Funding Community Better: Creative Community Hubs Project Report

Ti k i Muir & Mor

ve rn

C

un

ni

ng ha m

Funding Communities Better Iterative and Collaborative Learning Through Grantmaking with the Creative Community Hubs Network.

Creat ive

Com

m un

i

ty

b u H

oj e s Pr

c t R e p or t

Funding Communities Better Iterative and Collaborative Learning Through Grantmaking with the Creative Community Hubs Network.

Contents 1 Introduction 3 Background: The Network 5 Small Grants Programme: Funders/Not Funders 8 Participatory Grantmaking: Funding Better Together?

13 Beyond The Process: What the Application of the Grants Over Two Years Revealed 17 Funding Challenges and Aspirations 19 Conclusion 20 Appendix

Introduction This learning document shares the collaborative learning from two years of experimental grantmaking with the Creative Community Hubs Network. During the period April 2022 - March 2024, the network explored different methods for the redistribution of funding amongst its community-based partners. The aspiration behind this was rooted in a desire to respond to common frustrations about funding processes by trying to do things differently; to do so in a way that reflected the ethos and priorities of the network (such as collaboration over competition); and to learn (and share the learning) from our successes and failures during the process.

In this document, we outline the grantmaking methodologies that we adopted as a network and our iterative learning from these processes.

This learning is further informed by the work that grants were used to support (in other words, the results from grantmaking processes), so we examine what the grants funded as well as how they were used within each organisation. Finally, we share findings from a series of qualitative interviews with hub representatives from the network that focused on their experiences of the current funding landscape more broadly. To conclude, we address how it is more critical than ever to create the space for experimentation with new ways of ‘doing’ funding that are equitable, people-centred and which centre practices of care.

Although this document gives a snapshot of a specific funding experience in the context of a small group of Edinburgh communitybased arts organisations, as project facilitators we believe that the learning reflected here will be of interest to, and resonate with, the wider cultural sector, as was the case with our previous learning document Working Better Together (2022). The cultural sector in the UK is currently operating in arguably one of its most challenging times. Public funding has arguably never been under such strain as it is now and, as we begin to emerge from the devastating impact of the covid-19 pandemic and continue to contend with the stagnation and retraction of funding as a result of austerity, all signs are that the current arts funding crisis is only worsening. We are acutely aware that it is community-based organisations that feel such crises most keenly and as such, we specifically wish to present and platform these voices within the ongoing discourse around arts funding.

Morvern and Tiki

Note on voice/authorship:

1

When sharing findings from a collaborative partnership project such as this, it is important to acknowledge whose knowledge is being shared, and from whose perspective. This research has been collated and written up by project facilitators Morvern Cunningham and Tiki Muir. The knowledge and learning is credited to the whole network, and also includes our observations and reflections as facilitators. Different sections of this report are informed by different learning processes, which should be evident throughout. Since this report was not written collaboratively, we acknowledge our perspective as facilitators and don’t claim to have captured every individual’s experience.

2

Background: The Network The Creative Community Hubs Network currently consists of eight partner organisations based across Edinburgh, Scotland. We define a ‘creative community hub’ as an organisation that operates out of a publicly accessible building embedded within an identifiable community or locality, with culture and creativity as a primary concern. There are many similarities and shared experiences between the network partners, yet each organisation has a unique offering and approach to their work. This reflects the rich history and real diversity of creative community practice across the city, developed over time in response to specific local contexts and shaped by people in their communities. It is also important to note that the majority of organisations operating in the network cater directly to communities across Edinburgh who are recognised as the most deprived on the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, and who therefore have less resources and opportunities, including access to culture.

3

The first iteration of the Creative Community Hubs project was a research and scoping phase which took place between October 2021 and March 2022. Partnership working quickly emerged as a key theme, particularly regarding the common experiences of creative community hubs when working with cultural institutions in Edinburgh. This research culminated in the publication of a report entitled Working Better Together, with an accompanying poster How We Would Like It To Be. These documents give insight into the power imbalances frequently at play in partnership working, as well as laying out some basic principles for successful partnership working.

