to change’. Much of Renaissance’s focus on collections was concentrated on museums with designated collections and the Designation Challenge Fund. Excellence The Task Force aspired to consistent quality in regional museums’ provision. It envisaged that museum hubs would develop into centres of excellence, proposed mechanisms for disseminating


best practice, the mapping and development of standards for audience development and visitor services. The report also recommended the use of peer review. Although the 2006/7-2007/8 planning guidance suggested that all hubs would be required to help develop a peer review process (MLA 2005: 3), this was never taken forward and only re-emerged in discussions held in the wake of DCMS’s publication of the McMaster Report (2008). Modernisation Modernisation was core to the Regional Museums Task Force report (RMTF, 2001: 56-63). It referred to improving organisational leadership and changing the culture of museums, including by creating a more diverse workforce, rationalising the sector, and improving information and communication technology. The Task Force also proposed reviews of the governance of funded museums as a way of ensuring a sense of partnership between those involved in funding the museums (RMTF, 2001: 122). Although some aspects of this agenda appear in the eight Renaissance priority areas for 2003/4 and onwards, it was identified as insufficiently emphasised by Kingshurst et al, (2005: 6), who also noted Renaissance’s lack of a relationship with funded museums’ parent bodies. Neither governance nor rationalisation has been pursued.

2.3 The implementation of the framework for Renaissance’s delivery The following paragraphs consider the structure of the framework constructed for Renaissance – both in terms of its programmes and the roles allocated within it. 2.3.1 Programmes The hubs are the principal vehicle through which the ‘the vision of a regenerated regional museum sector set out in the report Renaissance in the Regions’ 6 has been pursued. Renaissance is also delivered through a number of other initiatives, several of which predate Renaissance and serve MLA’s broader cross-domain agendas (Porter, 2009). It also funds various other initiatives. National programmes: Museum Development Fund The Museum Development Fund was established to strengthen

the regional museums framework outside the hubs, amongst local and community museums in particular. Principally administered by Museum Development Officers on behalf of the regional agencies, funding was allocated on the basis of the number of accredited museums in each region, on condition that an acceptable plan was submitted by the regional agency.

Collections-based national initiatives: Subject Specialist Networks

Subject specialist networks, such as the Museum Ethnographers Group, the Social History Curators Group and the Society for British Archaeologists, have existed for many years and predate Renaissance. The SSNs, which may have referred to the example

6 Letter from Paul Lander to each of the hubs announcing awards (12.09.2007).


of the UK Maritime Collections Strategy, 1999, were created to implement the Task Force’s recommendation that national subject/discipline-based networks would enable museums to share skills and expertise, and work together to make more effective use of their collections for the benefit of audiences. 30 networks have received ‘exploratory’ funding for start-ups and 18 networks have received ‘implementation’ funding. A central feature of this strand is the web-based SSN Connect, provided by Collections Trust.

Designation Challenge Fund The Designation Scheme and Challenge Fund (DCF) both predate Renaissance. The former was announced by the Minister for National Heritage in 1996 as a way of designating museum collections considered to be of national or international significance; the latter was created in 1999 as a fund to realise the potential and status of these designated collections. DCF was funded by Renaissance from 2000/01, but without any additional funds being earmarked on a continuing basis. By 2007/8, Renaissance had spent £25.5m on DCF. The Designation Scheme has been extended to library and archive collections, which fall outside the remit of Renaissance funding.

Collections Link

This is a national web-based advisory service for cross-domain collections management, initiated by MLA’s Quality and Standards team before Renaissance, and managed by Collections Trust in partnership with the Institute of Conservation and the National Preservation Office. It is intended to provide direct access to advice via published resources, email and training programmes. Phone services were being withdrawn at the time of writing.

Portable Antiquities Scheme This scheme, based at the British Museum and funded by MLA, encourages members of the public to report archaeological finds. It will be supported by Renaissance from 2009/10, on the basis of its delivering against Renaissance’s objectives of inclusion, outreach and ICT (Clark, 2008; MLA, 2008b).

Workforce development-based national initiatives: Diversify Diversify supports positive action traineeships, bursaries, support

materials and guidance to hub and non-hub museums. Managed by the Museums Association, it drew on the experience of Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, where the local authority had supported a number of positive action initiatives. It was piloted by the Research Centre for Museums and Galleries at the University of Leicester and the MA, with a bursary scheme funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

Leading Archives and Museums

Re:source’s initial manifesto (2000) recognised the need to improve the quality of leadership in the sector. The rationale for Renaissance investment was to deliver organisational and cultural change through leadership development. Leadership and business skills and competences had already been identified as an urgent requirement for the sector by the Cultural Heritage National Training Organisation and the Clore Duffield Foundation. The


cross-domain Leading Archives and Museums programme, based in MLA’s workforce team, was intended to address this need, both within Renaissance and for the wider sector.

Apprenticeships From 2008/9 hosting a Creative Apprenticeship has been a standard requirement of all the hub funding agreements. Creative Apprenticeships are funded through Renaissance, over and above the normal hub allocations.

Advocacy-based national initiatives: Museums & Galleries Month A UK-wide celebration of museums and galleries, which was first

held in 2000 and was the successor to Museums and Galleries Week, launched in 1996. Renaissance ceased funding this in 2008.

The Museum Prize Trust Support for the UK's largest arts prize, originally sponsored by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (UK). Renaissance funding ceased in 2007 and the Prize is now sponsored by the Art Fund.

Misc advocacy and events All Renaissance-specific and museum-related CSR campaigns publications including e.g., Travers (2007), Renaissance News (to the end of 2007), etc.

Education-based national initiative: Find your Talent A new £25m pilot intended to give young people the opportunity

to experience at least five hours of high quality arts and culture every week. The project is being piloted initially in 10 locations between 2008 and 2011, and will explore the best methods of helping young people discover and develop their creative talents and personal skills through direct exposure to high quality arts and culture. It is funded by DCMS and DCFS with support from ACE and MLA. Renaissance is contributing £4m to the programme.

Research: In addition to the hubs’ data collection and exit surveys, Renaissance has supported a plethora of other research. In 2007/08, for example, its research portfolio included work on workforce diversity; the use of stored collections in UK museums (with University College London); work on museums and mental health; education programmes evaluation (for both Renaissance and Strategic Commissioning); trust status evaluation and documentation (Hems, 2008a). Renaissance-funded research and evaluations are included in Appendix 14.

2.3.2 Protagonists The principle of integrated, partnership working within the framework of English museums was conceived as being at the heart of Renaissance. MLA’s bid to the CSR2007 asserted that this not only ensured value for money, but enabled it to identify and embed

…good practice, economies of scale and joint working. The creation of the MLA Partnership reinforces the mechanisms for doing this across the country, in relation to all aspects of the programme, including those which cut across regional boundaries (MLA, 2007a).


Hubs The Regional Museums Task Force’s framework focused principally on the nine regional hubs which are described as clusters of four to five museums, situated within each English Government Office region. Given the relative paucity of funding initially available, MLA decided to concentrate its resources on three pathfinder hubs that would act as exemplars and help make the case for further funding (Kerr, 2002). It intended that these Phase 1 hubs would receive financial support to the level that would have been achieved by funding the Regional Museums Task Force’s recommendation in full. The criteria according to which the hubs were selected related to status, location, infrastructure and capacity, commitment and external endorsement/recognition of services. A refined version of these was used to select the three Phase 1 hubs. The eight published criteria for these included an expert panel’s rating of the hub’s credibility; the number of designated collections held by the hub and in the region as a whole; the number of visits to hub applicants; levels of deprivation and rurality; the general state of the regional infrastructure; commitment to partnership and co-operative hub working (Kerr, 2002). In practice, the notes of the assessment panel’s meeting suggest that the criterion given most weight was the panel’s assessment of the hub’s credibility (MLA, 2003). The following list of hubs and hub partners is drawn from the 2008/9 funding agreements: East of England Phase 2 Colchester & Ipswich Museums Service Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service Hub lead Fitzwilliam Museum Luton Museum Service East Midlands Phase 2 Leicester City Museums Service Hub lead Derby Museum & Art Gallery Leicestershire Museums Service Nottingham City Museums & Galleries Lincolnshire Museum Service London Phase 2 Museum of London Hub lead Horniman Museum Geffrye Museum London's Transport Museum North East Phase 1 Tyne & Wear Museums Hub lead Beamish Bowes Museum Hartlepool Museum & Art Gallery North West Phase 2 Bolton Museum & Art Gallery Harris Museum & Art Gallery Manchester City Galleries Hub lead Tullie House Museum & Art Gallery Manchester Museum Whitworth Art Gallery South East Phase 2 Brighton Museums & Art Gallery Chatham Historic Dockyard Oxford University Museums Hampshire Museums & Archive Service Hub lead


South West Phase 1 Russell Cotes Art Gallery & Museum Bristol City Museum & Art Gallery Hub lead Royal Albert Museum & Art Gallery Royal Cornwall Museum Plymouth City Museum & Art Gallery West Midlands Phase 1 Stoke on Trent Museums Wolverhampton Art Gallery Ironbridge Gorge Museums Trust Coventry Heritage & Arts Trust Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery Hub lead Yorkshire Phase 2 Museums Sheffield Hub lead York Museums Trust Kingston upon Hull Museums Leeds Museums & Galleries Bradford Museums

In practice, the hubs contain four to five museums and museum services and embrace considerably more of the wider museum sector than was either originally envisaged or is generally acknowledged. In 2002 the hubs’ data collection referred to as many as 153 sites (Babbidge, 2008b; exhibit 6). By the end of 2006/7, this had risen to 1677. Hubs have introduced sites that were not included in the original scheme (even if operated by that museum service), as well as corporate headquarters and service-centres not normally open to the public. MLA’s 2009/10 funding agreement with the amalgamated Colchester & Ipswich Museums Service adds further to the figures. There is considerable variety within the composition of individual hubs:

The number of museums in each hub ranges from five (in London) to 32 (in Yorkshire). 67% of those include pre-eminent designated collections, although the East Midlands hubs includes no such collection;

Some hub organisations (such as Lincolnshire and Hampshire) include all their branches, whether or not they are primarily museums; others (such as Manchester City) are limited to a single, primary, museum site within a larger service;

The inclusion of branch museums has a substantial impact on the relative size of the hub in relation to other museums in the region – the North West, South West and London have substantially smaller hubs than the other regions; and

Hub museums in Sheffield, Coventry and Birmingham do not include the industrial and transport collections that are an integral part of those cities’ museum collections but which are managed by other museum organisations (Babbidge, 2008b:26).

7 The 167 hubs sites comprised: 124 museum sites and six resource centres operated by local authorities, of which 45 were managed by five joint committees of local authorities, and 85 by 22 individual councils; 11 independent charities operating 30 sites (of which seven were charities operating 16 museums devolved from local authorities which previously delivered them as direct services); and three universities operating seven museum sites (Babbidge, 2008b: 25).


The functions of the hubs and the hub leads are set out in the planning guidance, and from 2008/9 in new, more formalised funding agreements. These highlight functions rather than roles8. Up to the time of writing, the design and structure of the plans submitted by the hubs has varied considerably, with some listing large programmes under a small number of headings taken from MLA's guidance, and others listing a large number (sometimes dozens) of individual actions. MLA’s financial accounts refer to around 750 projects that were funded by Renaissance between 2003/4 and 2007/8, with support for each ranging from £650 to almost £1.5m. Museums with designated collections The Task Force had envisaged a particular role for museums with designated collections within its proposed national framework. Along with university museums they were to be sources of expertise and to lead on research and scholarship. Its 2001 report argued for additional resources to enable them to take on this role. In practice, additional funding for designated collections was never made available. Half the £10m funding originally intended for the Designation Challenge Fund in 2002/3 and 2003/4 was redirected to the hubs. It was suggested that DCMS expected to see designation funding absorbed into Renaissance and not to remain as a distinct strand (Davies, 2002b: 7). About half the total number of museums with designated collections became hub partners. The wider museums sector The Task Force’ s report had envisaged supporting the wider museums sector in a number of ways – through:

the dissemination of best practice, so that smaller museums could also deliver improved services to their users;

participation in region-wide schemes, to encourage professionalism;

providing direct assistance with learning and inclusion initiatives and external funding opportunities; and

improved training and development opportunities.

In the event, the nature and extent of hubs’ support for the wider museums sector was not specified, but was left open to interpretation. Non-hub museums’ expectations were often frustrated:

… when Renaissance was first talked about , it was sold as very much being for every museum, not so much focus on the hubs and non-hubs. It was hubs and spokes, remember spokes? …. The spokes mysteriously disappeared and it just became hubs.

8 The functions of the hub leads refer to leadership; management and coordination; financial management, coordination and reporting; regional Renaissance boards. The conditions of hub membership include adherence to hub financial and management structures; regional agency transitional arrangements; workforce diversity requirements; submissions to the case studies database; research methodologies; use of Inspiring Learning for All, Generic Leaning Outcomes and Generic Social Outcomes; data collection; ICT; diversity and equal opportunities; communications and publication. Separate annexes detail funding and payment arrangements; special conditions, performance monitoring and reporting (including the provision of staffing information; audience development performance indicators; development of other performance indicators; outcomes framework and population of an information management system; baselines for Renaissance audience indicators).


I think that initial consultation for the hubs was very inclusive but, as always happens, they had to prioritise for funding and the spokes dropped off (NE focus group participant cited by Holberry, 2009: 10)

The criteria for the Museum Development Fund have been described as ‘ beautifully vague’ (Holberry, 2009: 11). In practice it supports the Museum Development Officers Network (in two regions); grant aid museums (in seven regions) and the development of new initiatives (in two regions). Grant funding is normally controlled by Museum Development Officers. Although a mapping exercise undertaken in 2005 found that less than a third of these were then supported by Renaissance through the Museum Development Fund (Bell, 2005), most counties are now covered by Museum Development Officers or by some form of museum development service. Although they have different funders and different demands are made of them, they are all delivering to the same agendas, which ultimately come from central government. The MDOs consulted as part of this Review described their role as facilitators rather than ‘do-ers’ and as covering a range of strategic and practical work (Holberry, 2009). Most work proactively with accredited museums (or those aspiring to accreditation). Their other functions depend on the nature of museums in their regions, their funding, status within their employer organisation (such as a local authority) and personal preference. The 2006/8 Museum Development Fund’s planning guidance was brought into line with the guidance for the hubs. Applicants had to account for their aims ,objectives and proposed programme of work; demonstrate how these contributed to the Renaissance priority areas and guiding principles; and explain how they were working towards a coordinated regional approach to museum development by describing links between MDF plans, hub plans and regional agency plans. Although the guidance referred to plans to evaluate the success of these initiatives in February 2007 (MLA 2005b: 5), this never took place. It was only in the 2008/9 guidance that MLA became more explicit about partnership working. It is expected that transferring the MDF to the hubs in eight of the nine regions will strengthen those museums’ roles within the wider museums community. Almost all the individual consultees who contributed to the Review, acknowledged that the amount of joint working was increasing and improving (Holberry, 2009: 21). Service providers Various external agencies have been involved in delivering Renaissance programmes including the Museums Association, Collections Trust and FPM Training. The hubs’ data collections and exit surveys have been undertaken by MORI, BDRC consultancy, Morris Hargreaves McIntyre (MHM), the Research Centre for Museums and Galleries, University of Leicester (RCMG) and the School of Media, Arts and Design (MAD), University of Westminster. The distribution of responsibilities for Renaissance is set out in Table 2.5. The majority of contributors are MLA teams. External service providers are italicised.


Table 2.5 Distribution of responsibility for Renaissance functions, 2002/3-2008/9 (a) Renaissance functions

2002/03 2004-06 2006/08 2008/09

Core activities Hub management & development

Renaissance Renaissance Renaissance Renaissance

Performance management

N/A Renaissance Renaissance Renaissance

Data collection

Renaissance

Renaissance Renaissance Renaissance

Learning / education

Learning and access

Learning and access

Policy and advocacy + Renaissance + Strategic Commissioning

Policy & Sustainability + Sector Improvement + Renaissance

Communications

Communications

Communications

Communications + Renaissance + regional agencies

Communications

Finance

Finance Finance Finance Finance

Research

Strat & Plan (hub data); RCMG, Leicester (learning data)

MORI (hub data); RCMG, Leicester learning data -

BDRC + Research and Evidence (hub data)

Research and Evidence & hubs (hub data)

Other strands Workforce development

Workforce development and stds

Workforce development and stds + regional agencies

Policy and advocacy + workforce + regional agencies

Policy & Sustainability (learning & skills)

Diversify

Museums Assn Museums Assn Museums Assn + Policy and Advocacy + Renaissance

Renaissance + Museums Assn

Designation Challenge Fund

Standards Standards Renaissance Designation

Leadership

n/a Workforce development + FPM Training

Policy and Advocacy + FPM Training

Sector improvement + FPM Training

MDF

Regional Team + regional agencies (b)

Regional Team + regional agencies

Renaissance + regional agencies

Renaissance

MDOs

Renaissance + Regional Team + regional agencies

Renaissance + Regional Team + regional agencies

Renaissance + regional agencies

Renaissance

SSNs

n/a Renaissance Renaissance Renaissance

Accreditation

Standards + regional agencies



Quality & Standards

Museums & Galleries Month

Renaissance+ Comms

Renaissance + Comms

Renaissance n/a


Note: a) the location of Research & Evidence is not apparent on MLA’s 2004 organisational structure chart. b) For 2002/03 this includes the regional agencies’ predecessor bodies. The London agency was not in place until early 2004.

2.3 MLA and the management of Renaissance The funding for Renaissance has come to constitute around 70% of MLA’s total income (Table 2.6). Table 2.6 Renaissance income as a percentage of MLA’s DCMS grant in aid, 2002/3 – 2007/8 £ 000s 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 MLA 25.274 23.393 33.458 43.523 49.753 64.779 Renaissance 9.361 13.608 21.000 30.000 32.000 45.000 % 37 53 60 69 64 70

Source: Babbidge, 2008a: exhibit 2; DCMS / MLA Funding agreements MLA’s role in relation to Renaissance, as articulated in its funding agreement with DCMS for 2008/09 – 2010/11, is to

Lead and champion the Renaissance programme, identifying ways to develop its impact and extend its potential, and managing the allocated resources to meet specific objectives. (DCMS, 2008a)

Renaissance is just one of 14 strands of work specified in that funding agreement. Although the funding agreements do not specify MLA’s precise role in relation to Renaissance, they identify what it is expected to achieve. The 2003/04 to 2005/06 agreement, for example, specified that ‘Resource will implement the recommendations of the Task Force’s report following a phased approach’ and listed ‘Critical actions under the implementation plan’. These included

the transition of the regional agencies into cross-domain bodies with the managerial and professional skills to provide leadership and developmental support to the sector;

the Museums Education Strategy delivering targeted and properly resourced museum-supported education programmes to schools;

the development of the capacity in Phase 1 museums to make a substantially enhanced contribution to the learning and inspiration of audiences drawn from across the social and cultural spectrum;

the development of coherent plans and a basic infrastructure needed to emulate the Phase 1 regions in Phase 2.

These actions were expected to equip regional museums, especially those in phase 1, to deliver on:

education and learning ( increased access to learning and education resources; a comprehensive and integrated service; teachers skilled in using museums and galleries; museums that are learning centres; heritage objects in schools to stimulate learning)

access and inclusion (increased usage; changed visitor profiles; outreach services and audience development; inclusive places for learning and inspiration).


However, precisely what constituted fulfillment of these requirements (what would qualify as ‘a comprehensive and integrated service to schools’, for example) remained ambiguous. The management of Renaissance and its various strands has always involved various MLA teams. In practice, responsibility has been distributed amongst the Renaissance team; the regional agencies, as part of the MLA Partnership; and, various other teams. Inevitably, the remits and location of those teams within MLA’s organisational structure have changed over the years. Renaissance team MLA has a dedicated team comprising some 3-8% of its total workforce9. Starting with three appointees in 2003, the team had expanded to six posts by 2008. The fact that the Renaissance team was originally located within the Directorate of Learning, Access, Renaissance & Regions and later alongside the Learning, Access, Audiences Development, Renaissance, Regions and International Teams may account for its early bias towards education (Table 2.7). The precise roles and responsibilities of the Renaissance team have shifted over the years, perhaps most radically during the course of the present Review (Clare, 2009). In principle, its functions have been to:

develop the vision and objectives for Renaissance and act as its custodian;

lead and manage key aspects of delivery of the Renaissance including developing plans, monitoring, and evaluation activities to ensure that it demonstrates and delivers measurable and sustainable improvements for users and that Renaissance funding is effectively invested and used;

ensure that an appropriate programme management framework is maintained and to maintain the business case for Renaissance;

secure Board and senior management support; DCMS and wider key stakeholder support;

co-ordinate the development of a performance management framework for the Renaissance; manage or co-ordinate data collection and analysis;

develop a programme database to allow more effective reporting, planning and information sharing to take place (Hems, 2008b).

Regional agencies The first tranche of Renaissance funding was mainly invested in the start-up of the regional agencies and the funding of the national programmes (Table 2.8). The nine regional agencies, set up as cross-domain, strategic bodies, were in place by 2004. It is estimated that Renaissance provided between 33-44% of their core budgets (Hems, 2008a)10. Although each agency managed its Renaissance activities slightly differently, by January 2008 each had a single Renaissance lead. These leads were primarily responsible for regional strategy, communications and advocacy. The regional agencies’ planning agreements for 2006/7, ‘asked, as a requirement of the Renaissance funding’ that they:

9 Estimates based on HR organisational charts, 2003 and 2004. 10 Holberry (2008: 11) suggests 35-40%.


support the implementation of all Renaissance-funded plans, including the Hub business plan and the agency roles and responsibilities outlined therein;

provide a regional strategic lead for Renaissance communications and advocacy, and champion the programme throughout the region;

contribute, through PSG, to developing the future shape and content of the programme, including the development of planning guidance for the next funding period;

contribute, through PSG, to the development of performance management processes, including programme monitoring.

Table 2.7 MLA’s organisation structures showing the position of Renaissance, 2002/3 – 2008/9 2002/3 Chief Executive

and Communications 11 posts

Finance and Support Services 13 posts

Libraries and Information Society 16 posts

Standards, Collections and Workforce 17 posts

Learning, Access, Renaissance and Regions 16 posts, of which: Renaissance (3 posts); regions; learning & access; international & marketing strategy

Research & Strategic Project Development 5 posts

Chief Executive’s Unit 5 posts

2004/6

External relations 7 posts

Corporate Services 13 posts

Libraries and E-Society 15 posts

Collections, Archives Development, Workforce Development & Standards 27 posts

Learning, Access, Audiences Development, Renaissance, Regions and International Team 18 posts, covering Renaissance (4 posts); regions; learning & access; international & marketing strategy; director support

2006-8 (at Dec 06)

Deputy Chief Executive team (Corporate services) 16 posts covering HR; finance; performance & planning; grants; facilities

Marketing and Communications 12 posts covering communications; external relations; marketing

Operations 18 posts covering acquisitions, exports & loans; framework for the future; digital futures; designation; archives and Renaissance (6 posts)

Policy and Advocacy 18 posts covering: museum policy; library policy; archive policy; policy development; research and evidence

2008/9 Corporate Services 17 posts covering HR; ICT; finance; planning & contracts contracting

Communications 3 posts covering media; editorial; Parliament & stakeholder relations

Programme Delivery 31 posts, covering 2012; sector improvement; standards; acquisitions, exports & loans; Renaissance (5 posts)

Policy and Sustainability 13 posts covering research and evidence; excellence – improvement & innovation; learning & skills; communities and local government


The Renaissance team’s contacts with the agencies were focused on strategic planning and development. It was also in touch with their specialist staff in relation to particular issues, including workforce development, learning and skills, communications, etc. There have been some ambiguities about the regional agencies’ precise responsibilities for Renaissance. From 2006, one of MLA’s concerns was to encourage closer collaboration between the hubs and the regional agencies, particularly in relation to strategic planning and linking Renaissance to broader regional priorities. It sought to do this through the establishment of Regional Renaissance Boards and the coordination of quarterly meetings between the hub managers and the agencies’ Renaissance leads. Smaller working groups met to take forward particular aspects of Renaissance – for example, workforce diversity and developing performance indicators. MLA also hosted periodic meetings between the hub leads, agency CEOs and its own senior executive to consider high level, strategic issues. Following an unfavourable funding settlement decided after CSR2007, MLA ceases funding eight of the nine agencies in April 2009. It will continue to fund the London agency in 2009/10, when it will still manage the network of MDOs, accreditation, etc. Regional Renaissance boards Regional Renaissance Boards were called for in the 2008/09 planning guidance. They were intended to:

Formalise the arrangements which had evolved since 2002/03 in order to be clear about where and how Renaissance decisions were being taken regionally, and to bring transparency to this process;

Strengthen the regional agencies’ role as a source of advice and intelligence about region-wide issues, and provide a link to other cultural bodies and agencies;

Challenge the hub partners and regional agencies through the membership of other stakeholders, who could act as ‘critical friends’ and improve communications between Renaissance and the rest of the sector. It was intended that, over time, external representation would increase and that the board would become less a hub management team and more the focus for strategic investment.

In 2007, the Renaissance team set out detailed proposals for strengthening the management and governance of the programme. Its proposals to MLA’s Partnership Strategy Group, consisting of the MLA Executive Board and the regional agency chief executives, and to the hub leads included recommendations to create a national programme board, which regional boards would report to. These proposals were rejected, and the related recommendation for the production of integrated regional plans, which would effectively draw together the different strands of activity and investment at this level, was only partially implemented. This compromised the role of the regional boards. Other MLA teams While it is outside the remit of this Review to consider the history of MLA’s organisational structures, the Review noted that Renaissance has been associated with a variety of functions including strategy and planning; information; learning and access; collections development; standards and workforce development; communications. Responsibility for leading some of Renaissance’s programme strands has been located outside the Renaissance team. The Leading Archives and Museums and Collections Link programmes, for example, have been based within the workforce, quality and standards teams. Responsibility for the Designation Challenge Fund only shifted from workforce, quality and standards to the


Renaissance team in 2006 and back to a new Standards team in 2008. The management of data collection and analysis moved from the Renaissance team to Research & Evidence in 2007. Renaissance is also closely associated with a number of other MLA programmes, including:

Strategic Commissioning, a joint government fund, which supports education and learning programmes in archives and museums - non-hubs, in particular – and was administered by the regional agencies;

Accreditation. The hubs are required to support the delivery of pre-application accreditation advice as a condition of their Renaissance funding; and

MLA’s generic learning outcomes and generic social outcomes – tools intended to function across museums, libraries and archives.

2.4 Renaissance’s finances The majority of Renaissance funding has been committed to the hubs (Table 2.8), the three Phase 1 hubs in particular. Details of the original funding formula used for Renaissance are described by Babbidge (2008a: 5ff). In principle, 60% of funding was divided equally amongst the hubs with 40% allocated on the basis of population. MLA considered removing the differential between Phase 1 and 2 hubs in 2007/08 before the outcome of CSR2007 was known, and effected this in 1 April 2008. The cost of MLA’s central management of Renaissance has varied, although by 2007/8 the figures suggest that its cumulative cost was over £5m. While Renaissance funding supported its small, dedicated team, MLA contributed other centralised functions, such as Communications, Finance, Learning and Access. Table 2.8 Distribution of Renaissance in the Regions funding, 2002 – 2007 £m 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 Total

Income (a) 9.361 13.608 21.000 30.000 32.000 45.000 150.969

Expenditure

Phase 1 hubs

NE 0.010 0.960 2.467 3.343 3.630 3.630 14.04

SW 0.010 1.340 3.149 5.181 5.210 5.210 20.1

WM 0.010 1.420 3.410 5.420 5.510 5.510 21.28

Subtotal Phase 1 0.030 3.720 9.026 13.944 14.35 14.35 55.42

Phase 2 hubs

EE 0.010 0.220 0.720 1.214 1.519 3.456 7.139

EM 0.010 0.200 0.729 0.963 1.327 3.023 6.252

L 0.010 0.250 0.946 1.324 1.778 4.038 8.346

NW 0.010 0.220 0.82 1.402 1.740 3.959 8.151

SE 0.010 0.260 0.908 1.548 1.932 4.394 9.052

Y 0.010 0.210 0.676 1.180 1.455 3.311 6.842


Subtotal Phase 2 0.060 1.360 4.799 7.631 9.751 22.181 45.782

Total to Phase 1 and 2 hubs 0.090 5.080 13.825 21.575 24.101 36.531 101.202

% of total expenditure 1.0 36.0 62.6 75.1 76.7 82.9 67.7

Regional agencies 2.925 3.507 3.507 3.507 3.507 3.507 20.46


Other programme costs

MDF 2.

000 0.

000 0.000 0.000 0.63 1.12 3.75

DCF 3.807 4.583 3.751 1.582 1.299 0.883 15.905

SSNs 0.000 0.000 0.248 0 0.343 0.002 0.593

Diversify 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.290 0.240 0.209 0.739

Workforce Development 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.244 0.06 0 0.38

Other national Initiatives 0.107 0.388 0.020 0.747 0.082 0.092 1.437

Subtotal 5.990 4.971 4.019 2.863 2.654 2.306 22.804


Management costs

Research & Evaluation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.325 0.458 1.117

Central Management 0.156 0.547 0.726 0.458 0.816 1.269 3.972

Subtotal 0.156 0.547 0.726 0.791 1.141 1.727 5.089


Total expenditure 9.161 14.105 22.077 28.736 31.403 44.071 149.555

Surplus/(Deficit) 0.2 -497 -1.077 1.264 0.597 0.929 1.414

Balance B/F 0 0.2 0 0 0.388 0.681 0

Adjustments 0 0.297 1.077 -0.876 -0.304 0 196

Balance C/F 0.2 0 0 0.388 0.681 1.61 1.61 Note: a) Table 2. 2 Source: Adapted from Babbidge, 2008a: exhibit 2

2.5 Accountability 2.5.1 Financial accountability Accounting for strands of Renaissance other than the hubs appears relatively simple: service providers are asked for reports and testaments of their expenditure. Accounting for the hubs’ spending is altogether more complicated.


