sou · GXB315d2 · 2010-01-01 00:00:00 — Even where reform funds and national schemes are present, a clear coordinating function is necessary which works operatively, and on an ongoing basis, to follow up processes at the museums. Financial resources are one of the most powerful policy instru- ments available. Regardless of what basic subsidies the government provides to its own institutions, funds can be earmarked to support certain prioritized projects and activities at state-owned and state- subsidised museums. A closely-related example of earmarked grants is the Danish method of a fixed development grant which focuses on different areas on a four-yearly basis. In 2003, two commissions of inquiry reported on preservation of cultural heritage. The reports discussed physical and digital material and proposed a number of measures. One effect of the inquiry was that the funding allocation of the was earmarked. During 2004–2007, it distributed DKK 40 million per year (approximately ) to conservation. In 2006, a similar inquiry reported on the museums knowledge dissemination, which was that the is able to spend the same amount of money in the current four-year period (2007–2010) on learning and accessibility. These funds supplement the free entrance measure costing about DKK 35 million a year (approximately ), and are a strong incentive for museums own priorities. The money boosts the institutions willingness to devote their own efforts to problem areas in which funds are available; in the current scheme, items such as research, evaluation and international contacts. The Danish system differs from the Swedish one, in which major resources have been allocated to Swedish museums since the 1990s through the employment policy measures known as SESAM and Access. The Danish earmark is a stable construction, whose focus can be adjusted incrementally by the ministry or the . The sector can however rely on the long-term existence of the funds for prioritised areas, something which is not true of Swedish schemes. The UK: focus on the whole country Another example that illustrates management by incentives is the first ever regional museum initiative in . Here, too, the point of departure was a government inquiry, Renaissance in the Regions which reported in 2002. Since the presentation of the report, a total of GBP 150 million (approximately ) has been allocated by the MLA, primarily to museums in the nine English regions. responsibility, which involves leadership of the museum sector in the region, has been allocated to a group of four or five museums in each region. Each region is given a similar basic grant topped up by a supplement based on its population. Centrally allocated funds are allocated for specialist networks and research. This sweeping reform has enabled the government to strengthen and develop the museum sector in a clear, purposeful fashion. The emphasis in the reform is on improving the work of museums through better collaboration and more, and better, contacts with the public. Differences between English museums and Swedish County Museums There are three differences between the system in the English regions, and the Swedish County Museum system. In the first place, the English programme, which will be evaluated in 2008, is about testing different ways of reaching goals. Secondly, there are high demands at the outset regarding coordination between the institutions and other museums in the regions, because museums are regarded by the DCMS as a means of putting the governments cultural policy vision into practice. Thirdly, there is one central organ, the MLA, which has huge reform funds at its disposal, and which pushes the museums involved to produce a clearly expressed set of objectives. Commitment channelled in networks A network, in its simplest form, is an informal circle of people with a common interest, but without bye-laws or a board. Such loose associations come and go, and it is difficult to keep track of them or demand things of them. In a number of the countries we visited, we have seen that more formalised networks can function as a means of embracing special interests and harnessing ideas and willing- ness to grow among those who do the actual work at museums. In , and elsewhere, a number of these profes- sional networks have links to the countrys museum association. In , ABM-utvikling has initiated a number of thematic net- works that museums together in specific areas of interest. They conclude agreements between the agency and the museums responsible for the networks, or responsible for convening them. Examples of networks include costumes, cultural landscapes and womens history. In , the Renaissance programme has () which link institutions that have expertise in certain areas. In these networks, there is more clear emphasis on the museums collection than in , and the goal is to achieve deeper understanding and knowledge dissemination regarding the material. Networks include plaster, Egyptology, portraiture and social history. Neither the Norwegian nor the English networks are subsidised on an ongoing basis, but as networks they can apply for project funding for various types of activity. Support is allocated by each countrys central museum agency (ABM-utvikling and the MLA, respectively) for purposes such as material inventories, professional development training and development of databases or guidance materials. Small measures, big outcomes It should be noted that even small measures (in economic terms) can lead to excellent outcomes, one reason for this being that gov- ernment funding often attracts other local funding. Norwegian ABM-utvikling, for example, has been able to use small stimulation grants to support strategically important initiatives. These have included public-focused measures such as the projects Brudd and HotSpots, which illuminate, and tell, untold and controversial his- tory. In the is a specialist program agency in the Heritage Department, and is the central organ in the work of making Canadian museum collections available over the internet, but is however not to be considered a coordinating mechanism. A key task is to spread knowledge and information to citizens in all the countrys provinces, something which is very important for national-level actors in a country as vast as . runs the (VMC) which has hundreds of digital collections and web presentations, often produced by local history associations. In the Community Memory Program, pro- vides support to the smallest, often volunteer-run, museums through grants of CAD 5 000 (approximately ). The task of the recipient is to produce material for the internet and to build support for the project locally. has a very positive view of the outcome, since the measure has strengthened and high- lighted widespread voluntary commitment and has reached deep into local communities. 