the breakthrough fund - home - paul hamlyn …...the breakthrough fund in profile 10 a) aims and...

The Breakthrough FundA Special Initiative of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation

Confidential

By Kate TyndallBreakthrough Fund Advisor

September 2012

Summary of Interim Evaluation Findings

Contents

Executive summary 2

Key findings 4

Appendices 10

1. The Breakthrough Fund in profile 10

a) Aims and success criteria 10

b) Grants 11

c) Nominators 13

d) Selection process 15

e) Analysis of nomination, application and grantee data 16

2. Interim Evaluation: context, brief and method 17

3. UK and international comparators 19

1Contents

2The Breakthrough Fund – Summary of Interim Evaluation Findings

Executive summary

The Breakthrough Fund is a Special Initiative of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation’s(PHF) Arts programme. It aims to unlock significant developments andoutcomes in the arts that would not otherwise be achieved by responding tothe compelling visions of outstanding individuals working in the role of 'culturalentrepreneur' in a wide variety of art forms and contexts, and offeringtransformational and timely support to them and their organisations to pursuethese visions. Through an evaluation of the outcomes and impacts for the artsand the strategic role of this kind of support, Paul Hamlyn Foundation aims tooffer to the wider arts sector any learning that emerges about the rationale for,challenges, and fruits of this grant giving approach.

The Breakthrough Fund ran three annual selection processes (2008–10)through a process of confidential nomination, which resulted in a total of 15grants. Details of the Breakthrough Fund in profile are given in Appendix 1.Totalling £3,879,765, these grants range from £83,000 to £360,000 with anaverage value of £255,000. Three of the first year’s grants completed during2011; the remaining 12 complete at various points through to 2015. More thanhalf run for between four and six years, with a combined span across thecohort of seven years.

Conceived as part of the expansion of PHF’s grant-making envisaged in its2006–13 Strategic Plan and addressing what it sees as an area ofunaddressed potential in arts funding, PHF is trying something new with thisapproach to grant-making. The evaluation responds to the timescales of thevarious grants and comprises a number of elements outlined in Appendix 2,including a longitudinal review two years after completion of each grant. Thefirst phase is this Interim Evaluation, which offers an assessment of the Fund’sstrategic role and an interim assessment of the impact and outcomes of eachgrant to date. Its method and research inputs are detailed in Appendix 2.

In response to its findings, PHF has decided to institute another cycle of theBreakthrough Fund. It is currently considering a number of points raised by theevaluation in order to strengthen further the Breakthrough Fund’s approachand expects to announce a new selection cycle for the Fund in spring 2013.

From the evaluation evidence gathered to date, the Breakthrough Fund seemsto serve a truly distinct strategic role in the current UK arts funding landscape –through:

• Its focus on the artistic vision, talent and drive of exceptional individuals ina role described by the Fund as ‘cultural entrepreneur’ – not often thefocus of grant-making in the UK

• Its non-directive approach that embraces a variety of types of support andareas of strategic impact defined by grantees

• Its willingness to offer significant, engaged, flexible support to back theopen-ended, bold pursuit of visions, and to allow plans to emerge overtime

• The contribution the Fund is making to the UK arts ecology throughreleasing the self-defining potential for innovation, excellence, relevanceand risk-taking at a time when funding is increasingly scarce

The Interim Evaluation Report shows that:

• The initiative appears to be highly valued by those in the arts sector awareof its vision and approach. Those consulted see it as increasingly relevantas the external context continues to get tougher.

• The current cohort of grantees is broadly perceived to be of a calibre andbreadth that addresses the Fund’s ambitions. The quality of selectiondecision-making is seen as fundamental to the case for the Fund.

• The Fund’s most ready relevance has been to individuals in their mid-career – those coming into, or recently established within, their maturecapabilities and vision, though younger grantees have also attractedsupport. Two thirds of grantees have won Breakthrough support to takeforward the work of organisations that they themselves have founded. Lessthan a third lead established organisations that pre-date them and will inturn pass to other chief executives in time.

• Only six out of 15 of the grantee organisations received regular funding atthe time of nomination, and a further four have secured this since then.Four grantees are currently targeting new levels of public regular funding asan aspect of their plans for sustainability beyond their Breakthrough grant.Only three have no ambition to be regularly funded, of which one runs afor-profit company.

• Some elements of the Fund’s approach – such as the size of the grants,the leverage they can offer, the flexibility on timescales and on use of thegrant, the ability to consider additional grants later on in the process, andthe engaged support offered through the relationship with grantees – areproving critical in varying ways to its success.

• The Fund takes a distinctive approach to risk, happy to commit significantfinancial support earlier than might otherwise be the case, and then allowgrantees’ thinking to form in more detail. The risks that result are less thanmight have been anticipated due to the size of the grants, the quality of theindividuals and the visions supported, and the supportive and engagedway the grants are managed.

• The value for money offered by the Fund will be revealed through theoutcomes, impacts, legacy and sustainability of what has been supported.This will become clear over a much longer timescale than this InterimEvaluation Report and will need to be understood in full beyond the activespan of the grants themselves.

• With only three grants complete at the time of the Interim Evaluation theimpacts and outcomes of support are still taking shape. Progress is verystrong in many areas, much of which would not have been unlockedwithout Breakthrough support. But the picture is varied, nuanced andchanging. The great majority are progressing towards the kind of‘breakthroughs’ originally envisaged, but not everyone is moving forwardas hoped. The evaluation aims to learn from these examples.

