ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

Submission Information

Please use this template to provide comments on the Arts NSW Arts Funding Program Review discussion paper.

Contact Details (optional)

Name of Organisation: Accessible Arts Your Name: Sancha Donald Phone Number: Email:

Confidentiality All submissions will be treated as public documents, unless you clearly indicate the contrary by marking all or part of the submission as ‘confidential’. Public submissions may be published in full on the Arts NSW website, including your personal information and/or the personal information of third parties contained in the submission.

A request made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for access to a submission marked confidential will be determined in accordance with that Act.

Do you want this submission to be treated as confidential? No

Submission Instructions This template is provided as a guide for your response to the discussion paper. A summary of the Key Themes from the discussion paper is at the back of this template. The questions posed in the summary are provided as a stimulus for your response. You do not need to respond to each question posed.

Submissions should be made by 5pm Friday, 26 July 2013.

Arts NSW reserves the right not to consider late submissions.

Where possible, submissions should be made on the following template, and should be lodged electronically via the email address [email protected]

Alternatively, submissions may be sent to the postal address below to arrive by the due date: Arts Funding Program Review Arts NSW PO Box A226 SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235

Page 1 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

1. WHO AND WHAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED AND HOW? This section of the discussion paper looks at: We welcome your views on these aspects of Eligibility the Arts Funding Program and any other Organisations thoughts and ideas you may have on who, Peak and service organisations what and how. Individuals

Response to the NSW Arts Funding Program Review

Accessible Arts is pleased to respond to the Arts Funding Program (APF) review.

As an overarching comment, we recommend that the findings, strategies and recommendations of the National Arts and Strategy be included as priorities within the development of the NSW Arts Funding Program. http://cmc.gov.au/sites/www.cmc.gov.au/files/arts-disability-0110.pdf The National Arts and Disability Strategy establishes four strategic focus areas which are relevant to the AFP around access and participation, arts and cultural practice, audience development and strategic development. Without the contribution of people with engaged in arts and cultural pursuits, the state’s cultural life is depleted. We also recognise the Arts Funding Program contribution to increasing the participation of people with disability as one element in the realisation of Goal 27 of the NSW 2021 Plan, ‘Enhanced participation in arts, sporting and recreation activities contributes to economic, social and cultural development across the State and delivers benefits to the community and the economy’. This response builds on our contribution at the recent AFP review workshop and specifically addresses:

1) the contribution made by peak organisations to the arts; 2) the value of funding focus areas such as arts and disability; 3) the need for funding models that accelerate sustainable development and evolution of artists 4) the need for funding models that accelerate sustainable development and evolution of venues, companies and organisations.

1) The contribution made by peak organisations to the arts:

‘I just want to be seen.’ Artist with a disability, February 2013

Improving access to the arts is vital in shaping Australian identities and in building strong, prosperous, resilient and inclusive societies. All Australians should have the opportunity to participate in the cultural life of the nation, regardless of our abilities, age,

Page 2 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM gender, cultural and linguistic diversity, or geographic location. Peak organisations are often better placed to deliver access to the arts for all Australians than government. Through their direct ties with the community, peak organisations are able to undertake the following activities:

• reflect the diversity of the views of their sector, membership or constituency including CALD groups and individuals, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups and individuals, the elderly, children and young people, people with a disability, carers, and groups and individuals based in rural, regional and remote areas • provide input into government policy and advocacy work • act as a link between government, the sector and the community • assist the community to respond to change • develop partnerships and projects that facilitate growth of the sector • promote learning and development opportunities • pilot demonstration projects • assist member organisations to increase the standard of delivery • provide auspicing support • develop resources that promote best practice in the sector • undertake research on key issues in the sector • communicate widely to members to gain feedback on policy and operational issues

2. STRUCTURING THE PROGRAM TO SUPPORT VIBRANT ARTS AND CULTURE IN NSW

Page 3 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

This section of the discussion paper looks at: Your views, ideas and thoughts on shaping the Programs and projects Arts Funding Program to contribute to a vibrant Supporting arts and cultural sector in NSW. A diversity of art forms and disciplines

2) The value of funding focus areas such as arts and disability

Accessible Arts is the peak arts and disability organisation in NSW. It promotes full , access, opportunities and leadership in the arts for people with disability through advocacy, education and information. Accessible Arts is currently funded through a multi-year negotiated agreement. Government funding endorses the work of an organisation that through capacity building, professional development strategies and advocacy aims to ensure that the 20% of the population who have a disability are able to engage in the arts as audience members, participants or professionals. Furthermore, it supports an organisation whose sole purpose and focus is the advancement of physical, sensory and participatory access to the arts for all.