2.5.2Principles for allocation of government funding In our , we have seen examples of fundamentally different perspectives on how the allocation of temporary, project-focused funding should be managed. The perspectives are formed by the type of funding involved and by cultural attitudes and administra- tive traditions in the different countries. Formal delimitation of applicant museums The basic funding provided to Swedish national museums is expected to cover everything, including development work. Government development grants at the disposal of the are exclusively intended for regional museums. and the are two examples of countries where the museum reforms of recent years have opened up more wide- spread competition for government funding for projects. The no longer has any state-owned cultural institutions, and the major project , the , which manages government funds, can provide grants to all types of museums. In and , on the other hand, the autho- rities apply laws and accreditation systems that enable all institu- tions maintaining certain standards to apply for state funding, regardless of their principal. UK: the best project proposals receive grants Apart from certain formal requirements (as described above), there are differing views as to which actors should receive priority when funds are being allocated. In the UK, the basic position tends to be that funding should go to the most well thought-through projects. The MLAs programmes for prioritised themes are almost always openly advertised with clearly described assessment criteria. And in a regional programme such as Renaissance, institutions that so wish could apply to be named museums. Another example is Their past, your future, a project about learning from the conflicts of history, which accepted applications from all archives, libraries and museums in the UK. In its reform and development work, Norwegian ABM-utvikling has chosen to prioritise support to actors rather than to moderately interested or unwilling ones. The long-term goal is that everyone should be on board, but the assessment is that the out- come per resource input is greater if you start with those who are most and present the best proposals. ABM-utviklings idea is that institutions that are quick to absorb the incentives will then function as role models for other museums. Funds for museums and cultural heritage allocated via the schools programme Den kulturelle skolesekken (The Cultural Ruck- sack) are solely granted through the fylkena (counties). working to raise the floor The opposite principle for the allocation of budgets applies at the in , which is trying to build coordinated responsibility for collections throughout the organi- sation. There, the ambition is instead to allocate funds to the units that are felt to need them most. The SI has a benchmarking system for comparative assessments of risks and needs with respect to storage, digitalisation and other issues. These comparisons are used as a basis for internal budgeting work and resource allocation throughout the organisation. Same for all or allocation by agreed performance? In the Nordic countries, with their tradition of regional policy, it is not unusual for central government authorities distributing funding to try to spread it as evenly as possible round the country. There are examples of this in a number of initiatives that have been channelled via regional level. in , however, has chosen to formally arrange some project funding as cooperation agreements with recipient parties, so as to get away from regional policy criteria. This allows greater latitude in allocation and allows projects to be assessed exclusively according to their relevance for CHINs own goals. 2.5.3National qualification of cultural heritage Legal support for cultural heritage varies In all countries, major and valuable aspects of national cultural heritage are managed by other actors than the state. This applies not least to numerous and other environments, such as parks and industrial locations. Most countries have systems for the protection of such particularly valuable cultural environments, and authorities responsible for enforcing regulation. Privately-owned collections of art, artefacts and documents, on the other hand, often lack such protection. All the countries that we visited have export restrictions for antiques, but apart from this there is often no explicit national responsibility for material that is not owned by the state. The is an exception in this respect: there, artefacts and collections – especially those that are privately-owned and those belonging to ecclesiastical institutions– can be listed under the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (1984), thus giving them legal protection like that enjoyed by state museum collections. Elite listing gives status, and sometimes money The UK Designated Collections programme was launched for state-subsidised museums in 1997, and was extended to include archives and libraries in 2005. It is a formalized system for listing particularly important collections