The second iteration of the project focused on how creative community hubs in the city might work better together as a network of organisations, who have similar values and aims and who are embedded within their communities. This iteration has taken place over a period of two years, from April 2022 to March 2024. Network activity across these two years included regular meetings, a series of skill-sharing workshops hosted and delivered by network partners, and two cycles of a small grants programme which saw a total of £112,000 distributed to the network, supporting a wide array of community-based projects and activities.

4

Small Grants Programme: Funders/Not Funders In the first year of the network, 50% of the total network project budget was dedicated to our first small grants programme. The purpose of the grants was a redistribution of funding amongst the network, with the primary intention of supporting the work of the hubs and the creative activities they deliver in and with communities across the city.

The approach for this round of grantmaking was intentionally designed to be a non-competitive, ‘no strings’ process, with low administrative burden for the participants. Rather than running a competitive application process within the network, equal amounts of the funding were ringfenced for each network partner (£7,000)1. The process involved minimal paperwork; a very short written proposal and basic budget were required for information sharing and recording purposes only. Hubs were actively encouraged to include core cost recovery (such as space hire) and industry appropriate wages in their budgeting. There was flexibility with project timelines, no deadline for the proposals, and, crucially, no requirement for predetermined objectives or deliverables. There wasn’t a formal evaluation of the grantmaking process, instead the network facilitators reflected on their own observations and took on board comments and feedback from the network.

Relationship building and an equal partnership The intention was to establish a non-hierarchical partnership project supporting a network of community hubs. The network was just being established, so relationship building was a priority. In this context it would have been counterintuitive to run a competitive application process.

Fairness and buy-in The aim was to be open about what was ‘on the table’ for project partners and for this financial resource to be accessible and equally distributed.

Ease and capacity From experience, we knew that the time-consuming nature of applying for funding is one of the most significant strains on capacity for those working in a community context. As facilitators, we had limited time capacity to dedicate to funding administration, with other competing project priorities to also manage.

Trust Reflecting an established core value of the network, we trusted hubs to know how to make best use of the grants within their communities.

This method of grantmaking was developed for several reasons:

Two new hubs were each supported with an initially smaller grant amount, which was later increased to the full amount when budget allowed.

1

5

6

What we learned from the initial grantmaking process: • When the network facilitators took the role of grantmakers, the power and expectations typically associated with this process shifted relationships with network partners to that of a more hierarchical ‘funder/ fundee’ interaction.

• It takes time to develop meaningful project ideas. Some hubs commented that deadlines for proposals would actually have been helpful for prioritisation.

• Only the facilitators had an overview of the project proposals in this initial grantmaking process, a flaw that resulted in a lack of transparency and insight for the rest of the partners in the network. This had unintended implications, including gatekeeping and inhibiting potential collaboration and cross-over between proposed projects.

• Grant funding was distributed equally, but the process (and therefore the power) was not democratic or decentralised. As a result of failing to imagine a more participatory approach to grantmaking on the part of the facilitators (partly due to logistical constraints such as time and capacity), the grantmaking process was designed without direct participation from the network members.

7

Participatory Grantmaking: Funding Better Together?

In year two of the project, for the second round of the small grants programme, the network explored participatory grantmaking (PGM) as an alternative to the approach taken the year previously.

Participatory grantmaking as a method of apportioning funds is becoming increasingly popular in philanthropic circles due to its capacity to democratise design making and so redress hierarchies and shift power dynamics throughout the funding process. We found the following definition, from the guide Deciding Together: Shifting Power and Resources Through Participatory Grantmaking, gave clarity to our understanding of the ethos and process; “Participatory grantmaking cedes decision-making power about funding - including the strategy and criteria behind those decisions - to the very communities that funders aim to serve.”

There were a number of reasons for taking this new approach. Firstly, the network as a collective entity has been attempting, through the course of our work together, to model innovative ways of working – both internally amongst the network partners, as well as with external stakeholders across Edinburgh. A foundation of trust, respect and solidarity has been built up amongst the network partners, and it was on this foundation that the idea to attempt a participatory approach to apportioning the grants was built.

