Review of What Next? 2011 – 2013

28/10/2013Lizzie Crump

Introduction............................................................................................................2

Summary................................................................................................................3What have we achieved?..........................................................................................................3What haven’t we achieved?.....................................................................................................3What should our priorities be for 2014 – 2015?.......................................................................3

The origins of What Next?.......................................................................................4Background...............................................................................................................................4Setting priorities.......................................................................................................................5Growing the movement...........................................................................................................5Definitions and principles.........................................................................................................6New What Next? Chapters.......................................................................................................6National Conference.................................................................................................................6

What have we achieved?........................................................................................8Priorities and actions: September 2012 – September 2013.....................................................8

Influencing national policy: Arts and Cultural Learning in Schools.......................................8Influencing national policy: The Comprehensive Spending Review.....................................10Engaging the public and holding a wider conversation......................................................11

Unexpected Outcomes...........................................................................................................14Demonstrating economic value..........................................................................................14Press and PR project...........................................................................................................14

Strengths of What Next?........................................................................................................15Trust...................................................................................................................................15Tone...................................................................................................................................15A higher common denominator..........................................................................................15A stronger relationship with ACE........................................................................................15Partnership with the CLA....................................................................................................15Distributed leadership........................................................................................................15A wider remit......................................................................................................................16A voice for industry.............................................................................................................16Political relationships but no affiliations.............................................................................16A strong core team.............................................................................................................16

What haven’t we achieved?..................................................................................16Tensions and ambiguities.......................................................................................................16

1. The need for clarity of purpose vs the need to bind ourselves together loosely..........172. Lobbying government vs conversation with the public................................................173. The need to be an inclusive and transparent movement vs the need to be able to act, and to influence those in power.........................................................................................184. Central leadership vs distributed leadership...............................................................195. A slim core team vs lack of resource............................................................................196. Diversity vs Energy......................................................................................................207. Chatham House vs transparency and a need to communicate....................................21

1

Social Media, web and communications................................................................21Branding.................................................................................................................................21Website..................................................................................................................................22Twitter....................................................................................................................................22

Priorities for What Next? November 2013 – 2014.................................................23Suggested areas for improvement.........................................................................................23Who should we be engaging with and learning from?...........................................................23

Structure and governance.....................................................................................24Staffing and support in kind to date.......................................................................................24Planned structure going forward............................................................................................25

Finance and budget...............................................................................................27Finance to date.......................................................................................................................27Suggested budget November 2013 – November 2014...........................................................28

Purpose of paperIn the Autumn of 2013 Lizzie Crump undertook a Review of What Next?. She aimed to record the origins and progress of the project so far and to provide a record of activity and achievement as well as some analysis of the progress, strengths, tensions and areas for improvement. The resulting draft document also makes some recommendations for priorities and action for the forthcoming year. These will need to be agreed and discussed by the National What Next? group.

As the Review has progressed it has become clear that What Next? has achieved a number of tangible and practical outcomes, but is currently at a phase where its core purpose needs to be evaluated and refined. The broad headlines that have bound us loosely together to date have been very effective, but in order to clearly communicate with the general public we need to ask ourselves some key questions about what we want to achieve and what approaches we want to take. This need to hone messaging is not a weakness in What Next?, instead it’s a sign that the project is at the right stage to develop further.

Introduction What Next? is a national conversation about the value of the art and culture to society. It is an experiment in new ways for the cultural sector to talk about, influence and shape the cultural landscape.

In a very short time What Next? has grown and expanded from a few people round a table in Southwark to a project encompassing hundreds of individuals and organisations. It is now on the cusp of becoming a national movement.

The development of What Next? has been completely organic and, in many ways, colleagues involved have deliberately resisted then urge to take a traditional route to forming a coalition, to working together or to lobbying for change. It is important to

2

note that this experiment may not work; its future success will rely almost completely on:

sustained and continued energy, generosity and goodwill from cultural organisations and individuals, a belief in the intrinsic value of structured dialogue with one another and

with other partners, a belief in shared and distributed leadership.

Learning from other sectors indicates that forming this kind of coalition is complex, and can take years of negotiation and persistence.

This document has been drafted by Lizzie Crump following a number of interviews with What Next? colleagues, partners and supporters from across the country . Thanks so much to everyone who offered their time and support.

Summary

What have we achieved?

What Next?’s key achievement to date has been to engage the arts and cultural sector around a central goal: to be part of building a society that values and celebrates the arts and culture. It has initiated a national conversation about strengthening and supporting culture and human potential that has felt new, mature, focussed and exciting to many of the attendees and partners who have taken part. The levels of continued commitment from many colleagues to the core principles of What Next? have been unprecedented.

It is difficult to fully evaluate the impact of What Next? as the real value and outcome of conversation is hard to definitively quantify. The project does not operate in vaccum; it works alongside other coalitions and groups, traditional lobbying organisations and projects, non-departmental bodies, the civil service and local and national government. None the less, What Next? has been credited by both the Arts Council and Central Government as making significant contributions to national policy debates surrounding the Comprehensive Spending Review and the development of Education policy.

Despite some of the areas of tension articulated in this document, colleagues are currently generally optimistic and energised about the potential for What Next? to continue to evolve and make change happen.

What are we yet to achieve?

Although it is a priority for almost all members of What Next? a clear plan for engaging in dialogue with our audiences , participants and the public has not yet been made.

3

Sustained partnerships with the voluntary sector, commercial sector and with business and industry have yet to be realised, and a mechanism to energise all those in What Next? to take the actions suggested through the ‘Unlikely Alliances’ campaign has not been found.

Although we have made a start, we are not yet a truly National movement or a movement representative of the whole cultural sector.

What should our priorities be for 2014 – 2015?

To clarify our purpose and to craft our messaging.

For example, we will need to decide whether our main priority is to help build a strong, cohesive society with arts and culture at its centre, is to develop human potential, or is to create a society where arts and culture is valued, celebrated and understood. All these are different.

We will need to make a clear distinction between our lobbying and political messaging, and our planned conversations with the wider public.

To engage the general public in a conversation about how to strengthen the arts and culture within society.

We need to decide whether we want an open, equal conversation with our audiences about what we jointly value, or a directed conversation where we tell the public about the benefits of culture. We need to clarify whether we want to take different approaches to communicating with audiences and participants , and to talking with those who don’t currently actively engage with culture. We will need to decide whether we want to ask the public to take action on behalf of culture.

To find a way to effectively make our ‘Unlikely Alliances’ ambitions a reality.

To grow the local movement and strengthen groups and communication between them.

To engage in specific lobbying around the next Comprehensive Spending Review, and the National Election, taking a strategic and structured approach to influencing party manifestos.