that are of great value to the nation. The assessment is done by a special independent expert panel associated with the MLA. The listing confers greater protec- tion against poor care and disposal, and is felt to have sparked greater public interest in cultural heritage. It does not automati- cally bring entitlement to support from central level, but allows the holder to apply for funds from the Fund, which has allocated almost GBP 13 million (approximately ) to museums across since 2002. Listing strengthens the role of the institutions involved in their dialogue with local principals and other financiers in the private and public sectors. The MLA also uses the programme to boost the quality of the work of the institutions. The expert panel does not just assess the value of the collection – it also assesses the institutions collec- tions management work and public access to the material. A person or entity that has a designated collection must also actively partici- pate in development work in the sector and be generous with loans, advice, exchanges of experience and support to research. 2.5.4Follow-up and feedback of project funds and grants Museum principals and funding bodies have a self-evident interest in securing the quality of the museums activities. can work with different types of standards, evaluations and audits as a means of controlling and monitoring that the museums can justify their costs. They can also keep ongoing statistics of relevant indi- cators. The UK model, for example, is generally speaking clearly influenced by cost-benefit analysis. There, it is common for funding bodies to demand professional evaluation of projects they have supported. Centrally placed agencies seldom evaluate individual projects themselves, but often order follow-ups from independent sources. This has helped create a British market for specialised con- sultancy companies which provide in-demand expertise in the sector. The sectors interest in follow-up Individual museums, and the sector as a whole, also have a vested professional interest in evaluating their own performance. Open evaluation promotes development dialogue among colleagues, and the museums obtain a platform for further work at continuing high levels of ambition. In many places, museums and their associations also independently initiate follow-ups of a more limited type. It is in everyones interest to examine how allocated resources can yield optimal outcomes – something which applies regardless of whether it involves stone conservation, or studies of public attitudes. The Dutch museum association, for example, has produced a benchmarking system that was tested in 2007 and judged very promising. , working with the and in dialogue with field opera- tions, has produced an evaluation model for museums. The model consists of two steps, the first of which is a web-based self-assess- ment of the priorities and goal fulfilment of the activities. Museums are given a clear basis with which to compare their own work with that of other institutions, and possibly to reallocate their internal resources. In a second step, the self-assessment can be followed by a peer review in which an expert panel visits the museum, studies its operations and provides opinions on the organisations problems and potential development areas. Follow-up: good for development and professionalization Funding bodies in all the countries we visited demand project reports, irrespective of whether the funds are from the private or the public sector. However, those who have completed a project and submitted a report often do not know how well they have met the expectations of the funding body. It is not common in , either, for the results of concluded projects to be made public as a guidance tool for others. Project reports, as a body of collected material, could help deepen professional discussion in the field and support further development. For this to happen, funding bodies that receive reports must have the resources to compile and analyse the mate- rial, and feed the results back to the sector as a whole. Examples of such practices exist in the UK and . Focus on feedback in and the UK In , ABM-utvikling has published a number of reports on the role and work of museums in our globalised era. Min – vår historie (My voice – our history) is a manual based on projects carried out by the Norsk Folkemuseum and the (). The report provides good advice and disseminates knowledge and lessons learned about vari- ous methods of documenting and communicating issues about the multicultural . One example among many others from the UK is Saying it differently, a manual based on a three-year project in which six museums, through the Renaissance in the Regions meas- ure, were provided with funds to restructure their exhibitions in dialogue with the public. The report presents the work methods of the museums and lessons learned from the change processes they implemented. Dissemination of the report has allowed a number of museums to benefit from the progress achieved in the project, and the and the sector as a whole are regarded as having generated value-added from the invested resources. 