8

Other reasons to undertake PGM included: •

A more transparent, thoughtful and collaborative decision-making process that reflects the values and ethos of the network.

•

Potential for strengthening trust between recipients and in the credibility of the process.

•

The promotion of diversity, equality and inclusion in both process and outcomes.

•

An opportunity to share information between those participating in the process (without the facilitators acting as unintentional gatekeepers).

•

The process could potentially help identify new collaborative initiatives and provide a safe space to take risks.

In the months that followed, the PGM process was internally evaluated through individual feedback interviews with each network partner, carried out by the network facilitators. The participatory nature of the process continued with a collective ‘show and share’ session five months later to share progress and learning from the work that was funded. One notable result from the process was the fact that there was a similarly equal split of PGM grant funding overall across the hubs, as there had been in the first year of the project. This outcome may have been influenced by the approach taken in year one, or may have reflected the equitable values underpinning the network.

“I had a degree of cynicism that everyone would get roughly the same as last time as we’re all really nice.”

In this case, we operated what is known as a ‘closed collective’ model of PGM, with the network themselves carrying out the decision-making regarding grants, rather than, for example, external community members or project participants. With some preparatory work beforehand, including one-to-one’s with each network partner, the grant decision-making process took place over the course of a day.

This began with initial group work designed to reflect on shared values and aspirations of the network, followed by a ‘sharing circle’ where project proposals were shared verbally amongst the group, and finally a ‘gifting circle’ where the final decision-making was made.

9

10

What we learned from the PGM process: There was real value for the hubs in spending time together working on a joint activity, both for nurturing bonds in the network and for greater recognition of one another’s work.

“The valuable bit was having a chat, in person, seeing what folk are up to.”

The process gave the network partners involved permission to explore new ways of working with one another, in a safe and trusting environment.

“When it came to it, people were able to trust each other.”

The lack of pre-defined criteria or parameters for judging proposals meant there was more of a lean towards emotional decision-making on the day.

“Without criteria I didn’t think it was the best process to go through.”

There was recognition amongst the hub representatives themselves that they do not operate on a level playing field (e.g. some are core funded whereas some are volunteer-led), and that the PGM process itself didn’t necessarily compensate for or change the relative capacity of each organisation.

“I realised that I had much less riding on it than other people.”

11

It was a time and resource-heavy process for both participants and facilitators, and therefore harder work than the comparative safety of more familiar, albeit compromised, funding structures.

PGM could be seen to have reintroduced an element of competition to the network which had not been present in the first round of grantmaking. This reflects a broader realisation that although the hubs are operating in a competitive funding environment, they can still collaborate and work fruitfully together.

“Money is great, but I do think working with other organisations helps us all loads.”

However, a key lesson was the importance of creating space to envisage and experiment collectively, giving time and freedom to imagine alternative ways of ‘doing’ funding.

“Recently [I’ve] been thinking about funding – writing lots of applications and getting rejections – [I] think there is room for doing things differently. It’s hard, disheartening.

A bit of relief when there is someone finding other ways of doing funding.”

“PGM makes a lot of sense to what the network is trying to achieve – elevating the argument that people who are not part of organisations who are not involved in those organisations might not be the best people to do that.

Whereas, it makes more sense that folk working in those organisations ought to be making those decisions.”

12

Beyond the Process: What the Application of the Grants Over Two Years Revealed The approaches to grantmaking discussed above prioritised flexibility and trust, rather than being prescriptive about outcomes and outputs. Consequently, the grants issued amongst the network supported an exciting diversity and depth of projects, activities and work across the city. There is a full list of the work supported by the two years of grantmaking as an appendix to this report, yet we can give an indication here of the breadth by describing a number of the supported proposals.