• The great majority of grants appear likely to achieve strong publicoutcomes and a strong positive legacy for the individuals and organisationsinvolved. Sustainability of what is being achieved is a bigger challenge,which approximately only a third appear as yet to have resolved. This is akey question for future cycles of the Fund, and will be a focus ofconsultation with other funders over the coming months.

3Executive summary


Key findings

Distinctive strategic roleThe Interim Evaluation has drawn from nominator interviews, comparatorresearch (Appendix 3), and interviews with grantees to identify a remarkablyconsistent picture of the Breakthrough Fund’s strategic role. This suggeststhat the Breakthrough Fund is making a unique contribution to the UK artsfunding landscape, shaped by the following characteristics:

• Its defining focus on the vision, talent and drive of exceptional individuals ina role described by the Fund as ‘cultural entrepreneur’ – not often thefocus of attention for grant-makers as the rationale for support

• Its decisive appetite to back open-ended, bold pursuit of visions withsignificant, engaged, flexible support – and the different relationship withrisk this entails

• Its willingness for plans to take shape over time, together with its far-sightedness about the outcomes that can result

The Fund is proving to be a distinctive and potentially impactful idea, both interms of whom it funds (exceptional individuals in the role of culturalentrepreneur) and the way it chooses to fund (a focus on responsive,significant, timely support for the bold, open-ended pursuit of compellingvisions defined by grantees). In both these regards, it has found a rich seamof potential as a way to make a difference, helping to bring about a vibrant,forward-looking, self-defining arts sector and to realise developments in thearts that would not otherwise be achieved.

Non-directive approach – diversity of outcomes andareas of strategic impactThe Fund’s non-directive approach has led to a consciously unplanneddiversity of types of support, strategic impact and outcome. It is unusual tosee a funder invest this much money in this way. It feeds what one granteedescribed as the ‘cultural biodiversity’ – and what some nominators saw asthe self-realising authenticity – of what is happening in the arts in the UK.

*The grant to Tony Butler included support both for the Museum of EastAnglian Life and to initiate the Happy Museum Project

Strong support from the arts sector – with the initiativeseen as increasingly valuable as external challenges growThe consultation suggests that the Breakthrough Fund has high levels ofsupport from those aware of its decisions and approach. Comments werelargely at the level of the vision and values of the Fund, which nearly all foundinspiring and far-sighted. Unsurprisingly, those consulted had little awarenessof how the Fund is playing out in terms of the outcomes and impacts of thegrants themselves. Some helpful areas of comment and critique offeredinsights for further consideration by PHF as it plans a new cycle ofBreakthrough Fund support.

5Key findings

Sector innovation • Tony Butler/Happy Museum Project*

R&D for new product oridea, with potential forsector innovation

• Nii Sackey/Bigga Fish

Innovation in establishedinstitutions’ visions andcapabilities

• Maria Balshaw/Whitworth Art Gallery andManchester Art Galleries

• David Jubb/BAC

• Natalie Abrahami, Carrie Cracknell/GateTheatre

• Tony Butler/Museum of East Anglian Life(MEAL)*

Innovation within anemergent organisation

• Matt Peacock/Streetwise Opera

Building up emergentorganisations’ programmesand capabilities

• Stuart Bailie/Oh Yeah Music Centre

• Gavin Wade/Eastside Projects

Significant stepchange/start up forindependent producingcompanies

• Simon Pearce/The Invisible Dot

• Tom Chivers, Sam Hawkins, MarieMcPartlin/London Word Festival

• Helen Cole/In Between Time Productions

• Claire Doherty/Situations

Significant step change foremergent artists’ companies

• Felix Barrett, Colin Marsh/Punchdrunk

• Stewart Laing/Untitled Projects

Project producing • Gareth Evans/Artevents

The wide-ranging strategic impact of the grants can be clustered as follows:


“The world is not made by policy but by people. No other fundingapproach is doing this, responding to individuals’ vision andpotential. They’re guided by institutions’ strategic priorities, andnever see the task of responding as central. Funding is rushingtowards accountability, systems, measurement. This is quitedifferent.”

“I can’t think of another funder working like this. Its responsiveopenness is extremely refreshing. Very unusually, it’s not ruled bythree-year business plans, and manages not to impose limitations.It’s focused on excellence, relevance to the future, excitement,entrepreneurialism.”

“It’s a fantastic, far-sighted initiative. What excites me is itsresponse to promise, to individual talent, and the way it can act somuch more flexibly than, say, public funding. It’s adventurous, andsignals externally that PHF trusts creative entrepreneurialindividuals to deliver. It’s been eye-opening for everyone, to showthis trust and confidence. I admire it greatly.”

The Fund is felt by the great majority of those consulted to be increasinglyrelevant as the funding environment continues to get tougher. It is seen ashelping to offset the growing pressures for retrenchment, and instead torelease the potential for innovation, excellence and for continued culturalvibrancy and distinctiveness, even as the external context grows morechallenging. However, many felt that the Fund’s approach to the potentialsustainability of what it funds will become increasingly critical.