4

The origins of What Next?

Background

The question What Next? was originally asked publically by David Lan, Artistic Director of the Young Vic, and a large number of other arts and cultural professionals at a conference in March of 2011.

Colleagues wanted to ask the government what its strategy and plan was for culture once the immediate cuts necessitated by the recession and banking crash were made. Would the government restore funding for the arts once the economy recovered or was retrenchment an ideological decision? A letter was written to the Prime Minister and a number of moving and memorable testimonials were given by artists and participants – notably by the Sadler’s Wells Elders Group. Many people who are now involved in What Next? cite these testimonials as real personal turning points, where they were reminded of the power of hearing from participants whose lives were transformed by and steeped in culture.

There was a short hiatus in the conversation following the conference, but it was picked up again in the summer of 2012 when a small number of colleagues began meeting in London at the Young Vic. This group met to ask whether there was anything further that could be done to progress the discussion about the value of the arts. They asked parliamentarian Jesse Norman to advise them on influencing government, and they asked a number of key campaigning specialists from the voluntary sector to brief them on effective ways of making the case. It was widely felt that a new way of working might be possible; a mature dialogue on the issues facing arts, culture and society without the sector reverting to self-interest or falling back on entrenched arguments.

Each week the number of colleagues attending the conversation at the Young Vic grew by word of mouth, with people in the room recommending to friends and colleagues that they join the discussion. Senior representatives from the Arts Council began to regularly attend alongside colleagues from PR industries, from philanthropic foundations, from umbrella bodies and from the commercial sector. A number of expert guests were invited to come in for Chatham House conversations with the group at the Young Vic, and Ministers and Shadow Ministers began to request invitations. – notably Ed Vaizey, Dan Jarvis, Harriet Harman and Maria Miller. The Chatham House rule allowed visiting colleagues to feel comfortable in expressing opinions and frustrations, and allowed cultural sector attendees to feel that they could be very open in asking difficult or basic questions. The meetings were chaired by David Lan, and he maintained a distinctive tone throughout; of collegiate working, energy, serious and focussed discussion, momentum and of fun.

5

Many colleagues cite the contributions from both Ian Livingstone (leading Computer Games Industry professional and Government Skills Champion) and Robin Simpson of the Voluntary Arts Network as key turning points for What Next?, as both clearly articulated the critical value of engaging with partners from across the full range of the arts, cultural and creative sector.

Setting priorities

As the growing Young Vic Group discussed what was important to its members, priorities began to emerge, with colleagues identifying the following as key issues that they would like to engage with and influence:

National policy relating to arts and cultural education; The Comprehensive Spending Review and the levels of funding allocated to

culture.

At the same time, many colleagues felt that it was important to frame questions and discussions about the arts and culture in the widest way possible – with the key question ‘what kind of society do we want to live in and how do we make it a reality?' placed at the heart of any shared action. It was agreed that the best way to ask this question was in partnership with the general public, and that What Next? needed to find a way to engage the public, participants and audiences in this wider conversation.

Growing the movement

Colleagues from across the country were involved in the initial conference in March 2011 and were signatories to the letter to the Prime Minister, however the group meeting regularly at the Young Vic was primarily London-based, with colleagues attending from other regions when they happened to be in the area. This was felt by all to be a real impairment to the effectiveness of the growing alliance, and, after much discussion, it was felt that the best way forward would be to hold a National Conference to discuss the viability of a new movement and way of working, coupled with a simultaneous invitation to colleagues across the country urging them to set up their own What Next? meetings, with colleagues taking the model set up by the Young Vic Group and replicating and adapting it to their own needs.

Definitions and principles

Colleagues felt that in order to expand the Young Vic What Next? meeting into a wider, effective, national movement they would have to broadly define what they were doing and why they were doing it. In early 2013 the following documents and tools were therefore created:

6

a useful strapline to describe the purpose of each meeting: Shared agendas, regular conversation and agreed actions;

a short document which described why a new movement might be needed and which articulated broader aims for a stronger, arts-rich society;

a set of broad principles for What Next? meetings.

These documents were distributed to anyone wishing to set up a What Next? Group / Chapter in their area.

New What Next? Chapters

New What Next? groups began to form across the country, with colleagues in Cambridge, Coventry and Manchester the first to hold meetings in their areas. Each new meeting was supported by a colleague who had attended a number of What Next? meetings at the Young Vic, invited so that they could relate their experiences and the aims and ideas of the movement to colleagues new to the idea. Four What Next? Groups were set up prior to the conference but this expanded to 16 groups meeting regularly across the country by October 2013.

A full list of the groups can be found on the website: http://www.whatnextculture.co.uk/how/

In September 2013 a national What Next? movement meeting was called with representatives from all groups invited to attend and to set and comment on national direction, strategy and activity. Groups were asked to share their experiences and interpretation of the What Next? movement so far.

National Conference

The National Conference was originally planned to take place in February 2013, and invitations and e-mails were circulated widely to contacts and colleagues inviting them to attend. The conference was initially free and there were tentative plans to hold it at the Young Vic.

However, an overwhelmingly large number of people responded to the invitation, with it soon becoming clear that the Young Vic would not be able to host the session. At the same time, detailed and sensitive negotiations with the Treasury and Ministers relating to funding and the Comprehensive Spending Review were taking place, and several members of What Next? felt that it would be counter-productive to hold a large, public conference at the same time as these discussions, as the press and public relations implications of such a gathering could not be guaranteed.

7

The decision was therefore taken to postpone the conference to later in April, giving the What Next? Young Vic group some time to bring on more resource to plan and structure the day for such a large number of people, and avoiding a political clash with the more traditional lobbying activity that was taking place.

The conference aimed to introduce the idea of the movement to the widest number of people in the cultural sector, provide a platform to share the power of the arts and culture as expressed by partners and participants, and to put forward a number of ideas for practical actions the sector could collectively take forward. It did not aim to create coverage in the press or to gain attendance from anyone beyond the cultural and creative industries.

Approximately 550 people attended the conference, with 40 further What Next? colleagues facilitating and Chairing 20 small, Chatham House meetings in the morning. 20 further volunteers supported the process. Each of these meetings featured a guest speaker, ranging from Ed Vaizey and Peter Bazalgette, to a member of the Young Mayoral team in Lewisham and a Commissioning Editor from Channel 4. In the afternoon, David Lan introduced the movement, and teachers, students and artists from the One Mile Away film project joined other cultural leaders on stage to suggest concrete actions that delegates could collectively take. Two short films of participatory work and testimonials from audiences were edited and compiled by the Roundhouse, and a keynote film introduction was recorded by Sir Ken Robinson (Patron of The Place). These films were also shown during the afternoon conference.

