08 / to fund or not to fund - is that the question?

Who funds: why, what, and how much?  With reference to art funding only.

Before you get too excited this is not a who’s who of who to apply to and hopefully receive funding from. This article is my perception and experience of what is happening in the funding environment.

Having lived on both sides of the fence so to speak, both from the allocation of funds and the receiving of funds, I find many inconsistencies and disturbing factors recurring.  Anyone who feels more qualified and knowledgeable than me is welcome to comment, in fact I would welcome it.

First off is the Why. 
Why should funding be allocated to any organisation or individual whether it comes from government, business or private benefactors?  What is the motivation for handing over selected amounts of money to the carefully chosen few?  Apparently fewer and fewer are being chosen and more and more are applying?  Why do organisations feel they deserve to be funded?  What makes all of us who apply for funding feel that what we are doing is worthy of someone else giving us money to do what we want to? Why do the arts appear in many cases not to be able to generate sufficient income to support their grand ideas and schemes? Is it possible to be self sufficient?  Do organisations look at being sustainable first and then look at being funded? Social issues come into play enormously in regard to whether an organisation is able to become sustainable but ……..

When working in an arts related field one is often working with people who have become marginalized and need assistance.  This then allows the art practitioners to develop projects which have a social component to their work and as such provides a strong motivating component in the funding strategy.  And that is great and most commendable.  But what of an art work that is created simply for art’s sake and by the very nature of the work cannot take into account compliance with the necessary social issues but simply uses the best people for the work regardless of funding or social requirements?  Should this also not receive funding?  Art knows no boundaries and like cream talent will rise to the top but I urge funders to look at what they are funding and why. Support of the poor and needy is vital but not necessary in the best interest of creating works of art.

Then comes the What.
Each funding individual or organisation has some form of criteria which they follow when allocating funds.  Whether it is a policy that has been developed based on political ideology or interests and or desires of the individual is not that critical.  One has to accept the criteria and apply to those funders where you know your projects will fulfil the specifics required.  What appears to be happening is that applicants are attempting to customize their projects according to what the funders are looking for. That is where I see the problems arising because under those conditions the creation/training/development of the project will be severely compromised to suit funders needs and not necessarily what the organisation is doing or what they do best.

What I think is critical is establishing what is needed by the organisations that are asking for funding. That might sound a strange statement but think of someone dying of thirst and you offer him cake. Will it be of much good to him?  Will it serve his purpose? Or giving children sweets and toys to make them feel good for a day but not looking to the future in regard to not only training and education but creating work for their futures.  Yes I know we all do what we can and every little bit counts – but does it?  Too many little bits do not necessarily make a completed part.

Organisations should be encouraged to lay out very carefully what their needs are.  Contrary to many people’s ideas it isn’t always money organisations need.  They might think they need or might want more money but giving badly run organisations more money simply means they do less and spend more. Often expertise in actually running a business is lacking and no matter how good the art product might be it will fail if the business side is not in order.

Currently I find the funders seem to have very similar approaches to the funding of the arts in my specific field and that is dance.  The training of children and youth appears to be of great importance.  And I agree with it totally but one has to look ahead and make plans for all these dancers that are being trained.

Now two further questions arise from that statement.  Are we training potential dancers for the professional stage or are we simply training in a superficial manner for the majority to learn dance movements for whatever enjoyment or benefits they might receive?  And again I have no problem with that because the benefits of a good ballet training are acknowledged as being positive for all learning areas.  Note I specify ballet because that is what I know best and I consider ballet as the grammar of the dance language.

The creation and development of dance companies for the future is vital if the art is to flourish and to provide work for all these potential dancers we are training.  Dance companies are very good at creating work for people in related fields like costumiers, set builders, electricians, lighting people, front of house, printers, the list appears to be endless. But are dance companies being funded to create new work, to develop the standard of their dancers and above all supported so that they can survive?

How much.
Do the funders heed what the organisations ask for and what is requested in their budget?  Or is this considered irrelevant. Should organisations ask for twice as much to ensure they get half of what they ask for?  How accurate are these budgets or are they merely wish lists as has been suggested to me.

Probably the hardest of questions to answer but one that could be made simpler if both sides were open.  From the funders what they are able to offer and from the organisation what is needed. Could business funders not offer expertise and equipment?  A big area that I am sure all NGO’s would be delighted to receive assistance in ,is marketing and promoting what ever product that is being produced.  I am sure we could all achieve so much more if we were only able to market and promote ourselves in a more profitable way.