Emerging impacts and outcomes of the grantsThe diversity of the grants ensures that the emerging impacts and outcomesare correspondingly varied. An evaluation matrix was developed to assesseach grant against criteria as follows (see figure 1):

• Progress with realisation of vision

• Sustainable future achieved

• Transformational impact for individual grantees

• Transformational impact for grantee organisations

• Significant public outcomes not otherwise realised

• Significant areas of innovation; impact beyond the arts

• Legacy – positive or negative

• Breakthrough Fund as ‘game-changer’

The evaluation matrix will be updated at regular intervals as Breakthrough grantsprogress. With only three grants complete at the time of the Interim Evaluation,the impacts and outcomes of the grants are still taking shape. Progress is verystrong in most areas, as is to be expected with such sizeable grants given tohighly talented individuals with strong visions and drive, and it is already clear thatmuch of this would not have been unlocked without Breakthrough support.

But the picture is varied, nuanced and changing. Some already very strongexamples sit alongside areas of disappointment. Not everyone is makingprogress towards the kind of ‘breakthroughs’ originally envisaged.

Figure 1: Breakthrough Fund Evaluation Matrix

7Key findings


Impact of the Breakthrough Fund’s particular approachA number of characteristics of Breakthrough Fund support – in addition to thesize of many of the grants – are proving critical to what is being achieved.Factors include:

• The willingness to offer significant backing and cash flow before plans havebeen identified. This unlocks the thinking time and early work to engageothers that in turn produce the way forward. It has also allowed individualsto leave existing employment to pursue the route proposed to the Fund.Where Breakthrough finance is the major flow for a new start-up company,the willingness to respond very flexibly to cash needs has been vital.

• The Fund’s ‘early adopter’ commitment has secured significant leveragethat would not otherwise have been achieved.

• The Fund’s willingness to accommodate at times significantly changingtimescales – reflecting personal factors, changes in external context, ornew ideas about how to support the vision proposed – has been critical formany.

• The supportive and engaged relationship with grantees that seeks tosupport grantees’ strategic thinking, and to respond flexibly to challenges,issues and potential changes of approach, is adding value and positivemomentum. In a few instances it is having an explicit impact on how grantscan progress, supporting an engagement with issues that would otherwisefundamentally undermine progress, or providing strategic dialogue wheregrantees lack ready peers or collaborators.

• The willingness, in specific circumstances, to initiate supplementarysupport has been critical to securing full impact.

A good number of the grants can already be seen as ‘game-changing’ forgrantees and their organisations. Many others (though not all) hold the clearpotential for this also to be the case. One or two may prove game-changerswithin their sectors as well.

The risks of the Breakthrough Fund’s approach The evidence to date is that the Breakthrough Fund’s more open-endedapproach and its willingness to offer support before plans are clear are notcreating additional risks for PHF in the ways that might originally have beenanticipated. In part, this apparent potential for greater risk is offset by thestrength of the individuals and the visions supported, as well as by thesizeable and early sums committed, which help in turn to create stability andbuild opportunity. The engaged, supportive and flexible way the grants aremanaged is also helping to mitigate risks.

The Fund’s focus on individuals has generated particular risks for PHF as afunder. Personal factors such as bereavement, parenthood, breakdown incollaborations, or loss of confidence, have affected progress in some cases,though critical impact has so far been limited.

A significant factor affecting the Breakthrough Fund’s ability to secure theextent of outcomes that it hopes can result is the question of how granteescan achieve the sustainable future that many seek. The Breakthrough grantssupport progress with the grantee’s vision in the immediate period of the

grant, but most are also proving critical in setting up all that can be achievedonce Breakthrough support has concluded. Where future impact and legacyare reliant on the securing of resources to ensure a sustainable future,significant risks exist.

Value for moneyThe value for money offered by the Breakthrough grants is achieved throughthe outcomes, impacts, legacy and sustainability of what has been supported– and the subsequent pathways that unfold. It will take time to be able toassess the nature of this varied equation across the 15 grants. The evaluationrecognises this with its commitment to longitudinal reviews two years aftercompletion and its willingness to understand the fruits of each grant in theirvaried terms.

The value for money offered by the Breakthrough Fund relates in part to thequestion of whether investments of the size offered were needed to achievewhat resulted. In some examples, this judgement is more feasible than inothers. Where grants are being used to build a core infrastructure (an aspectof at least 11 of the 15 stories), it is relatively straightforward to assess theneed for the figure offered. In other areas, the commitment has been tosupport the realisation of a vision in more loosely defined ways at the point ofdecision, and the grant’s detailed form and shape then emerges as the storyunfolds. In these examples, it is harder to decide clearly on the terms of thejudgement about value for money: the offer of Breakthrough support itselfplays a part in defining the scope – and cost – of what follows.

The Interim Evaluation identified a more or less universal consensus that thevalue and potential impact of the Breakthrough Fund rests in part on the scaleof support that PHF is willing to offer. The size of grants help to underwrite theFund’s ambitions for transformational impact and the intention to bring aboutdevelopments that would not otherwise be achieved. They also help to set afair wind behind grantees as they push towards the visions they seek.

Once the Breakthrough grants are complete, it is likely to be possible to judgemore about the levels of support. But it appears to be a defining element ofthe Breakthrough Fund’s own vision and approach that as grant-maker PHF ismotivated to take the risk of whether it got this right or not – just one aspectof the risks involved in forming judgements about whom to back in this way.As a number consulted argued, this willingness to judge whom to back and todo so decisively is where a large part of the Breakthrough Fund’s value lies.