Venues for the morning meetings were offered by regular attendees of What Next? and by Nimax Theatres, who pledged nine venues and a major auditorium, the Palace Theatre, free of charge to the conference.

Individuals involved in What Next? have mixed feelings about the effectiveness and value of the conference. Feedback has included the following thoughts:

The small, focussed morning What Next? meetings were generally thought to have been the most successful part of the day. They were interesting, high-level and demonstrated the power of a What Next? conversation;

The conference filled an important role for the cultural sector, facilitating colleagues to come together in a large group – something that has been difficult to achieve since the re-formatting of the Arts Council’s State of the Arts conference;

The conference was an important turning point – bringing many people together around the new central idea of What Next?;

The conference was led by visible, well-known leaders of the cultural sector, and whilst this was an initial draw to many delegates, it also made some feel

8

that the movement was not inclusive or diverse enough. There was some feeling that this was ‘the usual suspects’ up on stage;

The conference was not an effective tool for facilitating shared action. Apart from the setting up of local What Next? groups the suggestions made for the creation of ‘Unlikely Alliances’ were not widely acted upon as a result of this call to arms;

Moving the date of the conference and adding in an attendance fee (£35 for colleagues in London and £25 outside of London) when the event was originally free sent some confusing messages to the sector and eroded some good will. This was partially because people erroneously thought there was a fully resourced and funded team behind What Next?;

What have we achieved?

It is difficult to fully evaluate the impact of What Next? for two reasons:

The value of conversation is hard to quantify. There are many small actions, new relationships and changed perceptions which result from the kind of dialogue that What Next? generates. These all help to gently remake the political, cultural and social landscape. They are critical and often revolutionary but cannot be easily tracked.

What Next? does not operate in a vacuum. Many organisations and individuals work to lobby government and to make grass roots change happen and it is almost impossible to quantify which action or conversation made the definitive difference.

Priorities and actions: September 2012 – September 2013

As stated above, the Young Vic group originally identified three main priorities for What Next? This section summarises the resulting actions and outcomes in these areas.

Influencing national policy: Arts and Cultural Learning in Schools

In September 2012 the group meeting at the Young Vic asked Lizzie Crump of the Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA) to come and brief them on the current state of education policy – particularly the government’s plans for the new English Baccalaureate. The group felt that arts and cultural education in schools was in jeopardy and that they wanted to act together to raise the profile of this issue and to make change if they could.

9

Using the evidence, briefings and policy positions developed by the colleagues at the Cultural Learning Alliance, members of What Next? met personally with Michael Gove to make the case, wrote private letters to the team at the Department of Education, and spoke out publically in newspapers and through broadcast opportunities – some brokered specifically for this purpose by colleagues at Bolton Quinn (regular attenders to the Young Vic group) and some utilising existing channels and opportunities to raise this issue. What Next? colleagues signed up to the EBacc for the Future Campaign run by the ISM, and some were able to use their personal connections to engage colleagues at Ofsted, in the House of Lords and in Parliament with the key arguments. Questions were asked in the House and Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, Creative Industries and Communications, attended several What Next? meetings on the subject. He subsequently used his influence to invite Michael Gove to attend a What Next? session in January 2013.

Many people describe Michael Gove’s attendance at What Next? as a turning point for the movement as it clearly showed that the dialogue between the cultural sector and the government was evolving and was being taken seriously. Michael Gove made an offer to colleagues to be directly involved in the development of the National Curriculum – an offer that was taken up and progressed by the Cultural Learning Alliance. Gove also promised to make a key speech on the value of arts and cultural education and to publish a National Plan.

In February of 2013 the government made a number of announcements relating to education policy and Gove announced that his intentions for the full implementation of the English Baccalaureate would not go ahead as he had planned. This was hailed by the press and by other colleagues as a U-turn, but, once the detail of the policy was examined it became clear that practically all the central planks of the EBacc policy were to be adopted. Evidence produced in September 2013 by the CLA shows that take up of arts subjects by schools at GCSE had fallen considerably since the introduction of the EBacc and recent speeches by Liz Truss, Minister for Schools have indicated that this is an intended consequence of this education reform.

In September 2013 the new National Curriculum was published and it was heartening to see that the CLA’s recommended paragraph on Drama had been included. Even though much more could have been done to strengthen the place of Theatre and Drama in the document, Drama had been completely cut from the curriculum prior to this process. Colleagues were also able to see small gains and improvements to the curricula for Art and Design, Music and History. Sadly, Film, Media and Dance are still not adequately represented.

In June 2013 the government produced its much-trailed National Plan for Cultural Education, but colleagues were disappointed to see that in development the plan had become a summary of existing activity, and that it was published without the promised speech and Ministerial profile – making it unlikely that teachers and cultural organisations would act on the broad recommendations it included. What Next? colleagues wrote to Gove to express this view and to offer the government

10

support in strengthening and creating a more concrete plan. In September 2013 Michael Gove wrote back acknowledging this letter and offering to attend a further What Next? meeting to discuss these issues.

Key points and lessons learned

The arts and cultural sector was able to be very clear in articulating what it wanted to ask for in terms of both the EBacc, school accountability, the Curriculum and the National Plan for Cultural Education as the policy positions had been developed by the teaching and learning specialists of the Cultural Learning Alliance and others. What Next? was able to add value to the CLA’s activity by using the voice, profile and contacts of its members to turn up the volume on the issues. The briefing of board members on education policy and statistics was particularly effective.

Following a small meeting with some What Next? members, Michael Gove reported in the House of Commons that he had ‘met with arts leaders and they support my policies’ . Colleagues felt that this was not an accurate representation of the meeting, and that this was a useful reminder of the way that any dialogue with politicians can sometimes be used as proof of endorsement.

Influencing national policy: The Comprehensive Spending Review

From December 2012 to June 2013 What Next? colleagues worked to influence the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). It was felt that members should try and create a productive and mature dialogue with Treasury about the value of arts and culture, particularly in the face of rumours of a planned 15% cut to culture.

The core team pulled together a number of key messages and pieces of evidence relating to the economic, social and educational value of culture. They worked closely with the Arts Council and others to discuss the best tack the sector could take – one that would be additional and complementary to existing lobbying activity. These discussions led to the draft of an initial core script for members to use with press and to decision makers, and for circulation to boards. What Next? colleagues took the collective decision to ask for a pledge from government to work towards a 0.1% funding commitment for the arts and culture over a ten year period. These arguments and positions were shared with Ed Vaizey and with Maria Miller at what Next? meetings.

As discussions on the CSR progressed, the core script was turned into a full submission for Treasury. It was drafted collectively by a small group of What Next? colleagues, but with particular advice from Sir Tim Lankester, Chair of The Place and former Permanent Secretary to the Overseas Development Administration. The submission was worked up with a number of What Next? partners such as the National Museum Director’s Association to ensure coherence of message and approach. It was then presented to Treasury officials by a delegation of What Next? attendees.

