Museums still having their work cut out
With the Museums Association's cuts survey and autumn statement providing little solace, there are fears that a loss of funding is taking some museums past tipping point. Geraldine Kendall investigates
For the past four years, the Museums Association (MA) has been tracking the impact of public funding cuts on museums across the UK. Intended as a yearly check-up on the health of the sector, the latest cuts survey – released at the end of last year – has revealed that the prognosis is looking increasingly uncertain.
Although many organisations are still thriving, for the past few years, some have been warning that they are nearing a tipping point, after which the loss of funding will cause irreversible damage to their capacity to serve the public.
“I think we have now reached the tipping point,” says David Anderson, the director-general of Amgueddfa Cymru (National Museum Wales) and president of the MA.
More than half of the 95 museums and museum services from across the UK that responded to the latest cuts survey said their overall income had dropped in the past 12 months, with one in 10 saying their budget had fallen by at least a quarter. As would be expected, local authority and national museums were proportionately the worst hit.
Many of the respondents have suffered a falling budget for at least four years, and there can be little doubt that the cumulative effect is beginning to take its toll on parts of the sector.
“All the ‘shaving’ that can be done has been done, so now whole services are in danger of being cut,” wrote one respondent in Wales.
The most eye-catching statistic from the survey was the fact that one in 10 museums (or, possibly, their governing authorities) had considered financially motivated disposal in the past year.
It was the first time the MA had included a question on selling collections in the survey, prompted in part by the recent unethical disposals by councils in Northampton and Croydon, which led to both museum services being stripped of their Accreditation and MA membership.
Sharon Heal, the director of the MA, says that she is concerned that unauthorised disposal poses a serious risk to the sector as a whole because of its potential to damage the trust of funders, potential donors and the public.
Financially motivated disposal is permissible under the MA’s code of ethics in exceptional circumstances, but as budgets shrink, some organisations are beginning to consider options that might once have been unthinkable.
In December, Torquay Museum announced that it was considering the sale of several valuable letters from its collection after receiving a 43% funding cut from Torbay Council. The museum warned that its finances were so precarious that the cut might force it to close altogether.
Torquay’s case is yet to be heard and the museum’s curator says the sale will not proceed without ethical approval. But other organisations, or cash-strapped local authorities, may not be so conscientious, and there is real concern that more may start taking a closer look at the financial value of the collections they hold.
The MA is consulting with sector bodies with the aim of implementing new sanctions to deter irresponsible sales.
Hard work
Another worrying statistic revealed by the survey is the impact that cuts have had on the museum workforce. As salaries fall outside fixed costs, redundancy has long been a key money-saving measure for museums, and staff numbers are continuing to haemorrhage at an alarming rate.
More than half (53%) of respondents said they had lost full-time equivalent staff in the past year, the highest rate since the survey began (see pie chart).
Comments from respondents highlighted the organisational and human impact of this loss. Several reported operating with a skeleton staff, working longer hours for no extra pay and losing vital specialist expertise. Others described low morale and a rise in exploitative employment practices.
Closely linked to the reduction in staff resources is the impact cuts are having on frontline services. In all four surveys, most respondents have said they would try as far as possible to maintain their outward-facing work and safeguard public access. But for some, cumulative cuts mean this is no longer possible.
In the past year, almost a quarter of museums reduced the number of temporary exhibitions, 21% cut opening hours and 9% closed down part of their museum. “We have got to the point where over the next couple of years we will see museums close,” Heal says.
A debate continues over the extent to which the MA and other representative bodies should highlight these impacts.
Although the MA’s membership generally agrees that it is important to document the effect that cuts are having, there is also a feeling that it is a futile exercise because the funding landscape has changed dramatically and public investment is not likely to come back any time soon.
Some in the sector believe that it is more pragmatic to showcase the good value of museums to policy-makers, and to focus on building the sustainability of the sector from within, with the help of funding streams such as Arts Council England’s Museum Resilience Fund.
The MA has chosen to tackle both sides. It is committed to giving a voice to those feeling the worst effect of the cuts while developing resources and subsidised training events around resilience, and promoting social impact as a catalyst for sustainability through its Museums Change Lives campaign, which will roll out initiatives in the coming year.