9Key findings


Appendix 1

The Breakthrough Fund in profile

a) Aims and success criteria

Aims

• To identify outstanding cultural entrepreneurs working in a wide variety ofcontexts, who have a compelling vision and are at a breakthrough point intheir career

• To offer an early commitment of significant, responsive, flexible and timelysupport to help them realise the visions proposed and to achievetransformational impacts for them and their organisations

• Through the grants, to unlock significant outcomes and developments inthe arts that would not otherwise have been enabled

• Through an evaluation of the impacts and outcomes of the grants and theFund’s distinctive ways of working, to offer learning about the fruits andchallenges of this grant-giving approach

Success criteria

Selection • The Fund will identify a grouping of outstandingindividuals, with compelling visions that each offer aclear rationale for the particular characteristics ofBreakthrough Fund support.

• The long list of nominees and the final list of selectedgrants will include a range of art forms, locations, ways ofworking, and individuals at varying stages in their careers.

Achievement • The grants will lead to high-quality outcomes, and willsignificantly enable grantees to progress their visions.

• The grants will enable the transformational developmentof both the individuals and the organisations concerned,helping to lever new support and opportunities.

• Across the cohort, Breakthrough Fund support willgenerate significant public outcomes, in ways specificand relevant to each grant, that would not otherwisehave been achieved.

Legacy • The impact and outcomes of grants will have a positivelegacy and/or sustainable future beyond the period ofPHF support.

• Grants will avoid any inappropriately destabilisingimpacts on recipient individuals and organisations.

• The Fund’s ways of working will offer learning to thewider funding context.

11Appendix 1

b) Grants

2008 grants

Stuart Bailie/Oh Yeah Music Centre, Belfast – Total £284,795 over fiveyearsInitial support of £191,858 over three years offered for Stuart to become ChiefExecutive and first paid employee of this newly founded Belfast musicorganisation. Further amounts of £44,450 offered in October 2008 to helpbuild Oh Yeah’s fundraising capacity, and £48,487 in summer 2011 as a finaltransitional phase of support for Stuart’s salary and first year of new post ofGeneral Manager. Initial grant span of three years extended to five years dueto supplementary support.

Felix Barrett and Colin Marsh/Punchdrunk, London – Total £320,000over three yearsInitial grant of £300,000 prioritised by Felix and Colin to allow first ever salariesfor posts of Artistic and Executive Directors and newly created role ofEnrichment Director over three years, plus R&D funding for this increasinglyrenowned immersive theatre company. Further element of £20,000 fororganisational development offered in autumn 2010.

Gareth Evans/Artevents, London – Total £300,000 over three years Initial support of £250,000 for Gareth and his collaborator Di Robson towardscore costs of producing The Re-Enchantment, a series of major commissionsand events exploring our relationship to place that took place in 2011. Further£50,000 towards specific Re-Enchantment commission to filmmaker GrantGee offered in July 2009.

David Jubb/BAC, London – £300,000 over three years Support offered to David for key areas of innovation at BAC, identified andprioritised by David as the three years progressed, and for dual artisticleadership model. Support came at a moment when BAC had secured a newleasehold of its 19th century town hall premises.

Nii Sackey/Bigga Fish, London – Total £298,000 over five years (tbc)Initial grant of £250,000 towards the development of Gwop, a new web-based trading game allowing young people to promote the urban musicartists that they value. Supplementary grant of £48,000 offered in February2010 to support additional elements. Initial grant timescale of three years nowextended to five years to facilitate project development.

2009 grants

Natalie Abrahami and Carrie Cracknell/Gate Theatre, London –£254,000 over three yearsSupport to develop Natalie’s and Carrie’s vision of the Gate Elsewhere – co-production, touring, off-site presentations – through new producing posts,R&D and production costs.


Tony Butler/Museum of East Anglian Life (MEAL), Suffolk – Total£196,000 over four years (tbc)Initial support of up to £150,000 offered pending confirmation of Tony’sproposals, with scope for increased support beyond this. Grant confirmed as:£64,000 towards new post at MEAL to build museum’s capacity to work withvolunteers and to run local programmes of involvement for three years, plus£132,000 for the Happy Museum Project, an initiative to stimulate sectoralinnovation following the principles of the Happy Museum manifesto proposedby Tony and co-authors, running from 2011 through to 2013.

Tom Chivers, Sam Hawkins, Marie McPartlin/London Word Festival,London – £147,000 over three yearsCore support to allow the three founding directors of this emergent anddistinctive London festival to pay themselves part-time for the first time, andfor artists’ commissions.

Helen Cole/In Between Time Productions (IBTP), Bristol – £278,000over five yearsCore support for Helen to leave Arnolfini in Bristol to set up her ownindependent company to produce biennial In Between Time Festivals, plusother projects and artist collaborations. Grant period extended from theoriginal four years to five to reflect longer start up phases.

Claire Doherty/Situations, Bristol – £300,000 over five yearsOffered to allow Claire to initiate her own programme of commissions withinSituations as a visual arts programme operating through the University of theWest of England (UWE). Claire’s maternity leave changed timescales, and thechanging situation within higher education then led to the decision to takeSituations fully independent. Claire will leave her post at UWE and the grantwill now support core costs for the formation of a new company from autumn2012, and will run through to 2015.