11

In June 2013 it was announced that the DCMS budget was to be cut by 7%, with the Arts, ‘grass roots’ Sport and National Museum budgets slightly ring-fenced within that, with a cut of only 5%. In the DCMS statement, Secretary of State, Maria Miller attributed this lesser cut to Arts and Museums to Treasury’s recognition of their importance to the economy. Peter Bazalgette, Chair of Arts Council England, described the 5% cut as a ‘best case scenario’. A briefing on the full implications of the CSR was drafted by Lizzie Crump and distributed to all WN? Colleagues.

It is difficult to tell what part What Next?’s work had in the final funding outcome of the CSR, but colleagues from government and from Arts Council England have publically praised the What Next? approach as helpful and constructive.

In June 2013 What Next? continued to engage with the political debate surrounding arts and cultural funding. All delegates of the conference were urged to write to their MPs and ask them to sign Early Day Motion 191 (relating to the importance of the arts and culture) and What Next? colleagues were asked to brief members of the House of Commons on both sides for the first debate on the subject in five years.

Key points and lessons learned

In all conversations and negotiations with Treasury, officials continually asked whether What Next? could suggest an initiative or a policy change which would be helpful to the arts and cultural sector. What Next? colleagues maintained the position that innovation and savings are best made on a local level, and said that the best use of any investment was to fund the core of the sector – artists and cultural organisations. Colleagues could feel that Treasury officials were frustrated with this position, but were wary of offering anything that could be used as a ‘fig leaf’ to mask greater cuts, or as an excuse to make them. Colleagues were also wary of offering any position on behalf of the sector when it had been agreed that they would only speak on their own behalf.

Engaging the public and holding a wider conversation.

A great deal of What Next? discussion in the first year centred on the need to develop a better dialogue with the public about the value of the arts and culture. In the run up to the conference there were a number of suggestions from colleagues for tangible, practical ways to make this happen:

A branding campaign where arts and cultural organisations explicitly celebrated the public funding they received

This would show audiences and communities that they have a real stake in the institutions and work made on their doorsteps. Organisations would be encouraged to publically thank tax-payers for their support and acknowledge them alongside other donors. A tentative strapline for this initiative was suggested: ‘Proud to be supported by the Great British Public.’

12

This campaign was not pursued as a suggested collective action at the conference as some colleagues felt that the idea was not developed enough to share widely, and others felt that the strapline was not suitable for WN? organisations receiving little or no public funding. It was not actively picked up again after the conference.

A ‘National Culture Week’

A suggestion for a designated time every year to celebrate the value of culture in communities, calling particularly for cultural organisations to champion and flag up the work of another cultural organisation in their area.

There was some concern from colleagues that a focus on culture should not be confined to a week, but in general, the idea of cultural organisations championing one another was thought to be a good one. However, in a similar way to the branding campaign, this initiative was not taken up and further developed by any WN? members post-conference.

There has been some discussion about ways that this idea could be linked to the developing ‘People’s Palaces’ initiative.

An ‘MP’ Campaign

Cultural organisations were to be urged to ‘make friends not demands’ of their MPs and local councillors – inviting them to visit (particularly to watch and engage with participatory activity and activity with young people) and facilitating local, positive press coverage of visits wherever possible.

This idea was launched as a collective action at the conference and has had a small amount of success, with several colleagues reporting making contact with their MPs and inviting them to events for the first time. However, it is probably fair to say that there has not been wide adoption of this action, possibly as many organisations feel that they already have relationships with their local politicians.

Creating ‘Unlikely Alliances’

This involved a set of small, local actions to be taken by cultural organisations which would strengthen and change the way that the public and communities engaged with them. These actions were designed to raise the status of community partners to that of high-level donors to the arts. It was felt that whilst many organisations do one or two of these things, hardly any do them all, and that by creating a critical mass of activity What Next? could begin to change perceptions on a large scale.

Actions included:

13

Holding quarterly dinners for teachers and community partners where key members of staff and artists could share priorities;

Offering a number of ‘first night’ or ‘private view tickets’ to MPs, teachers and student representatives, voluntary arts leaders and community leaders to every exhibition, event or performance;

Joining, or encouraging staff to join a school governing body, or the board of a local community or voluntary organisation;

Working with schools to reach parents and spread the word about the local cultural offer;

Inviting a head teacher / voluntary or community leader / local business / young person/MP to join a board;

Hosting roundtables with other local cultural organisations and inviting local MPs, councillors and businesses to come and talk about the social and economic value that culture contributes to the local area.

Following the conference it was extremely difficult to track how many colleagues had taken these pledges forward – though attendees were urged to use their pre-printed postcards to update the core team on progress, or to tweet or write in to let them know of any action. This Review has not uncovered any significant evidence of widespread adoption of these actions. However there was evidence of a number of other internal changes to cultural organisation practice, with some colleagues using What Next? material and briefings to regularly update their boards and others briefing their staff and encouraging them to hold their own WN? meetings.

The development of a What Next? Grid

The What Next? Grid was envisioned as way for cultural organisations to co-ordinate the use of mailing lists and data-bases to regularly send their audience and membership messages about their community, social, educational and economic value.

Gavin Stride of Farnham’s Maltings asked a number of cultural organisations to provisionally pledge to send approximately four messages a year through their existing systems – either printed on tickets, in brochures, in their electronic mail-outs, on their website, or through their social media channels. The plan is for a central messaging template to be developed, which is then customised by each organisation to reflect their circumstances and practice.

Farnham’s Maltings have dedicated member of staff to co-ordinate this project and have encouraged over 30 cultural organisations to participate. The system is set up and is ready, but colleagues are waiting for some central message

14

templates to be developed in order to test the mechanism. This delay in producing messaging has been frustrating to a few colleagues (see the Tensions and ambiguities section of this document for a fuller analysis of the reasons for this).

Unexpected Outcomes

Demonstrating economic valueOver the first year, many WN? conversations centred on ways we could best demonstrate the local economic value of the arts and culture. Two organisations created interesting templates to show this value in different ways:

The Young Vic created a short document that looked at the turnover and financial contribution made by the Theatre to the wider local economy;

Soho Theatre created an infographic the showed similar information in a clear and easily assimilated way. The infographic template was picked up and used by Oldham Collesium and by Coventry Theatre.

Both the Young Vic and the Soho Theatre have expressed interest in gathering more data so that they can use their templates to show the aggregated economic contributions of a number institutions to their communities.