The hubs have been required to submit quarterly or annual financial reports and statements of expenditure, demonstrating the additionality of Renaissance funding in respect to the Museum Education Strategy Fund (2006/7 - 2007/8). However, it appears that they were not required to submit annual accounts assigning the purposes for which the funds had been spent. The coherence of Renaissance’s financial accountability was, arguably, undermined by the fact that MLA has had funding agreements with both hub leads and hub partners. From 2008/9 it put funding agreements in place with each of the hub partners and the one remaining regional agency in London. MLA began a retrospective analysis of the hubs’ activities in late 2006, based on their own classifications. These largely accorded with previous planning guidance and broadly fell under three headings: audiences, collections development and organisational development:

Audiences Audience development Learning and skills Community engagement

Collections development Collections care Collections access Collections revitalisation

Organisational development Workforce development Workforce diversity

Systems development Sustainability

Partnerships It was not possible for the Review to accurately establish regional expenditure on these categories. Analyses by Babbidge (2008a: exhibits 4 and 5) and Carpenter & Moore (2008: table 3) can only be taken to be indicative. It appears that the proportions of the hubs’ budgets that were committed to these programme areas varied considerably. The figures suggest the hubs’ management and administrative costs ranged from between 4% and 17% of their spending. However, as Babbidge (2008: 11) suggests ‘This is less a measure of variable operating effectiveness than book-keeping practice’. The absence of uniform book-keeping conventions and the lack of adequate central accounting systems at MLA also contributed to this. Many of the projects included in MLA’s calculations covered multiple programme areas and projects with similar content were undertaken under different regional budget headings. Regional spending on the development of the wider museums sector also varies widely. Holberry (2009:11) notes a recent MLA survey that indicated considerable differences in the amount that hubs estimated that they were contributing towards the wider museums community in general – some 14%-60% of their funding. As well as working in partnership with non-hub museums, several support the Museum Development Officer network and provide grants. Table 2.9 focuses on the Museums Development Fund - the bottom line of Renaissance’s investment in the wider museum sector. These figures are indicative of a considerably smaller, but more consistent base. Table 2.9 Museum Development Fund allocations Region £ MDF allocations

2007/8 £ hub allocations 2007/8 MDF allocations

as a % of hub allocations

EE 130,000 3,456,000 4 EM 79,000 3,023,000 3 L 99,000 4,038,000 2 NE 52,000 3,630,000 1 NW 125,000 3,959,000 3 SE 212,000 4,394,000 5


SW 181,000 5,210,000 3 WM 111,000 5,510,000 2 Y 131,000 3,311,000 4 Total 1,120,000 36,531,000 3 Source: Holberry, 2009: table 1; MLA Underspend Given that Renaissance’s origins lie in the underfunding of regional museums, it is significant that Renaissance’s early years were characterised by a considerable underspend. It is understood that a number of projects were delayed and that there were difficulties of recruiting staff on time. But by the end of 2006/7, unspent balances for all the hubs (except the East Midlands, for which comparable figures are not available), stood at around £7.5m, before reducing to £679,000 in 2007/8 (Babbidge, 2008a: exhibit 3). MLA encouraged a reduction of that underspend in 2007/8. This contributed to a total spend of £43.5m – the equivalent of (almost) the first three years of Renaissance being spent within a single twelve-month period. In 2006/7, spending on central management costs alone rose by almost £400,000 (78%) on the previous year. Other sources of funding Renaissance funding constitutes only a fraction of the hub museums’ overall income. In terms of government funding streams to the hub museums, for instance, between 2003/4 and 2006/7, Renaissance funding accounted for around 13% of their income overall: 27% for Phase 1 hubs, and 7% for phase 2 hubs (Table 2.10). The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has provided substantial funding for hub museums since its inception in 1994. Although initially focusing on capital works, since the National Lottery Act 1997 it has grant-aided activity projects, which has increased in recent years as a proportion of the number of awards made,. Babbidge calculates that between 1994 and 2008 hub museums received over 20% of HLF awards for museums (2008b: exhibit 14). Moreover, up to 2007/8, hub museums had received more from HLF than Renaissance, although since 2004/5 the trend has been down (Table 2.11). Table 2.10 Government funding for hubs 2003/4 – 2006/7 Region LA DCMS AHRC RinR Total RinR

funding as %

£’000 £’000 £’000 £’000 £’000 % EE 23,969 0 4,056 3,673 31,698 12 EM 54,028 0 0 3,219 57,247 6 L 44,297 49,127 0 4,298 97,722 4 NE 24,237 5,873 0 10,400 40,510 26 NW 33,448 0 7,711 4,182 45,341 9 SE 27,121 1,200 16,105 4,648 49,074 9 SW 26,159 0 0 14,880 41,039 36 WM 51,937 0 0 15,760 67,697 23 Y 54,932 0 0 3,521 58,453 6 Total 340,128 56,200 27,872 64,581 488,781 13 Phase 1 hubs 102,423 5,873 0 41,040 149,516 27 Phase 2 hubs 237,705 50,327 27,872 23,541 339,265 7 Sources: Adapted from Babbidge, 2008b: exhibit 8



Table 2.11 HLF and Renaissance funding to the hubs, 2002/3 – 2007/8 Awards £m 02/3

03/4

04/5

05/6

06/07 07/8 Total

HLF funding 35.3

47.2

40.5

28.6

12.5

4.7

168.8

Renaissance 9.4 13.6 21.0 30.0 32.0 45.0 151.00 Sources: Babbidge, 2008b: exhibit 15; Table 2.2 Hub museums have not been called on formally to declare other sources of funding from HLF, or for funds levered in on the back of Renaissance income11. They have, however, been asked to confirm that core funding from their parent body has been maintained at baseline levels before funding for the next financial year was released. A key concern has always been that Renaissance funding might be used to substitute for general revenue expenditure and/or fixed costs. Babbidge’s comparison of details of Renaissance funding, Local Government Financial Statistics, Retail Price Index and average earnings, suggests that, overall, the pace and growth of hub museums’ funding appears to be stronger than in other museums (2008a:16). There does not appear to have been any substantial substitution of Renaissance posts for core establishment and it appears that Renaissance funding has not substituted for core revenue funding. A more nuanced comparison of individual authorities’ funding based on revenue returns to DCLG reveals variable levels of funding over the years, and changes in funding between 2002/3, 2003/4 and 2006/7, during which the average rate of inflation was 2.9% (Table 2.12). The following tables which explore this, exclude the funding of independent and university museums by definition, as well as central and regional hub development work, etc (accounting for the inconsistency with Table 2.10). As the notes to the Table suggest, there are caveats as to their accuracy.

11 In the context of public sector expenditure, leverage (or gearing) is defined as the use of existing resources to secure additional money that supplements existing funds for investment, with the consequence that the potential outcome is enhanced (Babbidge, 2008a: 16).

Table 2.12a: Local authorities' gross revenue expenditure on phase 1 hub museums, 2002/3 -2006/7 (£000s)

Region Funding to hub museum 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 Total

£ change 03/4 - 6/7

% change 03/4 - 6/7

SW Bournemouth BC 731 855 795 758 300 3439 -555 -65

Russell Cotes Art Gallery & Museum 0 116 368 447 471 1402 355 306

Bristol CC (a) 3154 3036 3084 11567 12,186 33027 9,150 301

Bristol City Museum & Art Gallery 0 297 967 1601 1,732 4597 1,435 483

Exeter CC 1139 1424 1695 2279 2,382 8919 958 67

Royal Albert Museum & Art Gallery 0 247 645 1036 1,116 3044 869 352

Plymouth CC 1384 1394 1771 1845 2,198 8592 804 58

Plymouth City Museum & Art Gallery 0 214 623 919 919 2675 705 329 Sub totals Local authorities 6408 6709 7345 16449 17066 53977 10,357 154 Renaissance 0 874 2603 4003 4238 11718 3,364 385 WM Stoke-on-Trent CC 2702 2983 3296 4089 3,908 16978 925 31

Stoke on Trent Museums 0 201 490 663 587 1941 386 192

Wolverhampton CC 1511 1835 2234 2492 3,047 11119 1,212 66

Wolverhampton Art Gallery 0 197 537 849 604 2187 407 207

Coventry CC (b) 2862 2969 3534 3495 3,882 16742 913 31

Coventry Heritage & Arts Trust (c) 0 175 431 687 675 1968 500 286

Birmingham CC (d) 9331 11174 628 600 11,338 33071 164 2

Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery 0 491 1383 2258 1,304 5436 813 166 Sub totals Local authorities 16406 18961 9692 10676 22175 77910 3,214 17 Renaissance 0 1064 2841 4457 3170 11532 2,106 198 NE local authorities' funding of museums, 2002/3 -2006/7 (£000s)

NE Hartlepool BC 688 669 955 1800 1,341 5453 672 100

Gateshead MBC 345 355 404 668 439 2211 84 24

Newcastle upon Tyne MBC 1767 1885 2065 2130 2,335 10182 450 24

North Tyneside MBC 836 837 884 894 837 4288 0 0


South Tyneside MBC 766 943 1033 1001 1,047 4790 104 11

Sunderland CC 1066 1095 1218 1236 1,427 6042 332 30

Local authorities (e) 5468 5784 6559 7729 7426 32966 1,642 28

Renaissance (f) 3084 9600 24670 33430 36300 104000 26,700 278 Notes: All figures rounded a) The DCLG figures for Bristol & Birmingham figures are inconsistent for some years and there are uncertainties about their accuracy. In the

case of Bristol for 2005/6 and 2006/7, spend has been inflated by adding all of the total regional Renaissance grant (including that in transit to other

museums) to the city museum’s revenue budget. The effect of this is to uplift both gross expenditure and income by the level of grant received.

the net spend reported in Bristol Council’s Budget Books for 2005/6 and 2006/7 was £2.822m and £2.965m. Given that income pre-Renaissance

was around £190k pa, this means that the gross expenditure for Bristol museums alone should be around £3.243m and £3.296m respectively

rather than the £11.567m and £12.186m reported. (Correspondence with Adrian Babbidge, 15.01.2009)

b) Local authority museum expenditure in Coventry includes revenue support to Coventry Transport Museum (around £850k pa) which is not

part of the hub. (Correspondence with Adrian Babbidge, 15.01.2009) c) Some of the museums have changed organisation since the advent of Renaissance; the name of the hub museum given in the table is the current

one, not necessarily that of the operator between 2002/3 and 2006/7. Coventry Arts and Heritage Trust only came into existence in 2008. For the period

of the tables the hub museum was directly-managed by Coventry Council. (Correspondence with Adrian Babbidge, 15.01.2009)

d) The DCLG figures for Birmingham figures are inconsistent for some years and there are uncertainties about their accuracy. Birmingham appears to have netted off Renaissance income from expenditure in 2004/5 and 2005/6, rather than balancing it with expenditure. The consequence is that the museum's own spend is substantially

understated for those two years. The Birmingham Budget Books give net spends for 2003/4 and 2006/7 of £11.174m and £11.338m respectively. This suggests

a gross spend in the two intervening years at around £11.250m, rather than the £628k and £600k reported. (Correspondence with Adrian Babbidge, 15.01.2009) e) In the case of Tyne & Wear some of the councils also provide a small revenue subsidy for Beamish, and two (North and South Tyneside) also support other direct

museum provision. The difference between the spend on Tyne & Wear Museums and other provision made by the councils is around £850k pa. (Correspondence

with Adrian Babbidge, 15.01.2009) f) Includes funding to Beamish Sources: ODPM & DCLG Revenue Outturn (RO) returns RO5 final outturn data; MLA


Table 2.12b: Local authorities' revenue funding of phase 2 hub museums, 2002/3 -2006/7 (£000s)

Region Local authority/ hub museum 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7

Total 02/3- 06/7

£ change 03/4 - 6/7

% change 03/4 - 6/7

EE Colchester BC 2562 1405 1562 1,998 1,923 9450 518 37

Colchester & Ipswich Museums Service (a) 0 30 158 283 292 763 262 Luton BC 976 1124 1321 2087 1,798 7306 674 60

Luton Museums Service 0 30 141 291 294 756 264 Norfolk Co C 6001 6684 7195 7178 5,617 32675 -1,067 -16

Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service 0 194 733 1241 1,760 3928 1,566 Sub totals Local authorities 9539 9213 10078 11263 9338 49431 125 1

Renaissance 0 254 1032 1815 2346 5447 2,092

Y Hull CC 3635 3485 3151 2905 3,001 16177 -484 -14

Kingston upon Hull Museums 0 0 98 210 2,301 2609 2,301

Leeds CC 4469 4483 4849 5079 5,306 24186 823 18

Leeds Museums & Galleries 0 0 123 192 227 542 227

Bradford MDC 3285 2657 2732 3040 3,556 15270 899 34

Bradford Museums 0 0 99 209 226 534 226

Sub totals Local authorities 11389 10625 10732 11024 11863 55633 1,238 12 Renaissance (b) 0 0 320 611 2754 3685 2,754

NW Bolton MBC 1526 1616 1856 2116 2,215 9329 599 37

Bolton Museum & Art Gallery 0 12 96 165 181 454 169 Preston CC 1592 1637 1301 1477 1,808 7815 171 10

Harris Museum & Art Gallery 0 7 89 156 181 433 174 Manchester CC 4829 4907 5369 5922 6,560 27587 1,653 34

Manchester City Galleries 0 102 108 241 253 704 151 Carlisle CC 1529 1685 1960 2125 2,095 9394 410 24

Tullie House Museum & Art Gallery 0 11 98 150 174 433 163 Sub totals Local authorities 9476 9845 10486 11640 12678 54125 2,833 29



Renaissance 0 132 391 712 789 2024 657

SE Brighton & Hove CC 5567 6200 6496 6275 5,455 29993 -745 -12

Brighton Museums & Art Gallery 0 33 137 253 380 803 347 Hampshire Co C 4559 5001 5766 6599 7,749 29674 2,748 55

Hampshire Museums & Archive Service 0 33 123 175 435 766 402 1218

Sub totals Local authorities 10126 11201 12262 12874 13204 59667 2,003 18

Renaissance 0 66 260 428 815 1569 749 EM local authorities' funding of museums, 2002/3 -2006/7 (£000s)

Derby CC 1550 1600 1775 1742 2,008 8675 408 26

EM Leicester CC 3087 3274 4236 3690 3,734 18021 460 14

Leicestershire Co C 3353 3924 3830 4475 3,560 19142 -364 -9

Lincolnshire Co C 2044 2266 2506 3570 3,503 13889 1,237 55

Sub totals Local authorities 10034 11064 12347 13477 12805 59727 1,741 16

Renaissance 10 1340 3149 5181 5,210 3,870 289

Notes: All figures rounded a) Colchester & Ipswich Museum Service only came into existence in 2008/9. For the period of the tables the hub partner was directly-managed by

Colchester councils. (Correspondence with Adrian Babbidge, 15.01.2009) b) MLA shows no Renaissance funding going to hub museums in Sheffield or York until 2004/5. Local authority hub museums/£000s 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7

Total 02/3-03/4

Sheffield CC 2674 2489 2813 2713 4,749 15438 Museums Sheffield 0 0 111 197 260 568 York CC 2677 1385 1398 1445 1,486 8391 York Museums Trust 0 0 99 206 226 531 Sheffield’s local authority expenditure includes revenue support to Sheffield Industrial Museum (£390k pa), which is not part of the hub.

(Correspondence with Adrian Babbidge, 15.01.2009) Sources: ODPM & DCLG Revenue Outturn (RO) returns RO5 final outturn data; MLA

2.5.2 Accounting for performance MLA’s data collection has almost exclusively focused on the hubs, and is principally used to make the case for government continuing its support for Renaissance. The hubs’ quarterly audience data collection and the annual hub exit survey both collect data relating to the priority ‘to increase and sustain user participation’ through three sub-categories: PA1:1 to create a comprehensive service for school-age children; PA1:2 to increase and diversify audiences; PA1:3 to increase access to knowledge and information. Data is collected directly from the hubs in the form of 24 datasets grouped within six templates (Babbidge, 2008b: exhibit 4)12. The exit survey, undertaken in 45 hub museums and galleries across England, is used to quantify the number of visitors to museums from DCMS priority groups - Black and Minority Ethnic individuals, social classes C2DE and disabled people, and to provide data on visitor profiles, demographics, visitor satisfaction and visitors’ attitudes to museums and galleries. There have been no discrete published reports on the hub data collection per se. Although the data collection was originally designed as an Excel spreadsheet, precisely so that it could be easily accessible, information was never shared amongst the hubs. Findings from the hub data collections for 2004-6 and 2006/7 were included in consolidated reports, together with those from the exit surveys (Roberts, 2006; Roberts & Kerr, 2008). Reports on the exit surveys for 2003 to 2005 were also published (see, for example, Ipsos MORI, 2006). Headline data from the 2008/9 results appeared in a press release (MLA, 2008a). Annual 'report cards' on trends in visitor composition, demography and responses to the hub museums that participate in the Exit Survey are prepared annually for each region, together with a national overview. Beyond its audience data framework, MLA has neither insisted on nor specified measures of success. In 2003/4, 2004/6 and 2006/8 planning rounds, it asked the hubs to define a measure of success for each activity or work package. Exceptionally, in 2004/6 it asked the hubs to report on the number of posts created or backfilled as an indicator of capacity building and in 2003/4 and 2004/6 it required the hubs to meet specific targets relating to Renaissance Priority Areas: reaching a wider community; redisplaying galleries; collections care; workforce development; standards (Wilkinson, 2008: exhibit 1.2). In practice, the success measures used by the hubs varied considerably (Wilkinson, 2008: table 8). MLA did not seek to tighten up the hub’s approach or enforce responses until the 2006/8 guidance, which required hubs to define an objective for each work package (group of activities which all relate to a particular aim), against which

… a measure of success, quantitative, qualitative or both should be entered e.g. 100 asylum seekers participate in museum activities, 75% of sample register GLOs, increased recognition of and commitment to museums and galleries from socially excluded communities etc. (MLA, 2005a: 14, cited by Wilkinson, 2008: 30).

Risk assessment On the basis of the documentation available to us, MLA appears to have identified relatively few risks associated with Renaissance. Those that have been identified are high-level, and largely related to the retention of funding and hubs’ delivery. None refer to MLA’s own management of Renaissance (Table 2.13), its strategy of evidencing rapid success amongst the Phase 1 hubs, which was incompatible with its original vision of long-term renewal, or its dependence on

12 Since 2007 this framework has been extended to non-hub museums that hold designated collections (MLA, 2008c).


the hubs, which had no track record of data collection, to produce robust and consistent findings. Table 2.13 Documented risks associated with Renaissance Source Risks identified Actions required DCMS, 2003 The sector will not have the capacity

to apply this additional investment quickly and effectively

The 'backloading' of investment across the three year period so that the bulk of funding is only released when the grant recipients have

The investment will be insufficiently user-focused and will fail to achieve the culture change needed

The bulk of funding is only released when the grant recipients have demonstrated their capacity to apply it effectively

The results of the investment will not be so clearly demonstrable as to provide a convincing case for continued and enhanced funding

The development and implementation in 2003/04 of a rigorous performance management regime for the regional agencies and hubs

The imposition and policing of the requirement on grant recipients to develop their plans in consultation with and in response to the expressed needs of local teachers and communities

The targeting of initial investment in those schemes which offer a high prospect of success in delivering clear early and measurable benefits

MLA, 2004 That the infrastructure fails to deliver and desired outcomes and outputs as a result of skills deficit

Phasing of investment to provide time for capacity building; prioritised investment in workforce diversification and development

Changes to the political environment: destabilisation resulting from regional devolution; local government reorganisation

Ongoing liaison at regional and national level to ensure that the interests of the sector and the communities that it serves are acknowledged

Sector’s viability compromised by reductions in funding from other sources

Monitoring of hub finances: targeted advocacy programmes

MLA, 2007b (a)

A short-term risk that the DCMS might review the 07/08 agreement (in particular the £13m increase against Renaissance) and reduce the funds awarded

Lobbying and advocacy; Regular review meetings with DCMS sponsor

There is a risk that the hubs fail to perform to the standard outlined in the funding agreement.

Appoint planning & performance post in Renaissance; Review of programme by interim programme manager

Note: a) Ownership of the risks identified in 2007 lay with the Chief Executive and the Director of Operations. SUMMARY It was inevitable that the implementation of Renaissance would depart from the Task Force’s proposals. There was no formal, forward plan for it, and Renaissance has been subject to a number of factors – most importantly, the amount of funding available, government priorities and choices made by MLA. MLA, for example, assumed that evidence of immediate successes might convince DCMS and the Treasury to fund Renaissance as originally proposed. As originally envisaged, Renaissance has been delivered though a number of programmes and by a number of protagonists – the most important of which were the regional hubs. MLA’s guidance to them focused on what the Task Force had identified as ‘key benefits’: education and learning;


access and inclusion; regeneration; collections; excellence and modernisation – although some of these were prioritised and others effectively neglected. Renaissance is run by a modest team within MLA, and is supported by other teams, particularly those dedicated to learning and access, standards and workforce development, research and evidence, and – until April 2009 – by its regional agencies. Regional Renaissance boards were introduced to oversee and bring greater transparency to regional decision-making. A retrospective analysis suggests that the weighting attributed to particular areas of activity by the hubs has varied considerably. Levels of engagement with, and support for the wider museums sector have similarly varied from regional to region. MLA’s performance indicators have almost exclusively focused on the hubs. Their data has been principally used to make the case for government continuing its support for Renaissance. Beyond its audience data framework, which emphasises children and DCMS’s priority groupings, MLA has neither insisted on, nor specified, measures of success or conventions of reporting. Relatively few risks have been associated with Renaissance. Those that have been identified are high-level, and largely related to the retention of funding and the hubs’ delivery.


Part 3: Achievements Renaissance has, for some hub museums, stopped the cycle of financial and political neglect and arrested decline; it has set them on a long journey towards realising their full potential and demonstrated what museums can achieve if they are adequately funded.

Visit volumes have increased considerably. Visitor numbers among certain target audiences have, in many cases, more than doubled. Many of the hub museums are now reaching or have reached full capacity – they cannot, for example, physically accommodate any more school visits…

Renaissance has greatly increased the reach of the hub museums. This is particularly true of their work with children. The early emphasis on educational work has produced new services and enriched the learning dimension of the museums’ work. The experience is now being used to shape and develop services and activities aimed at other groups within the communities served by the museums.

Renaissance has contributed significantly to improving the care and management of collections… Renaissance has also introduced a greater level of professionalism into the museums. Staff have been able to acquire and use new skills and, as one person put it: ‘we work smarter’. (All quotes from Carpenter & Moore, 2008: 26)

Renaissance has contributed to halting the deterioration of English regional museums; promoted the development of partnership working and cultural change in the sector; enhanced museums’ confidence and professionalism, and encouraged increases in their visit numbers and ability to care for their collections. Visits to hub museums outside London by people with disabilities and those from BME communities are proportionate to their presence in the catchment area, indicating that hub museums genuinely inclusive, representative organizations. The very existence of Renaissance in the Regions is itself regarded as a significant achievement.

MLA has … successfully facilitated the formation of the hubs, initiated a number of other programmes, put in place the funding mechanisms and planning guidance to make things happen. That so much has happened as a result of Renaissance out in the regions is a credit to MLA (Wilkinson, 2008: 2).

The hubs describe embedding Renaissance into their core operations: ‘We have become Renaissance’, as one hub lead director put it - which is precisely what the Task Force had hoped for. Consequently, in many (if not most) of the hubs, what has been accomplished through Renaissance funding cannot be completely disentangled from museums’ core operations. This part of the Review attempts to account for Renaissance’s achievements, on the basis of the various sources available. It:

considers MLA’s most recent reporting of Renaissance’s achievements, contextualising that in relation to other data sets where appropriate; and

presents a selection of the sector’s own perceptions of Renaissance’s successes. The research undertaken for this Review found that MLA’s accounts of the achievements of the hub museums are inadequate: inconsistent in their use of quantitative measures, and unfocused in their qualitative analyses. This is considered in Part 4: Critical issues.


3.1 Renaissance’s achievements according to MLA’s quantitative data collections At the time of writing, the latest information posted on the Renaissance results’ website page under ’What has Renaissance achieved?’ refers to 2006/713, and is derived from Roberts & Kerr (2008). More recent data is available in the notes appended to a 2008 press release. Reproduced in Table 4.1, they describe Renaissance’s achievements as follows: Table 4.1 Increasing and extending participation at hub museums, 2007/08 Overall participation: Number of visits to hub museums

14.9m An increase of 19% since 2002-03, and a 5% increase on 2006/7

Outreach

Over 700,000 instances of outreach activity taking place, 63% with children and young people, 37% with adults

Adult outreach activity has increased by 62% in the last year

On-site activities

Over 1.2m instances of visitors participating in on-site activities: 47% by children and young people; 53% by adults (e.g. gallery talks, lectures, family events, organised holiday activities etc)

On-site activity by adults has increased by 31% in the last year.

Hard to reach groups: Priority groups

Over 3.2m visits to hub museums by those from C2DE social groups and/or ethnic minority groups and/or disabled groups

Up 32% since 2002/03, and an increase of 2% in the last year

UK adult disabled visits (16+) 0.5m Up 3% on last year UK adult C2DE visits (16+) 2.6m Up 2% on last year UK adult disabled visits (16+)

0.6m Up 2% on last year

Children and young people: Child visits

4.0m visits by children (aged 0-16)

An increase on the previous year of 4% and up 29% on 2002/03.

School visits

828,000 visits by school children aged 5-16 (at school in England)

Increased by 20% since 2002/03

On-site activity

570,000 instances of on-site activity with children

An increase of 90% since 2002/03 and an increase of 5% in the last year

Outreach 2006/7 435,000 instances of outreach activity taking place with children and young people aged 5-16.

More than a ten-fold increase since 2002/03 and an increase of 1% on 2006/7

Early years 40,000 visits by Pre-5 and school reception classes and over 14,000 instances of outreach activity

Visits up 15% and outreach up 115% on the previous year

Sources: MLA (2008a)

13 http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/renaissance%20results (retrieved 29.01.2009)


http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/renaissance%20results

3.1.1 Visits Since the introduction of Renaissance, the downward trend in visit numbers to the hub museums has been reversed. The total number of visits to a constant sample of 120 hub sites for the five years from 2003/4 (the first substantive year of Renaissance funding) shows a 17% rise. Between 2003/4 and 2006/6, the Phase 1 hubs showed the stronger performance, as did the Phase 2 hubs, in 2007/8 (Babbidge, 2008b: exhibit 11). Target Group Index data (based on a rolling survey of c. 25,000 adults in Britain every year) suggests that between 2002/3 and 2007/8, the picture of museum visiting was broadly similar in England, Scotland and Wales. In 2007/8, 26%; 25% and 22% of their respective populations said that they had visited a museum in the previous 12 months. Trends in the English regions were similar, although in the North East the percentage of the population who had visited a museum rose from 19% to 26%, and in the North West from 23% to 37% (op cit: exhibit 10). A second comparison of the constant sample with the trends identified by the national tourist boards’ research for England, Scotland and Wales, and with DCMS-sponsored museums (not part of English hubs) between 2002 and 2007, found that in general, the hub museums out-performed their Scottish and Welsh counterparts, where

there is no equivalent to Renaissance; and that from 2003 to 2007 hub increases were in line with, or exceeded, those of DCMS sponsored-

museums (excluding those in the hubs), despite the implementation of free admission in December 2001 (op cit: exhibit 12).

The attribution of Renaissance-funded activities to visit numbers is far from straightforward. Visits are affected by a number of factors. Although HLF investment has contributed to increased visits, considerable uplifts are evident in 101 hub museums that had no substantial lottery investment for buildings or activities in the period immediately preceding 2003 or between 2003/4 and 2007/8 (op cit: exhibit 16). This highlights Renaissance’s significance in maintaining and growing visit numbers, at a time when applications for HLF funding, especially for building projects, are dwindling. Local visitors The majority of visitors (62%) are from within the same regionas the museum that they are visiting. More specifically, and very importantly, growth in visit numbers has principally been by people resident in the same local authority as that in which the museum is located (op cit: exhibit 29). Repeat visitors Repeat visitors are a key feature of hub museums’ visitor profiles. In 2007, over 80% of all visits were by people who had already visited in the preceding twelve months. This was up from 75% in 2005 (op cit: exhibit 17). The latest exit survey data available (IPSOS MORI, 2006, cited by Babbidge, 2008b) suggests that: a previous visit is the most common influence on the decision to return (44%); the majority of visitors interviewed planned to return – 61% ‘definitely’ and 24% ‘probably’;

and the average number of visits has increased from 3.3 in 2004/2005 to 3.8 in 2007/8.


As this suggests, satisfaction levels in the hub museums are very high. They have also improved. Whereas in 2004, 65% of visitors were ‘very satisfied’, and 31% ‘satisfied’, by 2007, 71% were ‘very satisfied’ and 24%were satisfied (op cit: exhibit 30). Phase 1 hubs have generally attained high levels of satisfaction, though the most consistent improvements have been in some Phase 2 regions (especially the East of England, South East and Yorkshire). School visits By 2007, as many as 828,000 school children were visiting hub museums. This was up by 20% since 2002/03 (MLA, 2008a). Many of the hub museums reported reaching full capacity in terms of schools visits (Carpenter & Moore, 2008: 11) and non-hub museums have complained about their school visits being displaced. Babbidge (2008b: 38) estimates that over 40% of hub museums received at least one school-class size group each school day. Visits by priority groups Significantly, visits by people from minority ethnic groups represented 5% of the hubs’ visitor profile in 2007, compared to 9.1% of the population. In all regions (except London) this group of museum visitors is broadly reflective of the regional demography (op cit: exhibit 25). The Review also considered visits by those who consider that their daily activities or work are limited by a disability, long term illness or health problem, compared with the proportion of the population in each region claiming Disability Living Allowance (a tight measure of disability) and having a limiting long term illness (a broader measure). For most years the proportion of museum visitors in this category matches the regional population receiving Disability Living Allowance (op cit: exhibit 28)14. 3.1.2 Increasing museums’ capacity Developing museums capacity was a major concern of the Regional Museums Task Force. The hubs’ default has been to extend capacity by increasing staff numbers. There has been no national systematic collection of data relating specifically to Renaissance, although anecdotal references to Renaissance–funded employees representing 30% of some museums’ workforces are not uncommon. MLA’s 2007 workforce diversity survey15, the only data available, confirms that fixed-term posts make up a substantial portion of the hubs’ establishment – 28% of the hubs’ full-time workforce, and 40% of its part-time workforce. It is likely that these represent the number of staff funded by Renaissance (and to a lesser extent, HLF) (op cit: exhibit 32).

3.2 Renaissance’s achievements according other sources The following account draws on the sector’s own perceptions of Renaissance’s achievements from various sources including MLA’s report Taking stock of the achievements of the regional museums hubs (MLA, 2006), and primary sources generated by the Review. These include online submissions (Sachdev, 2008), and accounts in reviews prepared by Holberry (2009) and Porter (2009) reviews. The ‘boxed’ accounts are drawn from narrative reports submitted by to the Review (referred to in Carpenter and Moore, 2008:11)16

14 The numbers of people in each region regarding themselves as having a disability are small, so caution needs to be taken in using these figures. 15 http://research.mla.gov.uk/WFD/ (retrieved 27.02.2009) 16 East Midlands (2008) Renaissance Achievements; North East Regional Museums Hub (2008) Narrative of transformational impact of Renaissance on the Hub partners and North East region; London hub (2008) Report into the Impact of the Renaissance Programme in London; Renaissance North West (2008) A short, open narrative about how Renaissance North West has transformed the hub museums and made an impact


http://research.mla.gov.uk/WFD/

Prefaced by some perceptions about the political importance of Renaissance, this section broadly follows the order of the Regional Museums Task Force’s proposals (as set out in Part 1: Reiteration of the original vision) – namely, museums’ promotion of access and inclusion; their contribution to economic regeneration in the regions; the use of collections to encourage inspiration and creativity; ensuring excellence in the quality and delivery of core services; the implementation of modernisation and rationalisation; the measuring of outputs, outcomes and benefits; and the roles and responsibilities within the new framework. 3.2.1 Raising regional museums’ profile

The single most powerful impact of Renaissance has been in raising the political profile of museums…Critically, Renaissance was a recognition – the first in some time – that museums outside London held beautiful things which were worth managing and preserving. Today, if politicians and civil servants across Whitehall know anything about museums, they know about free admission and Renaissance. (Nick Poole, Collections Trust)

Renaissance is perceived as ‘an important catalyst for improved strategic thinking about our sector’. The status attached to regional museums locally, regionally and nationally as a result of central government funding should not be underestimated. It has prompted a ‘… better understanding of our contribution to council agendas, [which] has meant we have more support from members and senior officers’, and has provided museums with ‘a “place at the table”.’ Some regional museum directors have been invited to join the National Museums Directors’ Conference; others have referred to having been involved in discussions with funders in relation to the allocation of funding streams. Renaissance is thus considered to have created the circumstances whereby museums’

…unique role is beginning to be better understood, in promoting: cultural identity; regional and local pride; a sense of belonging and individual worth; social responsibility; shared heritage, social cohesion and intercultural understanding. [Museums’] public value and their contribution to quality of place is much better understood, and they have helped to develop government awareness of the importance of these concepts in place-shaping. (Sarah Levitt, Head of Leicester Arts and Museum Service)

3.2.2 The promotion of access and inclusion Six years into Renaissance, contributors to the Review described one of its major achievements as helping museums to reach a greater number of people and improving the quality of their engagements with them. Children and young people Taking Stock ((MLA, 2006) reported that the hubs’ learning projects for children and young people had enabled: pupils of all ages to respond enthusiastically to the learning they encounter in regional museums; older pupils to find that regional museums make schoolwork more inspiring; teachers to use regional museums flexibly and imaginatively and to consider that the

on the region; Renaissance West Midlands (2008) Hubs and Hub Partners; South East hub (2008) Response to your request for evidence of the impact of Renaissance in the SE Hub; South West hub (2008) How Renaissance has transformed SW Hub museums and made an impact on the South West region; Yorkshire Hub (2008) Submission to Renaissance review consultants.


quality of museum-based learning is consistently high and that it is beneficial to work in partnership with hub museums to develop new learning programmes; museums to work successfully with children at risk of social exclusion and with high numbers of children with special educational needs; hubs to deliver successful programmes to schools on an outreach basis; develop online material and e-learning guides to support museum based learning; and support the wider museum community to develop their work with schools. Testimonials received by the Review described what the hubs had been able to do as well as the difference that they had made as a result of their enhanced capacity. Schools’ outreach, London Our levels of participation are not confined to people coming through our doors. Renaissance funding has allowed us to greatly increase our outreach and community engagement activities. Outreach to schools has increased by a remarkable 2000% on pre Renaissance levels…

Attainment, East of England ‘Engage. Learn. Achieve’ is a report of national significance which looks at the links between attainment for secondary school pupils and visits to a museum or archive. The research demonstrated that the museums and archives visited resulted in improved attainment levels for 60% of children. The research, undertaken by the University of Leicester, builds on two earlier reports and has built a strong case for the educational impact of the sector. Further research is being commissioned this year investigating how museums can contribute to raising standards of literacy, an area of under-achievement in the region as a whole. 7.1.15. “The majority of pupils of all abilities increased their marks for their museum based assignment compared to previous assignments: 51% of ‘higher ability’ pupils, 55% of ‘average ability’ pupils and 71% of ‘lower ability’ pupils”.