2.6Supplementary funding of museum activities Apart from direct operating subsidies and project funding from the government and other public organs, the museums in the countries we visited also finance their activities through supplementary income from other sources. From the Museum Coordinators per- spective, sponsoring and grants from gaming companies have been the most interesting examples of this. 2.6.1Income from state-owned gaming and lottery companies Most countries we visited have state-owned gaming companies. A share of their profits goes to culture; this is true of and the UK, and , too, has a state-owned gaming company, AB , which basically has a monopoly on the Swedish mar- ket. In , however, only a relatively small amount of the profits go to culture. Of Svenska spels profits in 2007, about million (approximately 000) went to culture, a figure amounting to about of the funds channelled to sport from the company in the same year. In the , a great number of museums are provided with additional funding from lottery money for renovations, special projects and exhibitions. Den Kulturelle skolesekken in In , funds are allocated to boost childrens access to culture through the measure entitled Den kulturelle skolesekken (The Cul- tural Rucksack). This is a national scheme for promoting profes- sional art and culture in schools. The scheme helps school pupils aged 6–16 to become acquainted with different kinds of profes- sional art, cultural expressions and cultural heritage. The Cultural Rucksack is funded mainly by profits from the Lottery. The scheme receives NOK 160–180 million ( 20–23 million) annually. Of the funds, is allocated to central initiatives and is distributed by the regional and local authorities. The scheme also encompasses initiatives to boost all Norwegian schoolchildrens access to museums and what they have to offer. Lottery good causes in the UK For every £1 that the public spends on Lottery tickets in the National Lottery in the UK, goes to the Lottery good causes. These causes are the arts, charities and voluntary groups, heritage, health, education, the environment and sports. Different funds are responsible for allocating money for these purposes. For cultural heritage, this means that the allocates over GBP 255 million each year (about 320 million) to projects aiming to promote local, regional and national cultural heritage projects.13 Some of the grants from the go to museum-related projects. 2.6.2Income from sponsorship and donations In the , and the UK, there is a widespread tradition of individuals and companies making voluntary donations to the arts and other areas. The tax system in these countries also makes it easier to money and to sponsor culture and other events. In and the other Nordic countries, there has been greater emphasis on financing cultural activities using taxpayers money. There are, then, fundamental structural differences between the Nordic and the countries in their traditions and in the ability of museums to find funding via sponsorship and dona- tions. With respect to cooperation between cultural institutions and the business community, however, other aspects are interesting from a Swedish viewpoint than the simply economic ones. The British example below illustrates this. cooperation between culture and business an important issue in the UK In the UK, the organisation has been working since the 1980s on government support and to the cultural sectors knowledge of business and the other way round. The long- term objective is a better partnership between the two sectors. The point of departure of this work is the view that culture must be managed in a more businesslike fashion, and that the busi- ness community must boost its creativity. The view of Arts & Business is that to build long-term relationships with potentially important financiers, it is important that cultural institutions work to create long-term strategies for demonstrating their appreciation to their donors. It is also important that the boards of cultural institutions work actively to find external funding from individuals and companies. In the UK, donations are tax-deductible for companies and are partly tax-deductible for high-income individuals. Arts & Business works actively to the readiness of business and individuals to sponsor or money to culture. One initiative from the which has proven fruitful is the commit- ment to finance of projects, on the condition that the project owners are able to raise the remaining from private financiers. This has been an effective incentive in getting individuals to give money to culture. The DCMS says that there is a clear link between corporate willingness to money to culture and the degree of public funding. Public sector cuts often have the result that private finan- ciers also reduce their contributions. The idea that private financi- ers will compensate for cuts is thus not borne out in reality, according to the DCMS. Arts & Business also notes that profes- sionally-run organisations have a much greater chance of obtaining private funding. Weak operations do not attract sponsors or donors, no matter how much they need the money or how under- financed they are. 3Innate energy of the museum sector A number of museums in the countries visited by the Museum Coordinator undertake various types of cooperation initiatives of their own. There are examples of cooperation on several levels. Institutions, and individual employees, organise to push for and develop issues they feel to be important. 3.1.1Self-initiated collaboration between institutions in the sector Cooperation between museums is seen everywhere as a good thing in itself. In a number of the countries we visited, central authorities actively encourage and support collaboration and networking between different actors. Sometimes, central level initiates major national schemes with the pronounced aim of promoting coopera- tion in the sector. Coordination and cooperation initiatives can, however, also come from within the sector, something which can be regarded as a strategic self-help method, and which in many cases has resulted in new alliances, greater resources and boosted self-esteem in the sector. There are a number of examples of major and successful initiatives undertaken by a number of different museum institutions. Collaboration produces a stronger Finnish art sector KEHYS is a unit at the government-run Art Museums which since 2002 has functioned as a development centre for art institutions throughout the country. The aim is renewal in the museums own operations, better interplay in the field and stronger impact on society. KEHYS has made an inventory of the countrys art collections and has led projects involving accessibility for the disabled.