Press and PR projectWhilst it was quickly agreed that What Next? did not seek to garner press attention for itself, it became apparent that colleagues in the press industry were interested in commenting on and supporting What Next? and that they were proactively contacting some of the Young Vic Group when arts and cultural stories broke. This was particularly pressing around the conference. A Press and PR Strategy was needed to help manage this and to ensure that colleagues were briefed using any shared intelligence, but were enabled to speak and comment in their own names, expressing their own thoughts and opinions. Jennifer Reynolds of the Young Vic offered to act as the main contact to manage this process, working with a sub-group of press colleagues from What Next? organisations. A press briefing document was drafted and circulated for general use.

This group began to meet and discuss the relationship between the press and the cultural sector and it was suggested that colleagues could explore the possibility of working collaboratively to generate more coverage and stories about the educational, community, participatory, health and economic benefits of their work. It was felt that it would be particularly beneficial to ensure that the public heard about the value of culture alongside stories of jeopardy and coverage of shows, performances and exhibitions. This suggestion was generally endorsed by the BBCs Will Gompertz when he came to speak to the Young Vic What Next? Group.

The development of this strand of work is on-going.

15

Strengths of What Next?

Trust Many colleagues have suggested that What Next? has been a real mechanism for arts and cultural colleagues to get to know one another, to trust one another and to share ideas. There is a general feeling that this trust and goodwill has not been developed to this extent in the past, and that the first year of What Next? has built a good, strong foundation for future collective action. Unexpected outcomes of What Next? include a number of collaborations and relationships - both strategic and artistic which would not have come about without the project

ToneDavid Lan’s leadership has been cited by many colleagues as inspirational – with his skills at navigating difficult issues and maintaining a warm, mature, focussed tone to the meetings seen as critical to the movement’s success.

A higher common denominatorMany colleagues feel that WN? Meetings bring the collective understanding of complex political and social issues to a ‘higher common denominator’. They feel that What Next? is an excellent, focussed learning platform and that they learn regularly from both their peers and from other experts. Several members referenced the session with Robert Peston on the economic landscape as an excellent example of a ‘light-bulb’ moment.

A stronger relationship with ACESome What Next? participants feel that the arts and cultural sector has a much stronger , healthier and more collaborative relationship to the Arts Council than it has had in the past, and that this has been facilitated by Arts Council’s presence at the What Next? table.

Partnership with the CLAThe relationship between What Next? and the Cultural Learning Alliance has been cited as a real strength.

Distributed leadershipWhat Next? has been most effective when colleagues have been able to draw on the expertise and energy of one another and take the lead in specific areas. For example:

David Jubb of Battersea Arts Centre, Dave Moutrey of the Cornerhouse and Andrew Comben of Brighton Dome recently worked together set up and facilitate What Next? meetings at both the Conservative and Labour Party conferences.

Martin Smith of Ingenious Media recently convened a sub-group of colleagues with expertise and interest in Tax Reform and led on the drafting and submission of a document for the Treasury.

16

Andrea Stark of High House Production Park has recently offered expertise and support to the Young Vic Group - led by the Barbican – on developing relationships and influencing Local Enterprise Partnerships.

A wider remitWhat Next? is not a membership organisation and therefore does not have to be accountable to members. One of the consequences of this is that it can add value to the debate by acting in a disinterested way and on behalf of the wider cultural sector.

A voice for industryWhat Next? can add value to both central government and the Arts Council. It can help the cultural sector to position itself as a voice of business, industry and of local community, and to speak out openly on issues where other institutions might be more constrained.

Political relationships but no affiliations What Next? has good relationships with both Labour and the Conservatives and this non-partisan willingness to engage with anyone wanting to talk about cultural policy is seen as a real strength. (It is to be noted that relationships with the Liberal Democrats and other parties still need to be built.) The mature and measured tone of the dialogue is seen as key to this success.

A strong core teamColleagues felt that some of the success of What Next? could be attributed to the commitment and skills of the core facilitating and strategic team.

What haven’t we achieved?

Although it is a priority for almost all members of What Next? a clear plan for engaging in dialogue with our audiences , participants and the public has not yet been made.

Sustained partnerships with the voluntary sector, commercial sector and with business and industry have yet to be realised, and a mechanism to energise all those in What Next? to take the actions suggested through the ‘Unlikely Alliances’ campaign has not been found.

Although we have made a start, we are not yet a truly National movement or a movement representative of the whole cultural sector.

Tensions and ambiguities

Some of the contradictions, ambiguities, tensions and frustrations at the heart of What Next? are the reasons for its continued energy and broad appeal. They are intrinsically linked to the evolving nature of the project. It is therefore unlikely that

17

they will all be resolved as What Next? develops, but they should be aired and acknowledged.

1. The need for clarity of purpose vs the need to bind ourselves together loosely.

Many of the projects that What Next? aims to deliver (e.g. the development of the website, a social media campaign, and the implementation of the What Next? Grid) are currently stalling slightly due to a lack of clarity to our purpose. This is not surprising, nor is it necessarily a weakness in the movement, but it is frustrating to a few of the colleagues involved.

What Next? has grown very quickly around some broad central ideas: that dialogue and conversation are beneficial in themselves, that new ways can be found to make change, and that the arts and culture are central to a healthy society and the development of human potential. However, through the course of this Review it has become very clear that different colleagues value and champion different elements and interpretations of these ideals. For example, some people feel strongly that audiences should be engaged in What Next? so that they can make the case for investment persuasively to local and national politicians on behalf of the arts and cultural sector. Others feel that audiences and the public should be invited to open and equal conversations about ways that arts and culture can be strengthened in society. Some colleagues feel that we should be running a more traditional public advocacy campaign and should be focussing on the jeopardy facing the arts and cultural sector, whilst others feel that conversations with the public should be about the positive benefits of culture to society.

These are subtle differences, and there may be room for different individuals and sub-groups to take different approaches, but it is critical that some consensus is found before we begin to communicate in earnest with the general public. What Next? colleagues need to be able to articulate in just one or two bullet points exactly what it is they want to achieve.

It is possible that these conversations toward consensus will be difficult to manage – particularly as the movement now has so many different stakeholders in so many different locations, but this clarity of purpose needs to be resolved before we can clearly craft our external messaging.

It is also important to note that in some ways this lack of clarity has been a real strength in the growth of What Next?. It has allowed many colleagues to come together under the loose banner of the movement without feeling like they are signing up to a central diktat. It has allowed the movement to be nimble and responsive and to follow colleagues’ passions and avenues of interest.

2. Lobbying government vs conversation with the public

18

What Next? has two linked but separate primary functions: to lobby central and local government and influence national policy, and to enable members to come together to find new ways to strengthen the arts and culture.