The grant enabled Lyra to give tailored support for young audiences to engage in their existing Once Upon a Snowstorm winter tour, to deepen research and development with their Young Company, and to launch a new networking initiative Community Gathering - bringing together practitioners, artists and local organisations to consolidate and generate connections amongst those working with young people in the Greater Craigmillar area. WHALE Arts funded a continuation of Smarties, a long-running weekly art club for children. In Leith, Out of the Blueprint launched Goccomatic, a DIY merchandise printing opportunity, supporting young artists to learn new skills and to generate their own income. Duncan Place Community Hub continued delivering Art for Anxiety, a creative workshop series which had been piloted by local artist Heather Marshall in response to demand from the local community. Similarly, The Crannie Community Hub was able to continue and develop the offer of their Art Club for adults. And finally, Granton Hub, an organisation precariously reliant on volunteers, were able to support their first paid role in the form of an archivist, further developing their own community archive systems and outreach.

For North Edinburgh Arts, the grant supported a unique research and development project led by artist Alice Betts and members from Art for Grown Ups, to plan for a permanent visual arts studio and making space within the expanded and refurbished NEA venue. The group were able to visit a variety of existing studios right across Edinburgh while they worked towards their vision of a free, open-access creative facility for artists in North Edinburgh. Meanwhile, on the other side of the city, Craigmillar Now were reanimating the Craigmillar Art, Culture and Heritage Trail originally created by local legend Helen Crummy, continuing the world-renowned cultural legacy of the Craigmillar Festival Society. With local volunteers and community members at the helm, they meticulously developed an updated arts trail for the area which entails a new printed trail booklet and map distributed to every residence in the local area, along with recorded oral histories preserving local stories, knowledge and voices, as well as other digital resources increasing the accessibility of local cultural heritage.

13

14

As can be seen from the range of work detailed here and in the appendix, a total grant award of £112,000 over a period of two years supported a range of 14 community-embedded projects, demonstrating how creative community hubs can do a great deal with relatively small amounts of funding. By speaking to hub representatives about how these grants were used and not just what they funded, we are able to understand where funding was most urgently needed in Edinburgh’s creative community hubs and, conversely, how more flexible funding approaches can better serve these organisations and those similar to them:

Plugging a gap in core funding: Although a number of the hubs receive regular core funding, many do not. Some hubs used the funding to cover a shortfall in their core programme or salary funding so that they could continue to deliver their regular work and contracts.

“It’s relieved a lot of pressure for us.”

Continuation and development of existing projects: Several hubs used the grants to continue or revisit an existing project or one that had been piloted. Rather than being forced to develop something new (or to reframe existing work as such) by funders, projects that were proven to work could continue to be sustained.

“We talk about this a lot, but not funding existing work that’s been proven to be effective, not seeing the value in something that’s meant to be long term.

The thing that we do best is now under threat.”

Work deeper: Similar to the previous point, the grants enabled hubs to work deeper with existing projects, with less emphasis on growth or need for constant reinvention.

15

“Opportunities to get involved in the arts is something [a funder] should support. Art without depth isn’t very good art.”

One grant, multiple uses: One grant was broken down into several smaller chunks to respond to needs across the organisation in a highly adaptive and specific way.

Community-led: It is difficult, perhaps not possible, to create genuinely communityled work if funding constrains the project to pre-defined objectives and outputs. These grants allowed for a more responsive approach with greater freedom to change and let things unfurl through the process. This is something that was particularly praised by artists and facilitators from the network who are engaged in direct delivery of the grant projects.

Funding the ‘unfundable’: Grants were used to support experimental, open-ended, research and development, or niche/specific work which hubs described as being otherwise difficult to get funded. In this vein, one hub described the grants as ‘a gift’.

The snapshots above reveal the vibrancy of the network and of the community-embedded work conceived or enabled partly as a consequence of the permissive nature of the small grant distribution.

As one hub representative reflected, “the participatory model of support... allows us to shine a torch on what we think is valuable.”

From our experience, funders and grantmakers would do well to heed this illuminating insight. Trusting and resourcing community-based organisations to simply continue to do the work that has value in their contexts, is one essential route to ensure that accessible, decentralised, diverse and meaningful cultural opportunities and expression are sustained for and by people across this city and beyond.