People with disability make up nearly 1 in 5 members of the Australian population. Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in 2009 this represented approximately 4.0 million Australians, with the main disabling conditions reported as back problems and arthritis. People with the most severe types of disabilities- those people who always need help or supervision with their mobility, communication and/or self care is around 2.9% of Australia’s population.

Continued funding for Accessible Arts is valued and has provided the organisation with a platform for many successful initiatives and partnerships, leading to greater creative and receptive engagement for people with a disability in the arts in NSW. However, Accessible Arts knows that the elevated awareness of inclusive practices across both the arts and disability sectors is still embryonic.

Promising practices in engaging people with disabilities in the arts have emerged over the last few years as a result of strategic investment by government by innovative and inclusive practices by remarkable artists with disability and by access champions from within arts and disability organisations. Significant advancements have been made but artists and audiences with disability remind us that there is still more to be done. An investment in what works best to engage people with disability in the arts and a focus on audience research and access needs is a recommended element in the future Arts Funding Program. The research component of the Arts NSW/ADHC Art and Disability Partnership is a fine example of stretching the art budget to learn from experience and make recommendations for future expansion:http://www.arts.nsw.gov.au/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/ARTS_NSW_disability.pdf To achieve sustained outcomes in this area continued financial support is required based on

Page 4 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM realistic assessments of the costs of operation and administration.

Accessible Arts also values the contribution of other peak organisations in the arts sector and the disability sector and we utilise their expertise in a range of mutual projects. For example we have collaborated with Regional Arts NSW on delivering the Creative Connections project, to enable better access to the arts for people with disability in Northern NSW. In collaboration with Museums and Galleries (NSW) we delivered a forum and resources addressing the key challenge of access for people with disability to heritage buildings with stairs such as museums, historic houses and art galleries. We also value the particular expertise and advocacy of peak organisations in the disability sector. Examples include the role played by organisations such as the Deaf Society in providing Auslan services and in promoting opportunities for deaf people in NSW and by People With Disability (PWD) in promoting physical access to social infrastructure or by the Council for (CID) in translating resources into Easy English so that important service and policy changes can be understood by a range of people in NSW. The adoption of person centred or individualised funding packages within the disability sector following the full commencement of the Disability Care Australia (formerly NDIS) from July 2016 is causing some uncertainty for ‘block funded’ organisations such as these peak disability and advocacy services. Stability of funding for Accessible Arts in delivering education, information and advocacy around the arts during this time of sector change is essential.

Page 5 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

3. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM This section of the discussion paper looks at: Assessment process Your contributions on effective administration Getting the timing right of the Arts Funding Program. Measuring outcomes Communication, access and transparency

Page 6 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

4. Addressing the Future… This section of the discussion paper looks to We welcome your thoughts on how best to the future. deliver the Arts Funding Program with an eye on what’s to come.

Page 7 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

3) The need for funding models that accelerate sustainable development and evolution of artists

“I want ….to encourage and reward social inclusion, both to audiences with disabilities and artists with a disability. There is value in diversity and everyone has a right to participate... and not just passively. Any organisation receiving public money should promote disability access as a right and MUST be socially representative of disability in its program... I want disabled people to be leaders in the arts and fully participating.” Performing artist with disability

In Australia, The Amplify Your Art devolved funding program and the Australia Council Cultivate programs are fine examples of targeted development of individuals. Arts Council has driven diversity and equality measures in funding the arts by utilizing an ‘Access Fund’ model. Artists with disability are able to apply for grants for the same amount as any other artist but if they have access needs, they are eligible to apply to the access fund to provide for the cost of a carer or a interpreter or accessible transport over and above the amount required to fund their composition or art work or production. This fund has also enabled a greater diversity of artforms from culturally and linguistically diverse artists as interpretation and translation services can be funded over and above the cost of art form production. We receive numerous requests from arts and cultural organisations seeking funding for , Auslan interpretation or other access costs as these needs are not always budgeted in advance. This is an ongoing barrier for artists with disability. Between 2009 and 2012, the UK Arts Councils and the British Council commissioned 29 ambitious pieces of work by Deaf and disabled artists to help celebrate the 2012 Olympic and . All of the commissions were included in the finale of the London 2012 Cultural Olympiad - a 12-week cultural celebration across the whole of the UK. The Unlimited program has generated a international interest among Deaf and disabled artists, arts commentators, funders and human-rights supporters. This work is being continued in 2013 via the commissioning of more artists in the Unlimited II program http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/apply-for-funding/unlimited-ii- commissioned-grant/