Education partnership working, East Midlands Strategically and regionally, Renaissance Learning has been terrific - supporting LAAs etc, and raising our profile with children’s services. Our work with Creative Partnerships, and ACE, has been important - our cultural and creative ambassadors scheme has been a good partnership activity with ACE. Leicestershire and Leicester are a “Find Your Talent” pilot, and we expect to get over £2m. This would not have happened without Renaissance - both the history of partnership working and also the way we could quickly commit £10k to any successful bid in the East Midlands.

Education & regeneration, Yorkshire Before Renaissance funding Hull Museums were receiving half a million visitors a year, but with no educational offer other than a dated and stale school loans service. It now has a team in place offering numerous structured, well presented programmes, all developed in consultation, which teachers have welcomed with open arms. In a city with some of the worst educational attainment in the country it forms a critical part of the local authority’s drive for improvement in educational attainment. Managers within the service have described the pace and impact of the change as breathtaking and critical to the success of the city.

Informal learning opportunities for school age children, South West These have also been greatly enhanced with investment delivering a packed programme of weekend and holiday activities at all the Hub museums. In 2007/8 over 38,000 school age children attended family events and workshops at Hub museums. Interviews carried out by the Newcastle University International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies showed that parents valued the opportunities these sessions offered to

Citizenship, North East Renaissance has also assisted in developing citizenship by involving and engaging children and young people in consultation panels and activities such as the Tyne & Wear Museums Children’s Panel. It is clear that the Renaissance is allowing children and young people make positive contributions in the region. Volunteering makes us want to get stuck in and do more. When we grow up and have children, we can


take an active part in the child’s learning and development.

bring them back and show them what we've done. I feel proud and good, said a young participant at Killhope, The North of England Lead Mining Museum.

Hubs’ formal and informal learning work with adults According to Taking Stock, examples of such work, undertaken in 2005/6, resulted in: 161,000 adults participating in hub museums’ outreach activities; some 10,450 adult community groups taking part in hub museum activities; over 297,000 adults from hard-to-reach groups taking part in educational activities at hub museums; the development of a wide range of family learning initiatives; and extensive work to engage with specific communities new to museums. Consultation during museum development, Leeds A wide ranging consultation programme took place during the development of the new City Museum, including community and faith groups, children and young people, teachers and specialist interest groups. This approach has now become embedded in the culture and routinely used in all partnerships and development. This work is supported by an active outreach programme focusing on priority groups, resulting in new partnerships with non-traditional audiences and displays both in museums and in the community. Examples include homeless people, young offenders and Sikh and Irish community groups.

Refugee Heritage project, London The Refugee Heritage Programme was an innovative four year long programme to support refugee communities in sharing their tangible and intangible heritage with their host communities via their local museums. The Hub provided funding and support to four small museums with strong track records in community engagement. The idea was to support them to take an innovative, community focussed approach and to invest in high quality, long term evaluation to try to enhance the sector’s understanding of the benefit of this type of work. We were able to demonstrate real enhancements to social capital and other components of community cohesion. Over 130 people with a refugee background were involved in the project and research showed that 82% said that they felt more confident about meeting and working with people from different backgrounds as a result of the project, 62% felt more likely to increase their level of civic engagement and a year later over 80% were still close with friends they made during the project. An impressive 56% had undertaken further training and skills development as a direct result of participating in the project. In the evaluation study the four museums reported that they had gained skills, contacts, profile and a better understanding of this key audience.

Volunteering Volunteers add value by developing new activities and services; they enable the hub museums to engage with members of the local community. Volunteering, by default, helps volunteers to develop their own skills, self-confidence and work-experience portfolios. Volunteering, South West The establishment of volunteer workforces is a key element of all partners’ sustainability plans. At the Russell-Cotes, the creation of a part-time Volunteer Coordinator post has enabled the museum to develop a sustainable framework of policies, procedures and role descriptions, together with supporting training/ development to embed the

Volunteering, North East Tyne & Wear Museums, Beamish and the Bowes have all developed volunteering within their services. In addition the Hub leads a regional programme. Collectively we engage nearly 600 volunteers per annum. TWM and Beamish have both gained Investors in Volunteers status, and the Hub is leading a pilot Cultural Volunteering project for the


concept of volunteering within the museum team.

Regional Development Agency (one of two in the region led by museums). Volunteers now work across all areas of museum work and are valued by staff. The organisations have a clear commitment to volunteer development.

3.2.3 Contribution to economic regeneration in the regions As described in Part 2: Evolution and implementation, expectations of museums’ contribution to economic regeneration in the regions shifted towards socially focused neighbourhood renewal and community cohesion agendas. However, at least one hub considered it a success to be

…understood as key players in the regeneration agenda, because we are so obviously aligned with the same objectives as other council funded activities, whereas we really were seen as an irrelevance to many of our elected members and council officers 10 years ago. (East Midlands hub)

Regional development agencies have, and are, supporting the hubs. Such investments represent a level of confidence in museums’ contribution to their regional economies. The North West hub, for example, has attracted £3m of investment from Northwest Regional Development Agency which it matched with Renaissance funding. This

… will be used to accelerate the development of up to six key regional museums and galleries, and enable them to play a more active role in the region’s tourist economy. The RDA funds …would enable the North West to demonstrate regional strategic investment in its cultural heritage while also supporting the development of collections displays and major temporary exhibitions, which would aim to attract visitors from across the region and beyond17.

An ad hoc survey of regional development agencies undertaken for this Review18 found that altogether they had invested up to £17m in other hub museums, including Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, York Museums Trust, Tyne & Wear Museums and the Bowes Museum. Moreover, several regional development agencies, including the NWDA, had supported museums outside the hubs, as well as other cultural heritage and arts organisations. Such funding is variously focused on generating regionally significant economic impact; developing the tourism sector and the regional visitor economy; improving the quality and sustainability of existing ‘iconic’ attractions, and supporting creativity and enterprise on the basis of their importance to improving the prosperity and quality of life of people and communities. In one region, cultural institutions have been supported though sub-regional regeneration zones rather than tourism funds.

3.2.4 The use of collections to encourage inspiration and creativity Museums are perceived to be ‘more confident in the management and presentation of their collections than they were 5-6 years ago’. MLA (2006) reports museums as having presented innovative and high profile exhibitions; develop more innovative and engaging approaches to interpretation; recruit new staff to build museums’ capacity and address conservation backlogs; digitize and promote online access to collections, learning material and objects; improve storage and facilities; and support collections held by the wider museums community. Renaissance’s various collections-based initiatives pertain to individual museums and hubs as well as the wider sector.

17 Extract from the Outline Executive Summary bid to NWDA, from Phil Reddy to Sara Selwood, 26.11.2008. 18 This account is based in intelligence from eight out of nine RDAs. We are grateful to Maureen McAllister, South West of England Regional Development Agency.


Hubs and region, East of England The expansion in curatorial teams at the hub museums has had an important positive impact on the way collections are managed and cared for. It has ensured that enhanced scholarship and curatorial excellence underpins all the hub partners’ services. Increased capacity has enabled a fundamental shift in the amount of support hubs can now offer to wider museums in terms of sharing expertise and encouraging good standards of collections care across the region… Due to Renaissance, the hub partners and the sector as a whole in the region is in a much stronger position to safeguard and provide enhanced access to the region’s priceless heritage.

Access to conservation experts, North East … the Hub has taken a regional approach to this. By working with MLA North East to support the collections care framework we have ensured that all museums libraries and archives have had free access to the services of conservation experts. This has been particularly important during the roll-out of Accreditation as museums have been supported in the development of their disaster plans and have received training in disaster response and basic collections cleaning. The aim has been very much to increase sector confidence in its ability to handle things, and to create opportunities for timely (and therefore less costly) interventions.

Increasing access, London & West Midlands Virtually: Exploring 20thC London website…supported 10 partner museums to enhance and digitise the records of some 8000 objects which tell the story of London in the 20th century. The Exploring 20thC London website has received over 1 million unique visits since its launch. A children’s version of the website went on line in March 2008. Many of the non Hub museums featured on the website have no other web presence and the majority of the objects featured have never been accessible on line before. Physically: Not all people find it easy to get to a museum so the Museums Keep Moving programme took the museum to the people. This innovative project, building upon an initial pilot scheme in Worcestershire, has enabled a second custom designed and built mobile museum vehicle to be introduced in servicing the West Midlands region. A consortium approach to exhibition programming has achieved maximum output for the resource reaching over 20,000 individuals in isolated rural and urban areas where people may find it difficult to access museums such as day care centres, travellers’ sites, retirement homes and small rural schools.

Collections care, East of England SHARE (Support, Help and Advice from Renaissance in the East of England) is one of the main ways that hubs are able to support better collections care in the wider museum community. SHARE offers a practical, flexible approach: over 50 staff in the hub partner museums are listed as SHARE advisers offering specialist advice on a range of subjects, including conservation, display, documentation, oral history, learning, access and evaluation as well as curatorial knowledge in a number of fields. Support can range from a telephone conversation or response to an email enquiry, to site visits with follow-up reports and tailored training sessions. The recent appointment through Renaissance funding of a Training and Development Officer for the region will allow SHARE to extend and develop in the coming years.

Individual museums The Royal Cornwall Museum … has been able to carry out a programme of preventative maintenance of the museum building, which in the long term is far more efficient than just reacting to problems as they happen. Renaissance has also funded new conservation facilities for the museum, and a dedicated Objects Conservator, which have significantly improved remedial and preventative collections care and management systems, and have provided a foundation for support and advice for other local museums and

Training and advice, West Midlands Renaissance at Work developed and delivered by Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery was a programme that delivered the dual but compatible strands of training and advice. The training element of the programme delivers a tiered programme of collections care training starting with foundation courses on general aspects of the subject such as environment and leading onto specialist areas such as photographic materials, textiles and metals. The training is delivered by qualified practising professionals in various venues across region. It is fit for purpose and is adapted


organisations. Renaissance has allowed RCM to replace its inadequate and unsafe technical services facilities with a purpose-built workshop and conservation area that should meet the RCM's needs for the foreseeable future. Vast numbers of objects have been repackaged and re-documented. Renaissance has also funded improved security (filming, gallery alarm system etc) for collections behind the scenes and on display, as well as exhibitions. This has had a direct impact on the quality of exhibitions that can be presented and objects that the museum is now able to secure on loan from national lenders. York Museums Trust … has channelled a major part of its Renaissance investment into collections care and access. The Hub-funded Collections Manager post was vital in enabling them to achieve accreditation – a situation which they strongly believe would not have happened otherwise. She worked with curators to construct, implement and manage the retrospective documentation plan. The Trust moved from having documentation described as ‘in a parlous state’ to a commendation in their accreditation application. The effect of this has been to create a virtuous circle. All documentation has to have a public outcome – and public outcomes feed into documentation.

to the needs of those attending with the aim of improving practice through attendees sharing knowledge when they return to their institutions. Training is free at the point of delivery, with Renaissance covering all development and delivery costs. The second strand of RAW is the delivery of conservation and collections care advice on the ground by a qualified, peripatetic Collections Care Officer. This underpins and enforces the RAW training and has developed into the ‘Collections Care Health Check’ service to help museums prioritise their approach to collections care and conservation issues. BMAG also hosted a national meeting for hubs on collections care to share information, compare approaches and discuss synergies. This programme links closely with hand supports the work of the Museum Development Officers and the Accreditation Advisor.

Renaissance has also enabled museums to redisplay permanent collections. Bristol, for example, developed an innovative new gallery to display its Egypt collection after ‘strong involvement’ with users and key groups. This is recognised to be of national importance and as a draw for sub-regional and regional audiences, contributing to a 20% increase in visits in 2007-08. Two Renaissance initiatives that have contributed to museums’ better use of collections include Subject Specialist Networks and the Designation Challenge Fund (see Part 2: Evolution and impact). Subject Specialist Networks Many Subject Specialist Networks have used Renaissance funding to organise seminars and conferences; create resources to guide research and support curatorial staff to learn more about collections; gather information about collections; and develop a web presence and email groupings. Some networks are reported to have found that they were fulfilling needs at two levels: general skills for people with a wide role, and more specialist skills for staff with a dedicated role. Many extended their reach beyond museums, archives and libraries (Porter, 2009: 35ff). The Understanding British Portraits SSN, for example, provided research placements for five people; the Social History Curators Group developed handling collections and resources to develop curatorial skills. The Screen Heritage Network used a partner’s web platform to invite a broad spectrum of people and organisations to submit information about collections. As a result, they have gathered information about university, society and commercial company collections


amounting to half of the institutions holding such collections. The website enables them to see how many people are using the database, what they are looking for, and where they go to next. The Sports network made strong connections with local societies, clubs and pubs holding collections. Some SSNs extended their reach to public programmes: the Understanding British Portraits SSN commissioned toolkits for research, learning programmes and interpretation. The British Aircraft Preservation Council created learning programmes at four sites, trained staff and volunteers, and developed supporting resources for family groups. The Rural Museums Network developed resources to guide exhibitions and programmes on the theme of sustainability, including a carbon-footprint display (Porter, 2009: 39). The Designated Challenge Fund The Designated Challenge Fund has enabled museums to work with schools and communities to provide them with direct access to collections and dedicated study facilities; increase their work with volunteers and engage with and consult local communities; set up new interactive resources and trails to improve displays, interpretation and access to collections; develop new web-based resources to develop online access to designated collections through images, information and interpretation; open new and refurbished storage facilities (including mobile units) to halt the deterioration in the condition of designated collections and increase access and use; reduce museums’ documentation backlogs in order to improve collections management and improve public access; lever in partnership funding to support the projects from other sources. For some museums, especially smaller museums, the Fund has been transformational. For example, the National Motor Museum at Beaulieu raised the quality of care and access of its collections and developed new approaches to interpretation which are now embedded in its main galleries. These raised the museum’s profile, increased the professionalism within its governing body, enhanced its partnerships with other transport museums, and it now offers skill sharing and advice to other museums and archives. The Sedgwick Museum of Geology at the University of Cambridge developed new displays with a strong user focus, using the historic building and museum fittings, and has developed new audiences and reached out to disadvantaged communities. The Weald and Downland Open Air Museum reorganised its large objects store, repaired and weatherproofed the building, recorded the collections and undertook ‘first aid conservation’. The museum has now brought more of these collections onto the main site in exhibitions, events and a new visible storage area. The Museum of English Rural Life at Reading created the Rural Museums Network (Porter, 2009:25). 3.2.5 Ensuring excellence in the quality and delivery of core services Examples of initiatives designed to ensure excellence pertain to individual museums, the hubs and the wider sector. These include the levering in of other funding on the back of Renaissance. Various examples are cited including the redevelopment of Hull’s Wilberforce and Slavery collections. Renaissance funding supported the project management and initial consultation, and was instrumental in kick-starting the £3.7m overall transformation of Wilberforce House in time for the 2007 commemoration of the abolition of the British slave trade. The benefits of partnership working, London Partnership is built into the London Museums Hub’s mission statement and at the heart of its approach to delivering the programme. The process of producing joint plans has enabled the Hub museums to see and develop positive and productive connections between what are on the face of things very different institutions. These partnerships

Skill sharing, London We have supported skill sharing which has reached an even larger number of museums. Since 2004 over 700 members of staff from museums across London have attended Renaissance funded skill sharing/training events run by the Hub and MLA London. In addition, we [the London hub] have begun to specifically target museum volunteers. In


operate at all levels of the organisations from strategic planning at board level to informal peer networks and joint working. For instance staff at the Geffrye Museum and London Transport Museum have highly effective arrangements whereby front-of-house staff from LTM have shadowed Geffrye Museum staff to learn about working with young people with SEN whilst Geffrye collection management staff have worked at LTM to learn about and adopt procedures for the MUSIMS collection management system.

2007 over 60 volunteers from 26 museums received free training on topics from customer care to object handling in a pilot training programme which will be repeated and extended in 2008/9.

Organisational change, Yorkshire Without exception, all services have changed their internal structures. Where previously the service teams may have operated in silos, there is now much greater collaboration between curators and learning teams, exhibition and front line staff, technicians and marketeers, with the single goal of improving the experience for the user. “The Renaissance Yorkshire Hub programme has seen a focus on organisational change, building up the capacity of the five services to deliver. The health of these city services is crucial to the regional sector. In 2002, all were struggling with pronounced issues: a 2004 analysis of weaknesses highlighted deficiencies in almost every area, from lack of management capacity to underpowered delivery. In 2007, all these service are now resurgent, and the trajectory of improvement has been steep. The quality of Hub business plans moved from ‘adequate’ to ‘commended’ as partnership working became established. Audiences for the five museum services can now access a much improved museum offer compared to 2002.” Source: Wafer Hadley Ltd (2007) Renaissance Yorkshire Impact Evaluation.

Responding to needs, South West The Hub’s training programmes continue to be informed by a comprehensive Training Needs Analysis, which was funded by Renaissance in 2006. The Hub’s strategic, needs-related approach to workforce development based on this region-wide research and funded action plan has enabled a real step change in the performance of Hub museums. Budget pressures for local authority museums usually mean that sector-specific training / workforce development budgets tend to be very limited and council corporate priorities usually have to take precedence. Hub funding has enabled some quality training for museum staff, and enabled Hub museums to offer training to other museums in the region. For example, the Russell-Cotes’ museum community programme offered training in audience development, learning, marketing, MODES, copyright and preventive conservation training in tandem with mentoring, toolkits and seed funding to sub-regional museums.

Generating more income, Yorkshire & South West Renaissance funding is a huge asset to lever in external funding. Between 2002 and 2007 our £3m Renaissance funding allowed us to lever in an additional £10m…. Bristol and Royal Albert Memorial Museum have used Renaissance funding, capacity and skills to lever in additional external funding to deliver the two largest HLF-funded capital projects in the region, and amongst the largest nationally (the £25m new Museum of Bristol, and the £15m redevelopment of RAMM). It would not have been possible to secure this external funding without Renaissance, and these projects - and other major redisplay projects in South West Hub museums - would not have been delivered without Renaissance-funded staff capacity and skills.


3.2.6 The implementation of modernisation and rationalisation A major feature of the Task Force’s proposals for regional museums’ modernisation and rationalisation pertained to cultural diversity. In terms of museums’ workforce development, Diversify has supported over 90 graduate traineeships, with benefits across the sector – in postgraduate museum studies courses, at hub museums and galleries hosting placements and traineeships; for the Museums Association as the main delivery body, as well as for individuals: over 40 former Diversify participants are now working in museums. Latterly, Renaissance funding has also been applied to stimulate and support workforce diversity planning in Hub museums and to support management level trainees, and traineeships in non-hub museums (Porter, 2009: 17). Examples of other developments are cited below: Capacity building, North East Ultimately everything … has of course been the result of capacity building. Capacity has been increased through increased skills in the workforce, by extending our ability to deliver through partnership. More practically, we [the NE hub] have developed shared resources such as disaster response kits and access equipment, central shared expertise in many areas (not least education), joint promotion work, and so on.

Strategic reach, East of England The transformation within the hub museums has been the key factor in enabling them to promote change within the sector across the East of England. The hub now has a mandate to speak on behalf of the sector in the region, something that wasn’t possible before Renaissance, when separate services acted independently. This is definitely a case of the sum being greater than the parts; the hub partnership has been an effective means of boosting the sector’s strategic, regional reach.

Project management, East Midlands Other hubs have set up their own systems of project management: the East Midlands, for instance, has referred to its use of PRINCE 2 (Projects IN Controlled Environments), a process-based method for effective project management, and a de facto standard used extensively by the UK government.

Leadership of museums, West Midlands Renaissance has improved the leadership of museums… through training and workforce development programmes. Over 100 senior and middle managers from the region have taken part by having their Leadership and Management skills assessed and profiled with many of them going on to implement Individual Development Plans. By May 2009, 30+ middle managers will have gained a Management Qualification at Levels 3 and upward. Two women museums directors from the Hub have been able to join the Women Leaders in Museums Network to hone their leadership skills with other women leaders from across the country.

3.2.7 The measuring of outputs, outcomes and benefits Renaissance has encouraged a cultural change in relation to research. At one level this is manifest in hubs’ commitment to reach larger and broader audiences has led to better audience research.

The Household Telephone Survey is the most ambitious of piece of joint research that the Hub has ever undertaken. It equips the Hub with a baseline snapshot of the museum market place and allows the partnership to drill down to borough level to establish patterns of awareness and museum visiting across a range of demographic and sociological profiles which will be invaluable for future monitoring and planning. (London hub)

At another level, the hubs have been encouraged to assess the outcomes of Renaissance projects using MLA’s Generic Learning Outcomes and Social Outcomes (MLA 2005a, 39-40). Some hub


partners, such as Tyne & Wear are proactively using both to create a project planning framework:

We have been working to embed evaluation at the heart of our project planning cycle. A key part of this has been the development of a Project Planning Framework which encourages staff to consider what outcomes they intend for their project in relation to the GLOs/GSOs and TWM corporate objectives (which are linked to DCMS' priorities).19

Elsewhere, evaluation and research have become central to the hub’s work:

From the outset, Renaissance North West has used evaluation and research as part of this process. We have prioritised investment in, and development of, a core Renaissance team that actively supports partnerships, commissions research and evaluation, and shares learning through events and publications. We have developed geographic partnerships centred on the Hub venues, as centres of leadership and innovation. We have developed thematic partnerships that focus on audience development; collections development: collections review, collections care and Roman Heritage; organisational development; formal and informal learning.

3.2.8 The roles and responsibilities within the new framework.

The best part of Renaissance has been the Museum Development Officer structure, as with small amounts of money they are achieving real change. (Non-hub museum, South East, cited by Sachdev & Lynds, Appendix 9: 5)

Perceptions of the success of Renaissance in relation to the wider museums community is generally focused on the Museums Development Fund, which has contributed to audience development and community engagement; collections development and use, and greater sustainability. Museum Development Officers estimate that they have had dealings with 90% of the museums on their patch (Holberry, 2009: 20). They themselves are considered to play a pivotal role in relation to the wider museums community. The online contributions to this Review (Sachdev, 2008; Holberry, 2009: 13 & 18) point to the value of their work in brokering partnerships and assisting with funding applications and in communicating between hubs, the regional agencies, local authorities, other external stakeholders and the wider museums community. Endorsements include those contained in the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Association of Independent Museums’ submissions to the Review.

One of the significant developments`on the ground’ was the establishment of the Museum Development Fund and the support for developing the network of museum development officers (MDOs). The support provided by MDOs has helped museums and galleries develop higher quality applications to HLF putting them in a strengthened position with other parts of the heritage sector. (HLF) This has provided practical support and funding to many smaller independent museums across the UK. In many areas it has also supported the provision of Museum Development Officers who have become an invaluable resource in those areas both to

19 Email from Bill Griffiths to Sara Selwood (27.11.2008).


independent museums and non-hub local authorities. Their advice, advocacy and ability to create partnerships between hub and non-hub museums is seen by some of our members as the only tangible benefit that they or their users have seen from Renaissance. Part of the reason for the success of MDF and MDOs is their role as honest broker. With the changes to MLA it is unclear how this independence could be maintained. (AIM)

SUMMARY The quantitative data from the hubs’ regular collections of data and the exit surveys reveals that: Visits to museums in England, which were in decline at the turn of the millennium, began to

recover at the same time that Renaissance funding became available; From 2003 to 2007 hub increases were in line with, or exceeded, those of DCMS sponsored

museums; The general trend has been for hub museums to out-perform their counterparts in Scotland

and Wales, where there is no equivalent to Renaissance; The increase in visit number reflects more visits by the people from the immediate local

authority area; There is evidence of a stable and heavily-used schools service; Hub museums’ visitor profile of people from ethnic minorities broadly matches their

proportion in the population in all regions except London. There is also a correlation between museum visits and the proportion of the population receiving Disability Living Allowances.

Qualitative accounts produced for this Review provide other perspectives on Renaissance’s achievements. Regional museums have come a long way since the Regional Museums Task Force’s report of 2001: they have a political profile - not least amongst politicians and civil servants across Whitehall, elected members and senior officers in local authorities. Their elevated status means that museums are now more capable of levering in other funding, and their capacity to contribute to regional regeneration agendas is better understood and recognised. Regional museums are noticeably ‘more confident in the management and presentation of their collections than they were 5-6 years ago’. Research and evaluation have become an increasingly standard part of their work; they are becoming increasingly modernised and rationalised; have introduced greater cultural diversity and are reaching more audiences through learning projects with children, young people and adults. Volunteering has not only added to museums’ value and enabled hubs to engage more effectively with members of the local community, but has also helped volunteers to develop their own skills and self-confidence. Beyond the hubs, the Museum Development Officer structure is considered to be achieving ‘real change’.


Part 4: Critical issues

Underlying confusion as to the fundamental purpose of Renaissance funding was apparent to all the hubs from the start and continues to be a subject for debate and comment. Was Renaissance intended to build strong regional centres of excellence in the hub museums or to benefit the wider museum community in each region through activities delivered by hub partners? In the later funding phases, the MLA and some of the MLA regional partners appear to have pushed harder for the latter purpose … while most hubs naturally enough felt that the former should have been the primary focus. They question how hubs can provide effective support and professional advice to the wider museum community until they get their own houses in order. It is clear that there is and has been a real conflict between the two purposes, and hubs that have tried to do equal justice to both have been at risk of doing neither to best effect. It is disturbing, in our view, that this issue has not been resolved. (Carpenter & Moore, 2008: 14)

Renaissance in the Regions was intended to create the opportunity for museums to transform themselves, to ‘raise their game’, and to change the nature of their publics and their relationships with them. It allowed for some bold experiments which could have shaped further developments – potentially with funding from other sources; it enabled new blood and fresh perspectives to be brought into the sector; and it increased contacts and understanding between museums. Nevertheless, it has been suggested ‘that there are significant missed opportunities in its history to date. The programme has not yet fulfilled its full potential to bring about deep and long-lasting change in the museum sector’ (Wilkinson, 2008: 2). Renaissance’s future priorities and working practices clearly need to build on its achievements to date. But they also need to attend to the critical issues identified. This part of the Review considers the circumstances within which the fundamental purpose of Renaissance remains unclear. It explores how this has impacted on Renaissance’s implementation, including aspects of the content of its programmes; its partnerships; financial operations; planning and oversight and performance management – and its reporting. These observations, together with the Review’s understanding of Renaissance’s achievements, and the changing context within which it now operates (Part 5) inform many of the recommendations presented in Part 6. 4.1 Clarity of purpose Until 2008, MLA’s award letters to the hubs explicitly referred to DCMS’s funding being for the implementation of the Regional Museums Task Force’ recommendations. As already observed (Part 2), it was, perhaps, inevitable that the realisation of Renaissance would stray from the original vision, and understandable that it has shifted direction over the years. It could be argued that weaknesses in management both at MLA and in many of the hubs have contributed to this. A consistent refrain from those contributing to the Review has been that the Renaissance team was unable to provide a sufficiently clear and overarching narrative within which specific programme strands were commissioned and delivered. A member of the original Task Force assumed that ‘The vision has been lost’. The lack of a forward plan continues to be problematic –


not least in terms of giving rise to ‘unrealistic expectations in the sector’ (cited by Holberry, 2009: 23). One hub partner observed that:

Different groups apply their own interpretation of the purpose of Renaissance. This also applies to MLA centrally, which seems to have no corporate memory that survives a change of personnel (cited by Selwood, 2008: 9).

Another’s testimony to the Review revealed that, six years on, staff within the hub, and in the region’s non-hubs, were still getting to grips with Renaissance’s objectives: ‘There is now a much clearer understanding of what Renaissance is about amongst all museum staff in Hub and non-Hub museums, and a growing levels of ‘sign up’ to the vision’. DCMS officers noted that successive Ministers have found it hard to understand the programme (cited by Selwood, 2008: 9 and 12). After some reflection, a local authority interviewee found that he ‘… couldn’t actually say what the programme is about’.

The Review noted a degree of ignorance – even amongst its beneficiaries – as to precisely what Renaissance funds and delivers to specific constituencies. In the run up to the CSR 2007, MLA came to appreciate that ’recognition of the programme is very low’ (Hems, 2008: 1). According to a former Renaissance team member, ‘People do not know that Renaissance serves the wider museums community and has done massive amounts through these and other programmes such as the Museums Development Fund’ (Porter, 2009:1). But, as a member of the Task Force observed, ‘Renaissance was not devised to serve the museum community, but the public… [this was] the root of many of the misunderstandings and disagreements’ . A related difficulty has to do with consistency and oversight. According to one of the hub museums, ‘The real problem is that there is no clarity about where we are going. The objectives keep changing’ (cited by Selwood, 2008: 9). The director of one museum referred to ‘the damage done in terms of changes of direction, as a result of poor communications’. A former Renaissance officer suggested that short-sightedness was the issue: ‘they were always looking at a project level, not at the big picture.’ Another member of MLA staff put it down to ‘… indecisiveness; there is no clear decision-making process; no minutes of Executive Board meetings; no records of decision making; no being held to account’. All this led one contributor to the Review to wonder about the degree to which MLA was committed to Renaissance as a transformational programme:

It always felt that, if we needed to confront poor performance, or ask challenging questions about different approaches or ways of working, the team was on its own – MLA did not choose to challenge anyone.

Such uncertainties may have contributed to a lowering of horizons and to Renaissance funding being regarded as tantamount to core subsidy. Several contributors to the Review questioned Renaissance’s additional value:

The report which came out for the last year of what’s been achieved through Renaissance in London - it was full of little interesting things, but there was nothing in there that you thought ‘this wouldn’t have happened without Renaissance money’. If you looked at any medium sized local authority museum or any reasonable independent museum, they’d be doing exactly the same things without any of that support because the measures are so small. Trying to quantify the impact that the Renaissance money had made I thought looked really dubious, it was very hard to see how they were measuring it. (London focus group participant, cited by Holberry, 2009: 26)


Every so often I see things branded as having been funded by Renaissance. It’s perhaps trivial, but you might expect them to have been being done anyway – e.g. training initiatives. (RMTF member, cited by Selwood, 2008: 14)

An inevitable casualty has been Renaissance’s commitment to transformation. As noted in Part 2, Renaissance’s implementation was subject to DCMS priorities20; MLA’s emphasis on evidencing of immediate changes, rather than longer-term effects; the dilution of its national programmes and its support of the regional agencies, which were now considered superfluous to need. A consequence of these trends is that the overarching ambitions of Renaissance have been relatively neglected. The Task Force, for example, had considered that, alongside learning, ‘the two biggest challenges that museums and galleries need to address in their community are social inclusion and cultural diversity’ (RMTF, 2001: 43). David Lammy, a former Minister for Culture observed that the sector had a long way to go in terms of diversity, in particular.