16

Funding Challenges and Aspirations Our first learning document, Working Better Together (2022), explored the power inequalities and attitudinal issues present within partnership practices between creative community hubs and cultural institutions. From our ongoing research with the network, it is clear that relationships between community hubs and funders can be similarly unequal with potential negative impacts. Indeed, the conclusions of Working Better Together highlighted funding and funding systems as a key area of interest for further investigation. In many ways this is what we have explored through the interactive grantmaking processes; how might the funder-recipient relationship be more equal and mutually beneficial?

To deepen our shared understanding of the key challenges being experienced by community-based organisations in relation to funding, we carried out a series of qualitative interviews with the representatives from the network partners. Crucially, these conversations also included many aspirations for an improved funding landscape again informed by the experience of network partners. The following collates these challenges and aspirations.

Current Funding Challenges: Core costs for community hubs are not currently funded in favour of project costs, which is a particular issue for organisations who are building based and therefore have greater overheads.

“The reality is that all of us are hollow at the core – it’s less sexy / engaging to talk about the cost of electricity, FoH, CEO etc.”

The high level of competition for cultural funding (which is diminishing) in the current environment (while costs are increasing).

“There is now triple the applications to all Creative Scotland and other funds - you’re having to generate twice the amount of work to get the same or less money than before.”

The low capacity for community-based organisations to dedicate the time required to fill out arduous funding applications “All my time now is doing applications; I can’t be doing the things that are most important.”

Current lack of long-term funding opportunities, and a recognition that community-based projects take longer than the annual cycle of tax year to tax year.

“This is how you work with communities, give them space and time to work.”

Community-based organisations are often funded to deliver direct social outcomes in their communities, as opposed to generating cultural value locally.

Administrative red tape is now worse than ever - lessons have not been learnt from the comparative freedom of grantmaking that occurred during the pandemic.

17

18

Future Funding Aspirations: Less (ideally no) pre-dictated project objectives required by funders (these can emerge during the course of the work), with less emphasis on constant reporting in order to evidence positive impact.

“We’ve always got to prove our point.”

Faster turnarounds when it comes to funding decision-making (so that alternatives can be sought with adequate project lead time) and knowing the success rates of a fund before dedicating valuable time to the application process.

Core cost recovery in funding applications being both accepted and standardised by funders.

Trust on the part of funders that community-based organisations know what they’re doing and therefore letting them get on with it. “…if you [funders] get to know the organisations, and trust them, and then invest in that.”

More engagement from funders and funders building more meaningful relationships with those they fund.

“Having a human connection with funders is really important. I can genuinely be honest with funders we’ve built a relationship with.”

Due diligence from funders regarding the experience of project partners, particularly where community-based organisations are namechecked in applications (sometimes without prior consultation).

“I would really love it if you were a partner on a project, that funders would also give you a survey to fill in. Requesting letters of support in partnerships.

[On challenges]: Partners gatekeeping funding relationships.”

19

Conclusion It is clear from the funding challenges described by members of the Creative Community Hubs Network that current funding systems are not working particularly well for them, nor will it be for other community-based cultural organisations like them. Across the whole of the cultural sector, the current funding landscape is looking increasingly competitive and precarious post-pandemic. However, this precarity is not experienced equally, with community-based organisations, freelancers and grassroots initiatives feeling the brunt of funding stagnancy and increasing competition for increasingly shrinking pots of funding. It certainly feels from those that we have talked to - those at the more precarious end of the funding scale - that things need to change and to change urgently, in order to address current challenges and impending future crises.

With regards the future of the Creative Community Hubs Network, happily there is greater future stability for the network in that it and lead partner WHALE Arts, have been taken on as a strategic partner with the City of Edinburgh Council over the next three years.

However, the total award to the network over 2024-27 is equal that for 2023-24, thereby equating to a funding drop in real terms of two thirds across the funding period. Without additional funding, a small grants distribution within the network will be unable to continue.

