ACGB and the Regional Arts Associations

Although the ACGB came into being in 1946, the first of the Regional Arts Associations did not appear until ten years later— South West Arts in 1956—and the last was Eastern Arts in 1971. By this time there were a total of twelve associations providing funding and advice for the Arts across England:East Midlands, Eastern, Greater London, Lincolnshire & Humberside, Merseyside, North West, Northern, South East, South West, Southern,West Midlands, Yorkshire.[1]

Once the RAAs were established the principal issues became, and remained, the division of responsibility and funds between the centre and the regions. While there were frequent discussions over the years as to how much responsibility should move to the RAAs, the first major shift towards devolution came with the 1984 report entitled The Glory of the Garden. This trend continued with the 1989 Wilding Report, Supporting the Arts, which resulted in the reorganization and consolidation of the twelve RAAs into ten Regional Arts Boards (RABs) by 1992: East Midlands, Eastern, London, North West, Northern, South East, South West, Southern, West Midlands, Yorkshire & Humberside. This was not achieved without conflict—the merging of Merseyside with North West to form the new North West Arts Board brought traditional rivals Liverpool and Manchester ‘together’, which all took some time sort out.

The rationale behind his recommendations is explained in a letter from Richard Wilding to Richard Luce, Minister for the Artswhich accompanied his report:

When you [Luce] commissioned the review, you pointed out four things which caused you concern: accountability for the public money spent by the Regional Arts Associations (RAAs): a lack of coherence between the national funding bodies and the RAAs in formulation and delivery of policy: unwieldy structures and processes for the handling of business: and the administration cost of the whole of the system. […]

The relationship between the Arts Council and the RAAs presents a serious problem. […] Underlying the difficulties you identified is a basic structural weakness: here are two sets of people, one national and the other regional, operating independently and both trying to do the same thing […] The answer has to lie in a closer collaboration in what I have called the federal approach. […]

One of the main features of the federal structure should be a three-tier system of funding. Under the new system, some bodies would continue to be funded directly by the Arts Council, and others at the discretion of the region. But there would be an intermediate tier in which the RAA would take the lead in all relationships with the client but the size of the grant would be explicitly set out in forward plans which required Arts Council approval.[2]

Of course, the regions and their responsibilities were changed again only five years after Wilding’s report, when the ACGB was dissolved and the separate Arts Councils for England, Scotland, and Wales were formed.

Within the ACGB, the RAAs became the responsibility of the Regional Development Department, which was first established during the early 1970s. However, this was disbanded in 1976 when Neil Duncan, its Director, resigned. Responsibility for regional development was assumed by the then Deputy Secretary General, Angus Stirling, but in 1979/80 a new Regional Department was created. Several series are dedicated solely to the Regional Arts Associations/Boards (listed below) and the files therein are organized by RAA/RAB.

Series, and files, which the researcher may find particularly useful, are:

Arts Development Division: 1928-1997

Drama Department 1928-1995

ACGB/43Policy and Information Files 1929-1994

ACGB/43/38Regional Arts Associations/Arts Council of Great Britain: Working Group 1978-80

(Investigation into the role of Local Authorities)

ACGB/44Regional Material 1971-1993

Separate files for each RAA

(Files typically contain correspondence and reports, including responses from the RAAs to The Glory of the Garden report in the material from 1984-85)

Arts Development Division:1928-1997

Touring Department 1933-1996

ACGB/98Early Touring Department Files 1961-1982

ACGB/98/331ACGB Staffing Structure 1972-81

ACGB/98/350Regional Arts Associations 1974-81

Policy and External Relations Division: 1942-1996

Policy and Planning Unit 1950-1996

ACGB/103Regional Development Department, 1955-1987

ACGB/103/21Regional Advisory Committee 1982-83

ACGB/103/37Letters from the Regional Department1972-73

ACGB/103/65RAA Personnel Lists 1973-74

ACGB/103/69Correspondence Regarding Client Devolution to the RAAs 1974-75

ACGB/103/70RAA Financial Estimates 1975

ACGB/103/74Standing Conference of Regional Arts Associations (SCRAA)1970-75

ACGB/103/111SCRAA (minutes & correspondence) 1967-75

ACGB/103/121Funding Responsibilities 1970-71

(This file contains correspondence between the Regional Department, the RAAs and clients, regarding the source and administration of client funding)

ACGB/103/136Documents re RAA Funding 1982-83

ACGB/103/143Regional Advisory Committee 1985-86

(Including assessments & documents from its sub-committees)

ACGB/103/149Council of Regional Arts Associations (CoRAA) 1976-83

ACGB/103/159Documents and Correspondence relating to RAAs 1981-82

ACGB/103/212Regional Department: RAA Finance 1981-83

ACGB/108Regional Arts Boards' Papers 1991-1995

ACGB/109Regional Arts Boards' Corporate Plans 1991-1994

ACGB/111Regional Arts Associations Files 1953-1991

ACGB/112Policy and Information Files 1966-1996

ACGB/112/164Regional Department Report 1973-75

ACGB/112/221Towards a New Relationship – ACGB/CoRAA report 1979-81

ACGB/112/225Regional Arts Associations’ targets 1977-79

ACGB/112/236Standing Conference of Regional Arts Associations/Council of Regional Arts Associations 1972-83

ACGB/112/238Regional Arts Association material 1973-80

ACGB/112/248Towards a New Relationship – ACGB/CoRAA report 1979-81

ACGB/112/269Devolution/Towards a New Relationship – report 1977-83

Note: The third ‘corner’ of public financing for the arts was the Local Authorities (LAs), whose support varied widely from area to area. Further complicating the matter was the sheer number of LAs in any given region, though the situation did improve after the mid-1970s when considerable administrative re-organization took place across the country. ‘Local Authority involvement in the arts’ is mentioned in a number of series but specific files can be found in:

Arts Development Division: 1928-1997

Drama Department 1928-1995

ACGB/43Policy and Information Files 1929-1994

ACGB/43/38Regional Arts Associations/Arts Council of Great Britain: Working Group 1978-80

Policy and External Relations Division: 1942-1996

Policy and Planning Unit 1950-1996

ACGB/112Policy and Information Files 1966-1996

ACGB/112/106Local Authority information pack 1983-84

ACGB/112/170Local Authority statistics 1982-83

ACGB/112/181Local Authority statistics 1982-83

ACGB/112/196Local Authority liaison 1982-83

ACGB/112/235Local Authority statistics 1982-83

[1] Researchers may find mention of other ‘Arts Associations’, such as Mid-Pennine, but these were smaller off-shoots of the major twelve and as such were not recognized as independent associations by the Arts Council.

[2] Letter from Richard Wilding to Richard Luce, dated 4 October, 1989.