2010 grants

Maria Balshaw/Whitworth Art Gallery and Manchester Art Galleries,Manchester – £260,000 over four years (tbc)Initially anticipated to run for three years when Maria was director of just theWhitworth Art Gallery. Now planned to run for four years to reflect change inMaria’s role to take on directorship of Manchester Art Galleries jointly with herrole at the Whitworth. Initially offered towards sabbatical costs, new curatorialapproaches and programming within the Whitworth. Now reconceived tosupport emergence of a new collaborative curatorial approach, andinternational programming and relationships with West Africa and Asia, acrossthe combined institutions of the Whitworth and the Manchester Art Galleries.

Stewart Laing/Untitled Projects, Glasgow – £273,000 over three yearsSupport for core costs to allow director/designer Stewart to push forward hisGlasgow-based company Untitled Projects with producing colleagues LornaDuguid and Steve Slater, producing and developing new work conceived byStewart and initiating a talent development strand within Scotland in partnershipwith the Glasgow Citizens Theatre where Untitled Projects is now based.

Matt Peacock/Streetwise Opera, national – £83,157 over four years(tbc)Towards development of a new artistic strategy for Streetwise Opera,combining film and live music performance. The grant covered the costs offilm production research, R&D, pilots of new performance formats on tour,and new artistic and producing roles. Initially anticipated to last for three years,the grant will now cover four years to reflect changed timescale for majorproduction in 2013.

Simon Pearce/The Invisible Dot, London – £220,000 over four years(tbc)Support to appoint a General Manager, the first ever employee for thisindependent comedy producing outfit set up by Simon in 2009, and for R&Dof new commissions and producing ideas. Initial grant timescale of three yearssubsequently extended to reflect the unanticipated opportunity to open a newvenue and rehearsal facility of their own.

Gavin Wade/Eastside Projects, Birmingham – £360,000 over five years Support for core costs and enhanced exhibition programme for this artist-ledspace founded by Gavin and his collaborators in 2008. Originally requestedfor three years, then adjusted by Gavin to cover five years in order better toenable a transition to life beyond Breakthrough support.

c) Nominators

2008

Ekow Eshun – writer, broadcaster

Sue Hoyle – Director, Clore Cultural Leadership Programme*

Ariane Koek – International Arts Development/CERN Laboratory, Switzerland

Helen Marriage – Director, Artichoke*

Kathryn McDowell – Managing Director, London Symphony Orchestra

Wayne McGregor – Director, Random Dance*

Martin Melarky – Nerve Centre, Derry

Tom Morris – Artistic Director, Bristol Old Vic*

Sandy Nairne – Director, National Portrait Gallery*

Alex Poots – Director, Manchester International Festival

Matthew Slotover – Co-Director, Frieze

Geraint Talfan Davies – Chairman, WNO

Claire Whitaker – Director, Serious

13Appendix 1


2009

Iwona Blazwick – Director, Whitechapel Gallery

Mark Boothe – Director, B3 Media

Ruth Borthwick – Director, Arvon Foundation

Simon Clugston – Sage Gateshead

Marcus Davey – Artistic Director and CEO, Roundhouse*

Siobhan Davies – Artistic Director, Siobhan Davies Company*

Richard Hogger – Director, Creu Cymru*

Tessa Jackson – Chief Executive, Iniva

David Lan – Artistic Director, Young Vic Theatre*

Declan McGonagle – Professor of Art, University of Ulster

Alice Rawsthorn – journalist

Alastair Spalding – Artistic Director and Chief Executive, Sadler’s WellsTheatre*

Virginia Tandy – previously Director of Culture for Manchester and Director ofthe Manchester City Galleries*

Tom Trevor – Director, Arnolfini

2010

Lewis Biggs – curator, writer, cultural consultant*

Morag Deyes – Artistic Director, Dance Base

Roanne Dods – Director, Roanne Dods Ltd*

David Francis – Director of Arts, Dartington Hall Trust*

Tania Harrison – Arts Curator, Latitude

Rhian Hutchings – WNO Max Director*

Darius James – Artistic Director, Ballet Cymru

James Kerr – Director, Verbal Arts Centre*

Donna Lynas – Director, Wysing Arts*

Shona McCarthy – Chief Executive, Derry Culture Company

Caroline Miller – Director, Dance UK

Gillian Moore – Head of Contemporary Culture, Southbank Centre*

Purni Morrell – Artistic Director, Unicorn Theatre*

Judith Palmer – Director, Poetry Society*

Erica Whyman – CEO, Northern Stage Company*

* interviewed as part of the Interim Evaluation

15Appendix 1

d) Selection processBuilding on a well-established model provided by PHF’s Awards for Artists,the Breakthrough Fund adopted a confidential nomination process. Achanging list of nominators from across the English regions, Scotland, Walesand Northern Ireland were invited to propose exceptional individuals in the roleof what was described as ‘cultural entrepreneur’.

These individuals were defined by PHF as people with creative andmanagerial flair and a pressing and persuasive vision that they are driven torealise. They could be of any age and might work independently in their owncompany or within established organisations or institutions. They needed tohave compelling and sound artistic vision and judgement and to demonstratea sense of responsibility towards their art form and audiences, with a strongtrack record and readiness for what they were trying to achieve.

Nominators were encouraged not to feel that they were being asked torepresent particular areas of practice or regions of the country, but wereinvited to propose individuals from any region or artistic background. A total of42 nominators across the three years (see Appendix 1c for details)contributed to what proved to be a combined long list of 125 nominations.

