Arts Council England Review: Trust, Funding & Reform Explained

For many artists and arts organisations in England, public funding has come to feel less like a foundation and more like an obstacle course — dense with paperwork, uncertainty and unspoken pressures. The independent review of Arts Council England (ACE) led by Baroness Margaret Hodge arrives against this lived backdrop, offering the most comprehensive reassessment of the system in a generation.

Rather than calling for abolition or radical dismantling, the review makes a clear case for renewal: restoring trust, reducing bureaucracy, and reaffirming the arm’s-length principle that separates artistic decision-making from political power. Drawing on evidence from hundreds of organisations and practitioners across England, it diagnoses a system under strain — not only from a decade of financial pressure, but from processes and relationships that have gradually eroded confidence between ACE and the sector it is meant to serve.

Trust and the Arm’s-length Principle (Sections B and L)

At the heart of the report is a warning about politicisation. In Section B: The Importance of Trust and Section L: The Relationship Between ACE and Government, Hodge argues that recent years have seen growing concern that political priorities have begun to shape funding outcomes. While ministers should set broad cultural objectives, the report stresses that funding decisions themselves must remain insulated from elected politicians.

The review repeatedly returns to the arm’s-length principle as the foundation of artistic freedom. Without it, Hodge warns, there is a real risk that funding decisions — even if well intentioned — could drift towards bias, caution, or censorship. Strengthening this principle at all levels of government is presented not as an abstract governance issue, but as essential to maintaining public trust and creative independence.

Bureaucracy and the Breakdown of Confidence (Sections B, D and K)

A second, equally prominent theme is the burden of bureaucracy. Evidence gathered for the review describes application and reporting processes that are overly complex, time-consuming and poorly proportioned to the size or capacity of organisations. In Sections B and D, contributors describe a system that rewards compliance over creativity, forcing organisations to focus on form-filling rather than artistic ambition.

This critique extends to ACE’s digital infrastructure. Section K: A Radical Systems Overhaul highlights widespread dissatisfaction with platforms such as Grantium, which many see as emblematic of a funding culture that has become procedural rather than supportive. The report calls for a fundamental redesign of systems, guided by simplicity, accessibility and proportionality, rather than incremental fixes.

Rethinking ‘Let’s Create’ (Sections B and D)

One of the most striking findings concerns ACE’s long-term strategy, Let’s Create. While the review acknowledges that its underlying values — particularly around access and diversity — are widely supported, Sections B and D conclude that its implementation has often been rigid and counterproductive.

Artists and organisations told the review that Let’s Create functioned less as a guiding framework and more as a checklist, narrowing the range of work that felt fundable. Hodge recommends replacing it with a new, less prescriptive strategy that prioritises artistic excellence alongside access, allowing organisations to articulate their value on their own terms rather than conforming to a single model.

Funding Stability and Structural Reform (Sections C, D and E)

The review situates governance problems within a wider funding crisis. Section C: Tackling the Arts and Culture Funding Crisis documents the cumulative impact of reduced public investment, rising costs and fragile business models. Rather than calling solely for increased grant-in-aid — which the report recognises may be fiscally constrained — Hodge proposes a mix of structural reforms and innovative funding mechanisms.

Key proposals include longer funding cycles for National Portfolio Organisations, rolling application processes, and greater predictability for high-performing institutions (Section D). The report also explores new approaches to supporting individual artists (Section E), recommending a dedicated national programme for emerging and mid-career practitioners, particularly those from low-income or under-represented backgrounds.

Touring, Place and Regional Equity (Sections G and H)

Questions of geography and access run throughout the review. In Section G: The Importance of Touring, Hodge identifies touring as critical both to cultural access and economic sustainability, arguing that current tax relief structures and rising costs have made touring increasingly unviable. The report urges reforms to theatre and orchestra tax reliefs to better reflect the realities of touring in a post-Brexit environment.

Meanwhile, Section H: Building a Cultural Offer from the Ground Up challenges simplistic approaches to regional redistribution, such as relocating organisations by postcode. Instead, the review advocates sustained, locally rooted investment, including the deployment of community arts workers to help develop cultural ecosystems in under-served areas.

Redefining ACE’s Role (Sections I and J)

Beyond funding, the review calls for a clearer definition of ACE’s function as a development agency. Section I argues that ACE has become overly focused on regulation and compliance, at the expense of leadership, advocacy and sector-wide support. Reasserting this developmental role would allow ACE to convene, share best practice and respond more effectively to systemic challenges.

The review also revisits ACE’s responsibilities for libraries and museums (Section J), recommending a reassessment of whether certain development functions — particularly for libraries — might be better housed elsewhere, while strengthening strategic planning for museums.

What the Review Ultimately Signals

Taken as a whole, the Hodge review is less an indictment of Arts Council England than a diagnosis of accumulated strain. It argues that independence, simplicity and trust are not optional ideals, but prerequisites for a functioning arts funding system.

Whether the review proves transformative will depend on how decisively its recommendations are implemented. But its significance is already clear: it reframes arts funding not as a tool of control, but as a public trust.

What the Hodge review ultimately calls for is an Arts Council confident enough to step back — politically, administratively and culturally — so that artists, institutions and communities can step forward. In that shift lies the possibility not just of reform, but of renewal.

This analysis reflects an independent reading of the review and does not imply endorsement by the author or publisher.