Can ACE Put Art Before Bureaucracy? Reflections on the Hodge Review
My initial response to the summary recommendations was, quite frankly, music to my ears.
At last, an official report has acknowledged what many of us have been saying for years —— sometimes quietly, sometimes not so quietly. The system is under strain, fragile, and far too much energy by artists and institutions alike is consumed by bureaucracy rather than by art itself.
ACE: Valuable but Slow to Evolve
The review is careful, measured, and in many ways generous to Arts Council England (ACE). Despite my occasional gripes, I remain an avid supporter of ACE. Like Margaret Hodge, I believe it should continue to exist and embrace its dual role as funder and development agency. My career would certainly not exist without it and the same goes for countless others who rely on its support to turn vision into reality.
But here’s the crux: ACE is extremely under-funded and too slow to adapt to the rapidly changing context in which it operates.
The report also rightly points out:
“There have been attempts to exert more political control over ACE decisions in recent years and this has to stop.”
Artistic independence cannot thrive under political interference. I would add: it also cannot thrive under perpetual grant dependence, see previous blog post.
Recommendations That Resonate
Several recommendations stuck out for me:
Recommendation 3.5: A mechanism for ACE to share in royalties or profits when an NPO achieves commercial success. This could open up new pathways for sustainable collaboration between commerce and creativity, and perhaps even welcome commercial companies with genuine artistic integrity into the portfolio.
Lengthening the NPO cycle to five years: Stability is not a luxury —— it is a necessity. Rolling or staggered cycles would allow organisations to plan, innovate, and grow without the relentless churn of application writing and the anxiety of funding cliff edges.
Recommendation 10: A National Programme for Individuals: This could create equitable pathways for individuals from low-income and working-class backgrounds who show promise, offering real careers instead of endless unpaid internships or tokenistic diversity initiatives. If we are serious about widening access to excellence and cultural leadership, this is essential.
Ditching Let’s Create: A looser, less prescriptive strategy would support a wider range of projects and ideas, delivering both depth and breadth of engagement.
What’s Missing
The review is a step forward, but it still underplays the vital role of independent self‑employed artists and small companies. These groups receive the smallest slice of the funding pie, yet they are the sector’s lifeblood —— often the most innovative, community‑rooted, and willing to take risks. Their work animates larger institutions, drives innovation, and sustains touring across the country. Any meaningful reform must confront this imbalance directly and prioritise the independents who keep the ecosystem dynamic and diverse. While the review understandably focuses on England, with only one international comparison, it is impossible to ignore how little England invests in public arts funding compared to its European counterparts. That disparity leaves independent artists and companies especially vulnerable, and addressing it should be central to any future strategy.
A Call to Action
The review is not perfect, but it recognises the fragility of the current system, calls out political interference, and offers practical recommendations that could reshape the future of ACE.
The challenge now is clear: these recommendations must not remain words on paper. They must become catalysts for real change. The future of the arts depends on courage from ACE, the government and the sector: courage to reform, to invest, and to trust artists to lead.
- Rafia