Co He Fu Fra 20 Onsu Erita Nd's Amew 013 O Ltati Ge L S Str Wor Onw Ion O
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Consultation on the Heritage Lottery Fund’s strategic framework from 2013 onwards Report 20 June 2011 4th Floor, Holborn Gate, 26 Southampton Buildings , London WC2A 1AH T + 44 (0) 207 861 3080 W www.opinionleader.co.uk E [email protected] Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................... 3 2. Introduction .......................................................................... 7 3. Methodology ......................................................................... 9 4. Main Findings ...................................................................... 18 4.1 Section One: HLF’s Strategic Framework & how it works .... 18 4.2 Section Two: HLF’s Current Grant Programmes .................. 51 4.3 Section Three: Additional Opportunities and Challenges .... 85 5. Appendices ........................................................................ 114 Opinion Leader 2 1. Executive summary HLF’s Strategic Framework The strategy document presented to respondents of this consultation suggested that HLF consolidate its three strategic aims of ‘conservation’, ‘participation’ and ‘learning’ into a single aim: Making a positive and lasting difference for heritage and people. This was met with majority agreement with almost seven in ten saying they tend to or strongly agree with the proposal. Those who were more hesitant suggested that the single aim needs to be clarified further and guidance on its interpretation should be provided when putting in bids for funding to avoid any misinterpretation or difficulties. HLF’s proposal to target more funds to identified strategic needs was met with a mixed reaction, just over a third agreed, just over two in five disagreed and a fifth were neutral. Advocates felt that this approach encourages change and flexibility, especially in challenging financial times. Those neutral or in opposition to the proposal of targeting funds expressed concerns over the potential impact this would have on the ability for smaller bidders to obtain funding. Other concerns were over the exact nature of the ‘strategic needs’ with a call for transparency from HLF on what they are and why they need more funding. Support was stronger for HLF’s proposals to solicit applications more frequently and to prioritise ‘at risk’ heritage. Some voices of caution did come from the respondents in the shape of ensuring that the application process is not made more burdensome and that the definition of ‘at risk’ is transparent without the potential for favouring those who ‘shout loudest’. When given a list of heritage areas and asked which were in most need of funding, Historic Buildings and Monuments came out above other areas with just over half saying that this area was in significant need of funding. Wildlife and conservation, landscapes, industrial heritage, and places of worship were also all strong priorities with around two in five feeling these areas were in significant need of funding. It is worth noting the profile of respondents when interpreting these priorities, however – for example, the largest group of respondents by sector was Historic Buildings and Monuments (23%) followed by Land and Biodiversity (16%). Respondents were very receptive to HLF working with organisations and responding to their needs at a local level with almost nine in ten considering this essential or very important. This was especially the case to help inexperienced, smaller organisations with applications ensuring they are on a more level playing field with better funded organisations. How HLF works Just over half of respondents are HLF grantees and just one in ten of those who were not grantees had made an application to receive one. Among grantees, over six in ten (62%) felt that the work involved was in proportion to the amount of money they were applying for, a quarter felt the opposite citing unjustified length and complexity of the application process as the main reasons for their view. Reflecting changes to the grant applications process after 2008, the proportion who said that the work involved was in proportion to the amount of money they were applying for rises from 55% among those who applied before 2008 to 66% among those who applied after. When asked how the application process could be improved, just under three in ten respondents stated Opinion Leader 3 that simplification would be helpful and a fifth felt the need for more support from HLF for applicants. Respondents to this consultation were strong in their advocacy for HLF aiming to strike a balance between investing to build on what has already been achieved (i.e. sustainability of existing projects) and new projects that bring new benefits. Very few suggested HLF should prioritise one over the other. Many respondents did however add the caveat that projects should be expected to prove that they are sustainable before receiving ongoing funding and that they should not be encouraged to rely on HLF funding on an indefinite basis. Most respondents (three in five) agreed that HLF should extend its role to build the financial sustainability of voluntary organisations with initiatives to support organisational development. Advocates of this proposal were especially enthusiastic about its potential for improving skills in the sector. One in five disagreed with this extension of HLF’s role, most of whom stated that it was not HLF’s responsibility to do this and that it is covered by existing services. Respondents to the consultation showed a strong appetite for HLF playing a larger role in the creation of a stronger heritage community to encourage philanthropy and more private supporters of heritage. Respondents also favoured the idea of HLF acting as an advocate for heritage and generally improving access to heritage by providing training, advice and education, facilitating partnership working and encouraging harder to reach groups and local communities to engage with heritage. HLF Grant Programmes The consultation provided respondents with the opportunity to comment on proposed changes to HLF’s current grant programmes including small grants, medium‐sized grants, Heritage Grants and the targeted programme. The changes proposed include simplification of the application process for the small and medium sized grants programme and raising the upper threshold for medium sized grants. Respondents typically agreed that the application process should be simplified as this would encourage smaller organisations to apply. There was, however, concern that simplifying the process could lead to ill‐thought out projects being awarded grants. The consultation also stated that for larger grants, over £50,000 (Heritage Grants), HLF had reduced the match funding requirements and respondents appreciated this reduction especially in light of the financial constraints put upon organisations by the current economic situation. A key finding was the need for flexibility from HLF, with some respondents suggesting that the level of match funding should be set on a case by case basis. Targeted Programmes Overall, there was agreement with the priorities that HLF has set in its targeted programmes; however, individual organisations’ preferences varied depending on their sector. Often, respondents took into account the extent to which a grant would benefit the whole community when deciding on priorities. Grants perceived as targeting only certain audiences (such as the places of worship programme) received less support. Respondents were open to increasing the size of the grant available for Young Roots and suggested that HLF consider ways of engaging young people further through longer running Opinion Leader 4 projects with different cohorts of young people, advice on how to run a scheme and raising awareness of the programme. There was some positive support for an increased focus on biodiversity and nature conservation as part of the Landscape Partnerships programme. Some respondents would like to see the grant expanded to cover less ‘distinctive’ landscapes and a broader definition of ‘landscape’, for example by including marine landscape. More than a quarter stated support for the Parks for People programme. Further feedback included the need to engage more with local authorities to understand why many have not applied for funding, and a need to simplify the application process. A relatively high proportion (45%) explicitly stated their support for the Places of Worship programme. Feedback on this programme included the need to preserve heritage of note‐worthy places of worship (either in terms of history, biodiversity, community use or structural appearance) and to encourage more education about and participation in this type of heritage. In thinking about local places and communities, two‐thirds agreed that heritage‐led regeneration should continue to be a focus for HLF. Respondents who provided positive feedback stressed the reduced level of spending by local authorities in this area currently and hence the perceived need for investment from other funding sources. Additional Opportunities and Challenges HLF’s proposals for actions and funding in climate change, digital heritage and skills were met with strong support from respondents. Just under six in ten said that they had strong support for HLF’s proposals on climate change (assessing proposals for climate change mitigation and supporting relevant projects) stating that it is an under‐appreciated issue and vital in ensuring sustainability for our heritage in the future. Those in opposition to