Much of the lobbying function takes place in small meetings and closed groups, with colleagues using central What Next? messages and briefings, but using their existing connections to ask for time with influential ministers, shadow ministers and officials. In some cases Ministers, MPs and other leaders have sought out conversations with What Next? colleagues and these interactions have taken place either at regular Chatham House What Next? meetings, or very occasionally, at dinners or in separate sessions. It is probably fair to say that the majority of meetings with both the government and the shadow government have to date been with members of the What Next? Young Vic Group. This is possibly because it was established first and so has more of a profile, and possibly because it has such close proximity to Westminster.

Some colleagues feel that What Next? is serving a useful lobbying function to central government and that it is sensible for this to be primarily led by the Young Vic Group – with input from Chairs of other groups as needed. They feel that this frees up other What Next? members to lead on different strands of the work.

However, others feel strongly that lobbying should not be a main focus of What Next? and should be left to organisations who have more traditionally taken this role. These colleagues feel that there is a danger of What Next? becoming the default mechanism for government to talk to the cultural sector, and, as What Next? has no official membership or mandate this would not promote representative dialogue. These colleagues generally feel that local engagement with audiences should be the sole concern of What Next?

3. The need to be an inclusive and transparent movement vs the need to be able to act, and to influence those in power.

Many people attending and contributing to What Next? are the leaders of major cultural institutions or well-known artists. This has had some very real benefits:

some politicians and decisions makers attend meetings partly because they recognise the names of cultural participants or institutions, or because they have personal contacts with those at the table;

decisions about shared, agreed action can be taken very quickly without colleagues needing to go back to their organisations to discuss implications;

busy colleagues give up their time because they are able to spend it in focussed conversation with their peers – something that doesn’t happen often;

house-hold names are a draw for the press and catch the attention of others working in the sector and beyond it. The ‘glamorous’ element to What Next? helps it to open doors, and helps to make meetings feel like exciting events.

19

However, some colleagues feel that for the very same reason What Next? meetings can be intimidating and excluding. Again, there is a slight feeling that the ‘usual suspects’ are meeting to have closed conversations. Interestingly, this is a feeling often held by colleagues who have not attended a meeting, and in some cases, participants have completely reversed their opinion once they have taken part.

There is a lack of clarity about who can attend a What Next? meeting that has partly been exacerbated by the language used on the website and in general WN? rhetoric. For example, it is often stated that anyone can be a part of What Next?, but the phrase ‘cultural leader’ is used to describe those who already attend. Therefore anyone coming afresh to the movement is tacitly required to class themselves as a leader. This can prove a substantial barrier.Opinion on how to resolve this tension is split: some WN? attendees feel that it would be useful to clearly categorise meetings – with some for those invited by the core administrative team only, some for Chairs of What Next? Groups, some for those who identify themselves as cultural leaders, and some open to everyone. They feel that this would help to define the purpose of the meeting. Other colleagues feel that all meetings should be much more transparently administrated and should be open to anyone to attend.

4. Central leadership vs distributed leadership

As stated above, many colleagues have cited the leadership of David Lan as a real strength of the project. The continued energy and regularity of the Young Vic meetings have been a driver to the rapid development of What Next? and have acted as the catalyst for a great deal of action.

However, the aim of the movement has always been to share and distribute leadership, with different colleagues from across the country and sector taking charge of different elements of the agenda – and this is where the movement has been most effective in acting swiftly. Some colleagues feel that the Young Vic Group should not been seen as the ‘Core’ or ‘Lead’ group and that any notions of this nature or references of this kind should be challenged.

5. A slim core team vs lack of resource

It is strongly felt by many What Next’? contributors that there should not be a large central team or structured organisation at the heart of What Next? This is for the following reasons:

Funding should not be used to create an organisation that needs sustaining; What Next? should not continue if it is not adding value to the broader

sector;

The impetus and drive for the actions of What Next? should come from those attending and leading, rather than from a central Director;

20

What Next? works best when it draws on the widest possible pool of expertise, the contacts and resources of those involved, and when someone nominates themselves to lead.

However, this light touch structure, means that the central delivery team is constructed of colleagues working a few days a week to facilitate and support others to lead. Often, the reactive nature of the workload, coupled with the need to communicate with many different leaders, partners and professionals generates more activity than can be easily and swiftly delivered.

The core central team relies on the energy and resource of others to pick up projects and drive them, and in some cases this dissipates quickly; there is not enough group buy-in, or colleagues find that they don’t have enough time to commit to leading a project in the way that they had first imagined. In these instances, initiatives can loose momentum. Some colleagues feel that this is the result of a sort of ‘natural selection’ and is to be expected, whilst others sometimes feel that things have fallen through the cracks without explanation.

6. Diversity vs Energy

In many ways the What Next? project is driven by the energy of those who want to engage, want to be in the room and who choose to contribute. New groups are set up by those who decide that a What Next? conversation is needed and decide to make it happen. What Next? Groups are made up of those who make the time to regularly attend, and colleagues are encouraged to extend an invitation to anyone they feel is missing from the debate.

However, this approach means that Groups are not always representative of all cultural forms, of the commercial and voluntary sectors, of large and small organisations, or of individuals and artists. They are not necessarily evenly distributed throughout the UK, they don’t proportionally reflect attendees from rural and urban environments, disabled artists or practitioners from all cultures working in the arts. Many colleagues feel that this lack of diversity must be pro-actively addressed by the movement and that the current ‘word -of-mouth’ strategy is not sufficient to effectively reach all the individuals who could and should be contributing and benefiting from the project.

There are already several strands of work in place to look at this issue – a What Next? Diversity Group has formed and the new What Next? Movement lead, appointed to the central team, will explore the barriers to engagement that WN? poses to different members of the cultural community.

It is worth noting that one of the barriers to representatives attending What Next? could be that some existing organisations and umbrella groups do not feel that working across cultural forms or through What Next? will add value to their own

21

lobbying, negotiations or relationships with government, and even though they have been invited specifically to take part, they have actively chosen not to do so.

7. Chatham House vs transparency and a need to communicate

The Chatham House rule was invoked in What Next? meetings so that both regular attendees and visiting colleagues would feel comfortable in sharing any thoughts or information with the rest of the group. To date, this rule has been generally upheld, with very little information ‘leaking’ inappropriately from WN? sessions and attendees confirming that they feel that meetings are a ‘safe space’.

However, this rule has meant that, in general, What Next? meetings are not streamed or recorded, and this can limit the number of people able to benefit from the input and advice of speakers and guests.

Social Media, web and communicationsWhat Next? is currently only using very basic digital communication tools, and this is a frustration for some colleagues. However, as with some of the projects above, both external and internal purpose and messaging need to be clarified before a detailed communications strategy can be put in place.

