Museum Practice. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
change, raising the specter of Forgan being succeeded by a digital entrepreneur rather than someone who can relate to arts and museums. In the event, she was succeeded on January 31, 2013 by Sir Peter Bazalgette, formerly creative director of Endemol, the company behind the television series Big Brother.
Case study 1: The Heritage Lottery Fund
Intentions
As part of the development of the National Lottery, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) was set up by the National Lottery Act 1993 to give grants to a wide range of projects involving the local, regional, and national heritage of the United Kingdom. The HLF distributes a share (determined by the government, currently 18 percent) of the money raised by the National Lottery for “good causes.” The trustees currently have three core aims for HLF, which define in broad terms how they are trying to improve quality of life through the heritage. These are to:
conserve the UK’s diverse heritage for present and future generations to experience and enjoy;
help more people, and a wider range of people, to take an active part in and make decisions about their heritage;
help people to learn about their own and other people’s heritage.
At the beginning there was a reluctance to either define “heritage” or lay out clear aims and objectives. Its emphasis focused on conservation, and particularly the conservation of historic buildings and their contents. But in addition to eventually agreeing on these aims – which are as good a summary of New Labour policy toward the heritage as you are likely to find – the government issues HLF with policy directions under the 1993 Act. The current directions took effect in 2008. As before, these are matters “to be taken into account” when distributing money.4 They include:
asking HLF to assess the needs of the heritage when deciding upon priorities;
involving the public in making policies, setting priorities, and distributing money;
increasing access and participation;
inspiring children and young people;
fostering initiatives that bring people together;
supporting and encouraging volunteering;
encouraging skills development; and
reducing economic and social deprivation.
The HLF has to report back to government on these policy directions, detailing how they are addressing them, evidenced by statistics where applicable. A brief summary of HLF responses may be found in the HLF Annual Reports.
Administration and delivery mechanisms
HLF is administered by the Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF), the fund of last resort for the UK’s heritage, coming to the rescue by funding emergency acquisitions. NHMF allocates around £10 million of government grant-in-aid money per year to our national heritage. But since it first allocated grants in 1995, HLF has had far greater impact on museums and galleries than its parent body. It has distributed about £1.3 billion in capital and revenue grants, which have touched the majority of accredited museums, enabling them to invest in buildings, renew their displays, and develop new or improved educational and outreach programs.
Achieving a careful balance between income, awards, and commitments is a constant source of concern for HLF. Table 3.1 shows how even over a short period (five years) it is impossible to assume stability. Trustees can make awards in a year greater than one year’s income, because they have held back funds in the bank. The sudden fall in awards in 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 is mostly explained by developing a new system of assessing applications in two rounds: Round One passes are not committed awards and therefore do not count. The figure will rise again in 2010/2011 because most of the projects passed at Round One will by then have passed Round Two and will have been awarded a grant.
TABLE 3.1 Heritage Lottery Fund financial and staffing profile 2005/6–2009/10
| Financial year | Trustees’ awards (£m) | Income from National Lottery (£m) | NLDF investment income (£m) | Total income (£m) | Average number of employees |
| 2005/2006 | n/a | 230.4 | 39.7 | 270.7 | 245 |
| 2006/2007 | 285.4 | 201.0 | 30.0 | 231.7 | 247 |
| 2007/2008 | 283.9 | 200.4 | 15.4 | 217.0 | 238 |
| 2008/2009 | 150.9 | 208.2 | 9.9 | 209.1 | 230 |
| 2009/2010 | 85.5 | 246.7* | 2.0 | 205.5 | 226 |
* However, from this, £43.4m was transferred to the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund. £10.8m had been taken in the previous year. Source: HLF Annual Reports
Income from the National Lottery derives from ticket sales. Interest in playing the games seems to have fallen in the mid-2010s, but revived again as recession set in – it seems that poorer people gamble more when economically threatened. Unfortunately all of the increase (and more) in 2009/2010 was lost because £43.4 million was “stolen” to help fund the 2012 London Olympics (see Table 3.1).
Investment income from the National Lottery Development Fund (which holds lottery income, maximizing investment income, and releases it to the distributing bodies as required) crashed spectacularly over the past five years because of significant reductions in market interest rates and gilt yields. So, overall, annual income into the HLF fell by a quarter because of an increasingly challenging economic climate and a raid to support the Olympics. However, as the recession continues to bite, the number of lottery tickets sold has been increasing. As of February 2012, projections suggested that the HLF is likely to see its share of funding rise over the next five years. £1.42 billion is expected to be available between 2011/2012 and 2015/2016 – a 14.7 percent increase on 2010 projections (Kendall 2012).
Legislation and amendments
During the earliest years of HLF’s distribution of funding, discussion of its grant awards was dominated by three