Of these nominees, 120 chose to put themselves forward. A writtenapplication outlined their vision and their approach to realising it, assessingthe challenges to be met on the way and the likely impact for them and theirorganisation of Breakthrough support, and proposing an amount andtimescale for financial support at a level they were entirely free to identify.Nominees were shortlisted for interview directly from these applications by themembers of PHF’s Arts Programme Committee (APC), whose expertise hasbeen vital to the Breakthrough Fund’s selection process. Over three years, atotal of 27 nominees were interviewed by APC, leading to 15 grants.

At interview, nominees were assessed not on the strength or detail of theirplans, but on the compelling nature of their vision within its wider context;their personal track record and qualities; the apparent timeliness and need forsupport of this kind; its potential transformational impact for both theindividual and organisation concerned; and their awareness of and readinessfor the challenges ahead. In contrast to PHF’s Open Grants scheme, therewas no requirement to propose predefined outcomes and related methods ofmeasuring these, and the potential outcomes of support and the means ofachieving them were allowed to remain open in their definition.

At no stage were selection decisions weighed in relation to regional or art formspread or other representational criteria – though it was hoped that a goodspread of type, scale and location of activity and age of grantee would proveto win support. The focus was on the individual and on the search for‘compelling visions’ as the guiding criteria – though judgements about boththe nature of potential public outcomes and the likely value for money wereimplicit in the decisions made.

The number and size of the grants each year were not predefined. The majoritywere offered at the sums originally requested, with a few at lower – though stillsubstantial – levels of support. The progress of some has led to furthersupplementary support: five have received additional amounts. In none of thethree years was the full allocation of £1.5m required: Breakthrough grants total£3,879,765, some £620,000 short of the £4.5m originally allocated.


e) Analysis of nomination, application and grantee dataThe Interim Evaluation undertook an analysis of nomination, application andgrantee data. The following provides a snapshot of the picture that emerged:

• The profile of the grantee group is broadly representative of the widernominee group of which it is part, with few variances of any importance.

• The profile of nominees and grantees addressed PHF’s ambition for theFund to engage with a range of art forms, locations, ways and scales ofworking, and types of organisation. But there is limited cultural diversity – areflection, to some extent, of the scope of the nominators, but morefundamentally of the limitations of the wider processes that shape howtalent and new visions are emerging and establishing themselves in the arts.

• Nominees and grantees have been more uniformly at a mid-point in theircareer than originally anticipated. It appears that the Fund’s most readyrelevance is to individuals in their mid-career – those coming into, orrecently established within, their mature capabilities and vision.

• All grantees (and 88% of nominees) are vision setters for their organisations(in roles of Director or CEO), and ten out of 15 grantees have wonBreakthrough support to take forward the work of organisations that theythemselves have founded as a vehicle for this vision in the world. Bycontrast, only four run established arts institutions that pre-date them andwill be handed to other chief executives in time.

• The vast majority of requests were for £150k–£350k spread over threeyears. There were a small number of requests either side of this range. Inpractice, only six grants will maintain the initial proposal for a three-yeargrant period; nine will in fact spread over periods of between four to six years.

• The principal request was unsurprisingly for core support: 80% prioritisedthis and 11 of the 15 grants have made significant contributions todeveloping core organisational infrastructures. Programming,commissioning, and R&D have been the next biggest priorities for support.

• Only six of the 15 grantee organisations were regularly funded at the time ofnomination, and only five (33%) had any previous application history withPHF, corresponding with 34% of nominees. A further four have securedregular funding during the period of Breakthrough support. Only three haveno ambitions to be regularly funded, of which one runs a for-profit company.

Appendix 2

Interim Evaluation – context, brief and methodThe 15 Breakthrough Fund grants complete at various points from April 2011through to 2015. The evaluation responds to the timescales of the variousgrants, and comprises the following elements:

• Evaluation of individual grants: ongoing monitoring and review, with an in-depth evaluation with grantees on completion of each grant

• Interim Evaluation of the Fund in overview, including assessment of itsstrategic role and interim assessment of the emerging impact andoutcomes of the grants (this document)

• Updating of Interim Evaluation findings at milestones when further grantscomplete

• Longitudinal review: follow-up interviews with grantees and where relevanttheir organisations, two years after completion of each grant

The evaluation is undertaken by Kate Tyndall, Breakthrough Fund Advisor,who also holds the detailed monitoring relationship with grantees, under thedirection of PHF’s Head of Arts. Her brief as an independent consultant hasbeen to follow progress with a supportive, attentive eye, offering engagedsupport to grantees if appropriate or desired. This has provided a uniquevantage point for the ultimate evaluation of the grants and their impact. It wasalso intended to help establish the desired culture at the heart of theBreakthrough Fund where the ‘sheen’ often given to the fundraising dialoguemight to some extent be put aside: honesty, insight and rigorous if open-ended thinking from grantees in exchange for responsive, flexible, andconstructively critical attention and backing from PHF.

