Despite core funding for university museums being maintained at more than £9.5m by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), many museums suffered cuts in its second, and last, funding round announced at the end of September.
This was partly because more museums were involved, with awards going for the first time to the Women's Library, York Gate Collections, the Crafts Study Centre, the People's History Museum, the Centre for Cartoons and Caricature, and the Great North Museum.
Eight applications received nothing and even some of the success stories, such as the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, received less than they asked for.
Under the system used, a panel of peer reviewers grade each application. However, the Fitzwilliam, which applied for £2m, was only allocated £1.1m, despite receiving an A+ rating - the highest grade.
Other museums received less compared with the previous round. The Whitworth Art Gallery was down more than £100,000, the University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology received a cut of more than £50,000, and the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art dropped more than £200,000.
In cash terms, Oxford University's museums were the hardest hit. The Oxford University Museum of Natural History was down more than £30,000, while the Ashmolean Museum, rated A-, suffered a cut of more than £300,000, despite asking for an increase.
Christopher Brown, the Ashmolean's director, said the museum would have to substantially cut its budget and a planned review of 'the whole configuration of staff and services' would be brought forward. He said there were no plans for redundancies 'at the present time', but he hoped to be clearer on the museum's future by Christmas.
Brown blamed the museum's current predicament on the timing of the AHRC awards, which are announced only 11 months before the money
is delivered. He said that making cuts of this magnitude in such a small time gap was not good management and he described the funding process as 'less thorough' than for the previous round.
He said that the site visits and client discussion of the last round had been replaced with an 'entirely paper exercise that did not follow up some of the questions raised by our application'.
Margaret Greeves, the assistant director of the Fitzwilliam, also expressed reservations about the process. She said: 'Each of these reviewers took a different approach to our application and some comments, in our estimation, revealed a lack of understanding of the prime purpose of the funding, which is for core activities.'
Applications are judged on a number of criteria, including the quality of the collection, the extent and strength of links between the museum and its host university and plans for developing the use of collections.
'Some of the less successful applications did not recognise how the public's expectation of museums has changed over the past five to ten years, or were ambitious, but with little detail,' said Maurice Davies, the Museums Association's deputy director and a member of the panel.
Nine out of the 24 museums that were awarded first round funding received less in the second round. But the problem for some of the smaller university museums is that they are less able to absorb the cuts than their bigger counterparts.
The Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art, for example, has so far made no formal decision about its future, but it is likely that the museum will be more incorporated into its parent body, the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, as a result of the cuts.
Despite the cuts, the museum's curator, Stacey Pierson, was enthusiastic about the funding process, which she said makes the parent colleges take more notice of their museums.
She thought the AHRC, which has administered the fund for the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) since 2000, had improved a process that previously 'we could do on the back of an envelope'.
But, potentially, university museums may no longer have access to ring-fenced funding when the administration of the scheme returns to the HEFCE in 2009. The museums would then have to rely on the goodwill of their parent institutions. A spokesman for the HEFCE confirmed that there were 'no positive plans' to continue the scheme after this date.
University museum directors have greeted this news with horror. 'If it completely came to an end, it would put us right back to square one,' said Antonia Byatt, the director of the Women's Library.
Patrick Steel
Ups and Downs
The first round of funding awards began in August 2001 and will finish in July 2006. The award levels have increased annually by inflation. Amounts shown are actual amounts for 2005-6. The second round will begin in August 2006 and finish in July 2009.
UP
The Great North Museum
Award (2005-6): £0
Award (2006-7): £190,500
Change: +£190,500
The Fitzwilliam Museum
Award (2005-6): £1,029,541
Award (2006-7): £1,177,000
Change: +£147,459
The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology
Award (2005-6): £55,648
Award (2006-7): £167,000
Change: +£111,352
The Women's Library
Award (2005-6): £0
Award (2006-7): £91,500
Change: +£91,500
Crafts Study Centre
Award (2005-6): £0
Award (2006-7): £73,500
Change: +£73,500
DOWN
The Ashmolean Museum
Award (2005-6): £2,337,321
Award (2006-7): £1,971,500
Change: -£365,821
The Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art
Award (2005-6): £306,082
Award (2006-7): £98,000
Change: -£208,082
The Whitworth Art Gallery
Award (2005-6): £759,069
Award (2006-7): £643,500
Change: -£115,569
University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
Award (2005-6): £222,604
Award (2006-7): £166,500
Change: -£56,104
Oxford University Museum of Natural History
Award (2005-6): £333,900
Award (2006-7): £294,000
Change: -£39,900
This was partly because more museums were involved, with awards going for the first time to the Women's Library, York Gate Collections, the Crafts Study Centre, the People's History Museum, the Centre for Cartoons and Caricature, and the Great North Museum.