All the figures I have seen make pretty grim reading… How can you as a sector possibly be drawing on the widest available talent base, when the workforce in no way reflects the diversity of the society you serve? … Most of the sector is funded through universal taxation. That being the case, there can be no excuse for not drawing on the full pool of talent available to work in your museums (Lammy, 2005).

However well regarded, he considered that the collective impact of various national and regional initiatives (including Diversify) had barely scratched the surface, and were constrained by being restricted to project funding as opposed to core funding.

At the present rate of change it will be decades before we see real change in the diversity of the workforce at all levels. We cannot wait that long and I want to see this issue being tackled with a real sense of urgency across the sector. (Ibid) 21

The failure to address workforce diversity can be attributed to a number of complex reasons but, ultimately, MLA had no clear, strategic approach to the subject (which Diversify obscured) and many of the hubs simply failed to address the problem in a proactive and systemic way. In the event, it could be argued, Renaissance has not yet amounted to more than the sum of its parts.

4.2 Partnership working within a coherent framework Partnership was always considered fundamental to Renaissance. Its successful delivery was envisaged as dependent on a coherent framework structured around a clearly articulated set of relationships between the various players involved. The Task Force identified these as DCMS, the

20 DCMS’s peer review of MLA (2004) highlighted difficulties in the relationship between the two bodies, not least around ‘territorial’ boundaries. 21 Lammy later described the boards of most national museums and libraries as ‘pale, male and stale’ and said that there was a ‘whiff of institutional racism’ in the country's 1,400 museums and galleries because ethnic minorities were so underrepresented in top level jobs. ‘The banks have managed it, the Bar has managed it, so it's preposterous that publicly funded cultural bodies who embrace diversity in so many other ways are dragging their feet.’ (Woolf, 2005)


Department of Education and Skills, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Cabinet Office, as well as Local Learning and Skills Councils, Urban Regeneration Companies and local authorities (RMTF, 2001: 5, 8). In practice, those most closely involved in Renaissance’s implementation have been DCMS, MLA, the Renaissance team and the regional agencies, the hubs and the wider museums sector. The Task Force’s proposed framework was intended to combat the difficulties of what they had identified as a fragmented sector, and to facilitate economies, efficiencies and joint working. But the Review found that the potential of that framework had been undermined by opacity and a lack of leadership. A previous consultancy report, commissioned by the Renaissance team, observed:

A consistent message to emerge from the consultation was that leadership of the Renaissance programme – at various levels – was not clear, resulting in a good deal of confusion about the respective roles and responsibilities of Hubs, Regional Agencies, and MDOs, as well as where the wider community fitted into the Renaissance framework. (Kingshurst et al, 2005: 7)

The development of a coherent, national framework has also been arguably constrained by the conflicts of interest – the prevalence of individual museums’ concerns, contested regional leadership and uncertainty about the direction that Renaissance should take. The Regional Museums Task Force’s proposal that partnerships should be developed with museums with designated collections, particularly university museums, was never progressed. As one former Task Force member observed, it was also ‘… supposed to focus on collections and make the most of what regional museums had. One was to do this was through relationships with HEIs. But, that hasn’t happened.’ 4.2.1 The hubs and the wider museums community Although this Review suggests that that Renaissance funding has been more dispersed than is usually perceived, the standard perception amongst non-hubs is that they are excluded:

We have received little effective well-directed information from the hub explaining the objectives clearly or suggesting how we might engage with Renaissance or how we might benefit from it. What we have received has been PR spin for what money has been distributed and how it has been spent. What benefits we have had from Renaissance have been largely due to informal contacts rather than a formal process. (web contribution, cited by Holberry, 2009: 25).

The hubs are criticised as having been slow to recognise non-hubs as potentially ‘indispensable to helping them deliver their plans’ (Holberry, 2009: 24). In London, the hub is experimenting by paying groups of museums to run programmes to reach new audiences on their behalf. The selected museums will be paid on a quarterly basis for the duration of the 2009/11 Business Plan and the outputs of those museums will be counted towards the hub’s Key Performance Indicators set by MLA (Holberry, 2009: 16). The management of Renaissance has, however, generally overlooked this kind of partnership working, despite it being precisely what the Task Force had envisaged.

I just think it’s a shame that some of the strengths that specialist and local museums have got in the London area just haven’t been taken into account at all. There should have been a conversation, a dialogue, a sharing of skills, a sharing of what people do well, because there are some things that small museums do brilliantly well in the London area, particularly targeting resources, levering of resources and partnerships. They’ve


just completely ignored it. (London focus group participant, cited by Holberry, 2009: 27).

It has even been suggested that rather than pursuing the development of an inclusive, coherent framework, Renaissance effectively encouraged exclusivity. Whereas the Task Force proposed provision of services to schools to be delivered by a partnership of all regional museums, Renaissance promoted this as a service for the hubs to deliver directly, leaving smaller museums to speculate about the displacement of their school visits. In practice, the hubs appear to have assumed relatively few of the responsibilities originally envisaged and there has been little consistency in the way that the benefits to non-hub museums have been delivered across the country. Holberry attributes this, in part, to the lack of clarity over the respective responsibilities of the hubs and regional agencies. It was anticipated that the latter would pick up on the activities of the former Area Museum Services. All in all, this led the wider museum community to feel that their needs were not being met. Many independent groups have grown up

….to provide an independent voice for the wider museums community and as a counterbalance to Renaissance. The South West Museums Federation, Thames Valley Museums Group, Regional Museums Group (East England) and West Midlands Museums Group, Kent Medway Museums Partnership London Museums Group and East Midlands Museums Service had all become stronger since Renaissance was introduced. (Holberry, 2009: 23)

4.2.2 The hubs, MLA, the regional agencies and the regional Renaissance boards Whatever the tensions between the hubs and the, so-called, ‘hub-nots’ which came about as a result of perceived injustices of the funding allocation, contributors brought the Review’s attention to tensions between the hubs and MLA. Having ‘felt that they were in partnership with the MLA in developing Renaissance plans to meet government targets: a partnership of equals, recognising their experience and professional standing in the wider museum community’, the hubs grew to neither trust nor respect MLA and reported feeling patronised in their dealings with it (Carpenter & Moore, 2008: 20). Difficulties were also manifest in the relationships between the hubs and the autonomous regional agencies. In principle, the agencies’ focus was the development of the strategic agenda, whereas the hubs’ was on delivering national Renaissance targets within a regional context. However, the lack of clarification a propos their respective roles undermined successful working relationships and regional leadership in a number of key areas. Ambiguous guidance failed to address areas of potential overlap and allowed for considerable variations in the way that the regional agencies engaged with Renaissance. The fact that the agencies appeared to be less accountable than the hubs exacerbated the tension between them. In some regions, the triumvirate – MLA, hub and regional agency - conflicted over where the regional emphases should lie. (Similar discussions have resurfaced with the disbanding of the regional agencies.) Elsewhere, ambiguities as to the role of the regional agency did little to prevent the various bodies from working together effectively (Carpenter & Moore, 2008: 22). The value of the regional Renaissance boards is also open to question. These are, in effect, partnership management boards, in which the regional agencies were expected to provide the strategic, regional voice. However, in practice, in nearly all cases unresolved partnership issues meant that, most boards constitute relatively weak planning and management structures, in


which hub partners have principally represented the priorities and agendas of their own authorities and acted accordingly (Carpenter & Moore, 2008). The development of regional boards has also given rise to concerns and misgivings, particularly on the part of local authorities.

MLA is increasingly treating the museums as if they were themselves independent organisations, and imposing burdens on them without further reference to their parent bodies. The creation of the Regional Boards, on which not only do the local authorities have no representation, but about which they were never consulted, brings the situation to a pitch at which we much intervene and point out that the Councils are your partners and that we now require to participate in decision making, policy making and review at a level above that which our museums services operate.22

Such tensions have inevitably impeded the regional impact of Renaissance. As one regional agency officer put it, ‘the management of the hub is soft, cosy and consensual and no one has challenged them, or tried to sharpen up the management structures.’ 4.2.3 MLA The DCMS 2004 peer review of MLA was ‘critical of the structure and performance of the organisation’ (Clare, 2009: 1). Since its inception, the organisation has had a troubled existence – a sometimes difficult relationship with DCMS and issues of territorialism (as raised in the peer review); a number of re-structures, and four chief executives within eight years have served to hinder clear and consistent management and thinking. It was, perhaps, not surprising that the former Renaissance team referred to some of the difficulties that they claimed to have experienced in relation to MLA. They described working in relative isolation from others (Selwood, 2008: 9). Despite the scale of investment in Renaissancerelative to that of MLA (Table 2.6), the Renaissance Programme Manager’s post has never been sufficiently senior to merit a place on MLA’s Executive Board or to have been involved directly in decision making.

Some of the tensions engendered between the team and MLA have clearly gone now …. but others are still there – the cross-domain agenda, the way in which policy is made and implemented, and the way in which large programmes like this need policy of their own or can contribute to shaping it more broadly.

It was suggested the MLA board was conflicted ‘because it also has to support libraries and archives’ which compete for resources with museums. The Review found a degree of unease about some of Renaissance’s national programmes managed by other teams 23. Several of these so-called, ‘other strands’ predate Renaissance and also reflect MLA’s cross-domain agenda. Despite being funded through Renaissance, they were never redesigned to reflect its priorities and may be considered to represent ‘missed opportunities’ (see below). Although the DCMS’s peer review of MLA (2004) encouraged MLA and the regional agencies ‘to work together more effectively to a common purpose if their aims were to be realised more fully nationally and regionally’ (DCMS 2006c), it appears that MLA had ‘minimal expectations’ of the agencies’ return on its investment from Renaissance. Competing interests within what became the MLA Partnership remained problematic and reflected what was described as ‘an endless squabble for leadership of the programme, which meant that no-one ever did lead it’.

22 etter to Roy Clare (30.01.2008) L23 Porter (2009) details the development of the workforce strands (Diversify and the Leading Archives and Museums programme) and collections strands (Subject Specialist Networks; Designation Challenge Fund; Collections Link).


Leading Archives and Museums programme MLA’s workforce development strategy was developed in consultation with the regional agencies and other stakeholders in 2004, and revised as recently as 2008 (MLA, 2008d). Between 2005 and 2008, Leadership was addressed within Renaissance through the Leading Archives and Museums programme. Its total cost was £716,840, of which Renaissance provided £528,990. Of this, £419,840 was from MLA’s central Renaissance budget, and included support for non-hub participants to attend the programme. Spending from Renaissance’s devolved budgets included £109,150 for ‘purchased’ places from regional hubs and Diversify participants. A strong element of the Leading Archives and Museums programme was MLA’s desire to work across its three domains, developing transferable skills and strengthening connections between libraries, archives and museums. MLA has commissioned FPM, the same training provider who had already delivered Leading Archives and Museums programme, to provide a new cross-domain programme, which is due to start in February 2009. The total budget for this is £78,000, of which over half (£48,000) is from Renaissance.24 In addition, MLA’s Sector Improvement team anticipated that Renaissance would fund 60 out of 120 places.25 MLA is also exploring the possible accreditation of this programme as part of a Cultural Services Foundation degree.26 Source: Porter (2009: 8ff).

Collections Link Collections Link is cross-domain service and resource, which was initiated by the Quality and Standards team before the advent of Renaissance. Although it is fully funded by Renaissance, it was never redesigned to provide an integrated and comprehensive service for it. 7.1.16. Collections Link delivers against several of the Renaissance priority areas cited in early its planning guidance: enhancing the care, management and conservation of collections; improving access to knowledge and information; developing the workforce; reaching and exceeding existing standards. It focus is on ‘collections’ and ‘management’ (MDA 2005, 5). Although an essential part of the Task Force’s vision was to re-kindle the concept of ‘collections for inspiration’, Collections Link does not explicitly contribute to delivering outcomes for users. The Collections Trust believes that Collections Link’s place and purpose are not widely shared and understood by the regional hubs or others: ‘the regional hubs …. see Collections Link as a competitor, not as a partner’. It, nevertheless, considers its cross-domain remit to be one of Collections Link’s greatest achievements: ‘collections management now has a focus and effectively exists as a defined professional discipline… Prior to Collections Link, the different professional disciplines existed in splendid isolation from each other’ (Poole, 2008). The programme has been recognised in the UK and internationally as ‘a single coherent and professional service’ for collections management (ibid). Source: Porter (2009: 45ff).

24 The balance is met by £20,000 from the Libraries Action Plan and £10,000 from Action for Archives. 25 Information about the financial implications of this for Renaissance core and devolved budgets has been requested for this Review, but remain outstanding. 26 ‘A number of Foundation Degrees’ will also be funded from Renaissance. Letter from Roy Clare to Barbara Follett (12.11.2008).


4.2.4 Partnership building MLA has made little of how effectively partnerships have worked within the hubs themselves. The building and management of the hub partnerships has been a considerable challenge. According to an MLA officer, their precise roles and responsibilities ‘seemed to be a perennial topic for discussion’, so they basically ‘defined this for themselves’. They were often inexperienced in partnership working, and were already committed to full-time jobs managing museums on behalf of their own authorities. According to the director of one of the hub museums, many of them ‘would never have worked together otherwise’. Although the hubs needed time to realise the kind of ‘transformation [that] comes through working together’, their leads necessarily had to learn ‘some rapid lessons about how to get people over whom you have no authority to work together and collaborate for mutual benefit’. With the possible exception of several museums in the North East region, the Phase 1 hub members had never previously formally collaborated across local authority boundaries or sectoral divides, while a number of Phase 2 hubs experienced significant difficulties in building their own partnerships; they remained strongest where the ties of geography or close common interest already existed. The fact that MLA entered into separate funding agreements with some hub partners, and subsequently with all hub partners, doubtless directly undermined the sustainable partnership working that it professed to support. Despite there being, by 2002/03, a significant body of evidence and understanding in the cultural heritage and community development sectors about the complexities and models of best practice in partnership building27, no central guidance on the subject appears to have been offered to hubs. Carpenter & Moore (2008: 23) observed that the hubs were, in the main, constrained in their implementation of Renaissance by many negative characteristics of partnerships, including:

The lack of formal management structures, such as service level or partnership agreements or joint ventures: these would have provided effective legal status to act or employ staff and secure independence from any single partner;

No independent management team being responsible for implementing and managing the partnership’s activities from day to day; hub managers and other Renaissance administrative staff all having been employed by single partners within the hub, thus having the potential to compromise any independence;

Management teams being physically located in the premises of one of the partners, and therefore inevitably associated with that partner’s agenda, with the potential to give rise to perceptions of bias;

Except in North East and Yorkshire, hub managers having been recruited at too low a level to be able to effectively build and manage difficult partnerships, and to advocate and persuade at suitably high levels within local and regional structures. They tend not to have dedicated administrative support. In the South East the hub manager was based in Seattle, USA, and only comes over to Britain three or four times a year;

Transparency and accountability often being questionable as procedures and structures within the partnership are weak;

Lead partners in hubs having a tendency to ‘dominate’ the partnership and exclude others from discussions;

Although it may not have been typical, hub partners referred to a strain of parochialism which ran counter to regional partnerships. This was manifest in pressure from their parent authorities to ‘get as much as possible’ out of Renaissance– ‘embracing the regional agenda is very hard when it comes to dividing up money’.

27 For instance, gathered and promoted by the MLA itself in its support to the NOF-Digitise programme. The Audit Commission’s examination of partnership working, and the integration of organisations’ planning, commissioning and delivery of public services through partnerships (2005) is also relevant.


In short, in some regions, the hubs have failed to live up to the Task Force’s expectations: the concept of a small team of museums in each region, using their complementary skills and reach to provide clear leadership and partnerships and to improve the service offered to the public has not always been realised. Fault may lie with MLA, the make-up or leadership of the hubs, and the priorities and politics of local government. 4.2.5 Local government As originally intended, the majority of hub partners are local authority organisations and trusts (see section 3.3, Part 2). But discussions undertaken during the course of this Review – many with local authority chief executives and senior officers – suggest that the management of Renaissance largely neglected the realities of working within local government structures and the power of local politics and politicians to influence and direct developments at local, regional and, indeed, at national levels. Particular issues pertain to:

The difficulties of aligning the strategic priorities and planning cycles for Renaissance with those of their own authorities. This may have meant that some Renaissance activities have remained peripheral to the mainstream;

Reporting and accountability procedures that did not align well with parent body requirements28. Renaissance data, for instance, is incompatible with that collected by the Audit Commission BVPI figures;

Problems in balancing the demands of Renaissance to act regionally against local priorities and responsibilities;

Ineffective advocacy and communication about Renaissance, its purpose and achievements, at political levels in local government, or in harnessing the power of local government in support of Renaissance to advocate nationally. For most hub museum directors, who are 3rd or 4th-tier local authority officers, this kind of advocacy and influence within their own authority was a real challenge. (Carpenter & Moore, 2008: 18-19)

MLA’s approach to advocacy reinforced these difficulties. It has consistently implied that Renaissance-funded activities could be disaggregated from the core business and operations of the hub museums. This has evidently been intended to account for the effectiveness of Renaissance per se, rather than addressing how the local-national funding partnerships that it represents have enabled hub museums to progress and develop. A fundamental problem may have been the varying levels of investment that Renaissance passed on to museums in individual authorities. The allocation of funding within the hubs was a matter for the partners to agree, in line with their plans. The subsequent distribution of that funding was either direct from MLA or via the hub leads, depending on the nature of the funding agreements. In the South West (for Truro), Bristol managed the funding in its hub lead role. On the basis of the local authority services referred to in Table 4.1, from 2003/4 to 2006/7, Renaissance funding added between 11% and 52% of local authorities’ contributions. As such it accounted for between 10% and 34% of Phase 1 hub museums’ combined income from both sources. From 2004/5 and 2006/7, Renaissance added between 3% and 29% of local authorities’ contributions and accounted for between 3% and 22% of Phase 2 museums’ combined income. 28 Carpenter and Moore note (2008: footnote 2) that hubs have been able to submit final accounts (the main mechanism for releasing funding) in the format used by their own governing body, so making it difficult for the MLA to construct useful comparisons or assess equivalence.


Renaissance is a major investor in some museums, and provides much needed added value. Nevertheless, in all cases, the parent bodies assured their continued existence. Table 4.1a Renaissance funding as a percentage of local authority funding, and of total funding to selected phase 1 hub museums, 2003/4-2006/7

Museum LA funding

Renaissance funding Total

Renaissance as % of LA funding

Renaissance as % of total funding

SW Russell Cotes Art Gallery & Museum 2708 1402 4110 52 34

Royal Albert Museum & Art Gallery 7780 3044 10824 39 28

Plymouth City Museum & Art Gallery 7208 2675 9883 37 27

WM Stoke on Trent Museums 16978 1941 18919 11 10

Wolverhampton Art Gallery 11119 2187 13306 20 16 Table 4.1b Renaissance funding as a percentage of local authority funding, and of total funding to selected phase 2 hub museums, 2004/4-2006/7

LA funding R funding Total

Renaissance as a % of LA funding

Renaissance as % of total

EE

Colchester & Ipswich Museums Service (a) 5,483 733 6216 13 12

Luton Museums Service 5,206 726 5932 14 12

Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service 19,990 3,734 23724 19 16

Y Kingston upon Hull Museums 9,057 2,609 11666 29 22

Leeds Museums & Galleries 15,234 542 15776 4 3

Bradford Museums 9,328 534 9862 6 5

NW Bolton Museum & Art Gallery 6,187 442 6,629 7 7

Harris Museum & Art Gallery 4,586 426 5,012 9 9

Manchester City Galleries 17,851 602 18,453 3 3

Tullie House Museum & Art Gallery 6,180 422 6,602 7 6

SE Brighton Museums & Art Gallery 18,226 770 18,996 4 4

Hampshire Museums & Archive Service 20,114 733 20,847 4 4

Source: Table 2.12


It is, perhaps, not surprising, that local authority spokesmen interviewed for the Review, reported having

… no relationship with Renaissance. MLA needs to engage our managers. We have much greater contact with Arts Council England. Renaissance has understood the social and educational value of museums. It has been less clear about economic values and contributing to the competitiveness of cities within the European market.

One of MLA’s own regional officers concurred: ‘It still needs to set policy at local and regional levels. It hasn’t yet raised museums’ profiles in local authorities’. A local authority interviewee thought that ‘In the future, there will need to be greater ownership of Renaissance within local authorities and a more reciprocal relationship with MLA. It’s about putting in the time and effort’.

4.3 Finances 4.3.1 Distribution of funding As a strategic, as opposed to an executive body, MLA’s distribution of Renaissance funding was supported by limited monitoring and evaluation of its spend. Until recently the organisation’s appetite to change its systems appears to have been minimal. HLF and MLA originally commissioned a needs assessment in anticipation of Renaissance, which considered the long term and strategic needs of the museums sector in England (ABL, 2002). It was expected that the regional agencies would subsequently undertake similar exercises with regard to their own regions. It is unclear whether, or to what extent, local needs informed the distribution of funding at regional levels. Indeed, it has been suggested that the national distribution of Renaissance funds reinforced existing historic imbalances between regions (Babbidge, 2002). Since 2008/9 MLA has sought to equalise Renaissance’s funding of the hubs, which was originally calculated on the basis of 60% of funding being divided equally amongst the Phase 1 and 2 hubs, and 40% being allocated on the basis of population. The latter takes no note of regional characteristics such as demography, rurality and tourism levels; the size and nature of the regional museum sector for which the hub is supposed to provide leadership, or the availability of other museum 'centres of excellence’, such as branches of national museums. At a local level, funding distributions have also failed to reflect the specific local circumstances of hub museums, such as deprivation and educational attainment; adequacy and robustness of the funding base or its operational efficiency and effectiveness, both in governance and management. It has been argued that ‘… those living near hubs benefit most, those furthest away least. While the initiative was never designed to benefit all museums equally, it should have the ambition to provide cultural entitlement to the public across the region.’ Despite the notion of parity that informed Renaissance’s original funding formula, the Review found that the value of its funding varied from region to region. In 2007, for example, it provided £1.10 per head of population in the phase 1 hubs, and £0.59 in the phase 2s. Amongst the Phase 1 hubs, Renaissance investment ranged from £1.42 per head in the North East to £1.02 in the South West. In the Phase 2 hubs, it varied from £0.69 per head in the East Midlands to £0.53 in the South East (Babbidge, 2008b: exhibit 7). The extremes reflect the distribution of government funding more generally. In 2007, combined support from Renaissance, local authority, DCMS and


the AHRC provided £15.85 per head of population in the North East and £5.95 in the South East (Babbidge, 2008b: exhibit 8). Interviewees also highlighted the fact that Renaissance’s financial allocations take no account of their capacity to deliver and that performance has never informed the distribution of funding. ‘The short-lived Renaissance strategy group began to consider how future funding might be linked to performance, but in the event this was not taken forward’29. The Renaissance team noted that there was ‘currently no formal way to assess the performance of a hub or to allocate funding strategically’ (cited by Selwood, 2008: 10). The lack of performance management data would have made this difficult. However, at a very basic level, the Review considered audience share in relation to funding allocation. It found that in 2006/7 Yorkshire accounted for the largest share of the total Renaissance audience figures (18%) and the East of England for the smallest (7%). Both received 6% of the total funding available (Carpenter & Moore, 2008: table 6). Although the reduction of Phase 1 allocations has inevitably created some resentment, the Review discerned a deep-seated unease related to the relative lack of transparency around the division of support for the hubs and the national programmes. Contributors to the Review questioned MLA’s decisions about the distribution of funding on the basis of its perceived tendency to use Renaissance funding to support particular activities, without either explaining how they fit into the Renaissance framework or restating the vision for Renaissance as a transformational programme. A former member of the Renaissance Team, for example, reported that

…. the review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme [Clark, 2008] was conducted without any involvement of the Renaissance team, so the risk here is that the programme continues to be seen as a source of funding for vaguely museum-related work, and not as a way of supporting change in the relationship between collections, museums and audiences or communities.

There is a sense in which the sector is protective of its funding and wants ‘to prevent the bleeding of Renaissance money into MLA’ (cited by Selwood, 2008: 3).

4.3.2 Accounting for spending MLA’s retrospective analysis of the hubs’ activities (described in Part 2) has, for the first time, facilitated an overview of the hubs’ spending by areas of activity. It represents a unique collaboration across the Renaissance, Research & Evidence and Finance teams. Doubtless, MLA’s recent instigation of separate funding agreements for each of the 42 museums and museum services involved in Renaissance will provide it with greater accountability. But it appears that up to the time of writing, the hubs’ projects have defied easy classification and that there is a lack of consistency between regions reporting. Variable percentages are, for example, attributed to management and administration costs, ranging from 4% in the South West to 17% in London (Carpenter & Moore, 2008: table 3). These differences may be partly attributable to inconsistencies of reporting. It appears, for instance, that the East Midlands has done no work in the area of collections activity. This is misleading: collections development work has been undertaken but appears to have been classified under such headings as audience development and community engagement. Leicester has, for example, appointed collections access assistants, a world cultures curator and a collections manager and has used project funding to develop a new store.

29 Email form Alison Hems to Sara Selwood (20.01.2009)


4.3.3 Managing expenditure There has been disquiet about MLA’s system of payments. In 2008/9, the hub museums were paid in arrears, reversing the previous practice of advance funding, in accordance with the expenditure agreed in the business plans. This has imposed severe cash-flow problems on the hub partners. In the normal course of events, local authorities and universities would be able to accommodate this, but some of the independent museums, which are without significant reserves, are unable easily to accommodate the change. The position has been exacerbated by the fact that payments have been slow in arriving. The Review found that by September 2008 most hubs had only just received the reimbursement of expenditure incurred in the first quarter of 2008/9. None had yet received their funding contract from the MLA, which were only issued on 31 October 2008. In at least one case, the hub lead, a local authority museum, had had to make a cash advance to an independent hub partner to cover the cash flow. This situation is in stark contrast to Renaissance’s earlier approach to funding. From 2002/3 to 2006/7 the hub’s year-end unspent balances went from £2,000 to over £7.5m (Babbidge, 2008a: exhibit 3). Maintaining substantial balances is contrary to public policy and while balances of around 5% of annual spend might have been expected, from 2003/4 the hubs were averaging balances which were around 20% of their annual income, before reducing to 2% in 2007/8. This suggests that museums had difficulties in making the step change in activity represented by the substantial year-on-year funding increases. The fact that £7m underspend was disbursed between 2006/7 and 2007/8 raises questions about whether the drive to reduce balances was likely to have led to the wisest investment in every circumstance.

4.4 Planning Government’s expectations of the accelerated improvements that Renaissance might be bringing to the sector were stimulated by MLA’s advocacy, which used figures that described the impact of education programmes delivered by the 36 museums in the Phase 1 hubs in the three months from August to October 2003 (Hooper Greenhill et al, 2004). This recorded school visits as having increased by 28% against a target of 25%, which it was previously anticipated would be realised by 2005/6. This emphasis on quantifiable and immediate outputs at the expense of eventual outcomes persisted, while many of the fundamental expectations of Renaissance remained ambiguous. This contributed to the fact that the original ethos of Renaissance, with its emphasis on the renewal, consolidation and the enduring transformation of the regional museum sector, was lost. In practice, MLA’s oversight of Renaissance concentrated on the hubs. Their funding allocations are agreed in advance and are conditional only on the delivery of an acceptable plan. The initial draft forward plan for Renaissance (Davies, 2002) envisaged a five-year strategic plan and an associated three-year corporate plan for each hub in recognition of the need for a long view. But, as Carpenter & Moore (2008: 19ff) observed, in practice, Renaissance’s planning horizons have been typically short and its planning processes have been hurried. That short-termism reflected the timings of DCMS funding decisions and MLA’s management decisions. The hubs’ frustrations have been exacerbated by over-complicated procedures and MLA’s lack of responsiveness. A consequence of the planning timetables has not only been short-termism, but also hubs have encountered difficulties in recruiting staff in time to meet their operational needs and deliver on planned outcomes within what became a two-year cycle. One hub reported that it could be five months into the two-year programme before it had staff in place, leading to forced under-spending. There has also been, in most hubs, a severe and negative impact on retention and employment of fixed-term contract staff, typified by hubs having to give notice to staff because they do not know soon enough whether plans for the forthcoming funding period have been


accepted. MLA’s workforce diversity survey (2007) suggested as much as 28% of the hubs’ full-time staff and 40% of their part-time staff were employed on fixed-term contracts (Babbidge, 2008b: 44). This represents posts likely to have been funded by Renaissance (and to a lesser extent by HLF). It raises questions about how the capacity of hub museums has been developed under Renaissance and the sustainability of their current arrangements. As already mentioned, Renaissance’s planning procedures took no account of the pre-existing strategic and business planning regimes of parent organisations or the hub partners’ own accounting and auditing systems. Effective alignment with these (appropriate to an integrated funding stream rather than project funding) would have avoided much duplication of effort in the hubs. The early constraints of Renaissance funding would have presented an ideal opportunity in which to do this, and to prepare a long-term implementation plan which could accommodate existing structures and, if necessary, create new ones. This would also have allowed Renaissance to manage, rather than be driven by, the uncertainties of its future funding. Procedures have been characterised as over-bureaucratic and cumbersome. Some hubs reported that hub directors and managers each spent between as many as 20 and 50 days putting business plans together. (Weaker plans are simply an amalgamation of the separate plans of each hub partner.) As this implies, the plans themselves tend to be lengthy documents. For the 2006-08 planning round, the biggest was 460 pages in length; another was 300 pages; two were over 200 pages, and the shortest was 120 pages. This may reflect the inexperience of hub managers and senior staff in developing business plans, as well as the over-complicated templates provided by the MLA. The design and structure of hubs’ plans has varied considerably: some list large programmes under a small number of headings taken from the guidance; others list a large number (sometimes dozens) of individual actions. (Financial returns point to some 750 programmes/projects supported with Renaissance funds between 2003/4 and 2007/8.) Anecdotal evidence suggests that those assessing the plans found it hard to scrutinise them adequately. The level of detail provided was, on the one hand, too much to make it easy to assess how well the hubs were delivering the Renaissance vision; on the other, it was insufficiently detailed to enable scrutiny of individual projects. The mechanisms for following up planning guidance requirements are acknowledged to have been weak and they were allowed to be applied inconsistently. For example, the requirement that hubs support pre-application advice for the accreditation scheme was interpreted differently in different regions. This function was variously based in the central hub team, the regional agency, or with Museum Development Officers. Combinations of these three models were also implemented. In some cases, this was further complicated by the regional agencies’ reluctance to give up providing advice on accreditation, although it had been agreed that their role was to assess rather than advise. It may be that such ambivalence added to the time taken for partnerships to be effective:

….after five years of working together to deliver Renaissance, most of the hub partnerships have begun to be effective. Hubs are clear that they have been on a learning journey in trying to make the partnerships work and now several of them ‘feel like organisations in their own right’, more than the sum of their parts (Carpenter & Moore, 2008: 24)

The absence of reporting against hubs’ previous plan targets makes the whole planning process questionable. Moreover, funding agreements have never been used to assess or monitor performance, although they increasingly set out specific requirements. Consequently, it has never been possible to link funding to performance, or to reward excellence.