BriefThe Interim Evaluation was asked to address the following areas:

Strategic assessment

• To position the Breakthrough Fund within PHF’s strategic aims and values

• To position the Breakthrough Fund within the UK arts funding ecology,identifying the ways in which the Fund is distinctive in its approach inrelation to notable UK or international comparators

• To test arts sector views of the Fund, and whether its approach is felt to beof particular value or impact

• To assess the strategic role of the Fund in its current context

Assessment of grants

• To make an interim assessment of the extent to which the 15 grants arerealising the Breakthrough Fund’s aims

17Appendix 2


Assessment of the Breakthrough Fund’s ways of working

• To assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Breakthrough Fund’sselection processes

• To assess the impact of its approach to the funding relationships withgrantees, including leverage and advocacy

• To review the challenges and fruits of the Fund’s approach to risk

• To review the efficiency of the Fund’s processes

• To make an initial assessment of the value for money offered by theBreakthrough Fund

Key areas of learning and questions to inform future decision-making

• To identify key areas of learning

• To identify questions to inform future decision-making

MethodThe Interim Evaluation draws on the following inputs:

• Analysis of nomination, application and grantee data across three years

• Comparator research: meetings with Heads of PHF’s Social Justice andEducation programmes, plus desk research, phone interviews andmeetings to identify notable UK and international comparators

• Phone interviews with a sample of nominators to establish perspectives onthe Fund and its place within the current UK context

• Phone interviews with Arts Programme Committee members to gainperspectives on the Fund’s selection processes

• Ongoing monitoring of all grants

• Interim evaluation of non-completed grants

• End of grant evaluation of three completed grants

The Breakthrough Fund has so far taken a deliberately reticent approach tocommunicating itself to the wider arts sector, choosing instead to wait for thefindings of the Interim Evaluation. This has made it difficult to know what levelsof awareness might exist, or what the views of the wider arts sector might be.It was decided therefore that the most appropriate approach to testing artssector views was to interview a sample of nominators, because, though thismight risk only speaking with individuals who by definition have engagedpositively with the Fund, it provides a respected, independent, relevant andknowledgeable sample whose own interests are not unduly tied up in itsfuture. Details of the 21 nominators interviewed are given in Appendix 1c.

The assessment of the individual grants was done through an evaluationmatrix detailed as Figure 1 in the main body of this report. In-depth interimevaluation reports were undertaken for each grant, providing the backgroundto the markings within the evaluation matrix.

Appendix 3

UK and international comparatorsResearch within the UK and more limited research internationally has identifiedsome interesting and revealing comparators to the Breakthrough Fund,detailed below. Each has a strong area of correspondence to the BreakthroughFund, but also helps to highlight the distinctive approach the BreakthroughFund is taking in contrast. It is interesting that many are time-limited initiatives,or conceived as a one-off celebration of the grant-makers’ vision and values.Several originate in spheres other than arts and culture, though some dosupport individuals from within these worlds. These examples are each tryingto do different things – and therefore offer support in their own particular way.Some require grantees to deliver new, specific activity that addresses thefunder’s particular objectives. Some seek to enable progress with the grantee’score vision. Some seek to support the personal and professional developmentor financial needs of the individual in targeted ways, while some see this as anentirely ‘free’ investment in the grantee’s long-term potential, imposing norequirements for how the support is spent.

• Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust’s Visionaries for a Just andPeaceful World

Six individuals identified through open application (c. 1600 received) andoffered five years’ support (2000–05) at £37,500 pa (totalling £187,500) toallow them to pursue their visions for just and peaceful change. This was aone-off initiative totalling £1.6m to celebrate the Joseph RowntreeCharitable Trust (JRCT) centenary. JRCT is modest in its communicationsabout the Visionaries initiative, but does hope that the initiative caninfluence others to support a process of social change in this way.

• Ford Foundation Visionaries

The Ford Foundation’s mission is to support visionary leaders andorganisations on the frontlines of social change worldwide. To celebrate their75th Anniversary, in May 2011, the Ford Foundation announced the creationof the Ford Foundation Visionaries Awards to raise the profile of 12extraordinary social innovators across four continents. The Awards aim tohelp these leaders, each awarded US$100,000, to share their work with abroad range of new audiences, allowing them to promote their ideas toensure their insights inform and advance the work of other social innovators.The intention is clearly to use the Ford Foundation’s worldwide profile toamplify the awareness – and therefore impact – of the individuals awarded.

• NESTA Fellowship Programme

Around 300 Fellowships between 1997 and 2005 aimed to help talentedpeople in science, technology and the arts to achieve their potentialthrough a period of intensive exploration lasting between one and threeyears. Fellows were encouraged to develop new work, contacts andprojects and to take themselves outside of existing full-time commitmentsto explore new ground. The Fellowships prioritised personal andprofessional development, with funding of up to £75,000 provided to coverliving costs, and other areas of mentoring, research and development.

19Appendix 3


• Northern Ireland Development Fund

Set up jointly by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and Henry Smith Charity, theFund aims to develop Northern Ireland’s voluntary sector through supportfor its leaders and their potential to offer new solutions and to contribute tothe emergence of a strong civil society in Northern Ireland. The Fund willspend around £3m in total, with 15 individuals selected over three years(2009–11) by confidential nomination, written application, officer visits andassessment, and decision by a joint committee of trustees of the twoFoundations. Grants have varied from £90,000 to £260,000. Individuals areselected not on the basis of detailed plans or proposals, but on trackrecord, perceptions of need and how to address this, plus an outline workplan and timeline. Grants seek to allow individuals to step outside existingorganisational constraints to pursue work that could lead to shifts in policyor sector activity. NIDF offers support from an advisor, and seeks todevelop a self-sustaining, newly formed cohort of peers amongst grantees,facilitating the potential for future collaboration.