It is also worth noting that it is difficult to find an internal digital communication tool to replace e-mail, as many of the What Next? Contributors do not use other mediums of communication such as BaseCamp, Google+ or Facebook in their day-to-day and are unlikely to adopt these new technologies just for the purposes of What Next?.

Branding

There were a number of potential branding routes initially explored that were not eventually pursued by the movement. In early 2013 the PR and Media Group Chime Communications offered some pro-bono support to the re-branding of What Next? . They aimed make the movement more visible, more accessible and more defined to the cultural sector and the public. They created a new identity: JOIN and a logo for the movement. These were presented to the Young Vic Group. After some discussion the group felt that this new identity wouldn’t be suitable. This was for a number of reasons:

Join in UK had recently been launched by UK Sport in the wake of the Olympics.

It was felt that What Next? should not have a brand in the same way that more traditional campaigns had brands, as this might cause the movement to be bound too closely to a set of messages or demands that were not shared by all, instead it was felt that one of the real strengths of What Next?

22

was its ability to empower cultural professionals to speak about key issues in their own names, rather than under the banner of a campaign. This allowed everyone the freedom to engage with the issues and ideas they most wanted to champion, and would make What Next? more of an enabling catalyst for debate and visible discussion.

Website

What Next? has a very basic website which was primarily created as a resource to support the conference and the set up of new What Next? Groups: www.whatnextculture.co.uk .

It has limited functionality, and is now a little dated as it refers primarily to the conference, but it does explain the rationale behind What Next? and gives links and ideas for action. In the 6 month period between May and October 2013 the website has had over 28,000 hits and has been visited by over 6,766 unique users (these visited chiefly over the period of the conference, but steady monthly traffic is still generated).

It is generally felt that that website needs to be developed to facilitate the national movement’s growth and to make it easier for colleagues across the country to share and communicate.

Other What Next? Groups are beginning to set up their own web resources e.g. What Next? Southwark: http://www.whatnextsouthwark.co.uk/

Twitter

Over the last year there has been much debate about the way that Twitter and other Social Media channels could be used to further develop the work of What Next?

It was generally felt that it would be unhelpful to create one Twitter username for What Next? as this would lead to a perception that What Next? spoke with one voice, and would necessitate the agreement of core messages and positions for all eventualities. This would be arduous and would not lead to an engaging twitter feed. It would also leave the movement vulnerable to being drawn to comment on political issues and emerging policy. It was also agreed that the What Next? movement might conceivably want to use Twitter for two reasons: to communicate internally and to communicate with the wider public.

23

As the messaging for the public was not yet formulated an internal hashtag of #WN2013 was created to allow colleagues to tweet one another, particularly around the conference. There is a steady stream of traffic associated with the WN2013 tag, but it tends to be only a small number of WN? colleagues who actively use it.

Priorities for What Next? November 2013 – 2014Throughout the Review process colleagues were asked what our priorities should be, the following themes emerged:

To clarify our purpose and to craft our messaging.

We need to be able to describe what we want to achieve in two sentences at most.

We will need to make a clear distinction between our lobbying and political messaging, and our planned conversations with the wider public.

To engage the general public in a conversation about how to strengthen the arts and culture within society.

We need to decide whether we want an open, equal conversation with our audiences about what we jointly value, or a directed conversation where we tell the public about the benefits of culture. We need to clarify whether we want to take different approaches to communicating with audiences and participants , and to talking with those who don’t currently actively engage with culture. We will need to decide whether we want to ask the public to take action on behalf of culture.

To find a way to effectively make our ‘Unlikely Alliances’ ambitions a reality.

To grow the local movement and strengthen groups and communication between them.

To engage in specific lobbying around the next Comprehensive Spending Review, and the National Election, taking a strategic and structured approach to influencing party manifestos.

To clarify our purpose and to craft our messaging to the general public.

To engage the general public in a conversation about how to strengthen the arts and culture within society.

To find a way to effectively create ‘Unlikely Alliances’.

24

To grow the local movement and strengthen groups and communication between them.

To engage in specific lobbying around the next Comprehensive Spending Review, and the National election, taking a strategic and a structured approach to influencing party manifestos.

Suggested areas for improvement

During the Review process colleagues made the following suggestions for improvements to What Next? working practice:

We should take time at each meeting to reflect on the outcomes and recommendations of the previous meeting;

We should keep in regular contact with speakers; We should create a forum to share agendas and documents; We should forensically target our resources and those of the core team – we

should set a very few priorities and the every time an action is suggested we should ask ourselves if it furthers our priorities;

Who should we be engaging with and learning from?

During the Review process colleagues suggested that What Next? should engage with and learn from:

Colleagues engaged in tourism; The commercial creative sector; The sports sector – particularly football; Grassroots movements such as Mumsnet; Organisations, campaigns and movements in Europe; The voluntary and charity sector – particularly around collaborative and

coalition working; Key thinkers, opinion formers and economists.

Structure and governanceDavid Lan is the Chair of the What Next? Young Vic group and has been very much the spokesperson and lead voice of the movement to date. He has been supported in this by a number of others, notably Nicola Thorold (World Stages London and the Roundhouse) who has acted as unofficial Vice Chair of the project.

25

As from September 2013 a regular National Movement meeting has been scheduled, to be held every two months. Representatives from all groups / chapters are invited to attend and it is at this meeting that central strategy and priorities will be shared and agreed. It is to be hoped that these meetings will also facilitate distributed leadership, with different regions and groups taking the leads on different stands of work.

Staffing and support in kind to date

The first phases of What Next? were administrated and facilitated by David Lan, Nicola Thorold and Bryan Savery of the Red Room.

In November 2012 Lizzie Crump of the CLA was asked to take on a strategic co-ordination role, shared with Bryan Savery, for a couple of days a week to facilitate and progress action and activity.

In December of 2012 the Clore Leadership Programme seconded Will Warrener to What Next? as short-term administrative support to the movement. Will continued to offer some small paid support to the project up until the conference in April.

In January 2013, freelancer Hannah Bird was brought in for one day a week to support the development and delivery of the conference, and Kings College London seconded Nicky Chambers, an MA student, to the project part-time for four months. Bryan Savery continued to act in a supporting and advisory role to What Next? throughout this period and the Red Room offered additional support in kind by acting as bankers to the project.

In April 2013 the Clore Leadership programme seconded Clore Fellow Jamie Beddard to the movement for a couple of weeks. He supported thinking and development about the next steps for What Next? post-conference.