The Citywide Cultural Strategy for the City of Edinburgh states that in 2030, the city will be one that “has a network of well run, ambitious and accessible local creative and cultural hubs throughout the city where all residents can feel safe, welcomed, able to participate in, develop and influence cultural activities that have meaning for them.” We would like to add to this ambition, that local creative and cultural hubs be both well-resourced and sustainable. In order to achieve this, greater resource must be redistributed across the city in order to achieve a more equitable access to culture, with greater decision making locally about how funds are apportioned.

20

As we attempt to design new ways of working together whilst struggling within existing funding structures that ultimately confine us, still the activities and experimentation over the last two years of the Creative Community Hubs Network serve to demonstrate that another world is possible, and that if we work together in order to make our systems more caring, equitable and fit for purpose, we can create change that is beneficial for everyone across the funding spectrum. We look with interest and excitement to the new imaginative developments taking place in the area of community-based funding redistribution, including the Mycelium Fund recently conducted

by New Constellations and the Regenerative Futures Fund being launched later in Edinburgh in 2024, and hope that the ripples from such interventions serve to permanently alter the future funding landscape, for the better.

“It’s made me more annoyed with the traditional routes [for funding] and made me think, ‘Why can’t we do things differently?’”

Further reading: Working Better Together (2022), Muir, T. & Cunningham, M.: https://www.whalearts.co.uk/creative-community-hubs-network/ Citywide Cultural Strategy 2023-30 (2022), City of Edinburgh Council: https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s52772/7.3%20Citywide%20Culture%20 Strategy%202023-30.pdf

Appendix The Range of Work Supported by a Small Grants Distribution over 22/23 and 23/24: 1. Goccomatic Phase One and Two DIY merch printing, providing access to an income stream and new skill for young artists with Out of the Blueprint, incorporating learning from phase one of the project.

2. Community Gathering A series of new networking events for creative/youth work stakeholders in the Greater Craigmillar area coordinated by Lyra.

3. Helen’s Letters Lyra’s redevelopment of a pre-existing project about role models for young women, inspired by Craigmillar legend Helen Crummy.

4. Once Upon a Snowstorm tailored support for young audiences to engage with Lyra’s winter tour, research and development for Lyra’s Young Company, and additional access costs.

Deciding Together: Shifting Power and Resources Through PG, (2018) Foundation Center. https://learningforfunders.candid.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/DecidingTogether_Final_20181002.pdf Mycelium Fund, New Constellations: https://newconstellations.co/mycelium-fund/ Regenerative Futures Fund, EVOC: https://www.evoc.org.uk/projects/regenerative-futures-fund/ 21

22

5. Community Archive Heritage Project Core costs to support the continuation of this primary project (community-led archiving of the Craigmillar Festival Archives and other archives of local importance) at Craigmillar Now, including the updating of a local arts and heritage trail and core staffing costs to support project delivery.

6. Craigmillar Art Map Printing and distribution of the newly produced Craigmillar Art Map to every single local resident in the Craigmillar ward by Craigmillar Now.

7. Artist Studio Go and See Trips Community members contributing to community-led research and business plan for visual art studios at North Edinburgh Arts’ new building.

8. North Edinburgh Film Festival Workshops Filmmaking workshops for local residents to engage and participate in the film festival, led by North Edinburgh Arts.

9. Community Food Sustainability The continuation of workshops, community meals and the purchase of a community fridge, core to supporting the local community for The Crannie.

23

10. The Art Club Supports the continuation of workshops and exhibitions at The Crannie.

11. Art for Anxiety Workshops Supports the continuation of a successful project supporting wellbeing through creativity in response to local need at Duncan Place Community Hub.

12. Granton Archive Project Development of a community archive outreach project and material improvements for displaying and promoting the archive at granton:hub in order to increase local community engagement.

13. Everyone’s An Artist Supporting the development of local artists through the Open Studios regular programme and the Wester Hailes Open Exhibition at WHALE Arts.

14. Community Co-commissioning SmARTies youth group co-commissioning creative activities from external cultural organisations with WHALE Arts.

24

The Creative Community Hubs project is funded by the City of Edinburgh Council and facilitated by WHALE Arts Designed & sustainably riso printed by Out of the Blueprint in Leith, Edinburgh using rice ink on recycled paper.