In December 2025, the government published the Hodge Review of Arts Council England. It's worth saying at the outset that the review does not fix the direction of travel for ACE, it will be up to DCMS and ACE itself to consider the recommendations. This blog is nonetheless an attempt to articulate some initial thoughts.
First, it’s a great relief to see the review recommend that ACE should continue to exist, and retain most of its functions. As many of you know, ACE is the single largest funder of creative health work in England; it supports both the activities and the infrastructure of the creative health and is essential to the health of the sector.
Given this, it’s surprising to note that health and wellbeing are entirely absent from the recommendations and even language of the review. But it’s not the only area missing: climate/environment is also absent – as is the public health crisis that the climate and ecological crisis represents. And digital and AI are barely mentioned.
Education is featured strongly, but there is no mention of informal learning – and the emphasis on cross-government partnership in relation to education draws further attention to the absence of any engagement with cross-government partnership in relation to health. The recent report on £588m-worth of health and productivity savings generated by the arts in Wales, a country which has had an established MOU between its Arts Council and NHS for years – suggests this is an oversight.
Equity, thankfully, is prominent – and the community-oriented principles of Let’s Create are reinforced, but at the same time the review calls for a new, ‘less prescriptive’ strategy. Whilst it's easy to agree that ACE’s systems could be simplified, the principle of being prescriptive about relevance and inclusivity seems sound. Otherwise we rely on good intentions for equity; recent history shows clearly that this is not enough and that accountability, too, is essential. Without some prescriptive measures we are left with something that looks very much like the status quo.
On political interference
It’s really encouraging to see the arm’s-length principle strongly reinforced in the review:
Jennie Lee’s White Paper said “No one would wish state patronage to dictate taste or in any way restrict the liberty of even the most unorthodox and experimental of artists.” This remains the case today and the almost universal plea from everybody who engaged with us was that we should protect the Arm’s Length Principle.
However, there is also a recommendation for ACE to play a role in controlling cultural boycotts – “ensuring that prevailing attitudes and practices in arts organisations do not discourage corporations and individuals from donating to the arts”. This would represent massive over-reach and a completely unacceptable censorship of organisations’ behaviour. This contradictory position speaks to a confusion in the report about the inherently political nature of the arts. The reviewers are content for example with the idea of touring as “an effective soft power tool” but unhappy with the idea that "the strategy was trying to change society rather than facilitating great art”. Changing society and making great art are far from mutually exclusive.
Local infrastructure
The review suggests
ACE should launch a new programme to grow culture in under-served areas. ACE would employ two community arts workers in each identified area, to be tasked with identifying local artists, bringing them together with local community organisations and schools to develop a genuine bottom-up culture offer and opportunities.
Although CPP and Place Partnerships are referenced there is no demonstrable understanding of similar initiatives already underway (for example the creative health leads supported by CHWA and the NCCH).
Investment Principles Support Organisations (IPSOs)
CHWA is an IPSO, and we work frequently with other IPSOs, such as GEM, Kids in Museums or the National Rural Touring Forum. The IPSOs’ functions are largely ignored by the review; where they are mentioned they are accompanied by a suggestion that these functions could be brought in-house. Not surprisingly, I disagree. CHWA is amongst a number of IPSOs responding to this via a letter to the Culture Secretary – outlining the fact that IPSOs represent excellent value for money in terms of their reach, knowledge and advocacy.
Funding
It’s great to see the review comprehensively address the shortfall in cultural funding, comparing England unfavourably with other European countries. It makes a strong case for increasing funding to the arts, and for maintaining the emphasis on increasing funding beyond Greater London and other major cities. It’s positive to see the review recommend a more joined up approach between lottery distributors, including in relation to data and application processes.
However, to my eyes there is an overreliance on philanthropy and corporate giving to fill the funding gap, and little consideration of cross-sector investment, such as that supporting creative health. The suggestion of a trading arm of ACE which could recoup from profit-making arts enterprises supported by ACE seems sensible, however; and the recommendation of a new £30k p.a. fund for individuals to support people with less access to arts careers is positive.
Grant-making systems and data collection
The review emphasises a need for proportionality, simpler application systems, and improved and more appropriate data collection – the reviewers suggest a radical overhaul of the current systems and investment from DCMS to support this. Some suggestions – for example bespoke negotiating of KPIs with organisations – would need a considerable increase in ongoing staff support. But there is no question that allowing organisations more space to articulate their different roles in the cultural ecology would be a positive thing.
Review process
The review is clearly wide-ranging and thorough. There is some opacity, however, around the way the recommendations have been arrived at. Phrases like “Many felt” and “People have told us” give us no sense of the proportion of respondents or discussants who feel this. It’s also slightly alarming to see the already well-publicised decisions about the ENO, Welsh National Opera and Glyndebourne singled out as examples of injustice in the last funding round when all of us can probably think of many other (more precarious) organisations affected in more existential ways; and can also think of less well-publicised organisations in under-served communities that benefited enormously from ACE's commitment to transforming its portfolio.
Excellence?
The Review revives the concept of excellence, and seems albeit inconsistently to lean into a sense that excellence and access are not the same thing. In ACE’s CEO Darren Henley’s own words,
“I’d hoped that this was an argument that had been put to bed many years ago. … Let’s be clear – excellence and access are not mutually exclusive.”
It’s vital that the principles of Let’s Create, particularly in relation to inclusivity and relevance, are reinforced; and for ACE to feel empowered to give weight to these principles by insisting its funded organisations work towards equity and access.
We understand there is a response coming from DCMS and ACE in the near future and hope to be able to contribute further to these crucial discussions.
Further reading
WhatNext briefing: https://www.whatnextculture.co.uk/what-next-briefing-first-look-at-hodge-review-of-arts-council-england/
CHWA’s original response to the call for evidence can be read here. We also participated in a roundtable which fed into the Review process.