Some documents from applicants were not put on the computer system, but decisions were not affected, council says.
Wednesday 13 July 2011 21.47 BST
Arts Council England has started an urgent review of the funding applications of 66 arts organisations, after it emerged that an administrative error meant vital documents, including financial statements, were never seen by the officers deciding their fate.
In a confidential internal letter, Althea Efunshile, the chief operating officer, says that in the case of 66 applicants "not all the documents supplied by them were uploaded" to the council's computer system.
It continues: "This problem was not picked up at the assessment stage and therefore those documents may not have been taken into consideration during the assessment of these applications."
None of the affected organisations contacted by the Guardian knew anything about the problem with their applications, or of the review in the past three weeks on how they were handled.
The Rose is funded only from the box office and from local authority and university support, and had hoped to win £400,000 in annual funding for audience development and original productions.
"What is very disappointing is that, although we were very sad about the outcome, we did believe that the process was pretty fair and transparent," Unwin said. "So to learn that there was a measure of cock-up which they had not been admitting to – well, I do find it pretty disappointing."
"We were very disappointed but not entirely surprised to be unsuccessful," Nic Hopkins, chair of the trustees, said, "and we would, of course, be very concerned if it was the case that information we had forwarded had not been taken into consideration."
Fergus Justice Mills, chief executive, said: "It was an incredibly difficult process for an organisation like ours, and for the Arts Council to make a completely new process work, but I am surprised that we are on this list, because we were quite satisfied with our outcome – particularly when so many equally worthy people were not as lucky."
In a statement, Arts Council England said that, during the funding process, "we discovered that in the case of 66 of the 1,333 applicants some supporting documents had not been uploaded to our internal system with the application forms.
"We undertook an immediate and thorough review of each of the affected applications. This review told us that, in most cases, we already held the information concerned and it had been considered in the assessment of the application. Where this was not the case, the additional information would have had no impact on our funding decision. As a result of this review, we are absolutely confident that our funding decisions were not affected. Measures are now being put in place to ensure this problem does not happen in the next investment process."
In a confidential internal letter, Althea Efunshile, the chief operating officer, says that in the case of 66 applicants "not all the documents supplied by them were uploaded" to the council's computer system.
It continues: "This problem was not picked up at the assessment stage and therefore those documents may not have been taken into consideration during the assessment of these applications."
The error happened in the crucial spending review, which in March led to hundreds of applicants being dropped, rejected or having their funding slashed, as the council drew up a new list of regularly funded organisations (RFOs) reflecting its own 30% cut in government funding.
Arts Council England has admitted the error, but says: "We are absolutely confident that our funding decisions were not affected."
The Rose Theatre in Kingston-upon-Thames, a three year old producing and touring venue under the patronage of the renowned director Sir Peter Hall, had hoped to win Arts Council funding for the first time, but failed. Director Stephen Unwin said: "This is a slap in the face."
"What is very disappointing is that, although we were very sad about the outcome, we did believe that the process was pretty fair and transparent," Unwin said. "So to learn that there was a measure of cock-up which they had not been admitting to – well, I do find it pretty disappointing."
The 30-year-old Norwich Puppet Theatre lost its Arts Council funding in 2008, and hoped to be reinstated, but failed. The financial information was particularly important because doubts about the company's financial viability were among the factors that lost it the annual grant.
Most of the 66 applicants – spread across London, the south-east and south-west, and the east and West Midlands, with one in Yorkshire – were small companies or venues, and most were unsuccessful. However, some on the list, including the Civic in Barnsley, and Streetwise Opera, which works with homeless people in London, did succeed and were equally puzzled to learn that this was in spite of some of their documentation being lost. The Civic, an arts complex that reopened in 2009, was delighted with its grant of about £160,000 a year, even though it was less than it had asked for.
In a statement, Arts Council England said that, during the funding process, "we discovered that in the case of 66 of the 1,333 applicants some supporting documents had not been uploaded to our internal system with the application forms.
"We undertook an immediate and thorough review of each of the affected applications. This review told us that, in most cases, we already held the information concerned and it had been considered in the assessment of the application. Where this was not the case, the additional information would have had no impact on our funding decision. As a result of this review, we are absolutely confident that our funding decisions were not affected. Measures are now being put in place to ensure this problem does not happen in the next investment process."
No comments:
Post a Comment