“We have to be resilient with purpose,” Heal says. “Those that have a strong mission in the first place are more likely to survive.”
In respect to both resilience and social impact, the survey does give reason for optimism. More than a third of museums had increased their self-generated income, while 79% planned to focus more on fundraising this year.
Moreover, although some in the sector worried that increased commercialisation was undermining their core values and accessibility to more disadvantaged audiences, many respondents said that they remained committed to reaching the widest possible audience, with 46% saying they would do more to encourage participation this year.
Strategic thinking
Success in these areas, however, is often limited by geography and the regional imbalance in funding provision, and not all museums will be able to adapt quickly enough to survive.
For this reason, Heal calls for a “strategic overview of funding across the sector” to target what resources there are in the areas of greatest need.
But the outlook for the next few years is concerning. Many local authorities across the UK are not even halfway through implementing the cuts imposed on them by Westminster; at the time of writing, Newport, Walsall and Derby councils were among those considering cuts that would mean the closure of one or more museums.
December’s autumn statement brought more grim reading, with the Office of Budget Responsibility warning that further eye-watering cuts planned under a Conservative government would require a “fundamental reimagining” of the role of the state.
“Those projections could potentially toll a death knell for the culture sector,” warns one museum professional.
No matter which party triumphs in this year’s general election, the cuts are likely to continue – and the landscape of the sector is likely to look very different in five years’ time.
The MA’s cuts survey 2014 makes chilling reading. I have worked in museums for more than 30 years and I can honestly say that, while our sector always has its ups and downs, this is the most serious crisis that I have known.
And yet, not an awful lot seems to be being said.Where are the voices of our sector leaders? Is there someone out there who thinks it is a bad idea that museums speak out about the impacts that funding cuts are having on the services we provide to the public? It sometimes feels that museums are having a private conversation among ourselves that we are afraid to air more widely.
It may not be the role of museum employees to oppose cuts in funding – that’s a job for the electorate, should it be so disposed. But is it not our job, in a free-speech democracy, to explain what the impacts of those cuts are? Should we not be trying to interest the media in our predicament, to see whether the public cares?
I am all for museums costing as little public money as possible – that they be run efficiently and effectively. But if we do not speak up, we will be at risk of disappearing quietly into the night.
David Fleming is the director of National Museums Liverpool and vice-president of the Museums Association
Although many organisations are still thriving, for the past few years, some have been warning that they are nearing a tipping point, after which the loss of funding will cause irreversible damage to their capacity to serve the public.
“I think we have now reached the tipping point,” says David Anderson, the director-general of Amgueddfa Cymru (National Museum Wales) and president of the MA.
More than half of the 95 museums and museum services from across the UK that responded to the latest cuts survey said their overall income had dropped in the past 12 months, with one in 10 saying their budget had fallen by at least a quarter. As would be expected, local authority and national museums were proportionately the worst hit.
Many of the respondents have suffered a falling budget for at least four years, and there can be little doubt that the cumulative effect is beginning to take its toll on parts of the sector.
“All the ‘shaving’ that can be done has been done, so now whole services are in danger of being cut,” wrote one respondent in Wales.
The most eye-catching statistic from the survey was the fact that one in 10 museums (or, possibly, their governing authorities) had considered financially motivated disposal in the past year.
It was the first time the MA had included a question on selling collections in the survey, prompted in part by the recent unethical disposals by councils in Northampton and Croydon, which led to both museum services being stripped of their Accreditation and MA membership.
Sharon Heal, the director of the MA, says that she is concerned that unauthorised disposal poses a serious risk to the sector as a whole because of its potential to damage the trust of funders, potential donors and the public.
Financially motivated disposal is permissible under the MA’s code of ethics in exceptional circumstances, but as budgets shrink, some organisations are beginning to consider options that might once have been unthinkable.
In December, Torquay Museum announced that it was considering the sale of several valuable letters from its collection after receiving a 43% funding cut from Torbay Council. The museum warned that its finances were so precarious that the cut might force it to close altogether.
Torquay’s case is yet to be heard and the museum’s curator says the sale will not proceed without ethical approval. But other organisations, or cash-strapped local authorities, may not be so conscientious, and there is real concern that more may start taking a closer look at the financial value of the collections they hold.