Commissioning artists with disability is one way to drive diversity and celebrate inclusion. The UK arts industry has benefited from generous funding from the UK National Lottery. This may be one area where the arts could connect with their portfolio partners in the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing by enabling targeted funding. Clubs NSW

Page 8 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM currently fund local and small community organisations but funding government priority areas such as enabling access to the arts by people with disability could be a whole new development for future growth according to government priorities. http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/reg_clubs_sect_clubgrants_fundg.asp

4) The need for funding models that accelerate sustainable development and evolution of venues, companies and organisations

To answer the question of “how the AFP can most effectively develop and evolve and to the contemporary need of the arts and cultural sector” and in view of the fact that arts funding is perpetually limited, Accessible Arts recommends adopting the establishment of arts consortia as one way to support transformative change across venues and organisations.

Arts consortia have the potential to strengthen the arts through advocacy, communication and collaboration through elevated funding. There is considerable literature relating to the structure of a consortium, which depends greatly on the sector and purpose of the consortium. However the benefits of consortia are quite universal and some of these are outlined below:

• joint strategic planning that stimulates, and shapes the different, separate strategic aims and objectives of each member • increased and depth of programs through interdisciplinary and collaborative approaches leading to increased services and resources • developed relationships and new networks with major national and international colleagues • Centres of repute that can act as a catalyst for future interaction among higher education institutions, governments, industry and arts sector representatives • increased access to and effectiveness of advocacy for policy change • improved capacity and expertise of the consortium by providing professional development programs for members • shared resources among members ( content, expertise, and funding) • joint marketing opportunities for members rather than relying only on discrete marketing • large-scale programs and projects over longer periods of time with shared development costs • shared research into common issues or trends leading to new ways of working • increased awareness and visibility with grant funders and foundations • organisations more able to maintain, consolidate and enhance their core focus of activity

Page 9 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

• improved strategies for continuous improvement and self-assessment among members

An arts and disability consortium could bring together disability service providers, arts institutions, technology companies, and training partners increasing the opportunities for the state, national and international development of artists with disability and the arts and disability sector. A funding program inviting a consortia approach would enable a mix of not for profit organisations such as disability service providers, state government organisations such as cultural organisations, local government organisations such as libraries and regional cultural centres, business organisations within the creative industries or disability access specialists such as architects and building consultants and assistive technology application developers (such as the GoTheatrical App developed by The Captioning Studio). Such an approach has the capacity to yield the outcomes that were delivered through the NSW Arts and Disability partnership and Arts Access Australia’s Cultivate program.

Two examples of successful partnerships which deliver more than the sum of their parts and which illuminate the benefits of a consortia approach to art and disability are:

• The Sydney for All project and website, http://www.sydneyforall.com/, a remarkable collaboration between Destination NSW, UTS and UNSW researchers, cultural organisations and the City of Sydney. • On a smaller scale, the July 15th 2013 professional development workshop for developing skills in teaching creative arts to children with disability developed in partnership between Accessible Arts, Museum of Contemporary Art Bella Program, Sydney Opera House and the NSW Department of Education and Communities.

Art and Disability is multi disciplinary in approach and funding models to encourage and enable the development of consortia would promote access, drive innovation and best practice approaches wherever possible. A consortia approach would be a next logical step to enable the participation of people with disability in the arts and drive innovation in access. New South Wales has been a leader in funding art and disability approaches via the partnership funding and in the move towards person centred approaches being adopted by the Commonwealth government’s Disability Care Australia (formerly NDIS). A consortia approach would drive innovation in the development and adoption of assistive technology, showcase the inclusiveness of NSW cultural organisations and our arts sector, reward best practice in social inclusion and enable the human rights of NSW residents and visitors with disability.

Page 10 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

Accessible Arts would like to thank Arts NSW for the opportunity to make a submission to the Arts Funding Program review. We understand that this is a vitally important process for cultural development within NSW and look forward to the outcome of this consultative process.

Yours sincerely,

Sancha Donald

Chief Executive Officer

July 2013

Thank you for your response.

