TAITMAIL ACE’s challenge: To build better organisations - or better NPO applications?
Occasionally we pass TaitMail over to other commentators on the arts and culture for their word on what’s happening in the sector. This time, as Arts Council England enters what might be a new era of National Portfolio investment, we invited Jordan Mullineaux, an arts consultant and theatre development professional with a background spanning producing, marketing, communications and fundraising. He asks, should cultural organisations focus less on becoming eligible and more on becoming investable?
As Arts Council England enters a new era of National Portfolio investment, cultural organisations will soon ask the familiar question: What does ACE want? Or should we be asking a different question, namely: Who are we and are we investable?
NPO funding is coveted because it offers something increasingly rare: long-term core funding. It gives organisations the stability and freedom to develop excellent work, support staff and build lasting relationships with communities and the wider sector.
Yet core funding comes at a cost. Some organisations may hesitate to accept a lower NPO award because it can affect access to ACE project funding, while the reporting burden may feel disproportionate to a relatively small grant. So it’s not only not only, can an organisation win NPO status, it’s whether the investment is right for the organisation. They should not reinvent themselves because an application window is approaching.
Spend enough time in the cultural sector and you will hear the phrase, “We won’t be funder-led when it comes to art”, but when core funding is at stake that principle can be tested.
For organisations that have spent years in the portfolio the thought of returning to project-by-project funding can be daunting. Many remember piecing together restricted grants, waiting for decisions and wondering whether the next project could happen - once you have experienced the security of core funding, why would you give it up? NPO success should be about alignment, not contortion.
If an organisation is not a natural fit for NPO, it should look for other ways to become resilient. Fear is understandable, but it can encourage organisations to search the guidance available for the version of themselves most likely to be funded.
That points to an important distinction between being eligible and being investable. Eligibility asks: Do we meet the rules? Investability asks: Why us? Why now? So what? What evidence shows our impact? NPO funding is not a prize, it’s public investment intended to help deliver a wider cultural strategy.
ACE’s new Strategic Framework centres on three objectives: Support Excellence, Deliver for Everybody and Reach Everywhere. The independent Hodge Review, published last December, criticised the former approach and called for a less prescriptive strategy in which organisations could explain their unique contribution rather than try to tick boxes.
If organisations discover in September that they need to make major changes to become competitive applicants, are we encouraging organisational development, or encouraging organisations to become funder-led?
The last NPO round showed how significant ACE’s decisions can be. English National Opera’s funding outcome became one of the most visible controversies, while organisations across the sector faced difficult consequences. But the portfolio should be allowed to change. But what should continued investment achieve?
The Royal Ballet and Opera receives the largest individual NPO award, with £23.8m committed for 2026/27. Yet it recently reported that around £60m is needed over the next three years just to keep its Covent Garden building open and functioning, with around £250m needed over the next decade. RBO’s artistic importance, international reputation and costly Grade I-listed home all matter. But if NPO funding is partly intended to build strong, diverse and resilient organisations, it is reasonable to ask what resilience looks like after years of public investment. It begs the question, could investment create greater value elsewhere? What unique contribution would another few years of funding buy? ACE should be confident asking those questions. Otherwise, portfolio membership risks becoming an entitlement rather than an investment.
This NPO round also comes as Dawn Airey takes over as ACE chair and the Hodge Review recommendations are implemented, while NPO funding is also moving to five-year investment. Her commercial and transformational background makes the questions around resilience and sustainable business models particularly interesting.
If the new approach gives organisations more freedom to explain their unique contribution, they should use it - stop trying to sound like ACE and start explaining why their work matters.
Alignment works both ways. ACE must decide whether an organisation belongs in its portfolio. Organisations should also decide whether ACE’s investment is right for them.
When a trust does not fit a project, we look elsewhere. We do not abandon the work. Does that principle still hold when the funder is ACE and the funding is core?
So, before asking “What does ACE want to hear?”, perhaps the better question is: “Who are we when there isn’t an application form in front of us?”
Jordan Mullineaux is a theatre development professional and arts and culture consultant with a background in producing, marketing, communications and fundraising across the sector