The Young Vic has continued to host weekly What Next? meetings (and a number of sub-group sessions) at the Theatre, with staff from across the organisation offering considerable support in kind to meeting set-up, thinking and delivery of different strands of the What Next? agenda. Over the period of the conference a very large number of Young Vic staff gave their time and expertise in kind to support the smooth delivery of the event. Many other organisations across the country are similarly acting as hosts and facilitators for WN? meetings, but only the Young Vic does so on a weekly basis.

Sadler’s Wells shares it’s media monitoring service with What Next? providing weekly links and updates to relevant news stories.

All paid staff are recruited on a freelance basis and are required to invoice the central pot of funding at the Red Room, either for a fixed fee for a specific task, or for an agreed number of days. There are no formal contracts in place and colleagues

26

are expected to manage their own tax, expenses, national insurance, holiday and sick pay as part of the arrangement.

The What Next? core team is hosted on an adhoc basis by the Young Vic, and the Roundhouse.

Planned structure going forward

It has been identified that more resource will be needed to adequately support the growth and delivery of What Next? as it enters its next phase. Whilst it is hoped that much of this will come from the members of different What Next? Groups increasingly leading on different strands of work from across the country, more central resource is also required.

Whilst David Lan will continue to Chair the Young Vic Group and be a key voice and spokesperson for What Next?, Alistair Spalding has agreed to take on much of the day-to-day operational leadership and the line management of the core team.

Colleagues have agreed that three part-time team members should be recruited to the project – but that these roles should continue to be freelance and fixed-term rather than offered on a permanent basis. This should retain the flexible nature of the project and ensure that What Next? does not become an organisation aiming to sustain itself.

The three posts will consist of:

A National Strategic Lead (two days per week)Broadly responsible for:

Co-ordinating and facilitating national strategy and direction Clarifying the core purpose of What Next? The drafting of briefings and position papers Collection and analysis of evidence Fundraising Line management of other staff members Briefing of Chair and operational lead Exploring new ways of encouraging collective action Facilitation of strategic subgroups as they arise

What Next? National Movement Lead (one day per week)Broadly responsible for:

Developing and growing the movement Supporting existing groups and facilitating the set up of new groups Exploring issues of diversity and representation Evaluating the effectiveness of the project Developing internal communications mechanisms for Groups Facilitating the development of shared values and understanding of the

purpose of the movement

27

Management of a £6,000 discretionary budget. N.B. This can be used to buy more of the Movement lead’s time as agreed by the Strategic Lead.

What Next? Campaign and Communications Lead (two days per week)Broadly responsible for:

Crafting key messages on the value of arts for a range of audiences – press, public, MPs, cultural sector.

Advising on engagement with MPs, central government and the shadow government

Advising on lobbying priorities Supporting the development of the MP Project, the Press and PR project and

the What Next? Grid Exploring the potential expansion of the use of social media to engage

audiences.

It is important to note that some WN? colleagues feel that these posts should not all be based in London, and that it would help the movement’s National reach for the team to be distributed around the country. Others feel that proximity to Westminster, to the Chair and to the Operational Lead are important considerations and therefore that the posts should be based in, or able to travel regularly to, London.

Young Vic Group AdministratorIn addition, it is suggested that a small amount of resource is put towards some administrative support for the Young Vic What Next? Group. Weekly programming of speakers, setting of agendas and circulation of papers is currently undertaken by the National core team and can take up to half a day of resource per week. Young Vic staff also contribute to the weekly logistics of hosting the 08:30 meeting and after a year of operation, colleagues could do with some external support.

It is suggested that funds for this administrator are generated by those who attend that particular meeting.

Finance and budget

Finance to date

IncomeWhat Next? has primarily been funded by contributions from arts and cultural organisations, foundations and individuals who regularly attend and take part. So far fundraising has been adhoc, and colleagues have tended to fundraise for fixed periods of time and activity rather than aiming to build a sustainable organisation.

So far individuals and organisations that have donated funds to the project have included:

28

Andrew NairneArts AdminBattersea ArtsBelgrade TheatreCameron Mackintosh FoundationClore DuffieldClore LeadershipCorner House Dance UmbrellaFree WordISMKings CollegeThe Sage GatesheadPaines PloughRoundhouseRoyal Court TheatreRoyal Opera HouseRoyal Shakespeare CompanySadler’s WellsSam WestSoho TheatreSouthbank CentreThe Dye HouseThe PlaceThe Theatre’s TrustUnicorn TheatreVoluntary Arts NetWest End theatreWelsh National OperaYoung Vic

Income from donations to What Next? for the period September 2012 – November 2013 (not including income from the conference) has totalled approximately £55,000.

Expenditure

The largest expenditure to the What Next? is staffing. Over the life of the project (September 2012 – September2013) we have spent approximately £42,600 on staffing costs (excluding management of the conference).

The What Next? central budget has also been used to pay colleagues for hosting meetings and dinners, travel, expenses and other miscellaneous costs. The total spend on these areas has been £5,484.

Staffing costs for September to December 2013 are likely to total a further £12,000 and travel and admin costs of the National Meetings and Diversity session are likely

29

to incur a further £500. There will therefore be a slight shortfall in the current budget that will need to be met through the fundraising strategy.

The conference budget, income and expenditure is as follows:

ItemActual - 20 May 2013 Notes

Expenditure

Staffing – conference organisation and management £8,400.00

Programming, co-ordination and management approximately two days per week, January - May 2013

Venue costs, equipment, technician, ushers, chair hire £350.00 Refreshments at Palace £0.00

Miscellaneous £542.44

Expenses, including refreshments, train tickets and travel for speakers

Production and stage manager £197.40Confirmed by Sophie Wells, Young Vic

VAT £3,369.68Possibility that this can be claimed back.

Morning refreshments £0.00 All free

Lunch for chairs and volunteers £450.00

Digital/streaming/film £7,500.00

Payment to the Roundhouse - some time for co-ordination of this offered in kind

Website/ design/ postcards/printing £1,192.80 including VAT

Equipment, van hire and driver £650.00 Total Expenditure £22,652.32 Income Eventbrite payments from delegates £16,848.40 Funding from What Next? Central pot for streaming and digital £7,500.00 Payments from delegates via cheque. £100.00 Total Income £24,448.40

30

Suggested budget November 2013 – November 2014

The following budget indicates the amounts we think will be needed to deliver What Next? over the next year:

What Next Strategic Lead £30,000Campaigns and Communications Lead £12,000Campaigns and Comms budget £6,000National Movement Lead £15,000Movement lead budget £3,000

Young Vic Group Admin £2,000Travel and room hire budget (for all Groups) 15,000Website, social media, printing and design 10,000Evaluation 10,000

£103,000

It is envisaged that any further major conferences or events will need to have small fee attached so that they are cost neutral.

Fundraising for What Next? will commence once this Review and the priorities and activities have been agreed by the National Movement Group in November 2013.

31