I welcome comments and letters for publication in our future edition as I think this is a topic that is always going to be relevant.

08 / water for the wasteland - the arts and culture funding crisis:

Jazzart Dance Theatre has been a constant in the national dance landscape for almost 30 years. During this time the organisation evolved from an idea for developing dance in the Western Cape to a recognised institution, providing training to aspiring dancers of all backgrounds. In 1998, Jazzart became a company incorporated not for gain in terms of Section 21 of the South African Companies Act and in 2002, was awarded a three-year core funding grant by the National Arts Council. Jazzart has been a longstanding recipient of funding from the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund, building a relationship that has grown steadily over the years. In addition, Jazzart earns income through fee-for-service work, which includes contracts to perform at corporate functions, provide administrative services or implement skills transmission programmes. Through the dedicated and wise administration of these funds, Jazzart was able to remain at the forefront of contemporary dance on the continent, and has continued to provide young people with a place to grow their skills.

In the last 2 years there has been a monumental shift in the allocation of funds to arts and culture. And not for the better. From 1994 to 2002, funding for the arts entered an extended process of re-evaluation by the Department of Arts and Culture and the National Arts Council of South Africa. The resulting national programme substantially reduced the flow of central government money to the performing arts. Consequently, established institutions are closing their doors and independent projects seldom make it off the ground, as South Africa’s arts institutions starve for funds. So where did it all go wrong? And is there any hope?

Ralph Freese, former Treasurer of Jazzart Dance Theatre’s Board of Directors, believes the situation is salvageable. “There are funds available. The NLDTF (National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund) for example, currently has an estimated R700 million in non-distributed funds” This begs the question, why are so many applications made to the NLDTF left unanswered? Moreover the question of how inordinately large sums are allocated to single governmental organisations, as was the case with the National Youth Development Agency convened “World Festival of Youth and Students”; looms large in the minds of unfunded NPOs.

So what is the real impact of spending R40 million on a single festival at a time when South Africa’s cultural landscape is rapidly becoming a wasteland? Not only does this type of decision making affect the quality of work one can potentially produce, but the opportunity for growing the industry is shrunk to virtually zero. Dancers, actors and artists are not unfamiliar with the notion of tight budgets and limited resources. Articles in several publications bemoan the state of dressing rooms at Maynardville, or the dramatically low ticket sales for local productions that can be attributed to the complete absence of marketing budgets. But the final result of this downward spiral is far more ominous.

How long must we wait before government and funders realise that our communities need the arts? That South Africa is deserving of a rich and diverse cultural landscape, and that these funds by no means exclusively service an elite or indulgent forms of entertainment, but are used to feed the souls AND mouths of its citizens.

Organisations such as ours, as well as many others including iKapa; Jikeleza; iKwesi; and Wilvan , grow talented and independent performers while simultaneously providing a space for previously disadvantaged people to learn valuable skills.  These organisations seek to impart local knowledge in a way that empowers beneficiaries to live the ethos that through the arts one can share with the community, develop skills and feed a family. These are real skills, gifted to people who see the potential in bettering their lives, and the lives of those around them.

There are a multitude of programmes, committees and trusts in existence whose mandate it is to encourage exactly this. The Investing In Culture Programme, The National Lottery Distribution Trust and the Moral Regeneration Movement, to name but a few.  They talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk we often find them paralysed. Chairperson Alfred Nevhutanda said during a press briefing

“There are two really central themes underpinning the kinds of projects we are looking to fund. One is development and the empowerment of our least-advantaged citizens by enabling them to derive an income or a skill from culture and artistic enterprise… the other is creating and preserving art, culture and knowledge systems that are uniquely South African”

So why has the NLDTF not been held accountable for not following the Chairperson’s brief?  And how can change be implemented? Freese believes that the problem lies in maladministration, that the NLDTF has not acted responsibly or displayed due diligence with regard to facilitating distribution. In his open letter to the minister, Freese offers to volunteer his time, along with a team of experts, to assist in implementing short and long term changes. “Not once in the last three years has management managed to distribute as much as half of the funds available…(we must) help ensure that the institution delivers more fully on its mandate”

Solutions are available, but while these committees ponder their role in it all, the arts bears the brunt of this indecision, inability and inertia.
The time for change is now.

