|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 15:51:50 GMT
Genuine question - do subs have to make money or does the money they get supposed to cover everything so they can just create art? National Portfolio Organisations receive funding over a number of years. They have to apply to be considered for it and satisfy a wide range of criteria from robust business planning to environmental impact to diversity to audience reach and outreach, as well as carrying out the activities which they have been part-funded to provide. Larger organisations need to maintain cash reserves so that they are in a position to be able to weather foreseeable risks. Some NPOs don't actually create anything but solely do research and development, but most lie somwhere on the spectrum between these two extremes. For example, much of the activity of the NT Studio or New Work Department doesn't feed into any NT shows. Funded organisations must be financially, artistically and operationally sustainable. The requirements are less rigorous for project grants. The recipients have to do the activity they promised in their application and to spend the money they were granted on the project. All my above comments may be wrong, in which case please correct me! HG is correct in all that. It's also never put as a requirement that they make money, but obviously seen as a good thing if they do (based on the theory the money is either ploughed into next year's funds so less money needed from grants and/or siphoned elsewhere- that will vary from organisation to organisation)
Also the funding for Portfolio Orgs. is often complex with say core funding being Portfolio and several 'Large Project' grants making up 'shortfall' for say education, specific events or even additional productions. These additional grants however come from the Lottery Strand of Arts Council funding rather than the government ones...so many orgs are part Government/Revenue funded and part Lottery funded on specific projects.
Either way, competition to be a Portfolio Org is high, and grant competition equally so, and there's rigourous assessment and monitoring every step of the way down to the finest detail of finances.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 14, 2017 16:03:25 GMT
HG is correct in all that. It's also never put as a requirement that they make money, but obviously seen as a good thing if they do (based on the theory the money is either ploughed into next year's funds so less money needed from grants and/or siphoned elsewhere- that will vary from organisation to organisation)
Also the funding for Portfolio Orgs. is often complex with say core funding being Portfolio and several 'Large Project' grants making up 'shortfall' for say education, specific events or even additional productions. These additional grants however come from the Lottery Strand of Arts Council funding rather than the government ones...so many orgs are part Government/Revenue funded and part Lottery funded on specific projects.
Either way, competition to be a Portfolio Org is high, and grant competition equally so, and there's rigourous assessment and monitoring every step of the way down to the finest detail of finances.
Funding doesn't all costs nor does ticket sales hence why these organisations have membership schemes, donations, legacy giving, corporate support etc Things like American Express Invites is because Amex pays the National so they can give their customers early access to tickets. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 16:10:42 GMT
Yes exactly- no Portfolio Organisation is given all the money they need to cover all costs. So all have some kind of additional funding- either top ups from one (or more!) of the Arts Councils, local authority, corporate etc etc as well as revenue from tickets and other sources. There's not enough money as it is, so they get 'core' funding and are expected to show they are getting the money to top up from elsewhere. (same with any project grant, Arts Councils fund between 50-75% for organisations per project and they either match with their own funds, or have to find additional grants/funding)
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 14, 2017 16:31:09 GMT
Some productions are done in association with a commercial producer like The Ferryman which was developed by Sonia Friedman but brought to The Royal Court rather than done as a commercial production first so these productions might have more money put into them with the aim of a further life later on.
|
|
