Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 5
5
It remains to be seen whether the Department has achieved its objectives for the Culture...
Recommendation
It remains to be seen whether the Department has achieved its objectives for the Culture Recovery Fund and secured longer-term value for money. The Department and its arm’s-length bodies are looking to build on the new relationships they have made with stakeholders, including many organisations they have not previously worked with or funded. The Department claims that the fund has definitely been value for money already on the basis that it is supporting the survival of organisations and that no organisations that received funding and are “culturally significant” have failed. Yet it could not tell us how it would be measuring the value for money achieved by the fund. The Department’s evaluation of the fund is due to report after the first two rounds have been distributed and round three has been awarded. Capturing what the Department has achieved through the fund and learned about the culture sector will depend on research that has clear value for money criteria, including measures for the impact on jobs and freelancers. Recommendation: The Department should set out: • in its Treasury Minute response, the metrics it is using to evaluate the performance of the Culture Recovery Fund against its initial objectives; and • once its evaluation is complete, what it will do to apply lessons to achieve value for money from its Culture Recovery Fund spending for the whole sector including subsectors that may have been missed.
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
5: PAC conclusion: It remains to be seen whether the Department has achieved its objectives for the Culture Recovery Fund and secured longer-term value for money. 5a: PAC recommendation: The Department should set out: • in its Treasury Minute response, the metrics it is using to evaluate the performance of the Culture Recovery Fund against its initial objectives; and 5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation Recommendation implemented 5.2 The evaluation of the CRF has been externally commissioned by DCMS to a consortium led by Ecorys UK, with Ipsos MORI and BOP Consulting, and will conclude by March 2022. The evaluation will include ‘impact’ and ‘process’ elements of the CRF. Impact evaluation will assess CRF effectiveness in achieving its objectives. Process evaluation will explore how the CRF was delivered and the extent to which the CRF was implemented as intended. The principal objectives of the evaluation will be to assess the following: • did the intervention lead to the sustainability of organisations of cultural, creative and heritage significance, ensuring the maintenance of the cultural ecosystem? • did the investment provide value for money? 5.3 The CRF impact evaluation will include a range of methods including surveys, case studies and econometric analysis. A process study is also being conducted to gather lessons learnt. 5.4 DCMS is currently finalising the methodology to assess the direct impacts of the fund but metrics are likely to include: • financial sustainability (for example, reserves, assets, liabilities, operating income, operating costs, survival rates), • trading status (visitor/audience numbers, adoption of new business models), and • employment (number of workers employed, number of furloughed workers, number of redundancies). To assess the wider impacts of the fund on the cultural ecosystem the department aims to obtain data on survival of local cultural organisations and spending placed with supply chains. 5.5 The evaluation will also assess the value for money of CRF. The approach will be based on a methodology compliant with the Treasury Green Book. The approach will draw on data collected across the evaluation to assess the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the intervention. A cost-benefit analysis will be central to this assessment which the department expects will include: • opportunity costs resulting from public sector funding, • administrative costs, • economic and social value of cultural assets preserved, • net gross value added (GVA) from productivity gains, and • public health benefits.