4.4.1 Knowledge sharing Whatever the nature of their working partnership, non-hubs have tended to expect support from their regional hubs. However, this is reported to have been something of a lottery.

A lot of people were expecting the hubs would be more proactive with the non-hubs to form more partnerships - certainly to reach out quite broadly with various things, with support or training opportunities, but it’s been quite patchy according to which hub museum you are near. (North East Focus group participant, cited by Holberry, 2009: 23)

Designated museums were not brought together to share and build on their learning; nor was the Subject Specialist Network initiative, which was intended to encourage knowledge sharing, tied in to Designation. Despite a plethora of specialist networks (including Marketing and Communications group; the Museum Education Forum, and the Subject Specialist Networks) no formal cross-cutting work between hubs was organised, no conferences or meetings were set up other than the operational hub lead and manager network meetings. ‘Had the MLA actively wanted to foster competition and distrust between hubs, rather than collaboration, they could not have designed or run Renaissance better.’ (Carpenter & Moore, 2008: 19). The absence of learning through Renaissance was evident to at least one other museum-funding body. The hubs themselves acknowledged that they had much to learn from each other and expressed an enthusiasm for potential conferences or meetings that would enable them to do so. Nevertheless they did nothing to challenge this state of affairs: in their view they were too focused on delivery of targets to have time or capacity to pursue pan-regional agendas. When pressed, they conceded that, in the initial stages at least, there was a degree of competition between the hubs as each sought to obtain or retain what they felt to be their fair share of the resources. In relation to the wider museums community, the lack of cross-border sharing amongst the Museum Development Officers also led to inefficiencies and a certain amount of ‘reinventing the wheel’.

4.5 Performance framework The absence of a framework of performance measures (such as those proposed by Davies, 2002b:15), means that MLA’s efforts in reporting on Renaissance were principally, if not exclusively, dedicated to the hubs’ data collection and exit surveys, and on their fulfillment of government targets. Pressure from government contributed to Renaissance’s emphasis on access and education. But the fact that some 70% of hub data collection is related to child-centred activity might be regarded as excessive and as ultimately detrimental to the assessment of Renaissance as a whole. MLA has not methodically attempted to account for the qualitative outcomes of Renaissance, and the effectiveness of the ‘other strands’ contributions to Renaissance has been relatively neglected (Porter, 2009). Unlike DCMS, it does not collect data on income generation. An upshot of this is that it has been unable to assess Renaissance’s progress overall or to analyse the benefits that accrued to the hub museums, or – more importantly - to the public.


Hub plans included a plethora of success measures designed by the hubs themselves, but no accountability was required beyond collection of certain outputs;

Although collection care and development work were priorities for Renaissance, hubs were never required to report formally or specifically on these, despite their importance in terms of building sustainable services;

There has been no attempt to collect evidence that reveals how far the key diagnostics of difficulty identified by the Regional Museums Task Force - a fragmented infrastructure, a leadership vacuum, and a lack of capacity - have been overcome.

Renaissance’s inability to comply with the data requirements of the Treasury's characteristics of effective performance management may have put it at a disadvantage (Babbidge, 2008b: exhibit 5). It has yet to respond to the fact that DCMS noted the shortage of evidence to support its CSR 2007 bid 30. 4.5.1 Data collection Technically, standards of data collection have varied between hubs, and between hub sites within the hubs. Improvements in data collection have been continuous, but are still necessary in order to generate high-quality, reliable evidence that can be used to develop robust policies and strategies, and enable effective planning. As the chief executive of one of the regional agencies put it:

… we’re missing fineness. We’re good at reporting, but we’re not good at translating it in terms of outcomes and impact. For instance, we need a way to compare how the different regions are faring …

Senior managers in most hub museums were unfamiliar with processes of monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment methodologies. They, and Renaissance as a whole, would have greatly benefited from the construction of an outcomes-based framework, coherent guidance and support in this area.

The hubs’ data collection template as constructed did not include all Renaissance priorities, and (as already suggested) it was over-focused on a certain number of areas. It was also based on the world as it appeared in 2002, and demonstrated no foresight in terms of future policy needs 31;

Renaissance data appears to have been incompatible with data collected by the Audit Commission in relation to the BVPI figures. Although these are disappearing as a consequence of the local authority national performance framework, the Audit Commission is recommending that they still be retained as local performance indicators so that councils can assess continuing performance;

There is little evidence of the data collected being used to inform policy making or planning in MLA or many of the hubs – an issue that has been raised by the Audit Commission in terms of improving decision making in public services in general (Audit Commission, 2008). Therefore, timely responses to address the issues that emerged from the data have been rare;

30 Reported to Sara Selwood at meeting with DCMS, 20.02.2008. 31 Given its limitations, the data framework was unready to respond to CSR 2007 and the new suite of PSAs that came with it. For example, PSA 21 ('To build more cohesive, empowered and active communities') includes increasing participation in volunteering. Hubs might have been able to contribute reliable information, demonstrate the museum sector’s capability and capacity in this area, and its contribution to meeting government’s priorities (Babbidge, 2008b:16).


In continuing to use the social grades, A,B, C1, C2, D and E (as originally developed by the National Readership Survey) the exit survey is at odds with the NS-Sec (National Statistics Socio-Economic classification) that is the national standard in the UK. While it is possible to attempt to reduce the eight NS-SEC grades to NRS’s six, it is difficult to attempt a correlation in the opposite direction;

There are no corporate systems and processes to assure quality and delivery; and

There has been no effort to report the data collected in a wider context, in the way achieved with the Regional Museums Task Force report (Babbidge, 2008b).

4.5.2 Evaluation and research The case for the Regional Museums Task Force’s vision was made on the basis of empirical evidence. In terms of instrumental social benefit, for example, it referred to research which found that engagement with museums and collections, including through outreach, increased people’s self-confidence and their sense of belonging in society, and impacted on school children’s skills, behaviour and exam results – effects which were particularly important for disadvantaged groups in a society with growing inequality (RMTF, 2001: 35ff). The applied research commissioned for Renaissance might have similarly evidenced its success. But, to date, there has been no coherent programme of research focused on the overarching benefits of Renaissance to the public and little on the evidence of museums’ social impact. There are, however, a plethora of reports commissioned by MLA that point to the lack of evidence (including Wavell et al, 2002; BOP, 2005). The most convincing research appears to relate to children’s experience of museums32. Other bodies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is committed to the alleviation of poverty and exclusion, are beginning to invest in exploring the role that museums have to play in creating a more just and equitable society (Tait, 2008). Evaluations of Renaissance’s ‘other strands’ did not, on the whole, address them in relation to Renaissance priorities. The Designation Challenge Fund has not been evaluated systematically for several years; Collections Link has not been evaluated at all. A review of the Subject Specialist Networks is pending. Discrete qualitative evaluations of particular streams of activity or projects have been commissioned by the hubs (listed in Appendix 14). However, Carpenter & Moore (2008: 22) observed that these are of varying quality, commissioned from different consultants employing different approaches and interpretations of outcomes evaluation and impact assessment, and sometimes based on poorly conceived briefs from the hubs. It would have been difficult for MLA to have derived any overall lessons from the hub-level evaluations funded by Renaissance. This may be why that work has largely been ignored in the upward reporting of Renaissance, much to the irritation of hub managers who received no feedback. Given that a number of studies (most famously, Putnam, 2000) have shown that an engaged and active life, rich in cultural, cognitive and social stimuli, promotes individual, familial and community wellbeing, a major gap in Renaissance’s research is the attempt to demonstrate that by increasing access to museums it has had a measurable impact at a population level. Renaissance’s anticipated life as a long-term funding stream might have prompted a longitudinal

32 See, for example, ‘Oxfordshire Culture Matters - Raising aspirations and educational attainment among young people and in communities’. See Hoopper-Greenhill et al (2006) and http://www.seco.org.uk/laatoolkit/content/contentcasestudies/oxfordshireculturematters.html (retrieved 20.01.2009).


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Readership_Survey&action=edit&redlink=1

http://www.seco.org.uk/laatoolkit/content/contentcasestudies/oxfordshireculturematters.html

study, such as Konlaan et al (2000) 33. Such an investigation could have aligned with a general trend in research and policy development, which seeks to develop a holistic understanding of individuals through their emotional well-being and social capital 34 – recognised in terms of the cultural sphere in Ruiz (2006).

4.6 Reporting on Renaissance’s achievements As observed in Part 3, MLA’s reporting fails to do justice to either Renaissance’s particular achievements or those of the regional funding partnerships that it represents. The scope of the quantitative data collected is limited and its qualitative intelligence is unfocused – lacking, as it does, a coherent or consistent reporting framework. Descriptions of Renaissance’s successes are dominated by quantitative outputs which relate to the hubs’ delivery of DCMS’s PSA targets, in particular those that pertain to user participation. MLA’s consolidated data reports (Roberts, 2006; Roberts & Kerr, 2008) are precisely that: they combine findings from the hubs’ performance indicators and the exit surveys. Little attempt has been made to place data pertaining to Renaissance in the context of other quantitative evidence (as in Babbidge, 2008b) or of other MLA-sponsored evaluations of Renaissance. There has been no annual reporting of Renaissance’s successes or challenges. By concentrating on the hubs, MLA has rendered the achievements of Renaissance’s other programmes relatively invisible. With respect to its quantitative indicators, it should be recognised that the number of hub sites submitting evidence to MLA increased from 154 in 2002 to 161 in 2007, and that 2006/7 was the first year that all hub museums reported on all 52 measures in the data collection framework. In order to arrive at a coherent understanding of trends, the Review’s analysis of Renaissance data has used constant samples wherever possible. The substance of its findings, therefore, sometimes differs from MLA’s reporting and may detract from an account of its achievements. Assembling and selecting qualitative accounts for this Review presented particular problems. One difficulty has to do with scale: 750 projects are known to have been supported between 2003/4 and 2007/8. A second difficulty has to do with the presentation of those accounts. Primary sources generated by the Review include the narratives submitted by to the Review (referred to in Carpenter and Moore, 2008); online submissions (Sachdev, 2008); and Holberry (2009) and Porter’s (2009) reviews. Other sources include case studies published by the hubs and in MLA’s case studies database. Despite it having been a condition of funding since 2006 that the hubs should ‘create and update case studies as required’, at the time of writing only 17 of those included in MLA’s database refer to Renaissance35 projects. These are dominated by those from the North East (seven case studies) and the South East (six), but also include those from the East of England and South East 33 In a fourteen-year cohort follow-up study, Konlaan et al (2000) found ‘a higher mortality risk for those people who rarely visited the cinema, concerts, museums, or art exhibitions compared with those visiting them most often.’ This was an effect independent of ‘age, sex, cash buffer, educational standard, long-term disease, smoking, and physical exercise’ – though it was stronger when these factors were also conducive to cultural participation. The research outlines the most likely mechanisms for this effect: reduction of stress through emotional release and enrichment and the immunological and anti-depressive impacts of various stimuli on the brain, noting that ‘the effects were most obvious in non-verbal stimulation through pictures, objects, and music.’ 34 Examples of relevant applied research include Bajekal & Purdon (2001) and Ryff & Singer (2003); and relevant government papers include those published by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, in particular (for example, Knott et al, 2008). 35 http://research.mla.gov.uk/case-studies/ (retrieved 16.01.2009).


http://research.mla.gov.uk/case-studies/

(two each). The criteria for inclusion are not stated (either on the website or in the hubs’ funding agreements). Another source is MLA’s advocacy document, Taking stock of the achievements of the regional museums hubs (MLA, 2006), which sought to look ‘beyond the targets’. This provides numerous examples of hubs ‘engaging more people and building audiences’; ‘developing organisations and their workforce for the benefit of users’ and ‘creating new opportunities for people to enjoy collections’. Each area of activity is illustrated with around 10 to 15 thumbnail sketches, each 10 to 100 words long. There is some danger that the narrative accounts of Renaissance’s multifarious projects merely record ‘doing’ rather than impact. They are not written to particular standards, do not comply with any particular reporting framework and provide little sense of the difference that projects have made to the hub partners, the regions or to the public, or of their contribution to Renaissance’s overall outcomes. Perhaps more worryingly, the data that has been collected for Renaissance appears not to have been interrogated for the benefit of either Renaissance or the sector in general. A DCMS officer observed that there had been a problem ‘analysing beneath the headline figures. It was hard to tell what was actually happening’. This inevitably begs questions about MLA use of the data that it has collected over the years, and its reaction to it. Much is made, for example, of the number of school children participating in Renaissance-funded programmes. For instance, MLA reported that in 2007/8, English school children had made 828,000 visits to hub museums and that this marked a 19.7% increase on their 2002/3 visits (MLA, 2008a). However, the number of hub sites reporting visits increased from 154 in 2002 to 168 in 2007. The Review found that, between 2003/4 and 2007, the number of school visits to a constant sample of 127 sites declined. Overall numbers for 2007/8 were 11% down on those for 2003/4: primary school visits were down 11% and secondary schools down 9% ( op cit: exhibits 21 and 22). Analysis, of the sample reveals that school visits had peaked in 2005/6 (Babbidge, 2008b: exhibit 20). The same trend is evident in the BPVI figures, which include non-hub museums (op cit: 35-36). Many hubs assert that their education programmes are approaching, if not working at, full capacity. In the absence of any appropriate measurement by site, organisation and region, this hypothesis remains anecdotal, although it might have prompted the development of new education strategies within Renaissance. It is also unclear what response, if any, was prompted by the fact that the number of visits to Phase 1 hubs has declined. This might have raised questions about what was to have been expected, the relative costs of investment per visit or the kind of allowance that should be made for the effects of a year-on-year cycle of equilibrium. Between 2006 and 2007, the rise in visits to museums by people resident in the same local authority was countered by a slight decline in ‘tourist’ and day visits’ by people of regional, UK or overseas origin (op cit: exhibit 29). Evidence suggests that the trend in hub museums is some way from achieving a proportion of C2DE visitors reflecting the regional demography (op cit: exhibit 26). The gap remains substantial and may be growing. The hubs are not alone in this. The figures on free admission at DCMS-sponsored museums also suggests that attendances by these groups may be declining (Selwood, forthcoming) and the figures for arts attendance and participation suggest some slippage away


from targets amongst minority ethnic and lower socio-economic groups (DCMS, 2008b: 35). It is unclear what steps either DCMS or MLA, via Renaissance, are taking to address this. Other assertions of achievement are ambiguous. MLA has reported positively about museums’ success in levering in other monies on the back of Renaissance. Its report, Taking Stock (MLA, 2006) refers to £194m of additional funds (revenue and capital) attracted by hub museums between 2003 and 2006, and Wilkinson (2007) states that, between 2003/4 and 2004/5, Phase 1 hubs increased their average from £0.48m to £2.83m and Phase 2 from £0.3 to £0.6m (cited by Babbidge, 2008a: 16). However, the figures that MLA prepared for this Review only record around £42,000 of non-Renaissance funding as income for Renaissance schemes. This suggests that the amounts cited in these various accounts may refer to different things – and may possibly include the total amount of additional funding that can be attributed to the hub museums in general, rather than that which is specifically attributable to Renaissance. Such uncertainties point to inconsistent measures of success and the lack of shared intelligence. They also highlight the hubs’ and MLA’s strategic dilemma of both wanting to demonstrate the effectiveness of Renaissance, and at the same time arguing that it is no longer possible to disentangle Renaissance from hub museums’ core operations. SUMMARY Although Renaissance’s priorities have understandably shifted over the years, many of those who contributed to the Review considered that Renaissance has lost its way. MLA is accused of ‘always looking at project level, not at the big picture’ and it is unclear what specific contributions its various programmes have made, or are making, to Renaissance’s objectives, It could be argued that Renaissance has not yet amounted to more than the sum of its parts. Partnership was always considered fundamental to Renaissance and its successful delivery depended on a coherent framework structured around a clearly articulated set of relationships. But the roles and responsibilities within that framework have been unclear, and Renaissance has lacked the leadership to address the various issues arising. Although the scale of funding earmarked for Renaissance represents the majority of MLA’s income, the Renaissance manager has never been sufficiently senior to merit a place on the organisation’s executive board. This excludes the post-holder from directly engaging in decision making. Support for Renaissance within MLA has not always been sufficiently forthcoming. The implication is that MLA has not been committed to Renaissance wholeheartedly. Responsibility for Renaissance is distributed amongst various MLA teams, which have managed various of the national programmes. Despite being funded by Renaissance, some of these strands already existed, serve cross-domain agendas, and have not been refocused on the specific transformation of museums. While the proportion of individual museums’ funding provided by Renaissance varies considerably, MLA’s relationships with hub museums’ primary funding partners, the majority of which are local authorities, appears to be more theoretical than actual. It has largely ignored the realities of working within local government structures. Indeed, MLA’s accounts of Renaissance’s effectiveness exclude the local-national funding partnerships that it represents. Its priority has been to demonstrate the effectiveness of Renaissance per se, rather than point to its integration with other government-funded bodies. Despite the notion of parity that informs Renaissance funding, the Review found that the investment per capita varied from region to region. No allowance is made for either local or regional conditions, or for quality of performance.


Renaissance’s emphasis on ‘quick wins’ and short-termism both run counter to the Task Force’s original ethos of long-term transformation and consolidation. The terms of their funding have meant that the hubs have been unable to recruit and retain staff, develop their capacity or implement the organisational change that had been envisaged. The fact that over 30% of hubs’ staff are on fixed-terms contracts does not bode well for Renaissance’s sustainability. It is admitted that the follow-up of planning guidance has been weak and inconsistent, and the hubs’ plans have never been used to assess their performance. It remains unclear how much funding has been committed to particular activities. Museums and other service providers have not been formally encouraged to share knowledge or learning. This has resulted in duplication of effort and inefficiency. As already observed, MLA’s reporting fails to do justice to Renaissance. It has been driven by advocacy but has not been interrogated for the benefit of either Renaissance or the sector in general. The absence of a framework of performance measures means that data collection has principally, if not exclusively, focused on the hubs’ data collection and exit surveys on children and visitors’ demographics, and other programme strands have been virtually neglected. There has been no coherent programme of research focused on the overarching benefits of Renaissance to the public.


Part 5: Changing contexts Previous sections of this Review have focused on expectations, achievements and criticisms of Renaissance. Its future not only needs to be grounded in terms of lessons learnt from the past, but its fitness for purpose needs to be established within somewhat different circumstances to those within which it was conceived. This part of the Review briefly considers the background of evolving national policies against which the Regional Museums Task Force report was conceived when issues of regionalism and the modernisation, reform and accountability of public services predominated. Recent changes in the museums sector had also informed the Task Force’s thinking. It contrasts those circumstances with changes currently taking place in the public realm and in the museums sector which are impacting on Renaissance, and the specific changes being introduced by MLA. The section closes by considering the broader political, economic and social changes and technological developments which are likely to pertain to Renaissance.

5.1 Background In 2001, when the Task Force report was published, the government was moving towards both national and regional devolution. Its regional network of government offices was supported by the establishment of Regional Assemblies and Regional Development Agencies – the latter having been set up in 1998 to promote sustainable economic development in England and to increase the economic performance of the regions and reduce social and economic disparities within and between regions. The recent Foot and Mouth epidemic had served to highlight the vulnerability of regional, and particularly rural, economies. DCMS’s Regional Cultural Consortia, which were established in 2000, were intended to provide a strong voice for culture and encourage a coherent approach to the delivery of regional cultural services within their regions. Against substantial increases in investment in public services, the government introduced a broad array of scrutiny mechanisms to provide assurance that the ambitious standards it had set for public services were being achieved. The 1999 Local Government Act introduced a duty for all councils to put in to place arrangements to secure continuous improvement known as Best Value. According to this, all services had to be delivered with respect to the three ‘Es’: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Best Value heralded the mainstreaming of local authority-funded museums: it required that they report on attendance against targets (BVPI 170) and on residents’ satisfaction with their services (BVPI 119). Museums could be included in corporate plans and be subject to Best Value Review, which could be used as a mechanism to introduce changes in their governance or delivery structures, including independent trust status.

By early 2002 the notion of a publicly reported Comprehensive Performance Assessment of all councils was agreed with government. This would, for the first time, judge councils’ corporate ability to improve services for local people, including their environment, housing and cultural


services.36 Indicators included museums’ accreditation and BVPI 170.

The advent of Renaissance also coincided with central government funding becoming subject to a greater, if not unprecedented, degree of public accountability. Departmental targets, embedded in Public Service Agreements (PSAs) with the Treasury, were published for the first time. They were to be used in assessing contributions to the achievement of the government’s wider aims. DCMS’s newly stated objectives were ‘to improve the quality of life for all through cultural activities and to strengthen the creative industries’ and its primary concerns were to bring quality and excellence to the field of culture; to make those available to the many, not just the few; to raise standards of cultural education and training; and to help to develop the jobs of the future in the creative industries (DCMS, 2000: 11). Alongside Renaissance, the department’s most significant gesture has been the introduction of free admission to its sponsored museums. Within the museums sector, the Higher Education Funding Council for England had recently devolved its £9m museums and galleries funding stream to the Arts and Humanities Research Board. AHRB’s response was to establish a new five-year core funding scheme in 2000.. Based on an open peer-reviewed competition, it made awards to 28 museums (plus a further four exceptional three-year transitional awards) which were intended to:

ensure that the valuable resources and artefacts that they hold are properly conserved, maintained and displayed;

strengthen the links between university museums and the teaching and research activities undertaken by their host universities, as well as other institutions in the UK and overseas; and

increase access to collections for the benefit of both the higher education community and the wider community (AHRB, 2004).

Leadership was also being acknowledged as an issue in the cultural sector around the time of the Task Force report. The Museum Leadership Programme, established in 1994 at the University of East Anglia, had already acknowledged the increasing demand for people at senior levels in museums who could demonstrate an exceptionally wide range of leadership and personal skills. As Hewison noted (2004: 158), the cultural sector’s need for enhanced leadership capacity in general had been reinforced by a number of reports. These included the Holland Report (1997) on training and development in the museums and heritage sectors. By 2002 the Clore Duffield Foundation had commissioned a report on how it might intervene to improve leadership across the cultural sector (Hewison & Holden, 2002).

5.2 Changing circumstances 5.2.1 Regionalism and localism Renaissance’s future development will inevitably reflect the change of attitude to the regions which has been apparent since November 2004, when the North East rejected the proposed elected regional assembly. Following the 2006 Budget, the government announced that it would be looking to strengthen economic performance in England’s regions, cities and localities, as well as tackling persistent pockets of deprivation. Its 2007 so-called sub-national review identified the need for more simplified structures, streamlined decision-making and improved accountability (DCLG/BERR, 2008). This included the abolition of Regional Assemblies and the attribution of new powers to the Regional Development Agencies to encourage economic growth and take on

36 http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/cpa/index.asp (retrieved 24.01.2009)


http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/cpa/index.asp

workplace training while strengthening their scrutiny and accountability, and delegating funding to local authorities and sub-regions so that they might play a more strategic role (Healey, 2007). DCMS has also sought to streamline its own regional structures. A peer review of MLA had already noted the regional agencies’ struggle within the hierarchy created by the proliferation of an increasing number of cultural bodies (DCMS, 2004; 20). In 2008, the Hodge Review announced the closure of the Regional Cultural Consortia in order to bring about better coordination, eliminate duplication and improve the effectiveness of input into regional cultural strategies. It proposed that the Arts Council England, Sport England, English Heritage and MLA work together to deliver a core set of shared priorities including regional strategies; Local Area Agreements; local government commitment to culture and sport; place shaping, and liaison around 2012 (DCMS, 2008c). DCMS justifies dismantling its former intermediary bodies in terms of wanting to ‘put delivery at the heart of the debate … coupling advocacy with action and speaking with a stronger voice across our sectors’. In short, it is emphasising closer partnership working by its various agencies in the regions37. At the end of February 2009, the Arts Council announced that it was proposing to group its nine, streamlined regional offices in four areas (ACE, 2009). MLA is replacing eight of its nine regional agencies with three regional directors of engagement. The recent Improvement Strategy for Culture and Sport (DCMS/LGA, 2008), agreed by various of DCMS’s non-departmental public bodies, similarly highlights partnership working. This essentially supports the National Improvement and Efficiency strategy, a new local performance framework concerned with improving the quality of life and providing better public services (DCLG, 2008). Other DCMS cultural initiatives based around national, generic and partnership working include Creative Partnerships, Find Your Talent, and Living Places.

Creative Partnerships and Find Your Talent are both part of the Government’s ambition to give young people in England the chance to experience high quality arts and culture. Creative Partnerships, launched in 2002, is the government’s flagship creative learning programme, designed to develop the skills of young people across England, raising their aspirations and equipping them for their futures. Since 2002 it has fostered innovative, long-term partnerships between schools and creative professionals, including architects, scientists, multimedia developers and artists. These partnerships are intended to inspire young people, teachers and creative professionals to challenge how they work and experiment with new ideas.

Find Your Talent is being piloted in ten areas around the country. It will give young people the chance to discover and develop their talents with the intention, ultimately, of offering children five hours of arts and culture a week, in and outside of the school day. Both schemes are being implemented by Creativity Culture and Education, and supported with £135m from 2008 to 2011 (DCMS/DCSF, 2008).

The Living Places programme, related to DCLG’s Sustainable Communities (ODPM, 2003), was launched in 2007 by a consortium of national cultural agencies and DCMS and DCLG.

37 The DCMS regional infrastructure review was intended to ‘achieve significant cost savings and efficiencies in terms of what needs to be done regionally and by sharing back office functions and premises; bring about better coordination to eliminate duplication and improve the effectiveness of input into regional strategies and [Local Area Agreements]; re-examine the need for a coordinating body while not undermining the ability of individual non-departmental public bodies to carry out their national responsibilities’. DCMS’s agencies are expected to work together to jointly across Regional Strategies; Local Area Agreements; Local Government’s commitment to culture and sport; Place Shaping; and the 2012 Cultural Olympiad.


It promotes culture as a major tool for galvanising community engagement and creating a sense of identity and pride.

5.2.2 Modernisation, reform and accountability Given the number of local authority museums involved in Renaissance, it makes sense to consider their current circumstances. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, preceded by the Local Government White Paper, Strong and Prosperous Communities (2006) has encouraged greater focus on local distinctiveness, a greater emphasis on local priorities, and greater engagement by local citizens. The guidance issued to local authorities to help them achieve positive outcomes for people and places, prompts strategic and political leadership; key local partners working together; the involvement and empowerment of communities and wider and stronger local accountability (DCLG, 2008). These qualities apply to the reform of public services more generally, as set out in the Cabinet Office’s Excellence and Fairness (2008). The Audit Commission’s proposals for ‘intelligent commissioning’ (2007) may impact on the way in which Renaissance collaborates with other local organisations. The 2007 Act also proposed a new performance management regime, Comprehensive Area Assessment, to be introduced during 2008/09. This covers assessments of the achievement of Local Area Agreement targets, and of risk-based assessments of overall performance and capabilities. The replacement of Comprehensive Performance Assessment and the compulsory reporting of BVPIs spells out the end of service-based performance management. Local authorities, and museums that they fund, are expected to report against indicators based on outcomes delivered. Other characteristics of the new performance regime include:

An enhanced role for local authorities as leaders of Local Strategic Partnerships’ shaping places and delivering on the priorities for their areas;

Local Strategic Partnerships setting out high level priorities for their areas through Sustainable Community Strategies;

Sustainable Community Strategies being delivered through Local Area Agreements. Local areas will choose 35 from the 198-strong set of National Indicators for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships, announced as part of the CSR 2007, and will agree targets with the government. Local councils and partnerships will be judged against these.

Public agencies, including MLA, having a duty to co-operate with local areas in helping them set targets and supporting them in improving.

Despite encouragement for cultural organisations to engage in the new local performance framework (DCMS/LGA, 2008; MLA, 2008a) in May 2008, it appeared that museums were largely excluded from Local Area Agreements.38 The principal reason for this was that local authorities would have chosen to concentrate on those indicators that measure their most pressing and politically sensitive issues such as health inequalities, educational attainment, crime and community safety. This is inevitable in the current economic and social climate. Only two out of 150 had chosen to include NI 10: ‘Visits to museums and galleries (over 16s)’, compared to nine uses of the libraries indicator and 24 of the arts indicator. The museums indicator, which simply measures numbers of visits, does not remotely capture all the potential contributions to outcomes that museums might make and is not an effective indicator of the value of museums. The challenge for museums is to establish what contribution they can make to the main local

38 http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/performanceframeworkpartnerships/nationalindicators/spatiallevels/ (retrieved 29.01.2008)


http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/performanceframeworkpartnerships/nationalindicators/spatiallevels/


authority agendas. This inevitably begs questions about the extent to which the hub museums are embedded in the strategic processes of their parent organisations, and the extent to which their exclusion constitutes an indication of the priorities of and pressures on local government and the positioning of discretionary cultural services within them. DCMS and departmental accountability Whereas Renaissance was previously subject to specific DCMS PSA targets (see Part 2: Implementation), under the CSR 2007, the Treasury changed its PSA framework. From 2009/10 onwards, all departments will be working to 30 new cross-government PSAs, grouped under four headings: sustainable growth and prosperity; fairness and opportunity for all; stronger communities and a better quality of life; and a more secure, fair and environmentally sustainable world (HM Treasury, 2007). Each PSA has a lead department and a number of contributing departments. Departments also have their own Departmental Strategic Objectives: DSO 1 Opportunity - encouraging more widespread enjoyment of culture, media and sport,

including a focus on children and young people to ensure that they have the opportunity to participate in high quality cultural and sporting activities that contribute to their wider outcomes.

DSO 2 Excellence - supporting talent and excellence in culture, media and sport, including championing the provision of top-class facilities and services, inspiring everyone – particularly young people – and helping them to realise their talents.

DSO 3 Economic impact – realising the economic benefits of the Department’s sectors, such as by maximising the economic impact of its investment and improving value for money.

DSO 4 Olympics and Sport for Young People – by delivering a successful and inspirational Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012 that provide for a sustainable legacy and get more children and young people taking part in high quality PE and sport.

DCMS leads on one PSA - to ‘Deliver a successful Olympic Games and Paralympic Games with a sustainable legacy and get more children and young people taking part in high quality PE and sport’ (PSA 22). Inspiring ‘public participation in cultural and community activities across the UK’ sits alongside this, and it is anticipated that Renaissance museums will be involved in MLA’s projects including Setting the Pace and Stories of the World. The department also contributes to six other PSAs, namely to

raise the productivity of the UK economy (PSA 1);

improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people (PSA 12);

increase the number of children and young people on the path to success (PSA 14);

address the disadvantage that individuals experience because of their gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief (PSA 15);

increase long-term housing supply and affordability (PSA 20); and

build more cohesive, empowered and active communities (PSA 21).

Each target is linked to the National Indicators, against which local government is also being measured (see above) in order to help demonstrate achievement of outcomes. For example, indicators 6 and 7 of PSA 21 (respectively led by the Cabinet Office and DCLG), both of which are to be reported by the Audit Commission, represent substantial opportunities for museums:

Indicator 6: Participation in regular volunteering


http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/psa/pbr_crs07_psagrowth.cfm

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/psa/pbr_csr07_psaopportunity.cfm

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/psa/pbr_csr07_psacommunities.cfm

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/psa/pbr_csr07_psacommunities.cfm

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/psa/pbr_csr07_psaenvironment.cfm

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/psa/pbr_csr07_psaenvironment.cfm

Indicator 7: The environment for a thriving third sector.39

MLA has adopted a new outcomes framework for Renaissance which aligns with the National Indicators. DCMS and museums performance assessment Although the current Permanent Secretary has described his mission as leading a department which is ‘in a strong position to implement Ministers’ cross-cutting programmes’ (Jonathan Stephens, in DCMS, 2008: 7), Renaissance has witnessed successive Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport struggling with their sectors’ instrumentalism as well as with the government’s systems of accountability. In a 2001 White Paper, for example, the department had already proposed adopting a ‘lighter touch’ (DCMS, 2001: para 2.13). Despite committing the sector to quantitative outputs, Labour’s first Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport retrospectively admitted to having had certain reservations about the performance regime he had imposed on the sector since ‘any measurement of numbers, quantity or added value by figures was necessarily going to be inadequate’ (Smith, 2003). A later minister commented on the seeming impossibility of accounting for the impacts of culture:

I know that Arts and Culture make a contribution to health, to education, to crime reduction, to strong communities, to the economy and to the nation’s well-being, but I don’t always know how to evaluate or describe it. (Morris, 2003)

Over the years, a tension between such instrumentalism and what has become known as ‘cultural value’ (Holden, 2004; 2006) has become increasingly evident. Even before its 1997 election victory, Labour proposed that ‘the arts should be supported by government for their intrinsic merit’ (1997: 7). Various Secretaries of State have professed to having knowingly neglected ‘the fundamental life-force of the cultural activity that gives rise to educational or economic value in the first place’ (Smith, 2003) and ‘doing more’ than delivering on what the ‘utilitarian agenda and the measures on instrumentality’ implied.

