Strategy V Delivery

!!! I found this in an 'unpublished folder' Its a pretty standard rant from me, I can't remember when it was drafted, might as well post it...

Now is not the time for investing in “strategy”, at least; in minority arts!

I have lost count of the number of consultations and strategies I’ve witnessed and to which I have contributed since 1985. Each one promised a great leap forward for minority arts and culture, so why does it seem that so little has been achieved?

How many full time UK creative companies, let alone venues are run by and for people from minority communities?

How much public money has been spent to deliver consultations and research ‘on our behalf’?

Why does it seem that so many of those consultations were conducted by the ‘Usual Suspects?

Why are so few professionals from minority communities acceptable to “Strategic” agencies to conduct consultations and deliver reports? How did those who have the confidence of ‘Strategic Agencies’ attain their trusted positions?

Why is it SO much easier to secure funds for research than it is to support actual creativity? What has happened to all that paper? Where is the proof that any of them yielded concrete developments?

When did the separation between “strategic” and “delivery” take place? It seems to me, after working for several “strategic” organisations, that they served the gatekeepers and not the creatives(sic). It reminds me of the days when everyone was writing “Equality of Opportunity Policies”: organisation after organisation spent time and money agonising to agree the magical words to release grants that were rarely referred to again in any other context.

How can a “Delivery Organisation” not be strategic?

Few organisations can deliver to everyone; surely decisions need to be made about who and how services can be delivered for maximum impact- that sounds strategic to me. An organisation for which I worked and where I felt I had done a more than “passing” job was recently criticised by an artist who complained it had not served him. He was unimpressed that a two man band had delivered practical services to 95 creative professionals, groups, organisations and even venues in a year with a budget of just £50K. He wanted what he wanted and he wanted it delivered where he lived rather than in the regional centre where it was cheaper and more practical for a small organisation to have a big impact. It’s hard not to be sympathetic.

More shocking was the reaction of the Board of that organisation to predictions following the beginning of “the economic downturn” about the growing irrelevance and therefore financial danger “strategic” organisations were likely to face. By the end of 2009 it was obvious that organisations dependent on public subsidy that could not demonstrate tangible outputs would be imperilled. Unfortunately the change from strategic to delivery necessitated increased activity and responsibility from ‘hobbyist’ Trustees who (with exceptions) JUST ABOUT managed to read minutes and papers before appearing at meetings, -trustees who claimed to be exercising “a duty of care” by restricting me from delivering the changes I felt were needed for fear I would “burn out”. It was less stressful to keep on doing what they’d always done in the hope of continuing to get what they’d always got- despite everything changing around them.

I did get an apology from a former Chair of the organisation when things went down exactly as I had predicted- for what it was worth. But I was shocked, deeply shocked by how quickly what I had built up in the previous years evaporated and how little seemed to be done to stop it. Perhaps it was difficult to fight for something against people trustees met regularly at “functions” and events etc. It must be hard to agitate for change in such situations.

Today, that organisation still exists... sort of: it has a website that is no longer updated and puts out occasional social media alerts for (you guessed it) “consultation events” where, despite the fact that it is supposedly in support of minority ethnic creative professionals, it doesn’t appear to matter if no black or brown skinned people attend as long as there are at least a couple of “minority ethnic” participants” and so long as reports continue to be created and disseminated. Dissent is dismissed as ‘sour grapes’.

After MANY years of working in “Arts Development” and noticing recurring requests and complaints one thing is clear: artists do not want more consultation and strategy, they want services that support them to develop and present their work or that remove the barriers they experience to doing that for themselves. Everything else is just paperwork.