08 / national lotteries - open letter:

Minister Rob Davies

Department of Trade and Industries

I am deeply concerned – or more accurately, sick, tired and angry – about the failure of the National Lotteries Distribution Trust Fund (NLDTF) and the National Lotteries Board (NLB) to live up to their mandate. Multiple organisations, vital to the social fabric of South Africa, have been weakened, or suffered complete collapse. It is true that Government cannot, and should not, be responsible for the survival of individuals and vulnerable groups, the enrichment of community through the arts, or the chaos of thought and practice that results in new ways to develop and govern our world – this is the job of NGO’s, charities and think tanks. Government’s job is to build and protect the environment in which these organisations work. The NLDTF was established, in part, to do that. However the inefficiencies of the NLDTF militate against success. It would be simplistic to blame management and staff for all the weaknesses – though inordinate delays and lost documents make this tempting, and many people do. There are, however, structural and design weaknesses which add to the problems: for example, the Distributing Agencies (DA’s) are staffed by part-timers, which makes delays in their processes a certainty.

Things need to be fixed!

This is not to say that the NLB and NLDTF have failed completely, or are inappropriate for this country. We need to acknowledge that attention has drifted from South Africa since 1994 – and now centres on North Africa, the Near East and Japan. This, combined with global economic woes, has made funding for South African NGO’s much more difficult. The designers of the ‘Lotteries’ understood the context and established a good solution. Those in charge today have to learn from experience, and fix the weaknesses – not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Minister Davies, the design, systems and staffing you inherited do not fulfil government’s ambition, and can (without too much difficulty) be fixed. The first step towards a solution should be to answer the question “who is the master, and who the servant in the relationship between the NLDTF and the broader community of South Africa, represented by the charities and NGO’s it funds?” To my mind, the relationship has been inverted: – the NLDTF should serve us, not arrogate to itself the role of a modern Medici. In short it is not their money! They are not successful capitalists or robber barons distributing largesse. They are agents of our government, set up to serve the poor by returning to them money taken largely from them by an indirect tax in the first place.

Here are some of the questions that need to be answered:

Firstly; how do you measure the efficiency and success of the NLDTF and its staff? Certainly, the “stakeholders or clients” do not participate as they should. If they had been consulted democratically, much would have changed by now. Not once in the last three years has management managed to distribute as much as half of the funds available.

South Africa has the skills and the will to manage the NLDTF: We ran a world-beating World Cup – and for those who remember the election of 1994.Many have gossiped about how much the members of the DA’s are paid. My question is: do we pay these people enough to make them take the time necessary to do what we ask of them, and do we adequately support and evaluate the processes they employ?

Secondly; how, by whom, and at what cost and benefit is the non-distributed money managed? I hope it’s not just “in the bank”? It would be great if a simple report – income, cost to administer (with some detail) grants made (and to whom), and amount retained – is published twice a year.

Third, and unavoidably; the question everyone else has asked – what happened with the Youth debacle?

To put it more clearly, what does it cost to operate the NLDTF? If my rough calculations are valid (they’re based on the website, history and public comments) as much as seven hundred million rand has probably not been distributed during 2010. Why not, and where is the money?

This is not just another whine and groan letter: I volunteer (at no cost to government, the National Lotteries Board or the NLDTF) to put together a team including management, members of your staff and experts to assess the situation, recommend short- and longer term changes, and help ensure that the institution delivers more fully on its mandate.

In conclusion: The very existence of the NLDTF has changed the funding environment. Management of big business tends to fund things in which they personally take an interest, or are driven to fund by ‘Enterprise Development’ pressures from government. “That’s the lotteries’ job” is a refrain too often heard when fundraising. Also, rich South Africans seem to part with their cash less readily than rich Americans (thanks, blessings, and all hail to those who do!). Consequently, any thought of closure or changing over to a ‘State Lottery’ where the funds go into general government coffers (like sin taxes) must be resisted.

Lastly, I have resigned from the boards of two organisations dependent on lottery funding to avoid any malicious response to this note. I have confidence, Minister,that you will instruct that no such action takes place.

Run properly, the NLDTF is a positive intervention by government. Let’s ensure that its mandate is fulfilled.

Yours in struggle, Ralph Freese