• Arthur Guinness Fund

Established by Diageo to celebrate the 250th anniversary of Guinness, theArthur Guinness Fund aims to reflect his legacy of social change andentrepreneurialism. It is a worldwide fund, but implemented with mostdepth and money in Ireland. In each of 2010 and 2011, Diageo offered tensocial entrepreneurs €100,000 in total over two years, plus a considerablesupport programme, to pursue an idea or project with strong potential forreach, scalability, sustainability and measurable social impact. Diageoknow that without the individual with vision, drive and passion, the idea willnot happen, but also recognise that organisational capacity is needed torealise the idea. They look at both the individual and their vision and at theorganisation’s capacity in the selection, but the relationship is with theindividual. There is intensive monitoring, with detailed milestones agreed,and monthly reports and reviews with Diageo’s manager of the Fund. Thesecond year’s finance is not released unless progress is satisfactory. Amonthly review asks: how can Diageo help you now? A needs analysisidentifies a programme of workshops and consultancy support. There is astrong focus on the sustainability of each idea or project, and arequirement that this is addressed right from the start.

• Wellcome Public Engagement Fellows

In July 2011, the Wellcome Trust announced their first two PublicEngagement Fellows, a new initiative conceived in direct reference to theBreakthrough Fund’s approach, and they are currently recruiting theirsecond year of Fellows. The Wellcome Trust has shifted its mission recentlyto supporting the best and brightest minds, with a focus on the individualand what they can achieve. Through open application, two individuals areselected for grants in the region of £150,000 to £300,000 over two years,paid to their employing institution to backfill their normal work and allowthem to develop specific public engagement proposals and plans, whilstalso influencing a culture of public engagement in their institutional setting.The Fellows can apply to Wellcome’s other funds for their plans too, andWellcome expects to be closely involved, to work with them asambassadors and exploit their full communication potential. Through theEngagement Fellows, the Trust hopes to accelerate and enhance thecareers of talented people to create the public engagement leaders of tomorrow.

21Appendix 3

• MacArthur Fellows Program

The John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation based in Chicago hasbeen running what are often known as the MacArthur ‘Genius’ Awardssince 1981, with the 22 Fellows announced in 2011 bringing the total to850, ranging in age from 18 to 82 at the time of selection. A confidential,rolling nomination process assesses potential recipients in depth, withoutthem being aware, leading to a phone call ‘out of the blue’ offering them$500,000 over five years. Individuals are identified across a broadspectrum of endeavours, selected for their creativity, originality, andpotential to make important contributions to the future. The money isoffered without stipulations or reporting requirements, and offersunprecedented freedom and opportunity to reflect, create, explore and contribute.

• Doris Duke Performing Arts Initiative

The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation in the US announced a new $500minitiative in winter 2011 which aims to make grants directly to around 200artists over ten years, offering flexible unrestricted multi-year support,enabling them to take creative risks, explore new ideas and pay forimportant needs such as healthcare and retirement funding. Designatedelements of support alongside the unrestricted support also requireaudience development expenditure. Artists cannot apply, and will beselected by anonymous peer-review panels of professionals. Artists with asignificant track record can receive up to $275,000 over three to five years;those who have demonstrated the potential to influence their respectivefields but have not yet received significant national support can secure upto $80,000 support over two to three years. All Doris Duke Artists will havethe opportunity to take part in professional development activities, financialand legal counselling, and grantee gatherings. A third element of theInitiative will fund the Doris Duke Artists Residencies, where exemplaryartists and organisations will work together to develop demand for theFoundation’s priority areas of artistic practice. The Doris Duke PerformingArts Initiative offers a clear comparison to PHF’s Breakthrough Fund, butalso to its Awards for Artists as well.

Paul Hamlyn Foundation5–11 Leeke StreetLondon WC1X 9HY

Tel: 020 7812 3300Fax: 020 7812 3310Email: [email protected] Registered charity number 1102927

Paul Hamlyn FoundationPaul Hamlyn (1926–2001) was a publisher, businessman andphilanthropist who was concerned about social injustice anddisadvantage – particularly as it affected children and young people,and those ‘outsiders’ seeking to integrate into British society. In 1987he set up the Paul Hamlyn Foundation for general charitablepurposes, and on his death he bequeathed the majority of his estateto the Foundation, making it one of the UK’s largest independentgrant-making organisations.

The mission of the Foundation is to maximise opportunities forindividuals to realise their potential and to experience and enjoy abetter quality of life, now and in the future. In particular, theFoundation is concerned with children and young people and withdisadvantaged people.

Paul Hamlyn Foundation works across the UK through threeprogrammes – Arts, Education and Learning, and Social Justice.Each comprises an Open Grants scheme, to which organisations canapply with proposals for funding innovative activities, and SpecialInitiatives, which are more focused interventions that aim to havedeeper impact on a particular issue. The Foundation also has aprogramme of support for NGOs in India.

The Arts programme Open Grants scheme encourages innovativeways for people in the UK to enjoy, experience and be involved in thearts. Arts programme Special Initiatives include the PHF Awards forArtists, ArtWorks: Developing Practice in Participatory Settings, OurMuseum: Communities and Museums as Active Partners, and theBreakthrough Fund.

Detailed information on the Foundation’s work, and case studiesrelated to past grants, can be found on the Foundation’s website:www.phf.org.uk

Des

igne

d &

pro

duce

d by

: ww

w.a

mo

eba-

crea

tive.

co.u

k

the breakthrough fund - home - paul hamlyn …...the breakthrough fund in profile 10 a) aims and...

Documents