Too often politicians have been forced to debate culture in terms only of its instrumental benefits to other agendas – education, the reduction in crime, improvements in wellbeing – explaining – or in some instances almost apologising for – our investment in culture only in terms of something else. In political and public discourse in this country we have avoided the more difficult approach of investigating, questioning and celebrating what culture actually does in and of itself. (Jowell, 2004: 8)

The move away from depending on quantitative outputs has become most clear in the department’s explicit shift in interest ‘from Measurement to Judgement’ – the sub-title of its recent review on Supporting Excellence in the Arts in 2007 (McMaster, 2008). This addressed several of the criticisms that had been made of the department’s support for the sector:

how the system of public sector support for the arts can encourage excellence, risk-taking and innovation;

how artistic excellence can encourage wider and deeper engagement with the arts by audiences; and

how to establish a light touch and non-bureaucratic method to judge the quality of the arts in the future. (DCMS, 2007a).

39 http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/performanceframeworkpartnerships/nationalindicators/spatiallevels/ (retrieved 24.01.2009)




McMaster recommended that: ‘funding bodies must move to a new assessment method based on self-assessment and peer review that focuses on objective judgements about excellence, innovation and risk-taking and is made up of people with the confidence and authority to take tough decisions’. But he proposed that some of the ambiguity around ‘excellence’ should be clarified: ‘There needs to be a more confident articulation of the concept of excellence – from government and funders to artists and cultural organisations. A greater sense of what excellence is within public discourse on culture is required’ (McMaster, 2008: 25). While the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic values may be a false dichotomy, accountability – whether public money is well spent and according to whose criteria this might be assessed – is regarded as a pertinent issue. In late 2008 DCMS piloted a new programme intended to develop and instigate a self-assessment and peer review process for its grant-aided museums. Museums were asked to complete a self-assessment based on questions about the strategic vision of the museum; how it measures success and excellence in meeting it; what has gone well recently, and what hasn’t; particular plans and how they would be fulfilled; challenges and opportunities foreseen; whether the organisation has the leadership necessary to achieve those goals and whether it was positioned to change. Peer review panels were invited to examine the functions and strategic direction of the museums; evaluate it in terms of its self-assessment and identify areas of excellence and opportunities for development. These reviews were intended to act as benchmarks against which future reviews of the museums could be compared. It is anticipated that DCMS will report in early 2009 on the outcomes of its pilot peer reviews. Arts Council England is also proposing to adopt a combination of self-assessment and peer review. A consultation, launched in November 2008, presented such options as ongoing artistic assessment, sectoral reviews, and occasional one-off appraisals of individual organisations. It is hoped such approaches will enable the Arts Council to understand better how organisations it already funds are performing and that it will prove a useful tool for organisations seeking to highlight their successes and identify areas needing development. It is expected that the new process will be in operation from April 2010 and that some aspects of peer review will be introduced during 2009/10 (ACE, 2008).

The Audit Commission has also moved away from expecting attributable quantitative ‘impacts’ and is now more inclined to refer, less specifically, to the making of a ‘contribution’. 5.3 Sectoral developments A number of concerns have become of increasing importance to the sector since 2001. These include Strategic Commissioning, the National Museums Strategy, leadership, collections and sustainability and financial security. 5.3.1 Strategic Commissioning DCMS and DfES launched Strategic Commissioning in 2003/4 to support their joint strategic priorities of broadening access for children and young people and building communities. The fund, intended as ‘ additional to and complementary to Renaissance’ (Nichol, undated), was divided between the national museums and MLA. The former has focused on partnership projects between national museums and regional partners. Of the 35 national/regional partnerships that it supported in 2008/9, the majority (65%) are with Renaissance museums – six with Tyne & Wear


alone40. The latter has concentrated on increasing the demand from schools for museums, archives and gallery education; developing the medium-term capacity of museums, archives and galleries to deliver education activities, and to support effective relationships which would help increase access to museums, archives and gallery education for teachers and schools (MLA, undated a). Guidance for the current round of Strategic Commissioning (2009-11) requires museum partnerships to link to McMaster (2008) and Find Your Talent. There are fears that the future funding of Strategic Commissioning may be used to support Find Your Talent. 5.3.2 A National Strategy for English Museums In 2005 DCMS published a consultation paper, Understanding the Future: Museums and 21st Century Life (DCMS, 2005), with the intention of stimulating a debate on the issues surrounding the museums and galleries sector. Responses strongly favoured the creation of a national strategy that would embrace the whole sector. Understanding the Future: Priorities for England’s Museums (DCMS, 2006b), which followed, made a series of recommendations under five headings: identity, collections, workforce, structure and learning. DCMS subsequently tasked MLA with delivering a unified national strategy for English museums, building on these. It is anticipated that this will be completed in relation to the results of the present Review. The vision behind the Strategy is for ‘excellent’ museums, accessible to all, offering experiences that inspire, inform and entertain and that make a positive difference to individuals and communities. The plan (Appendix 13) proposes action in three areas:

Supporting excellence – encouraging and rewarding museums that use their collections and develop their scholarship to deliver the very best cultural experiences for the public, and to interpret collections for new and wider audiences;

Promoting partnerships – strengthening the links between museums of all sizes; between museums and the rest of the cultural sector; and building on the relationships with tourism and the creative economy; and

Building capacity – investing in the workforce, in scholarship and collections care, in new finance and governance models, and in digital technology, to ensure long-term effectiveness and sustainability in the sector.41

5.3.3 Leadership The Clore Duffield Foundation induced its first fellows in 2004/05. A number of public sector initiatives followed, including the £22m Cultural Leadership Programme, funded by HM Treasury and based at Arts Council England. Launched in 2006, this constituted a response to historic underinvestment in professional development in the cultural sector and was intended to create a culture of strong and diverse leadership, and to deliver growth and prosperity in what it s a significant part of the UK economy. Since 2006 a number of post-graduate programmes have been developed in UK HEIs to address leadership in the cultural sector. To date, much of the focus on cultural leadership has been on the pragmatics of generating individual leaders, as opposed to implementing organisational change. 5.3.4 Collections Since January 2004, the Museums Association has led on raising the profile of museum collections – encouraging museums to think about the importance of their collections as assets

40 NMDC (2008) explores many of these relationships. 41 http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/strategies/museum (retrieved 27.01.2009)


http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/strategies/museum

and how they might be used more effectively 42. Major initiatives to date have included:

Collections for the Future (MA, 2005), the result of an inquiry that included widespread consultation, which aimed to reinvigorate the debate about museum collections and recommend how museums could improve engagement with their collections; make them more dynamic by revisiting approaches to acquisitions, disposal and collections mobility; share knowledge and develop collections professionalism for the future.

Effective Collections (MA, 2007a) is a five-year programme of work based around the central assumption that too many museum collections are underused. The Effective Collections programme (funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation) aims to develop the culture and the processes by which museums might share their collections and knowledge about them more effectively through longer loans (MA is encouraging a brokering service to facilitate trusting lending relationships); stored collections reviews, intended to find material in store that merits use in displays, either on long loan, through redisplay at the home museum, permanent transfer or other forms of disposal; common standards to assist in the administration and the care of objects; and disposals.

Disposal Toolkit: guidelines for museums (MA, 2007b). The Museum Association’s revised ethical advice and guiding principles on disposal now reflects the need for museums to ensure their collections are well managed, actively used and sustainable. Its toolkit provides detailed advice and guidance for museums on how to undertake responsible disposal.

5.3.5 Sustainability

Many museums whose collections continue to grow while their existing collections lack effective management … seem not to be meeting the needs of the present in full because they are not able to realise the potential of the collections they hold and they are compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs by passing on those collections to them to look after, having added even more material to them. (Nick Merriman cited in MA, 2007c: 15)

MLA believes that museums should ‘Ensure sustainability and continuous improvement is at the heart of all they do’ (MLA, 2008e). It has commissioned research to look into the financial sustainability of its three domains and the business models necessary to secure it (Freshminds, 2008). The Museums Association has raised awareness of museums’ sustainability more generally through its Sustainability and Museums campaign (MA, 2007c). This proposes that concepts of economic, environmental and social sustainability have the potential to help museums improve their service to society, make decisions about collections management, secure long-term financial stability and serve the future appropriately. It proposes the better use of resources, improved accountability, social responsibility and opportunities for excellence, innovation and creativity. The economic sustainability of museums relates to the fact that museums are ‘overtrading’ - overstretched, financially weak and therefore vulnerable. Future funding is uncertain and many museums are seeking to diversify their sources of income and avoid over-reliance on single sources of public support.

42 See, for instance, work being undertaken at UCL with Renaissance funding: The stored collections of UK museums as a public resource, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/storedcollections/ (retrieved 25.01.2009)


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/storedcollections/

The museums sector is particularly sensitive to its social sustainability; its work has been increasingly audience-focused and the sector considers it important to address the concerns of diverse local people alongside those of experts. The Museums Association’s emphasis on sustainable collections focuses on the active management and use of collections. It questions the relationship between the rate of acquisitions and the liabilities of care and conservation of collections that may, in the future, be regarded as unwanted and unusable. 5.3.6 Security of funding Despite Renaissance having brought an unprecedented level of income to regional museums, it has not secured their partnership funding. Local authority museums are currently considered vulnerable in their capacity as non-statutory services, and the future funding of university museums is uncertain. HEFCE’s commitment to the Museums and Galleries Fund expires in July 201043. A review is scheduled to follow in 2009. 5.4 MLA’s changes to Renaissance, 2008/9 onwards The reform of MLA, mentioned in the Introduction and described by Clare (2009), has involved a rearticulation of the organisation’s role and key concerns. Its mission is to lead strategically, promote best practice in museums, libraries and archives, ‘to inspire innovative, integrated and sustainable services for all’. The ‘new’ MLA’s attention is focused around three ‘key themes’: learning and skills, for children, families, and adults; healthy and sustainable communities and the economies that underpin them; and improvement – each and every museum, library and archive needs to be excellent. Priority is also being given to clarifying and advocating the cultural sector’s role in well-being, learning, and the creative and tourism economies. The organisation is employing various procedures and methods to identify and celebrate best practice within its domains. As before, tools are available which are intended to encourage excellence across the sector, and mechanisms are being developed for challenging poor performance. Encouraged by the Hodge Review (DCMS, 2008c), MLA is working increasingly closely, in terms of policy development, with other national and regional cultural agencies. The case is being made for balanced cultural investment and provision across the country, and MLA is encouraging individual institutions to see themselves as part of a wider network of cultural provision. MLA expects its organisational and managerial changes to have positive implications for Renaissance. It has, for example, invested in its research capacities in order to gauge the impact of the sector and guide policy and decision-making. All its basic management systems and processes are being overhauled and its approaches to business planning and performance monitoring transformed. Many of the specific changes made to Renaissance during 2008/9 (Clare, 2009) acknowledge the criticisms made in, and during the course of, this Review. Some are already in place; MLA intends to implement others in the future.

43 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/initiats/museum/ (retrieved 10.03.2008)


http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/initiats/museum/

Changes undertaken to date include the integration of Renaissance within MLA; the appointment of a new team; the tightening up of financial administration which involves retrospective payments to the hubs; and changes to the hubs’ planning process during 2009-11. Hubs are now required to demonstrate that their activities develop capability in the work force; exploit collections for wider benefit; establish partnership working in regions and across sectors; promote excellence; ensure that projects are increasingly sustainable; and carry out the comprehensive assessment of plans. Innovation is identified with ‘excellence’ and is held to be central to Renaissance moving forward. A new outcomes framework contained in the Planning Guidance for 2009-11 is in line with DCLG’s National Indicator Set (described above), and manifests the shift from a service-based to an outcomes-based framework. Following on from previous work intended to simplify the planning process, MLA has identified that

The challenge is to be clear about how museums activities can contribute to these government objectives for communities and where possible align Renaissance outcomes within local, service and institutional performance management frameworks. (Clare, 2009: 9)

MLA’s adoption of this framework for Renaissance is essentially generic. An earlier manifestation pertains to museums, archives and libraries (MLA, 2008e). Although Clare makes no specific mention of the National Museums Strategy, changes that it is proposed to make to Renaissance in the future include:

the use of data to encourage more effective management of performance. MLA is currently establishing a Renaissance Information Management System which will hold all project and programme information relating to each hub and allow reporting against outcomes and key performance indicators;

the definition of strategic objectives and the development of new key performance indicators aligned to local government performance indicators;

clarification of the ways in which outcome and performance data is reported by the hubs, which should account for, and ensure that funding goes to, those priorities that have been agreed;

regular monitoring of performance against plans; the promotion of learning within the sector.

This implies a closer, more coherent and joined-up working internally and the pursuit a consistent approach to programme information throughout (such as that proposed by the NAO et al, 2001); MLA remains preoccupied with quantitative measures. It has recently revised its exit survey processes and has examined a range of methodologies to capture economic impact, with the intention of persuading funders of the value generated. It is evaluating the social return on investment of Renaissance-funded museums (Clare, 2009: 7) through the use of Social Return on Investment methodology. This seeks to capture the value created by a project by translating social benefits into financial measures.

The social value created by the programme is assessed against the programme’s investment, or the amount it costs to run the programme. The higher the ratio, the higher the social and economic return of the programme (Stanziola, 2008b: 2).

This approach is intended to allow MLA theoretically to:


… paint a full story of the social and economic value of investment in the cultural sector. For instance, for projects around unemployment, this approach allows us to make statements such as ‘the SROI ratio for year 1 is 2.89. This means that for every £1 invested in the project, £2.89 of social value would be created for society in terms of reduction in unemployment (…) Government is to receive a higher amount of taxes and National Insurance contributions as a result of this additional income. It is also likely the State will save on welfare payments from reduced unemployment’ (ibid).

MLA may also consider the “payback period” – how long it takes for the programme to pay back or return the initial investment or cost: the shorter the payback period, the better. This would, arguably, reinforce Renaissance’s policy of emphasising rapid results. 5.5 Horizon scanning The final sub-section of this part of the Review describes the results of a series of three workshops undertaken by the National School of Government for this Review, which focused on possible future scenarios for Renaissance44. These, together with MLA’s subsequent reporting on the impact of the current recession, are summarised in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 The likely future context within which Renaissance will be operating

Issues Implications for Renaissance Political context National policies will continue to

promote the enjoyment of culture, a sense of place and provide a framework for engaging the local population in shaping their local communities, and encouraging participation in community development.

Renaissance will be under pressure to collaborate with other local organisations, and work through new structures and delivery chains including Strategic Partnerships. Recipients of funding will need to function as both providers and commissioners.

Local people will be involved in decision-making, in the design of local services, and delivery of local services. New delivery chains, bringing together new partners, or old partners in new combinations, will be serviced by new funding pathways. Joined-up working will be a reality.

It will be necessary to focus on what can be specifically delivered through Renaissance, as opposed to elsewhere. This focus will have to be maintained in the fact of the other delivery partners’ priorities and take account of other government objectives than those of DCMS.

Success in local participation and the impact of the services will be measured by local authorities.

Renaissance will have to be sufficiently confident to integrate its work with others. It will be required to contribute directly and indirectly to agreed outcomes, and account for its contribution.

Economic context

It is anticipated that the number of people unemployed will rise dramatically. The prospect of long-term unemployment may encourage a shift in lifelong-learning priorities from up-skilling to re-skilling. Improving the skills base will remain

Although fiscal policy will be the political priority, museums can contribute to the well-being agenda, which will implicitly become of increasing importance. Museums could use their existing resources to support volunteering, training and re-skilling initiatives

44 These are very similar to those scenarios previously outlined by MLA (undated b)


a government priority.

The value of the pound has decreased significantly against other key currencies. Foreign exchange fluctuations are notoriously volatile but the pound is becoming increasing weak against both the dollar and the euro.

According to Visit Britain, the effect of the recession was evident by the second quarter of 2008. The number of, and expenditure by, domestic visitors is likely to continue falling. Expectations of overseas visitors are uncertain.

Whilst some sections of the population will continue to prosper, the disposable income of many will be constrained.

Cultural attractions remain cautiously optimistic, especially given free admission. It is broadly assumed that charging will impact negatively on attendance.

Funding settlements will be low both

in central and local government. There will be severe demands on local authorities, and non-statutory services, such as museums, are always vulnerable. This will not manifest itself until budgets are set for the next financial year. Income from museums own reserves, trusts, and endowments are at risk of financial turbulence. There is already some evidence that ancillary sources of income retail, catering and hospitality, corporate hospitality, consultancy or professional services, are experiencing a down turn Calls for more efficient use of existing money through partnerships with other social and government organisations and agendas (e.g., unemployment, skills, volunteering) are likely to increase.

There may be less funding for Renaissance. Tensions between long term core funding, against project-based grant funding may become more evident. It is widely expected that less income will impact on employment. Redundancies of core staff are likely. Support will need to be more carefully targeted. This will require a clearer understanding of the needs and ambitions of partners and audiences, and the creation of services to meet those expectations. The effective reallocation of resources will depend on a better understanding of the cost base. Better evidence of the outcomes achieved will be required. It will be important to need to maintain some of the gains and infrastructures developed for the cultural sector in the past 11 years. Museums will have to deal effectively with new public funding models, including Local Area Agreements. They may find themselves working with others with even tighter funding. It will be important to avoid funds leaching away in support of others’ priorities.

Arts & Business (A&B) estimates that private investment in culture is likely to drop significantly and may even experience negative growth. Medium-size cultural organisations will be hit the hardest. Major business sponsors will continue investing in culture as a symbol of their stability.

The climate for capital spending will get tougher. 106 agreements are already removing or significantly reducing their contribution to culture

Businesses will remain interested in linking investment in culture to their own corporate social responsibility and marketing agendas. Donations per se are likely to continue to drop.

The cultural sector may need to identify other, sustainable funding sources. Renaissance will need to explore new, multiple funding channels to exploit its finances to best advantage. There is relatively low awareness of museums’ need, and capacity, to implement and manage different business models and to sustain a diversified portfolio of funding sources. Rather than tackling


fundraising skills, the sector should implement a culture-change programme to increase its own appetite for innovation, risk and entrepreneurship.

It might be possible for some individual schemes to position themselves as ‘spend your way out of recession’ initiatives, supported by capital funding.

Social context Britain will be more diverse, and

have an aging population. The family unit will be less nuclear. The disengagement of youth (especially boys and young men) from learning will continue to be a focus of social policy. Local authorities will measure public engagement, and test the impact of services.

Engagement with the public will become increasingly important. Understanding local needs and encouraging the shaping of local services by local people should become a strong management focus. Better understanding and integration across different museum functions will be required for the engagement and satisfaction of audiences. Providing new community spaces may be one way of contributing to social cohesion at a time of increased individualism.

Some people will continue to be short of time, and the browsing/grazing culture will be more dominant. Demand for choice, and control over many aspects of personal experience will increase. Competing forms of entertainment will become cheaper and more participative.

Displays need to be designed taking into account the social and leisure trends. Museums core customer offer (glass cases, objects, text explanation) has changed little over time, but may need to do so now. It will become more important to distinguish between the medium (museums) and the message (authentic collections): it will be important to take forward the best of the old and add the best of the new.

The focus on individualism will continue, alongside a political desire for more engagement in the community. Demand for choice, and control over many aspects of personal experience will increase.

An increasingly diverse population will require multiple interpretations. Marketing’s family focus will need to be reviewed. The youth agenda may require special attention: new ways of communicating may be required. Understanding how to inspire the young will be important.

Technology context

In world of simulated and synthetic experiences, there will be an increased demand, if not premium on, authenticity.

The default to digitise collections, and to set up websites should be resisted.

There will be greater possibilities for convergence, including mapping and directory services. New combinations will be available. There will be a continued move toward customer controlled media services.

Tapping into existing networks may be a way of extending the reach of Renaissance, and connecting better with partners.

New interpretation (visualisation and presentation) technologies will offer users more choice and control. The rapid penetration of multi-media ICT networks into the home will increase the potential reach of new services.

A better understanding the future potential of ICT, and how to take advantage of it needs to precede any major investment. Areas for exploration may include extending the user experience into a fuller package, and offering greater opportunities for developing, exploiting and communicating


scholarship. In a world of easily accessible but

unreliable, and incomplete information – trusted information should command a premium.

Success will depend on understanding potential in relation to the needs of audiences. This may require more strategic, joined-up working.

Sources: Sachdev and Lynds, 2008; MLA reports to DCMS on the impact of the recession, November & December, 200845. SUMMARY As its title suggests, Renaissance in the Regions, was conceived at a time when the government was preoccupied with regional devolution. Other pertinent contemporary initiatives included local government reform, including the introduction of Comprehensive Performance Assessment. An unprecedented degree of public accountability also informed central government reform. Within the museums sector, Renaissance coincided with the introduction of free admission to DCMS-sponsored museums and the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s devolution of its £9m per annum museums and galleries funding stream to the Arts and Humanities Research Board. Leadership was increasingly becoming identified as an issue throughout the cultural sector. Renaissance’s future development will, inevitably, reflect changing political attitudes. The government’s 2007 sub-national review, for example, identified the need for more simplified structures in the regions, streamlined decision-making and improved accountability. Its local government agenda is currently emphasising local distinctiveness, and greater engagement by local citizens. These shifts in thinking about the regions are echoed within the DCMS family. By 2008, the department announced that it was streamlining its own regional structures and highlighting partnership working amongst its own non-departmental public bodies in the regions. MLA is replacing eight of its nine regional agencies with three regional directors of engagement; and the Arts Council is proposing to group its nine, streamlined regional offices in four areas. In terms of local government, Comprehensive Area Assessments have spelt out the end of service-based performance management, replacing this with an outcomes-based system. Within that context, museums are needing to establish what contribution they can make to local authority agendas. This is all the more important given their vulnerability as non-statutory services. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is currently reviewing its museums funding. Changes in central government’s Public Service Agreements, alongside an ongoing debate about the value of instrumentalism and targets, contributed to DCMS shifting its emphasis from ‘measurement to judgement’. Promoted by its 2007 review, Supporting Excellence in the Arts, the department recently piloted self-assessment and peer review amongst its grant-aided museums. Other developments include DCMS-funded programmes. Strategic Commissioning, launched by DCMS/DfES in 2003/4 to broaden access for children and young people and build communities, was intended to ‘complement Renaissance’. DCMS and MLA have been working on a national strategy for English museums, and the Museums Association has been campaigning on the effectiveness of museum collections and museums’ sustainability.

45 We are grateful to John Haward, MLA, for sight of these.


Closer to home, a ‘new’ MLA anticipates that its organisational and managerial reforms will have positive implications for Renaissance. It has invested in research to better account for the impact of its sectors and to guide policy and decision-making; its basic management systems and processes are being overhauled as are its approaches to business planning and performance monitoring. Many of the specific changes made to Renaissance acknowledge the criticisms made during the evolution of this Review. Some are already in place, and MLA intends to implement others in the future.


Part 6: Recommendations The Regional Museums Task Force envisaged Renaissance in the Regions as providing high quality museums on a nationwide basis. It recognised that, as non-statutory services, regional museums needed investment to enable them to move beyond the subsistence level at which many existed. The Task Force aspired to museums providing more, and better, services to people; engaging with different communities more meaningfully; and delivering fully on government policies. The possibilities represented by Renaissance went way beyond the accreditation of national standards. They visualised museums as dynamic organisations whose success would be judged by their contribution to the culture and quality of life of their communities. Renaissance aspired to excellence and peer review long before McMaster. In order to effect the transformation that the Task Force visualised, museums needed to change from introspective institutions preoccupied with their resource problems (genuine though these were) - to outward looking organisations: confident, ambitious and articulate about the values they create for society. In short, the Task Force’s mission for Renaissance was the creation of internally integrated and externally focused museums. This still holds. Greater internal integration will contribute to transforming museums’ confidence, clarity and purpose. A transformed museum is one in which conservators, educators, curators, visitor services and marketing and administrative staff are both empowered and united through a shared vision of public benefit. Fundamental to this are:

Meaningful research into collections. This should be undertaken on the basis of an agreed strategy, and underpin museums’ services to their communities and their commitment to high quality and inspiring learning.

Collections staff who want to do more than simply preserve the collections in their care,

but rather make them safely accessible and fully available to the widest possible public in a wide range of different contexts. Equally rigorous research on visitors is necessary in order for museums to respond to who is, and who is not being served.

Learning and audience development staff who are represented on the Senior

Management team and share in the strategic decisions about the museum’s overall direction, programmes and projects.

Greater external focus will contribute to transforming museums into positive, active agents, animating valued traditions and helping to shape a more democratic, creative and inclusive society. Their role is to promote the exploration of ideas and concepts. Fundamental to this are:

Museums that fulfil their aspirations to make a difference to people’s lives – albeit in ways which are immeasurable and difficult to articulate. As publicly funded institutions they should aspire to the maximum benefit for all their communities by generating economic, social and educational, as well as, cultural value.

Strategic partnerships that are embedded in civic life and local decision-making.

Museums have the potential to work with – among others – health; education; social care; tourism, economic development and other statutory and voluntary sector organisations, all of whom are working to improve the quality of life. Their specialist,


Partnerships that befit museums’ own operations. Projects with universities can, for

example, ensure that collections are physically accessible for research purposes, and create openings for all other audiences.

This kind of strategic engagement requires long-term planning and strong leadership. The capacity of museums to achieve this degree of internal integration and external focus, and to transform themselves, depends on a willingness to make choices about how they use their resources, embrace cultural change, and consciously work towards long-term sustainability. This is what the Renaissance Review Advisory Group believes is necessary for transformation to take place and be maintained. The continuing role of Renaissance Renaissance has already contributed to arresting the decline of many regional museums and halting their financial and political neglect. Alongside substantial investment by HLF, it has helped to reverse museums’ downward trend in visitor numbers. The fact that it has enhanced museums’ local and regional appeal is evidenced by their increasing proportion of repeat visitors and high satisfaction ratings. Many museums report that they cannot now physically accommodate any more school visits; that they have been able to improve the care and management of their collections; and have developed learning work with adults. Renaissance has increased the confidence of hub museums; has expanded the capacity of their workforce, and has introduced a greater level of professionalism – not least through the introduction of partnership working, evaluation and project management. It has also provided substantial support to the wider museums community. Having supported Britain's major civic museums for ten years, the withdrawal of government funding now would inevitably lead to a net reduction in the scale and quality of services to families, schools, communities and tourists nationwide. Those museums which have done most to modernise and embed engagement with priority groups into their practice would sustain some of their new relationships, but would also fail to meet some of the expectations they have raised. To end or reduce central government support would also send a very negative signal to local authorities about the value of their museums which, as non-statutory services, struggle to sustain funding in the face of multiple competing priorities. This, in turn, may undermine local authority support for museums, at a time when their contribution to meet local need is greater than ever. The future shape of Renaissance This Review is intended to support the next stage of Renaissance and to enable it to fulfil its potential to bring sustainable benefits to people through a transformed museums sector, to allow major regional museums to compete with their European equivalents, and to make the proposed National Museums Strategy a reality. MLA has already begun to address a number of the critical issues identified in both the Regional Museums Task Force’s report and in this Review. But, it acknowledges that further reforms are necessary:

Despite the substantial and effective recent changes, a number of systemic challenges remain. Notably, it appears that the Hub structure needs to be re-visited in terms of the capacity for programme management within some Hub leads; the efficacy of existing


Hub partnerships in some areas; the nature of the relationship with local government funding and also the funding for university museums; and the methods by which the wider museums community can best benefit from the total investment and reinforcement of capacity that Renaissance is capable of delivering. (Clare, 2009: 6)

The Advisory Group’s recommendations are presented in three sub-sections which pertain to:

guiding principles for the future of Renaissance; proposals for a new framework; and implementation of those proposals.

Those recommendations have been informed by six fundamental assumptions, namely that:

In common with the Regional Museums Task Force, the Renaissance Review Advisory Group regards Renaissance as a mechanism for achieving the long-term and sustainable transformation of museums. It holds that partnership working and the sharing of best practice should contribute to overcoming the fragmentation of the sector and ensure greater quality of delivery, efficiencies and effectiveness;

Organisational and cultural change are fundamental to achieving the best possible

outcomes for the public service delivery;

The role of museums is even more important in an economic downturn, and in the face of growing unemployment, when individuals and communities need, more than ever, the combination of solace and stimulus that they provide.

At such times, Renaissance should not be asking for increased funding, but should be

consolidating its investment and putting it to better use. Long-terms plans for Renaissance should be put into place for post-2011 spending review bids, based on evidence of change and the clear articulation of future benefits.

Without support for Renaissance, the proposed National Museums Strategy is

unworkable. This Review’s recommendations have been deliberately conceived in terms of enhancing and delivering that strategy, and embrace DCMS-sponsored museums, museums with designated collections and the wider museums sector.

It is considered that Renaissance can achieve significant cost savings, eliminate

duplication, and make efficiencies in terms of revising its regional structures. Greater simplicity will facilitate greater effectiveness.

It is beyond the scope of this Review to consider where the management of Renaissance should be based in the future. Its recommendations have been written on the assumption that Renaissance continues to be managed by MLA. The recent de-merger of the government’s flagship learning programme, Creative Partnerships, from Arts Council England demonstrates that new delivery models are being turned to. It implies that DCMS may reconsider where continued responsibility for Renaissance lies in the future.


6.1 Guiding principles The Renaissance Review Advisory Group’s principles pertain to government’s commitment to funding; clarity of purpose; coherence and partnership working. 6.1.1 Commitment to funding Renaissance currently adds about 13% to the revenue budgets of participating museums. Although this may seem too small a proportion to make a significant difference, the Task Force envisaged that Renaissance funding would unlock considerably more potential value than this amount might suggest. Museums are very labour intensive – greeting visitors and providing security, running activities for schools and families, research and mounting exhibitions are all skilled tasks which cannot be mechanised – and historic buildings and collections are expensive to maintain. Consequently, as much as 90% of budgets are taken up with staff and building costs. Renaissance, in effect, more than doubles the variable budget of recipient museums, enabling them to mount better exhibitions, to conserve more objects, to provide more and better programmes of activity, and to engage in professional marketing and strategic outreach. Despite the original belief that Renaissance was to become a permanent core responsibility of government, widespread uncertainty has grown up as to whether Renaissance constitutes a fixed-term programme, or

… an ongoing commitment by Government (just as funding the national museums is) and that, although the programme would be reviewed and changed accordingly, and subjected to the biennial spending rounds as every other kind of public expenditure, the funding would remain substantively in place. (Coles, 2008)

This uncertainty has created a situation which has, arguably, militated against the long-term transformation of museums: museums have reacted to a culture of one and two-year planning with a plethora of fixed-term appointments, instead of more profound changes to their organisational capacities, and with multifarious projects substituting for more substantive changes to their programming.

