The sector is still digesting the implications of the Mendoza Review: An Independent Review of Museums in England. The report led by Neil Mendoza, a former banker and non-executive board member of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), was commissioned by the government in response to the 2016 Culture White Paper, which called for “a wide-ranging review of national, local and regional museums, working closely with Arts Council England (ACE) and the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)”.
The review contains a lot that the sector can get behind, including growing and diversifying audiences, managing collections more dynamically, diversifying the workforce and improving digital capacity and innovation. Much of this work is happening already, as the review acknowledges.
Funding is a big part of the report and Mendoza and his team have chosen to take the view that as “it is unlikely that there will be significant additional money available for the sector in the immediate future, the main thrust of our recommendations is, therefore, to ensure that we use existing funding in the best way possible”.
I can see why this approach was taken, but surely it would have been better to identify the resources that the sector needs and then let the government decide whether to back this with the necessary money.
The review does call for a more strategic approach to funding and this is welcome. But on what basis will the strategic decisions be made? Public need, or something else? There is a lot in the report about what the government, and museums, need, but the really important part is to identify what the public needs.
The review does a good job in highlighting the importance of the sector in areas such as place-making, community cohesion, learning and public health, and lots more. It also highlights what good value museums are, estimating that the sector generates £3 of income for each £1 of public sector grant.
But the report fails to follow this up with a bold vision of how the sector, for very little extra resources, can sustain and build on the positive impact it has on communities and individuals all over England. There will be a news analysis of the Mendoza Review in January’s Museums Journal.
The review contains a lot that the sector can get behind, including growing and diversifying audiences, managing collections more dynamically, diversifying the workforce and improving digital capacity and innovation. Much of this work is happening already, as the review acknowledges.
Funding is a big part of the report and Mendoza and his team have chosen to take the view that as “it is unlikely that there will be significant additional money available for the sector in the immediate future, the main thrust of our recommendations is, therefore, to ensure that we use existing funding in the best way possible”.
I can see why this approach was taken, but surely it would have been better to identify the resources that the sector needs and then let the government decide whether to back this with the necessary money.
The review does call for a more strategic approach to funding and this is welcome. But on what basis will the strategic decisions be made? Public need, or something else? There is a lot in the report about what the government, and museums, need, but the really important part is to identify what the public needs.
The review does a good job in highlighting the importance of the sector in areas such as place-making, community cohesion, learning and public health, and lots more. It also highlights what good value museums are, estimating that the sector generates £3 of income for each £1 of public sector grant.
But the report fails to follow this up with a bold vision of how the sector, for very little extra resources, can sustain and build on the positive impact it has on communities and individuals all over England. There will be a news analysis of the Mendoza Review in January’s Museums Journal.