Eight applications received nothing and even some of the success stories, such as the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, received less than they asked for.
Under the system used, a panel of peer reviewers grade each application. However, the Fitzwilliam, which applied for £2m, was only allocated £1.1m, despite receiving an A+ rating - the highest grade.
Other museums received less compared with the previous round. The Whitworth Art Gallery was down more than £100,000, the University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology received a cut of more than £50,000, and the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art dropped more than £200,000.
In cash terms, Oxford University's museums were the hardest hit. The Oxford University Museum of Natural History was down more than £30,000, while the Ashmolean Museum, rated A-, suffered a cut of more than £300,000, despite asking for an increase.
Christopher Brown, the Ashmolean's director, said the museum would have to substantially cut its budget and a planned review of 'the whole configuration of staff and services' would be brought forward. He said there were no plans for redundancies 'at the present time', but he hoped to be clearer on the museum's future by Christmas.
Brown blamed the museum's current predicament on the timing of the AHRC awards, which are announced only 11 months before the money
is delivered. He said that making cuts of this magnitude in such a small time gap was not good management and he described the funding process as 'less thorough' than for the previous round.
He said that the site visits and client discussion of the last round had been replaced with an 'entirely paper exercise that did not follow up some of the questions raised by our application'.
Margaret Greeves, the assistant director of the Fitzwilliam, also expressed reservations about the process. She said: 'Each of these reviewers took a different approach to our application and some comments, in our estimation, revealed a lack of understanding of the prime purpose of the funding, which is for core activities.'
Applications are judged on a number of criteria, including the quality of the collection, the extent and strength of links between the museum and its host university and plans for developing the use of collections.
'Some of the less successful applications did not recognise how the public's expectation of museums has changed over the past five to ten years, or were ambitious, but with little detail,' said Maurice Davies, the Museums Association's deputy director and a member of the panel.
Nine out of the 24 museums that were awarded first round funding received less in the second round. But the problem for some of the smaller university museums is that they are less able to absorb the cuts than their bigger counterparts.
The Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art, for example, has so far made no formal decision about its future, but it is likely that the museum will be more incorporated into its parent body, the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, as a result of the cuts.
Despite the cuts, the museum's curator, Stacey Pierson, was enthusiastic about the funding process, which she said makes the parent colleges take more notice of their museums.
She thought the AHRC, which has administered the fund for the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) since 2000, had improved a process that previously 'we could do on the back of an envelope'.
But, potentially, university museums may no longer have access to ring-fenced funding when the administration of the scheme returns to the HEFCE in 2009. The museums would then have to rely on the goodwill of their parent institutions. A spokesman for the HEFCE confirmed that there were 'no positive plans' to continue the scheme after this date.
University museum directors have greeted this news with horror. 'If it completely came to an end, it would put us right back to square one,' said Antonia Byatt, the director of the Women's Library.
Patrick Steel
Ups and Downs
The first round of funding awards began in August 2001 and will finish in July 2006. The award levels have increased annually by inflation. Amounts shown are actual amounts for 2005-6. The second round will begin in August 2006 and finish in July 2009.
UP
The Great North Museum
Award (2005-6): £0
Award (2006-7): £190,500
Change: +£190,500
The Fitzwilliam Museum
Award (2005-6): £1,029,541
Award (2006-7): £1,177,000
Change: +£147,459
The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology
Award (2005-6): £55,648
Award (2006-7): £167,000
Change: +£111,352
The Women's Library
Award (2005-6): £0
Award (2006-7): £91,500
Change: +£91,500
Crafts Study Centre
Award (2005-6): £0
Award (2006-7): £73,500
Change: +£73,500
DOWN
The Ashmolean Museum
Award (2005-6): £2,337,321
Award (2006-7): £1,971,500
Change: -£365,821
The Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art
Award (2005-6): £306,082
Award (2006-7): £98,000
Change: -£208,082
The Whitworth Art Gallery
Award (2005-6): £759,069
Award (2006-7): £643,500
Change: -£115,569
University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
Award (2005-6): £222,604
Award (2006-7): £166,500
Change: -£56,104
Oxford University Museum of Natural History
Award (2005-6): £333,900
Award (2006-7): £294,000
Change: -£39,900