R1: The Review recommends that DCMS protects the funding of Renaissance and commits to its long-term support.

6.1.2 Clarity of purpose The original aims of Renaissance were simple: the creation of first class museum provision on a nationwide basis, through the restructuring and reform of large regional museums. However, a fundamental criticism of Renaissance is that its vision is unclear. MLA has never restated its aims, nor has it published an overarching statement as to its ambitions in taking Renaissance forward, or set out its strategy for achieving those goals. There are still ambiguities as to whether it was intended to transform part, or the whole of the sector, relative to providing benefits to the public. It has never described what it envisages a transformed sector might look like, what might constitute significant milestones along the way, or how Renaissance’s other outcomes might be recognised. It is arguable whether Renaissance has changed course, or merely lost sight of its purpose. MLA has been criticised as myopic – ‘always looking at a project level, not at the big picture’. The realisation of the original vision for Renaissance was inhibited by compromises required by the levels and timing of the funding received; its potential was skewed by the earmarking of government investment for schools’ education, and by MLA’s own opportunism in using


Renaissance to fund extant and cross-domain programmes. Consequently, Renaissance does not yet amount to more than the sum of its parts. The Review identifies a tension between serving the public and supporting the museums sector. To date, Renaissance’s reporting has tended to treat people as outputs – the number of people attending, or otherwise participating in museums activities. The government’s calls for greater engagement by local citizens and greater empowerment of communities across public services imply a shift of emphasis for Renaissance. Renaissance is also, necessarily, concerned with the specificity of museums – what they do for the public in and of themselves. This is not apparent in MLA’s recent plans, which reflect a renewed commitment to its cross-domain mission. The Review also recognises a need for greater transparency, operational simplicity, effectiveness and efficiencies, a more forthright commitment to cultural change and sustainability. R2: The Review recommends that:

the overall vision for Renaissance as a national initiative is revisited, revised and restated;

a long-term plan for Renaissance is published, that clearly and logically articulates the relationship between government investment, its high level vision, its objectives, initiatives, implementation, and outcomes;

Renaissance is characterised by a limited number of specific outcomes, and it is required that they are evidenced both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Renaissance focuses unambiguously on museums’ unique contribution, undiluted by government’s commitment to a cross-domain agenda and on the quality of people’s experience of, and relationship with them;

structural and cultural change within the museums sector is accelerated, and new ways of operating are effected, for example, through a greater commitment to partnership working, both within and outside the sector and there is a commitment to a greater sharing of expertise, experience and resources;

more effective use is made of museum collections, with research playing a vital part in interpreting them for diverse audiences;

museums’ appetite for innovation, risk and commercial and social entrepreneurship is increased.

6.1.3 Coherence The Review has identified considerable potential for greater consistency within Renaissance’s management and delivery systems.

R3: The Review recommends that: all aspects of Renaissance management and delivery are congruent with its

mission; that there is complete and logical alignment between Renaissance’s aims, its

strategic objectives, implementation and performance assessment; each programme strand is thoroughly justified in relation to Renaissance’s aims

and objectives, is regularly monitored, analysed and the results acted upon.

The development of Renaissance conspicuously draws on, and makes constructive use of:

its data collection, evaluations and other forms of evidence; and shared intelligence and the dissemination of innovation, excellence and good

practice.

And that the distribution of Renaissance’s funding:


reinforces its values, objectives and strategies - by, for example, supporting the changes identified as necessary by funded museums;

remains distinct from MLA’s other museums funding per se and is not spent directly on archives or libraries (although museums in receipt of Renaissance funding should be encouraged to work with other cultural bodies and with partners in the broad fields of regeneration, education, health and well-being);

is transparent both in terms of the criteria according to which organisations and activities are supported and the balance between the funding of museums and national programmes.

6.1.4 Partnership working Partnership working was always considered fundamental to Renaissance at a number of different levels – in terms of the relationships between funding partners, DCMS-sponsored museums, and Renaissance-funded museums and the wider museums’ community and others outside the sector. It is essential to the realisation of the National Museums Strategy. Within MLA, the various teams involved in the delivery of the national programmes have lacked consistency towards Renaissance. Corporate Services’ recent decision to distribute funding to individual hub members, for example, has effectively destabilised the potential of effective and sustainable regional partnerships. In practice, the DCMS-sponsored museums have principally been encouraged to engage with regional museums as a result of DCMS’s Strategic Commissioning initiative, but these partnerships have rarely changed, are unevenly distributed and have left regional museums effectively competing for the nationals’ attention. The potential of institutional partnerships between hubs, non-hubs, regional agencies, MLA and service providers has been undermined by uncertainty as to Renaissance’s strategic direction; a lack of clarity as to precise roles and responsibilities within the framework; a lack of focus and a perceived exclusivity. There has been insufficient sharing of knowledge and expertise and too much ‘reinventing the wheel’. Despite the existence of special interest networks, there have been few formal opportunities for the sharing of best practice or other experiences either between Renaissance partners, or within the sector more generally – a failing with which the hubs are complicit. MLA acknowledges the need to be more systematic about promoting learning amongst the hubs. The realities of working within local government structures and the power of local politics and politicians have, hitherto, been neglected. Museum leaders need to be aware of, and responsive to, the inevitable changes in central and local government policies, and MLA has now committed itself to working closely with local government, as the primary funding source for many regional museums. Local authority museums will have to contend with new public models of working, provision and commissioning. Renaissance’s adoption of an outcomes-based framework, based on National Indicators for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships, is entirely compatible with the demands of the majority of its museums’ parent bodies.

R4: The Review recommends that the management of Renaissance: engages in high-level partnerships with primary funding partners – namely, local

authorities and universities, and that this is reflected in binding agreements with all Renaissance-funded museums including independents which would guarantee an auditable level of funding from both sides. Within the context of those arrangements, Renaissance should contribute to the realisation of local policy goals;


both extends and simplifies its current practice of partnership working to embrace other organisations including social entrepreneurs, health trusts and the voluntary sector;

more thoroughly integrates MDOs in Renaissance than it has to date; ensures the more effective sharing of resources, expertise and collections.

As a subset of partnership working, the place of Renaissance alongside DCMS’s other initiatives requires consideration. Since 2001, the department has committed funding to Strategic Commissioning, Creative Partnerships and Find your Talent, all of which are significant in terms of their scale and ambition. The existence of these programme inevitably begs questions about the extent to which Renaissance’s resources remain focused on education for children and young people, or are concentrated in support of other Renaissance priorities, including collections, collections-based research and its creative application for the benefit of the public; the development of risk and innovation.

R5: The Review recommends that DCMS integrates the partnership working between national and non-national museums,

which it has supported through Strategic Commissioning, with Renaissance in order to rationalise and reinforce the government’s support for national-regional partnerships; and

re-examines Renaissance’s focus on education in light of wider programmes to engage children and young people across the whole of the cultural sector – namely, Creative Partnerships and Find your Talent.

Renaissance has been driven by the standard practice of museums providing services which they believe people want, or which they co-create with, for example, groups of local teachers or youth workers, and which are funded by their parent body. However, the Audit Commission’s notion of ‘intelligent commissioning’ implies that Renaissance might build long-term relationships with ‘suppliers’ or providers rather differently in future. This might enable museums to develop potential solutions to particular problems, and might make funding arrangements flexible and helpful so that small organisations with limited cash flow are not disadvantaged.

R6: The Review recommends that Renaissance instigates organisational change

whereby museums: actively explore other models of delivery, including the more effective

development of museums as the providers of services commissioned by others – for example, by Children’s Services or Primary Care Trusts; and

might commission others to deliver on their behalf, for example, in order to reach particular communities.

6.2 New framework Renaissance’s successful delivery was always considered to be dependent on a new, integrated framework, based around sound regional leadership and on a clearly articulated set of roles and relationships. This was intended to overcome the difficulties of fragmentation within the sector; promote joint-working, encourage excellence and facilitate economies and efficiencies. However, such a framework is not yet fully in place. As the proposed National Museums Strategy, and MLA’s own statement of intent, has made clear, there is still considerable potential for the promotion of partnerships, and the strengthening of the links between all museums and the rest of the cultural sector.


Since Renaissance in the Regions was conceived, the government’s agenda has shifted away from regional devolution; DCMS has tended to conceive of national, rather than regional, initiatives and has cut down on its own regional structures. The Arts Council recently announced that it is rationalising its regional operations. MLA’s dismantling of its regional agencies has already directly affected Renaissance’s framework, and the museums sector has had to compensate with extended transitional arrangements. Other issues that need addressing include inefficiencies at MLA and at hub level – exacerbated by the fact that few partnerships cut across regional boundaries; the general exclusion of medium-sized, non-hub museums; inconsistent support for the wider museums sector; lack of engagement with local government and other partners and the fact that organisational transformation is still wanting in many places.

R7: The Review recommends five fundamental changes to Renaissance’s structures, initiatives, and protagonists.

The dismantling of regional hubs and their replacement by flexible partnerships, centred on a small number of core museums. This rationalisation will, by definition, involve a shift away from regional duplication. Although the core museums will be aware of, and will have a care of duty to work with appropriate regional museums and within regional structures, it does not follow that there will be a core museum in every region, nor that its partners will be confined to particular regions. As originally envisaged, these may include DCMS-sponsored museums and other organisations.

Greater recognition of the place of the wider museums sector within the new framework. This is proposed as manifest through a challenge fund and an enhanced national Museums Development Officer network, which all accredited museums, and those aspiring to accreditation, are entitled to access.

The winding up of the Regional Renaissance Boards and the establishment of a National Renaissance Board, to provide scrutiny of Renaissance and its management; and

The placing of Renaissance at the centre of the National Museums Strategy. 6.2.1 Core museums and partnerships programme The Review raises a number of questions about the effectiveness of the hubs – the sharing of skills and resources; the extent of museum learning; the distribution, and retention, of funding within individual regions; the variable performance of regional leadership; and the additional value that Renaissance funding has brought. Moreover, good practice points to the importance of creating specific partnerships in order to achieve carefully defined and shared objectives, and questions the value of partnerships prescribed from the centre.

R8: The Review recommends that the hubs are replaced by a network of 10 to 12 core recipients selected on the basis of various criteria, including:

the size and nature of the population which they serve within a specified radius and their accessibility via transport links, and on-line;

the quality of their collections, including designated collections; a demonstrable commitment to their own transformation, manifest in the quality

of their organisational development plans; the expertise of all their staff, management competence and the support of their

governing body; and their commitment to the development of other museums and services.

R9: The Review recommends that core museums have a duty of care


to other museums both as a first port of call and for those requiring specialist advice;

to provide a properly resourced administrative and management facility at the heart of each partnership, to handle communications, budgeting, planning, committee administration, financial accountability and partnership agreements.

It is envisaged that core museums work in flexible partnerships with other museums and agencies to deliver programmes based on the achievement of three to five agreed outcomes, and that these partnerships:

embrace DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries, and other regional and local

museums, including those with designated collections. Such partnerships are not intended to preclude other long-term partnerships which have the potential to transform provision at local level;

are not necessarily restricted to specific regions. Core museums should be encouraged to work across standard government office regions with partners that share their ambitions; specialisms, audience segmentation, and other priorities;

share and expand expertise, innovative and excellent practice. This may encompass joint programming, shared services, cross-agency working; and

vary according to the pursuit of particular outcomes. 6.2.2 Challenge fund It is anticipated that, in departing from the regional hubs model, not all regions will necessarily have a core museum. This may be mitigated by partnerships with core museums and funding under the proposed Challenge fund. It is proposed that Renaissance more explicitly involves museums previously perceived to have been at the margins, including some museums with designated collections, medium-sized local authority museums, independent and smaller museums.

R10: The Review recommends the instigation of a Challenge fund to provide for individual museums, or those bidding in partnerships, for sums of

up to about £250,000; that may solicit applications from museums in Renaissance ‘cold spots’; that has outcomes which complement national, regional and core museums’

partnerships.

It is envisaged that, where appropriate, bids are supported by the Museum Development Officer (MDO) network. 6.2.3 National programmes Given the lack of clarity as to how various of the strands of the national programmes are contributing to the aims and objectives of Renaissance:

R11: The Review recommends that: the national programmes are redesigned to enhance organisational and cultural

change. Strands might, for example, be reconceived as strategically targeted interventions tailored to the requirements of organisational development plans and in line with the agreed outcomes for all Renaissance funding. They may represent a more thorough commitment to such strands as cultural diversity;


MLA does not shy away from terminating contracts, or changing the terms and conditions of agreements with existing service providers, once the rationale for all investment is agreed and published.

Museum Development Officer network

R12: The Review recommends that the provision of MDOs is reconceived as a national framework, centrally funded

and co-ordinated, which will provide advice, guidance and support for both Renaissance and local authority funded officers;

the central function includes research, development, access to specialist advice in fields such as charity law, employment legislation and Gift Aid; sharing practice across the country, and encouraging the development of specialist skills and knowledge within the sector itself;

the network is supplemented by a single advice point (by web/phone), available to every accredited museum or those working towards accreditation.

6.2.4 National Renaissance Board This Review has highlighted the need for the governance of Renaissance to be overhauled:

R13: The Review recommends that the existing regional Renaissance boards are abolished and a National

Renaissance Board established; the National Board’s functions should encompass strategic oversight, including

the continuous scrutiny of improvements in the delivery of Renaissance, monitoring, assessment, policy and procedures;

assuming that MLA continues to manage Renaissance, it should report to the National Renaissance Board on matters pertaining to Renaissance;

the Board’s chair is a DCMS appointee and its membership involves wider representation than is currently provided by the regional Renaissance boards. It may exclude those immediately benefiting from Renaissance funding, but may include those from peer cultural organisations and relevant subject specialists, such as health and education professionals, and elected members. Membership of the national board should also serve to enhance MLA’s reputation, if not, encourage partnerships amongst museums’ primary funders and the boards of independent museums.

It is suggested that this Board meets between three and four times per year. 6.2.5 Renaissance and the National Museums Strategy Although MLA’s plans for Renaissance (Clare, 2009) make no mention of the pending National Museums Strategy, the Renaissance Review Advisory Group note that their recommendations have much in common with the latest iteration of the proposed National Strategy for Museums (Appendix 13), including its articulation of museums’ core values and unique offer; benefits to people; its vision for the future; its concern to ensure excellence in scholarship and collections curation; its desire to develop a clear infrastructure, match available resources against public entitlement, and to ensure best practice in leadership, governance and entrepreneurship.

R14: The Review recommends that


the proposals for the National Strategy for Museums are reconciled with those of the current Review, and that Renaissance becomes the embodiment of the Strategy. This may facilitate the realisation of many of the Task Force’s proposals, such as a common visitor services grading scheme, or an audience development strand.

6.3 Implementation Criticisms of Renaissance focus on its bureaucracy; framework; the difficulties of partnership working; regional and national leadership and management; planning and the distribution of funding. The Advisory Group’s recommendations have sought to address these issues by proposing new approaches to bids, planning and the key concerns of the future management of Renaissance including communication, funding, accountability, performance management, evaluation and data collection. 6.3.1 Bids and planning Renaissance’s planning procedures have been characterised by the hubs as over-bureaucratic; flawed by virtue of short planning horizons and over-complicated procedures. They have taken no account of existing strategic and business-planning regimes of parent organisations or of hub partners’ own accounting and auditing systems. The follow up of plans is acknowledged to have been weak and inconsistently applied. Changes in priorities may have militated against transformational change, and the absence of reporting against hubs’ previous targets raises questions about the value of the planning process. The focus has implicitly been on museums rather than people.

R15: The Review recommends that bids for core museums and their partnerships constitute expressions of interest and that detailed implementation plans are developed, including:

a base-line, self-assessment and identification of museums and their communities’ needs. It may be appropriate to look to existing models, such as that proposed by the Scottish Government (2008) in terms of its quality improvement framework for culture and sport;

planning against the expectation of five years’ funding; the justification of key partners, including those from civic society; the submission of organisational development plans which demonstrate how the

museum is embedding the key aims of Renaissance in the core structure and practices of the organisation;

the submission of service delivery plans; an outline of the local requirements of data collection, to be dovetailed into an

agreed national framework.

R16: It recommends that: these plans are scrutinised by the proposed National Board; and that successful applicants produce memoranda of understanding with their partner

organisations; and annually update planning documents. 6.3.2 Management The management of Renaissance has veered between light-touch and micro-management. Until now, the Renaissance team has lacked the capacity to monitor, access and account for progress.


There have been issues about the level of support provided for the Renaissance team by MLA in the past, although its management and governance is now reported to be fully integrated. However, its low perceived status within MLA is indicated by its manager’s lack of seniority. MLA has recently emphasised programme management within Renaissance. It proposes to tighten up its planning and monitoring procedures, and to develop Key Performance Indicators in response to an outcomes-based framework dominated local authority commitments.

R17: The Review recommends that the management of Renaissance: is driven by the pursuit of outcomes; is directly administered at a very senior level (and, assuming that Renaissance

continues to be managed by MLA, the Programme Manager is on that organisation’s Executive Board);

is explicit, transparent and public about its expectations of assigned roles and responsibilities within the proposed new framework, and the integration of core museum partnerships, centrally-managed, national programmes and the challenge programme;

is proportionate in its demands of individual museums on the basis of the percentage of funding provided to them;

is characterised by closer, more coherent and joined-up working internally. (This, again, is assuming that it remains with MLA);

improves its oversight of the national coverage of outcomes; monitors the delivery of the programme; reports annually on progress against plans and undertakes regular periodic peer, stakeholder and user review; and

ensures the provision of support for developments at local level, as necessary.

R18: The Review recommends that DCMS requires Renaissance to be peer reviewed along the lines of the reviews being

proposed for its sponsored museums and galleries. Communication

R19: It is recommended that communications are improved: amongst all of those involved in the management of Renaissance; and across the delivery framework, particularly partnership projects and in relation to

the wider museums community; to share ‘best practice’ through regular conferences and events.

Distribution of funding The distribution of Renaissance funding was initially based on two criteria - a split between the Phase 1 and 2 hubs, and regional populations. It neither reflected local or regional needs, nor the quality of hubs’ delivery. Performance and funding have never been linked, although MLA has described plans to withhold funds where progress is below par. Despite providing substantial support for hub museums, investment by Renaissance remains secondary to that of museums’ primary funders. However, MLA’s adoption of local authorities’ outcomes-based framework for Renaissance raises questions about whether Renaissance is intended to subsidise core activities or support those that are additional. MLA has never been explicit as to how Renaissance funding is expected to contribute to museums’ sustainability and it has done little to promote organisational change. Most Renaissance-funded posts are fixed-term and vulnerable at each funding round. Funded museums are considered to have had relatively low awareness of the need to implement different business models or to diversify their portfolio of funding sources.


R20: The Review recommends that funding for Renaissance is regarded as

investment rather than subsidy and that, as such, it is divided between: Funding for core museums and their partnerships; Challenge funding for other museums, in particular, accredited museums, and

those aspiring to accreditation. This is intended to encourage local authorities to continue to invest in their own services and, potentially, to unlock other sources of funding. Applications may be solicited from museums in ‘cold spots’ without core museums;

National programmes including an enhanced MDO network.

R21: The Review recommends that the distribution of core museum and partnership funding:

distinguishes between what may be retained by core museums in terms of partnership management costs, the costs of their own transformation, that which enables partners to deliver shared objectives, and that which is passed on through its commissioning of other museums;

is based on funding agreements made for a minimum of three years; and that a proportion of funding is distributed ahead of spend with final payment held

back, as standard.

R22: It is recommended that Renaissance spending: is made more efficient and produces better value for money in terms of

sustainability; supports museums by contributing to the greater security of their non-statutory

funding. As partnership funding, Renaissance should serve to encourage local authorities’ investment in their museum services, as well as unlock other sources of funding. This anticipates watertight agreements with primary funding partners, which would bring greater clarity to both sides’ respective financial obligations;

helps museums to establish their position at the centre of local communities and their role in place shaping and local identity.

Accountability MLA is planning to account more effectively for its spending related to outcomes, and to calculate the value of Renaissance’s social return on investment. Despite running a peer review programme designed to address disparity in quality of services across English library authorities, and the need to share and learn from good practice (DCMS, 2006d: 12), neither peer, stakeholder nor user review is referred to in MLA’s forward plans for Renaissance.

R23: The Review recommends that DCMS requires a publicly-available, annual report on Renaissance that specifically

describes its operations, innovations, spending and achievements.

And that the management of Renaissance: creates a records management policy and implements records management

processes which facilitate monitoring, evaluation and review; accounts for museums’ spend against plans and outcomes for all programmes

including end-of-year reconciliations; imposes a standard accounting system across Renaissance, characterised by the

simple, straightforward reporting of outcomes (both narrative and financial) which is embedded in the planning process;


ensures that core museums are responsible for the financial management of their partnerships;

undertakes an annual census of persons employed through Renaissance funding, including associated recruitment and payroll costs;

insists on the consistent qualitative and quantitative reporting of all outcomes, irrespective of whether or not these fall within any overarching data collection regime.

6.3.3 Performance management In the absence of a coherent and logical framework of performance measures, MLA’s reporting has not done justice to Renaissance’s achievements. The prevailing culture of advocacy has inevitably obscured a number of critical issues. MLA accepts that Renaissance’s data collection has been dominated by the hubs’ delivery of DCMS’s targets – manifest in its data collection and exit surveys. It has never systematically collected other forms of evidence. Its emphasis of those has been on quantifiable and immediate outputs, rather than qualitative eventual outcomes. A large number of evaluations have been undertaken at local and regional level, but these appear not to have been used to construct an overview of Renaissance or to contribute to its strategic development. Without understanding the effectiveness of various contributions, MLA has been unable to critically assess Renaissance’s overall progress.

R24: The Review recommends that Renaissance is performance managed in a way which:

accommodates DCMS and DCLG requirements; accounts for qualitative and quantitative performance; involves some aspect of initial self-assessment by those delivering it and which

is, therefore, partly self-determined; is subject to oversight by the National Renaissance Board; subject to annual

review, following a logic model approach which assesses plans against delivery and baselines; and involves peer, stakeholder and user review.

And that:

the relevance of the data which is currently gathered is revisited in consultation with contributors in order to understand what data and intelligence would help them, and what might be rationalised and/or simplified;

local /regional data is dovetailed into an agreed national framework, the quality of which is set by adoption of a set of statistical standards, relating to procedures such as counting visitor numbers and website visits, which are capable of verification, as are the standards for Accreditation;

the data collected is translated into intelligence which is disseminated to contributors and others; is formally published; and is put to constructive and strategic use in Renaissance’s development;

the development of Renaissance’s peer, stakeholder and user review will draw on the exiting AHRC model, the results of DCMS 2008 pilots and Arts Council England’s current consultation.


References ABL (2002) UK Museums Needs Assessment. London: Heritage Lottery Fund ACE (2009) Arts Council England announces proposed restructure to save £6.5 million a year. Press release. http://press.artscouncil.org.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=573&NewsAreaID=2 (retreived 27.02.2009) ACE (2008) Arts Council England launches consultation on peer review and self assessment http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/pressnews/press_detail.php?rid=10&id=1237. Press release. (retrieved 29.01.2009) AHRB (2004) Report on the AHRB’s Support of University Museums and Galleries, Board of Management paper, May AHRC (2008) Annual report and Accounts 2007-08 http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Documents/Annual%20Report%20Accounts07-08.pdf (retrieved 12.01.2009) Audit Commission (2005) Governing Partnerships. http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=ENGLISH%5E573&ProdID=1CDA0FEF-E610-463c-B3F3-220F607B1A2C (retrieved 29.01.2009) Audit Commission (2007) Hearts and Minds: Commissioning from the voluntary sector. http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=418C38AF-0D97-49dd-95D6-EE7E7BA43773 (retrieved 01.02. 2009) Audit Commission (2008) In the know. Using information to make better decisions. A discussion paper. http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL-REPORT/77C7B4DB-0C48-4038-A93F-DFE3E645A26E/In%20the%20know_report.pdf (retrieved 29.01.2009) Babbidge A for Egeria (2008a) Renaissance in the Regions: Financial Analysis, Appendix 5 of the present Review Babbidge A for Egeria (2008b) Renaissance in the Regions: Data Review, Appendix 6 of the present Review Babbidge, A (2000) 'UK Museums: Safe & Sound?', Cultural Trends, 37: 1-35 Bajekal M & Purdon S for the National Centre for Social Research (2001) Social capital and social exclusion: development of a condensed module for the Health Survey for England, http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_4078277 (retrieved 27.01.2009) Bell JA (2005) The Mapping of Museum Development Officers in England. London: MLA BOP (2005) New directions in social policy: developing the evidence base for museums, libraries and archives in England. http://research.mla.gov.uk/evidence/documents/ndsp_developing_evidence_doc_6649.pdf (retrieved 27.01.2009)


http://press.artscouncil.org.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=573&NewsAreaID=2

http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/pressnews/press_detail.php?rid=10&id=1237

http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Documents/Annual%20Report%20Accounts07-08.pdf

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=ENGLISH%5E573&ProdID=1CDA0FEF-E610-463c-B3F3-220F607B1A2C

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=ENGLISH%5E573&ProdID=1CDA0FEF-E610-463c-B3F3-220F607B1A2C

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=418C38AF-0D97-49dd-95D6-EE7E7BA43773

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=418C38AF-0D97-49dd-95D6-EE7E7BA43773

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL-REPORT/77C7B4DB-0C48-4038-A93F-DFE3E645A26E/In%20the%20know_report.pdf

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL-REPORT/77C7B4DB-0C48-4038-A93F-DFE3E645A26E/In%20the%20know_report.pdf

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_4078277

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_4078277

http://research.mla.gov.uk/evidence/documents/ndsp_developing_evidence_doc_6649.pdf

Branstock Consultants. (2001) Designation Challenge Fund Impact Evaluation report. Unpublished draft for Resource. Cabinet Office, Strategy Unit (2008) Excellence and Fairness. Achieving world class public services http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/publications/new_excellence_report.pdf (retrieved 21.01.2009) Carpenter J & Moore N (2008) Renaissance Now: Review of hubs and hub partners, Appendix 9 of the present Review Clare R (2009) Renaissance Review and MLA Reform, Appendix 12 of the present Review Clark K (2008) A review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Unpublished report for MLA Coles A (2008) Tyne & Wear Museums. Unpublished contribution to the Renaissance Review Davies S (2002a) Briefing paper. Unpublished Davies, S (2002b) Renaissance in the Regions forward plan, v.7. Confidential and unpublished. DCLG (2008) Creating strong, safe and prosperous communities http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/885397.pdf (retrieved 21.01.2009) DCLG/ BERR (2008) Prosperous Places: Taking forward the Review of Sub National Economic Development and Regeneration http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45468.pdf (retrieved 21.01.2009) DCLG & LGA (2008) National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy. London: Department for Communities and Local Government DCMS (2000) Annual Report 2000. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport DCMS (2001) Culture and Creativity. The Next Ten Years. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport DCMS (2003) Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries. Funding Agreement 2003/04 – 2005/06 http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/FAResource.pdf (retrieved 21.01.2009) DCMS (2004) Museums Libraries and Archives Council. Report of the Prototype Peer Review. Confidential and unpublished. DCMS (2005) Understanding the Future: Museums and 21st Century Life http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/1186.aspx (retrieved 29.01.2009) DCMS (2006a) Funding Agreement between DCMS and MLA. 2006/07 -2007/08 http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/3505.aspx (retrieved 21.01.2009) DCMS (2006b) Understanding the Future: Priorities for England’s Museums, http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/1136.aspx (retrieved 29.01.2009)


http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/publications/new_excellence_report.pdf

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/publications/new_excellence_report.pdf

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/885397.pdf

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45468.pdf

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/FAResource.pdf

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/1186.aspx

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/3505.aspx

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/1136.aspx

DCMS (2006c) New Appointments to the Board of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) Media Release, 117/06 http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/2565.aspx (retrieved 29.01.2009) DCMS (2006d) Working Together. Local authorities and DCMS. A guide for councillors. http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/working_together.pdf (retrieved 29.01.2009) DCMS (2007a) Promoting excellence, cutting bureaucracy. Media release, 083/07, http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/2269.aspx (retrieved 04.08.08) DCMS (2007b) Regional Museums to Benefit from Three Year Government Funding Deal. Media release 125/07, http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/2272.aspx (retrieved 05.02.2009) DCMS (2008a) Funding agreement between DCMS and MLA. 2008/9 – 2010/11 http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/5150.aspx (retrieved 21.01.2009) DCMS (2008b) Annual Report 2008. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport DCMS (2008c) Margaret Hodge outlines measures to streamline cultural 'delivery' in the regions. Media release 068/20082 July 2008 http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/5236.aspx (retrieved 21.01.2009) DCMS/DCSF (2008) Young people to get five hours of culture a week - £135m funding boost announced. Media release 009/08. http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/2150.aspx (retrieved 21.01.2009) DCMS/LGA (2008) A Passion for Excellence. An improvement strategy for culture and sport. London: LGA DTZ/4-Consulting (2008) Strategic Evaluation of the Leading Archives and Museums Development Programme. Final draft. London: MLA

Freshminds (2008) Business Models and Financial Instruments for the museums, libraries and archives sector: Review of the Literature and Survey Findings. London: MLA Government Office for Science (2007) Science Review of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. London: DIUS. Healey J (2007) Oral statement on the review of sub national economic development and regeneration. http://www.communities.gov.uk/statedments/corporate/developpment-regeneration (retrieved 25.01.2009) Hems A (2008a) What Renaissance currently funds. Unpublished paper for Renaissance Review Advisory Group Hems A (2008b)The Renaissance Team, MLA. Roles and responsibilities: relationship and other and other groups. Unpublished paper for Renaissance Review Advisory Group Hems A (2008c) Renaissance Review: programme management. Communications. Unpublished paper for Renaissance Review Advisory Group


http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/2565.aspx

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/working_together.pdf






http://www.communities.gov.uk/statedments/corporate/developpment-regeneration

http://www.communities.gov.uk/statedments/corporate/developpment-regeneration

Hewison, R. (2004) The Crisis of Cultural Leadership in Britain, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol 10. No 2, pp 157-166 Hewison, R & Holden, J (2002) Task Force Final Report, December 2002. An Investment in the Rising Generation of Cultural Leaders is Necessary, and Timely. Full report. http://www.cloreleadership.org/page.php?id=78 (retrieved 06.11.2008) Holden J (2004) Capturing Cultural Value. How culture has become a tool of government policy. London: Demos Holden J (2006) Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy. Why culture needs a democratic mandate. London: Demos Holberry J & Anders E for Julia Holberry Associates (2009) Renaissance Now: Review of the Impact of Renaissance on the Wider Museums Community, Appendix 10 of the present Review Holland, Sir G (1997) Review of Management Training and Development in the Museums, Galleries and Heritage Sector. London: Museum Training Institute Hooper-Greenhill E; Dodd J; Phillips M ; O’Riain H; Jones C and Woodward J for the Research centre for Museums and Galleries, University of Leicester (2004) What did you learn at the museum today? The evaluation of the impact of the Renaissance in the Regions Education Programme in the three Phase 1 Hubs (August, September and October 2003) http://www.le.ac.uk/ms/research/pub1128.html (retrieved 21.01.2009) Hooper-Greenhill E, Dodd J, Gibson L, Phillips M, Jones, C, and Sullivan E for the Research centre for Museums and Galleries, University of Leicester (2006) What Did You Learn at the Museum Today? Second Study http://www.le.ac.uk/ms/research/Reports/Whatdidyoulearn2.pdf (retrieved 21.01.2009) Ipsos MORI (2006) Renaissance 2005. Visitor exit survey: final national report. http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/renaissance%20results/~/media/Files/pdf/2006/hub_exit_survey_2005 (retrieved 12.01.2009)