The MA is consulting with sector bodies with the aim of implementing new sanctions to deter irresponsible sales.
Hard work
Another worrying statistic revealed by the survey is the impact that cuts have had on the museum workforce. As salaries fall outside fixed costs, redundancy has long been a key money-saving measure for museums, and staff numbers are continuing to haemorrhage at an alarming rate.
More than half (53%) of respondents said they had lost full-time equivalent staff in the past year, the highest rate since the survey began (see pie chart).
Comments from respondents highlighted the organisational and human impact of this loss. Several reported operating with a skeleton staff, working longer hours for no extra pay and losing vital specialist expertise. Others described low morale and a rise in exploitative employment practices.
Closely linked to the reduction in staff resources is the impact cuts are having on frontline services. In all four surveys, most respondents have said they would try as far as possible to maintain their outward-facing work and safeguard public access. But for some, cumulative cuts mean this is no longer possible.
In the past year, almost a quarter of museums reduced the number of temporary exhibitions, 21% cut opening hours and 9% closed down part of their museum. “We have got to the point where over the next couple of years we will see museums close,” Heal says.
A debate continues over the extent to which the MA and other representative bodies should highlight these impacts.
Although the MA’s membership generally agrees that it is important to document the effect that cuts are having, there is also a feeling that it is a futile exercise because the funding landscape has changed dramatically and public investment is not likely to come back any time soon.
Some in the sector believe that it is more pragmatic to showcase the good value of museums to policy-makers, and to focus on building the sustainability of the sector from within, with the help of funding streams such as Arts Council England’s Museum Resilience Fund.
The MA has chosen to tackle both sides. It is committed to giving a voice to those feeling the worst effect of the cuts while developing resources and subsidised training events around resilience, and promoting social impact as a catalyst for sustainability through its Museums Change Lives campaign, which will roll out initiatives in the coming year.
“We have to be resilient with purpose,” Heal says. “Those that have a strong mission in the first place are more likely to survive.”
In respect to both resilience and social impact, the survey does give reason for optimism. More than a third of museums had increased their self-generated income, while 79% planned to focus more on fundraising this year.
Moreover, although some in the sector worried that increased commercialisation was undermining their core values and accessibility to more disadvantaged audiences, many respondents said that they remained committed to reaching the widest possible audience, with 46% saying they would do more to encourage participation this year.
Strategic thinking
Success in these areas, however, is often limited by geography and the regional imbalance in funding provision, and not all museums will be able to adapt quickly enough to survive.
For this reason, Heal calls for a “strategic overview of funding across the sector” to target what resources there are in the areas of greatest need.
But the outlook for the next few years is concerning. Many local authorities across the UK are not even halfway through implementing the cuts imposed on them by Westminster; at the time of writing, Newport, Walsall and Derby councils were among those considering cuts that would mean the closure of one or more museums.
December’s autumn statement brought more grim reading, with the Office of Budget Responsibility warning that further eye-watering cuts planned under a Conservative government would require a “fundamental reimagining” of the role of the state.
“Those projections could potentially toll a death knell for the culture sector,” warns one museum professional.
No matter which party triumphs in this year’s general election, the cuts are likely to continue – and the landscape of the sector is likely to look very different in five years’ time.
Worst crisis ever means it is make or break point
The MA’s cuts survey 2014 makes chilling reading. I have worked in museums for more than 30 years and I can honestly say that, while our sector always has its ups and downs, this is the most serious crisis that I have known.
And yet, not an awful lot seems to be being said.Where are the voices of our sector leaders? Is there someone out there who thinks it is a bad idea that museums speak out about the impacts that funding cuts are having on the services we provide to the public? It sometimes feels that museums are having a private conversation among ourselves that we are afraid to air more widely.
It may not be the role of museum employees to oppose cuts in funding – that’s a job for the electorate, should it be so disposed. But is it not our job, in a free-speech democracy, to explain what the impacts of those cuts are? Should we not be trying to interest the media in our predicament, to see whether the public cares?
I am all for museums costing as little public money as possible – that they be run efficiently and effectively. But if we do not speak up, we will be at risk of disappearing quietly into the night.
David Fleming is the director of National Museums Liverpool and vice-president of the Museums Association