Page 11 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

SUMMARY: KEY THEMES

1. Who and what should be supported and how? 1.1. Eligibility . How do current eligibility requirements impact on you, your organisation or arts and cultural activities? . Are current eligibility criteria sufficiently meeting the current needs of the arts and cultural sector? 1.2. Organisations . Is funding fewer organisations at higher levels to assist their capacity desirable, or should more organisations be funded at lower levels to assist a greater spread of funding? . Is the introduction of explicit and transparent criteria around eligibility for Multi-year Program Funding desirable – if so, what criteria might be considered? . How can government work to strengthen organisational capacity in the arts and cultural sector? . Are current Program Funding terms (generally 1 to 3 years) appropriate? . Is it useful to think in terms of emerging and established organisations and approach their funding in different ways? . How should pathways and transition into and out of Program Funding categories best be addressed? . How can the AFP be better structured to encourage/secure investment from other sources (eg philanthropic and private)? . Are there other ways/models (including non-financial) to effectively strengthen arts and cultural organisations? 1.3. Peak and service organisations . Should peak and service organisations continue to access funding from within the AFP to fulfil the roles above? . Would some of the services above be better provided on a fee-for-service basis? If so, when might that be appropriate? . Does the current devolved funding model deliver effective outcomes - why? . Are there improvements that could assist the efficiency and effectiveness of devolved funding programs? 1.4. Individuals . Is it useful to offer specific funding pathways around emerging, mid-career or established artists, regional artists, international activities, specific art forms etc? . How effective are small grants programs (under $5,000)? . Do other funding bodies (eg the Australia Council), philanthropic organisations and funding platforms already provide sufficient support for individuals? . Are there opportunities to partner with eg philanthropic and crowd funding mechanisms to maximise support for individuals? . Is it desirable for funded organisations to provide greater assistance and opportunities for individuals? If so, how could this be encouraged? . Are there other ways/models (including non-financial) to effectively assist individuals?

2. Structuring the program to support vibrant arts and culture in NSW 2.1. Programs and Projects . Is the current balance between Program and Project Funding appropriate - why? . Are there new project funding categories that should be considered for support? . Are there current project categories that should be removed? . How can emerging issues, new activity and innovation most effectively be facilitated?

Page 12 of 13

ARTS FUNDING PROGRAM REVIEW SUBMISSION FORM

2.2 Supporting accessibility . Are current AFP priority areas for access and participation still appropriate/relevant? . Do you believe the AFP is achieving appropriate access for priority groups? If not, are there alternative ways to achieve participation from priority groups? . Can programs supporting digital delivery assist to increase wider participation generally and in regional and remote areas? What other mechanisms might also exist? 2.3 A diversity of art forms and disciplines . Does the current AFP provide appropriate opportunities for funding of your art form/discipline? If not, how can a more diverse mix of art forms/disciplines, including new and emerging art forms/disciplines, most effectively be facilitated? . Should strategies around specific art forms/disciplines be introduced? If so, why and how?

3. Administering the program 3.1 Assessment processes . Are there improvements that can be made to the current assessment processes? . Are the current assessment criteria still suitable? . Is there merit in allocating greater weight to specific assessment criteria? If so, which criteria? . Do you believe the current assessment process results in funding for activities of high artistic/cultural quality? If not, how can this be best achieved? 3.2 Getting the timing right . How do current timeframes impact on you/your organisation (including release of funding guidelines, application dates, availability of application forms, funding announcements and reporting)? . What are the most critical issues for you/your organisation which Arts NSW should consider when setting timeframes? 3.3 Measuring outcomes . How do current reporting requirements impact you/your organisation? . Are there ways in which current reporting requirements can be improved? . Are there better ways to measure both qualitative outcomes (artistic vibrancy, audience appreciation) and quantitative outputs (audience numbers, employment statistics etc)? . Some reporting harmonisation with other funding agencies is currently in place. Is harmonisation working? If not, what improvements can be made? 3.4 Communication, access and transparency . Are you aware of the current pathways through which you can obtain information and/or seek advice on the current AFP – are they sufficient? . Is there sufficient transparency around the way the AFP is administered and decisions are made? If not, how could this be improved? . Are the expectations of Government clearly identified within the current AFP (eg objectives of funding, current priorities)? . Do you believe Arts NSW’s annual Client Feedback Survey provides an effective opportunity to feedback on programs and services? Are there other ways feedback can be encouraged?

4. Addressing the Future... . How can the AFP most effectively develop, evolve and adapt to the contemporary needs of the arts and cultural sector? . Are you aware of other programs and models for investing in the arts and cultural sectors which might be considered as part of this Review? If so, why do you consider them to be effective? . Should there be a stronger focus on innovation and new practices? . What are your top three priorities for a revitalised arts funding program? . What else would you like to tell us?

Page 13 of 13