Jowell T (2004) Government and the Value of Culture. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2004/Government_Value_of_Culture.htm?properties=archive%5F2004%2C%2Fglobal%2Fpublications%2Farchive%5F2004%2F%2C&month= (retrieved 02.07.04) Kerr R (2002) Choosing the Phase 1 hubs, London: MLA Kingshurst Consulting Group, Anne Murch and Associates, Gaby Porter and Associates (2005) Review and Consultation on the Implementation of Renaissance in the Regions. Part 1 http://www.mla.gov.uk/programmes/renaissance/renaissance_background/review (retrieved 07.03.08) Knott D, Muers S and Aldridge S (2008) Achieving Culture Change: A Policy Framework. A discussion paper by the Strategy Unit . London: Strategy Unit Konlaan BB, Bygren LO, Johansson S-E (2000) Visiting the cinema, concerts, museums or art exhibitions as determinant of survival: a Swedish fourteen-year cohort follow-up, in Scandiavian Journal of Public Health, 28:174-178


http://www.cloreleadership.org/page.php?id=78

http://www.le.ac.uk/ms/research/pub1128.html

http://www.le.ac.uk/ms/research/Reports/Whatdidyoulearn2.pdf

http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/renaissance%20results/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2006/hub_exit_survey_2005

http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/renaissance%20results/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2006/hub_exit_survey_2005

http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2004/Government_Value_of_Culture.htm?properties=archive%5F2004%2C%2Fglobal%2Fpublications%2Farchive%5F2004%2F%2C&month



http://www.mla.gov.uk/programmes/renaissance/renaissance_background/review

Labour Party (1997) Create the Future. A strategy for cultural policy, arts and the creative economy. London: Labour Party Lammy D (2005) Keynote address to Museums Association conference http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/2036.aspx (retrieved 20.01.2009) Layard R (2005) Mental Health : Britain’s Biggest Social Problem? http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/seminars/mental_health.aspx (retrieved 22.02.2009) MA (2005) Collections for the Future. London: Museums Association MA (2007a) Making collections effective. London: Museums Association MA (2007b) Disposal Toolkit: Guidelines for museums. London: Museums Association MA (2007c) Sustainability and Museums. Your chance to make a difference http://www.museumsassociation.org/sustainability. Retrieved 27.05.08 Marshall, T (2004) Renaissance in the Regions, Spending Review 2004 submission. Unpublished McMaster B (2008) Mcmaster Review: Supporting excellence in the arts - from measurement to judgement, http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/3577.aspx (retrieved 21.01.2009) MDA (2005) Collections Link: Business Plan. Unpublished, Draft 3 MLA (2003) Notes of Hub selection panel meeting, 31st January 2003. Unpublished MLA (2004) Renaissance in the Regions. Spending Review 2004 Submission. Unpublished MLA (2005a) Renaissance Planning Guidance – Hub Two Year Plans 2006-2008. London: MLA MLA (2005b) Renaissance Museum Development Fund 2006-2008. London: MLA MLA (2006) Renaissance: Taking stock of the achievements of regional museums hubs. The national perspective http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/renaissance%20results/~/media/Files/pdf/2006/taking_stock (retrieved 21.01.2009) MLA (2007a) MLA’s bid to the CSR 2007. Unpublished document MLA (2007b) Draft Risk Register. Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the MLA Board Audit Committee, 8 March 2007: Appendix A MLA (2008a) New Renaissance team shaped for best practice challenge. Press release (29.09.2008) http://www.mla.gov.uk/news/press/releases/2008/Renaissance-Best-Practice-challenge (retrieved 12.01.2009) MLA (2008b) MLA commits to funding Portable Antiquities Scheme. Press release, 19.11. 2008. http://www.mla.gov.uk/news/press/releases/2008/Portable-Antiquities-Scheme (retrieved 09.01.09).


http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/2036.aspx

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/2036.aspx

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/seminars/mental_health.aspx

http://www.museumsassociation.org/sustainability


http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/renaissance%20results/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2006/taking_stock

http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/renaissance%20results/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2006/taking_stock

http://www.mla.gov.uk/news/press/releases/2008/Renaissance-Best-Practice-challenge

http://www.mla.gov.uk/news/press/releases/2008/Renaissance-Best-Practice-challenge

http://www.mla.gov.uk/news/press/releases/2008/Portable-Antiquities-Scheme

MLA (2008c) Renaissance in the Regions. Results for DCH Data Collection 2007-08 http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/~/media/Files/pdf/2008/Renaissance_DCH_Annual_Report_07-08 (retrieved 12.01.2009) MLA (2008d). Learning for Change: Workforce Development Strategy, London: Museums Libraries and Archives Council, 2004, revised 2008. MLA (2008e) Outcomes framework for Museums, Libraries and Archives http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/raising_standards/improvement/~/media/Files/pdf/2008/outcomesframework_v2.ashx MLA (undated a) Strategic Commissioning programme 2007-08 MLA (undated b) 2012: Visioning the future of UK Museums, Archives and Libraries. Discussion paper. Draft Version 8 Morris E (2003) Speech to Cheltenham Festival of Literature (16 October), http://www.culture.gov.uk/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=50&page_id=3804416&query=cheltenhamfestival&hiword=cheltenham+festival+FESTIVALS+ (retrieved 10.08.04) Morris Hargreaves McIntyre (2008) The future of Museums and Galleries Month. A short report for Campaign for Museums and MLA. http://www.mgm.org.uk/site/downloads/MGM%20Review%202008%20final%20report.pdf (retrieved 08.01.09) NAO, HM Treasury Cabinet Office, Audit Commission and National Statistics (2001) Choosing the right FABRIC - a framework for performance information. http://www.nao.org.uk/guidance_and_good_practice/good_practice/performance_measurement.aspx (retrieved 02.02.09) NAO (2007) Income generation. Assessment of the need for help and information in the museum sector. London: National Audit Office NMDC (2008) National Museums: Working in Partnership. An NMDC briefing Nichol K (undated) DCMS/DFES Museums and Galleries Education programme 2004/06. Letter to Chris Batt, MLA ODPM (2003) Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future - Main document http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/sustainablecommunitiesbuilding Partnership Strategy Group and Hub Leads (2007) Minutes of meetings, 13 and 15 June 2007 Poole N (2008). MLA Renaissance Now: Collections Link, the national Collections Management Advisory Service. Written submission, 20 October Porter G for Gaby Porter + Associates (2009) Review of Renaissance ‘other programme strands’, Appendix 11 of the present Review Putnam RD (2000) Bowling Alone; The Collapse and Revival of American Community, London and New York, Simon and Schuster


http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2008/Renaissance_DCH_Annual_Report_07-08

http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2008/Renaissance_DCH_Annual_Report_07-08

http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/raising_standards/improvement/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2008/outcomesframework_v2.ashx

http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/raising_standards/improvement/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2008/outcomesframework_v2.ashx

http://www.culture.gov.uk/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=50&page_id=3804416&query=cheltenhamfestival&hiword=cheltenham+festival+FESTIVALS



http://www.mgm.org.uk/site/downloads/MGM%20Review%202008%20final%20report.pdf

http://www.nao.org.uk/guidance_and_good_practice/good_practice/performance_measurement.aspx

http://www.nao.org.uk/guidance_and_good_practice/good_practice/performance_measurement.aspx

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289.pdf

RMTF (2001) Renaissance in the Regions: a new vision for England’s museums. London: Resource Roberts M (2006) Renaissance: Results for the 2004-06 funding period . http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/~/media/Files/pdf/2006/renaissance_results_2004_to_2006 (retrieved 12.01.2009) Roberts M & Kerr R (2008) Renaissance: results for 2006/7. http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/~/media/Files/pdf/2008/renaissance_results_2006_07 (retrieved 12.01.2009) Ruiz J (2006) A Literature Review of the Evidence Base for Culture, the Arts and Sport Policy. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/08/19784/41533 (retrieved 27.01.2009) Ryff CD & Singer B. (2003) The role of emotion on pathways to positive health, in RJ Davidson, KR Scherer & HH Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences. New York: Oxford University Press. Sashdev P (2008) Analysis of submissions to the Renaissance Review, Appendix 7 of this Review Scottish Government (2008) How good is out culture and Sport? A quality Improvement Framework. Restricted document Selwood S (2008a) Towards developing a strategy for contemporary visual arts collections in the English regions. Unpublished report for Arts Council England Selwood S (2008b) Review of the Renaissance Programme. Preliminary Discussion Document. Appendix 2 of the present Review Selwood S (forthcoming) English Cultural Policy: influence, constraints and risk in Tendances et défis des politiques culturelles dans les pays occidentaux, Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condition feminine, Quebec Smith C (2003) ‘Valuing Culture’, in J Holden (ed) (2003) Valuing Culture – Event Speeches. http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/valuingculturespeeches/ (retrieved 10.08.04) Stanziola J (2008a) What is Social Return on Investment? Unpublished briefing note for MLA Stanziola J (2008b) Supporting the Development of MLA’s Sustainability Vision: Economic Impact Methodologies and Capacity of the Sector. Summary of Main Findings. Unpublished briefing note for MLA

Tait S (2008) Can museums be a potent force in social and urban regeneration? http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/can-museums-be-potent-force-social-and-urban-regeneration (retrieved 12.01.2009)

Travers T (2006) Museums & Galleries in Britain: Economic, Social and Creative Impacts, http://www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/Travers_Report.html (retrieved 12.01.2009)

Wavell C, Baxter G, Johnson I and Williams D (2002) Impact Evaluation of Museums, Archives and Libraries: Available Evidence Project. http://research.mla.gov.uk/evidence/view-publication.php?dm=nrm&pubid=292 (retrieved 29.01.2009)


http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2006/renaissance_results_2004_to_2006

http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2006/renaissance_results_2004_to_2006

http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2008/renaissance_results_2006_07

http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/%7E/media/Files/pdf/2008/renaissance_results_2006_07

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/08/19784/41533

http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/valuingculturespeeches/

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/can-museums-be-potent-force-social-and-urban-regeneration

http://www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/Travers_Report.html

http://research.mla.gov.uk/evidence/view-publication.php?dm=nrm&pubid=292

http://research.mla.gov.uk/evidence/view-publication.php?dm=nrm&pubid=292

Wilkinson H (2008) Review of Renaissance: Expectations, Appendix 9 of the present Review Wilkinson S (2007) History of Renaissance in the Regions, unpublished paper prepared for MLA Board meeting 21.03.2007 Woolf M (2007) Lammy threat to 'pale, male and stale' museums, The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lammy-threat-to-pale-male-and-stale-museums-453484.html (retrieved 20.01.2009)


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lammy-threat-to-pale-male-and-stale-museums-453484.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lammy-threat-to-pale-male-and-stale-museums-453484.html

Approach A pre-Review discussion document (Appendix 2) by Sara Selwood, based on visits to each of the hubs and interviews with members of the Regional Museums Task Force, DCMS officers, MLA’s Renaissance team and Executive Board, established various key themes which underpinned the deliberations of the Advisory Group. These included issues relating to Renaissance’s vision; its management; the processes of planning and decision making; performance management; data collection; communications; funding; transformation and sustainability. As this implies, a primary concern of the Advisory Group was whether the original vision for Renaissance in the Regions, as articulated in the report of the Regional Museums Task Force, was still relevant. Since 2001 various political developments had impinged on the context within which Renaissance operates, not least the government’s move away from its previous emphasis on regionalism; its greater focus on local delivery brought about by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; and central and local government’s commitment to a new local performance framework dedicated to improving the quality of life in places and better public services (DCLG & LGA, 2008). Specific sectoral developments include the Museum Association’s work on sustainability and effective collections. The Advisory Group considered the Task Force’s vision for Renaissance as remaining highly pertinent – not least in its focus on such issues as excellence, sustainability and partnership which have increasingly gained currency. This Review, therefore, not only revisits that vision but, where appropriate, seeks to clarify it. The Review covered Renaissance’s past, present and potential future – looking for lessons to be learnt from its experience to date; its achievements, and what might be in time to come. Quite apart from its awareness of political developments in the recent past, the Group was also conscious of likely changes in the near future. In considering the future context for Renaissance, it commissioned a horizon-scanning exercise conducted by the National School of Government, based on a background paper by Pooja Sachdev and reported by Acushla Lynds. This examined potential threats, opportunities and developments which might affect English regional museums over the next five years 46. This built on similar exercises previously conducted by MLA, and involved groups from MLA’s Executive Board, its policy team and the Renaissance Review Advisory Group (Appendix 10). The context within which Renaissance may operate in the future was also considered in a series of in-depth interviews with a number of ‘primary funding partners’, namely CEOs and budget holders in local authorities and universities with hub museums, and stakeholder groups, including Association of Independent Museums, University Museums Group, Core Cities, Local Government Association and so on. A short literature review on what is considered to be best practice and public value, which might inform the future delivery of Renaissance, was undertaken by Pooja Sachdev MLA (Appendix 11).

46 Horizon scanning is defined as ‘the systematic examination of potential threats, opportunities and likely future developments, which are at the margins of current thinking and planning’ (Government Office for Science, 2007: 4)


Turning to the present, the Advisory Group was concerned to understand how Renaissance is perceived and why. This involved a number of strands amongst which were analyses by Adrian Babbidge, Egeria, of what could be evidenced from financial information available from MLA (Appendix 3) and the data that it had gathered from the hub museums (Appendix 4). Following on from the insights gathered in the pre-Review work, the ‘primary funding partners’ and stakeholder groups’ reflections on Renaissance, as well as those the hub museums, the non-hub museums and museums development officers, and other service providers were also sought. Contributions invited from the wider museums community were analysed by Pooja Sachdev (Appendix 9). The Advisory Group considered it crucial to understand the relationship between the original vision and what had come to be expected of Renaissance’s various strands. Helen Wilkinson was commissioned to review the documentation associated with its development and implementation. She considered what decisions MLA had made about the priorities for Renaissance and how those were communicated; the management of the Renaissance, and the evaluations undertaken (Appendix 5). Her report was crucial in informing the subsequent review of Renaissance’s various strands. By way of assessing the specific achievements of transformations brought about by Renaissance, three discrete reviews were commissioned: a review of the hubs and hub museums by Julie Carpenter, Education for Change, and Nick Moore, Acumen (Appendix 6); a review of the non-hub museums and museums development officers by Julia Holberry Associates (Appendix 7); and a review of the other, national strands by Gaby Porter + Associates (Appendix 8). Finally, work on this Review coincided with many changes being introduced to Renaissance over the course of the 2008 informed the development of the 2009/10 planning guidance. The changes that MLA has already made to Renaissance, and those that it proposes, have been taken into consideration. These are described in detail in a paper submitted to this Review by MLA’s Chief Executive, Appendix 12.


Acknowledgements We are especially grateful to colleagues at MLA for their help and advice: Acushla Lynds, Manager, Renaissance Review; Roy Clare; Paul Bristow; Helen Cooper; Paul Lander; Tania Lan and Alison Hems, former Project Manager, Renaissance. We would also like to thank all the consultants who contributed to the Review, Stuart Davies, and all the following who so generously contributed to the Review: A Tony Adams Potteries Museum and Art Gallery Nial Adams East Riding Museum Service Judy Aitken Formerly MLA Delphine Allier National Portrait Gallery

Rosemary Allwood North Hertfordshire Museum Service G. Alwyn Hardy The Dewey Museum Emma Anderson Manchester City Art Gallery Kate Andrew Renaissance Regional Representative, West Midlands Eloise Appleby Winchester City Council Maggie Appleton Luton Museums Service Kate Arnold-Foster University Museums Group; Museum of English Rural Life

Jane Arthur Independent Consultant/Birmingham Museums & Art Gallery B Andrew Backhouse Culture Northwest Janita Bagshawe Royal Pavilion, Libraries and Museums Jo Bailey MLA South East Mary Bailey Friends of Bristol Museums

Maria Balshaw Whitworth Art Gallery Anneke Bambury Derby Museums and Art Gallery Saulius Barauskas Formerly MLA

Sarah Barber Ashford Borough Council

Gillian Barclay Peterborough Museum

Nicholas Barber Oxford University

Paul Barnes DCMS

Janet Barnes York Museums Trust

Paul Barnett Bristol City Council

Ray Barnett Bristol's Museums, Galleries & Archives Zelda Baveystock Social History Curators Group Alan Baxter St Edmundsbury District Museum Service Julian Bell Weald and Downland Open Air Museum Kate Bellamy National Museum Directors Conference

Jim Bennett Museum of the History of Science, University of Oxford Vivienne Bennettt Arts Council England Melissa Bentley MDO, South East


Christine Beresford MDO Network, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Peter Berridge Colchester & Ipswich Museum Service Samantha Bestwick MLA East Midlands Julie Bidllecombe Durham County Council Museum Service Stephen Bird Bath and North East Somerset Council Andrea Bishop National Motor Museum Roger Bland British Museum

John Blaney REME Museum of Technology Catherine Blanshard Leeds City Council

James Blanshard Northwest Regional Development Agency Stuart Bligh Kent County Record Office Su Booth MDO Network Birmingham and Black County Peter Boreham Guildhall Museum Finnella Bottomley Leicester Arts and Museums Service Robert Boucher Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust

Carol Bowsher Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery Claire Bowyer Kettering Museum Nic Boyer Hertfordshire County Council/ MLA East of England Gail Boyle Bristol City Museum Hilary Bracegirdle Royal Cornwall Museum Lidia Bravio Galvan Tate Galleries

Paula Brikci MLA Rosemary Brind Bedford Museum & Cecil Higgins Art Gallery Kate Brindley Bristol Museums, Galleries and Archives Paul Bristow MLA Sharon Bristow Hampshire County Museum Service Karen Brookfield Heritage Lottery Fund

Kate Brooms MDO for Cambridgeshire Andrew Brown Arts Council England Helen Brown Cheltenham Art Gallery & Museum Kate Brown MDO, Cambridgeshire Martyn Brown Oxfordshire County Council

Will Brown Northampton Museum and Art Gallery John Bull London Transport Museum Louisa Burden Heritage Services Manager, Wiltshire Nikola Burdon Museums Association

Jilly Burns National Museums Scotland

Yvette Burrows MLA Tony Butler Museum of East Anglian Life Richard Butterfield Kirklees Museums & Galleries

C Alan Caig Exeter City Council Sarah Campbell Wolverhampton Art Gallery


Simon Cane Birmingham Museums & Art Gallery Frances Carey British Museum

Sarah Carr MLA North East Lisa Chambers Suffolk County Council

Simon Chaplin Royal College of Surgeons Emma Chaplin Cheshire County Council Malcolm Chapman Manchester Museum Runa Chatterjee DCMS Alison Christie Association of North East Councils

Isabel Churcher MLA Robin Clarke Leicestershire and Rutland Sue Clayton Flintham Museum Alec Coles Tyne & Wear Museums Caroline Collier Tate National

Clare Connor MLA North West Elizabeth Conran Barnard Castle

Michael Cooke MLA West Midlands Sarah Cooper Royal Cornwall Museum Michael Cope Vintage Carriages Trust Christine Cops Staffordshire Arts & Museum Service Tim Corum Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery Yolanda Courtney Leicestershire County Council's Museums

Ben Cowell Formerly DCMS

Janene Cox Staffordshire County Council

Tracey Cox East Midlands Regional Development Agency

Jennifer Crawford Hub Communications Manager Joanne Crichton Royal Engineers Museum Sally Cross Museums Association

D Carolyn Dalton Yorkshire & Humberside Federation of Museums & Art Galleries Alan Davey Arts Council England

Maurice Davies Museums Association

Richard Davies Ayscoughfee Hall Museum Fiona Davison London Hub Alex Dawson Collections Trust David Dawson Wiltshire Heritage Museum

Deborah Boden Regional Museums Task Force David Dewing Geffrye Museum

Mike Dixon Natural History Museum Jocelyn Dodd University of Leicester

Nick Dodd Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust Jason Doherty MLA Yorkshire Teresa Doherty Women's Library


Duncan Dornan Rural Museums Network Ian Doutch Hampshire County Museum Service Shane Downer Milton Keynes Heritage Unit Harriet Downing South West Hub Chris Drake Surrey, East & West Sussex Museum Development Service

Ed Drewitt Bristol's Museums, Galleries & Archives Caroline Dudley Hampshire Museums and Archive Service Jenny Duke MLA East of England Susan Eddisford Royal Albert Memorial Museum E Simon Edwards MLA South East Mick Elliott DCMS

Phillip Esler Arts and Humanities Research Council

David Eveleigh Bristol Museums (Blaise Castle House Museum) Jamie Everitt MDO, Norfolk Timothy Ewin Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery Yinnon Ezra Hampshire County Council

F Chris Fardon MLA Margaret Faull National Coal Mining Museum Bill Ferris Historic Dockyard Chatham

Jason Finch MDO, North and East London Jon Finch MLA West Midlands Jane Finnis Culture 24

Graham Fisher MLA London Sue Fitzsimmons National Motorcycle Museum Aimee Fleming Yorkshire Air Museum Sue Fletcher The Whitworth Art Gallery

Ann Fletcher-Williams Tyne & Wear Museums Kevin Flude The Old Operating Theatre Museum Susan Foister National Gallery

Kevin Ford FPM Training Ylva French Campaign for Museums Simon Frost Berkshire Museum Network

G Lyn Gash Suffolk County Council Simon Gaskell University of Manchester

Lisa Gee Harley Foundation and Gallery Peter Gibb Department of Communities and Local Government Helen Gibbons MLA South East Chris Gilbert London Transport Museum Alan Gilbert University of Manchester


Jane Glaister Bradford Council Mary Godwin Royal Albert Memorial Museum Jacquleine Goodall Lincolnshire Heritage Forum

Hannah Gould Lincolnshire Sarah Gouldsbrough Darlington Railway Museum

Jo Graham Learning Unlimited

Adrian Green Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum

Simon Green Hull Museums & Art Gallery Margaret Greeves Fitzwilliam Museum Jonathan Griffin National Maritime Museum

Bill Griffiths Tyne & Wear Museums Caitlin Griffiths Museums Association Lalage Grundy Surrey Heritage, SCC H Dorothy Halfhide Thorney Heritage Museum Melissa Hall Newark and Sherwood District Council Museum Service Camilla Hampshire Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery

John Hamshere Sheffield Industrial Museums Trust Victoria Harding MLA South West Veronika Harris Victoria and Albert Museum Cristina Harrison The Forge Museum John Harrison MLA

John Harrison Kent Museums Group Martin Harrison Putnam London Transport Museum Jane Harwood Formerly MLA Tim Heathcote MLA East of England John Hentlry Tyne & Wear Museums Jim Herbert Berwick-upon-Tweed Museum Robin Hill Worcestershire County Museum Service Mark Hilton Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust Wendy Hitchmough Charleston Trust

John Hobart Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford University Museums Andrew Holden MLA London Richard Holdsworth Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust Sarah Holdsworth Manchester City Art Gallery Barry Horner Kingshurst Consulting Group Mark Homer Lincolnshire County Council

Terry Howatt Leicestershire & Rutlands Museums Forum Paul Hubbard Higher Education Funding Council for England

Elizabeth Hughes East Sussex Record Office Sophie Hunt Hants County Council Museums

I Kate Iles Bristol City Museum


Natasha Innocent MLA

Joanne Irvine Bolton Museum & Art Gallery J Helen Jackson MLA South East Neil Jacques North Lincolnshire Elinor James Morris Hargreaves McIntyre Ashley Jayes MDO for Essex J Jefferson Rochdale Boroughwide Cultural Trust Paul Jefford Lincolnshire Vintage Vehicle Society Adrian Jenkins Bowes Museum Ian Jenkins Formerly DCMS

Helen Johnson Staffordshire Arts & Museums Service Christine Johnstone Wakefield Museum Claire Jones Leicester Arts and Museums Service Dennis Jones Durham Heritage Centre Helen Jones Victoria and Albert Museum

Helen Jones Victoria & Albert Museum

Jo Jones Durham Heritage Centre Mark Jones National Museum Directors Conference

K Simon Kane Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery Suzanne Keene University College London Claudia Kenyatta DCMS Rachel Kerr MLA Ludo Keston Herbert Art Gallery and Museum Tricia Kilsby Audit Commission

Anthony Kimber Rye Art Gallery

Jack Kirby Midlands Federation of Museums & Art Galleries

Jean Knight Carshalton Water Tower Jeremy Knight Horsham Museum Karen Knight Regional Museums Task Force Anne-Marie Knowles Chesterfield Museum Service Katerina Kremmida Renaissance South East L Christine Lalumia Geffrye Museum Carolyn Lamb Bristol Museum and Art Gallery Susan Lansdale East Midlands Museums Service Mark Laurie MDO, Nottinghamshire Glen Lawes MLA West Midlands

Sarah Lawrence Seven Stories Richard Le Saux Royal Pavilion Libraries and Museums Nathan Lee MLA North West C J Lester Dogdyke Pumping Station


Sarah Levitt Leicester Arts and Museums Service Alison Lightbown Geffrye Museum Jane Lillystone Cheltenham Art Gallery & Museum Janette Lissaman MLA

Jo-Ann Lloyd MLA Kevin Lock South West Hub Jack Lohman Museum of London

Anne Lord Colne Valley Museum

Joanna Low MLA South East John Lowles Worcestershire Regimental Museum

Zara Luxford Wycombe Museum Service M Fiona Macalister Icon and Bristol Museums, Libraries and Archives Richard MacFarlane Calderdale Museums Andrew Mackay Craven District Council

Andy MacKay Potteries Museum and Art Gallery Andrew MacKay Craven District Council Ruth Mackenzie DCMS

Helen MacLagan MDO Network, Warwickshire John Manley Sussex Past

Esther Mann London Fire Birgade Museum Nick Mansfield The People's History Museum Annie Mauger MLA Yorkshire Nick Mayhew Ashmolean Museum, Oxford University Museums Maureen McAllister South West of England Regional Development Agency Helen McClagan Warwickshire Museum Service Bob McDermid West Midlands Hub Laura McGillivray Norwich City Council

Rita McLean Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery

Nick Merriman Manchester Museum Keith Merrin Woodhorn Corinne Miller Wolverhampton Art Gallery Steve Miller Ironbridge Gorge Museums

Alison Mills Museum of Barnstaple & North Devon Munira Mirza Greater London Authority

Maggie Mooney Carlisle City Council Anne Moore Morpeth Chantry Bagpipe Museum Chris Morgan Russell-Cotes Art Gallery and Museum Esther Morgan MLA East of England Nicky Morgan MLA Peter Morgan Swale Museums Group Gerri Morris Morris Hargreaves McIntyre

Graham Mottram Fleet Air Arm Museum


Nicola Moyle Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery Sam Mullins London's Transport Museum

Val Munday Enfield Museum Service Anne Murch Anne Murch Associates

Chris Murray Core Cities

N Sandy Nairne National Portrait Gallery Liz Neathey North Somerset Museum Chris Newbery Royal Marines Museum

Nigel Nickson Shropshire Museum Service O Mike O’Hanlon Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford University Museums Sandra Oakins Museum of the Wagoners

Joanna Oldham MLA North West Janet Owen Southampton City Council P Sue Palmer The Beacon Museum Peter Perridge Colchester and Ipswich Museums Alex Petrovic DCMS Laura Phillips Museum professional Caroline Pick MLA East Midlands Victoria Pirie Cultural & Creative Skills

Jonathan Platt Regeneration and Improvement, Lincolnshire Nick Poole Collections Trust

Nisha Popat Leicester City Council

Sarah Posey Royal Pavilion, Libraries and Museums Ed Potten Historic Libraries Forum

Glynis Powell MDO, Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Adrian Pritchard Colchester Borough Council

R Phil Reddy Northwest Regional Development Agency Gordon Reid MLA South West Paul Reines Local Government Association

Jackie Reynolds Tyne & Wear Museums Trevor Reynolds English Heritage Elizabeth Rhodes Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery Liz Ritchie Kent County Council Arts & Museums Paul Roberts IDEA

Medwen Roberts Morris Hargreaves McIntyre Paul Rogerson Leeds City Council

John Roles Leeds City Museum Vicky Rosin Manchester City Council

Jaane Rowehl MDO, East Yorkshire & North Lincolnshire


Rhian Rowson Bristol City Museum & Art Gallery

S Bill Seaman Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service Nicholas Serota Regional Museums Task Force Lucy Shaw Museums Association Julia Shelley Museum of Reading Reg Sheppard Bodmin Town Museum Committee Colin Sibun Army Museums Ogilby Trust

Anna Siddall MLA North East Katrina Siliprandi Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service Mark Simmons Hartlepool Museums Service

Victoria Slowe The Ruskin Museum Margaret Slythe The Faversham Society Mary Smedley Strutt's North Mill

Cheryl Smith Islington Museum Service Richard Smout Isle of Wight Heritage Service Karen Snowden Scarborough Museums Trust Edmund Southworth Lancashire County Museums

Richard Spiers Friends of Tullie House Museum & Art Gallery

Yvette Staelens Bournemouth University Neville Stankley Nottingham Trent University Javier Stanziola Formerly MLA John Staples Friends of York Art Gallery

Clews Stephen Bath & North East Somerset Museums Christine Stevens Beamish Museum

Sheena Stoddard Bristol's Museums, Galleries & Archives Kim Streets Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust Mark Suggitt Cartwright Hall Bradford Museums & Galleries Claire Sussums Museum of London Fraser Swift Museum of London

T Fiona Talbott HLF Virgina Tandy Manchester City Galleries Matthew Tanner Association of Independent Museums / SS Great Britain

Mark Taylor Museum of the History of Science, University of Oxford Janet Thompson Museums Sheffield Liz Towner MLA East Midlands

Simon Townsend Banbury Museum Rachel Tranter London Museums Group Ben Travers MLA London Vanessa Trevelyan Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service Myna Trustram North West Hub David Tucker Dorset County Council


Suzie Tucker National Museum Directors Conference

Terry Turner MLA East of England Michael Turnpenny MLA Yorkshire V Ed Vaizey Shadow Arts Minister Ian Van Arkadie Library & Archive Services/Museum Service Anita Van Mill Hopkins Van Mil

Emma Varnam Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Roger Vaughan City Arts & Heritage, Coventry W Hilary Wade Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery Abigail Walker Formerly MLA Alex Walker Harris Museum and Art Gallery Adrienne Wallman Freelance Jo Warr East of England Hub Geoff Warren MLA West Midlands Rosemary Watsom Harrogate Museums & Arts Sarah Watson Formerly MLA Jenni Waugh MLA West Midlands Liz Weston Mansfield Museum

Rosemary Westwood Derbyshire Museum Service Robert Wharton Wellingborough Museum Chris White Local Government Association

Mary White Shrewsbury Museum Service Jane Whittaker Bowes Museum

Finbarr Whooley Horniman Museum Nick Wickenden Chelmsford Museum Service Laura Wigg Stockport MBC Theresa Wild Natural History Museum

Sue Wilkinson MLA Penny Wilkinson MLA North East Ross Willmott Leicester City Council

Isobel Wilson MLA Sophia Wilson Cheltenham Art Gallery & Museum David Worthington Hartlepool Museums

Stephen Wray Bristol City Council

Sue Wright Hampshire County Museum Service



Abbreviations ACE Arts Council England AHRC Arts & Humanities Research Council BC Borough Council BVPI Best Value Performance Indicator CC City Council Co C County Council CSR Comprehensive Spending Review DCF Designation Challenge Fund DCFS Department for Children Schools and Families. DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport DSO Departmental Strategic Objective DIUS Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills EE East of England EM East Midlands EPDP Education Programme Delivery Plans HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council HLF Heritage Lottery Fund L London LAs local authorities LGA Local Government Association MBC Metropolitan Borough Council MDF Museum Development Fund MDO Museum Development Officer MOD Ministry of Defense NI National Indicator NE North East NMDC National Museum Directors' Conference NW North West ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister PSA Public Service Agreement

RCMG Research Centre for Museums and Galleries, University of Leicester

RMTF Regional Museums Task Force SE South East SR Spending Review SSN Subject Specialist Network SW South West WM West Midlands Y Yorkshire