The Scottish Government

The essential purpose of the option and how it will enable the Executive's national cultural policy objectives to be achieved, is clear and coherent.

This option allows a clear distinction between high-level Policy development across the whole cultural sector, including heritage, arts, libraries and archives, galleries and museums, by the Scottish Executive ( SE) and arms-length functions of Culture Scotland ( CS). Funding allocation, both to central Scottish Culture Fund( SCF) and local authorities, is linked to high level policy function. Culture Scotland has a range of interrelated roles to be undertaken under SE policy guidance across the whole sector. This model allows, therefore, for the Executive's national cultural policy objectives to be linked directly to a coherent arms-length body with cross-sector responsibilities and a potential Think Tank role.

This would work with the SCF, which will be at a distance from SE, and so able to generate additional funding streams. It will be able to co-ordinate the development and flow of funds across the whole sector, acting as a development agency free of public sector annualising restrictions. SCF will be advised on spending by CS. Sector Partnerships will act as advisory and advocacy bodies separated from the policy implementation, provision and fund allocation process.

Restricts SE itself to high level policy, setting of cultural rights and funding of local authorities, so that there is separation between funding of local authorities and the detailed policy role of Culture Scotland. Culture Scotland, as a government agency, has a cross-sector role, including heritage, arts, libraries and archives, galleries and museums, focused on policy, development strategy and mentoring and administration. A separate body, the Centre for Cultural Innovation and Entrepreneurship ( CCIE), deals with all other strategy, including think tank and research functions and development of talent.

This body advises CS on grant distribution for individuals. Sector Partnerships will act as advisory and advocacy bodies separated from the policy implementation, provision and fund allocation process.

This option offers clarity across all cultural sectors for the role of the SE, linking policy setting, funding and administration of national bodies. Culture Scotland in this option is a means of co-ordinating the advocacy and development roles and some of the administration functions of existing NDPBs, without co-ordinating their actual policy-making or operation. The existing NDPBs would continue each to work in the different ways they do with different relationships between the each one and the SE, e.g. differences exist between the way arts and museums relate to the SE.

This arrangement would provide some new coherence at the policy and national strategic level, but leave diverse modes of working and relationships in place. The CCIE would have strategic research and development roles separated from the function of current NDPBs, an unhelpful disjunction between research and policy implementation. The separation of the advisory and advocacy roles of Sector Partnerships from policy implementation functions would not exist under this option, so allowing a conflict of interest.

The diverse constitutions and relationships of NDPBs with one another and the SE means that it is very difficult to achieve a clear and coherent overview of provision or to establish thinking across the whole cultural sector. Research and policy developments are not coherently and consistently interlinked. There are a number of areas where the interaction of advisory and advocacy roles can offer conflicts of interest with policy implementation.

This option provides a clear and coherent means of enabling the Executive's national cultural policy objectives to be achieved.

This option provides a generally clear and coherent means of enabling the Executive's national cultural policy objectives to be achieved. The separation of CS and CCIE, however, separates functions of policy development and strategic research - which should be closely interrelated - between two bodies in a way that could lead to incoherence.

This option allows some clarity regarding the links between SE policy and the high level activity of CS, but CS cannot itself have a fully coherent or clearly consistent relationship with the existing NDPBs as long as they retain the variety of diverse structures and relationships currency prevailing. This option is clear only at the higher levels of policy making and lacks clarity for everyday policy achievement and overall coherence.

The status quo is neither a clear nor a coherent means of enabling the Executive's national cultural policy objectives to be achieved

This option is the one that matches broad public policy objectives, i.e. in health, education and the economy and respects Scotland's tradition of pluralism

All options allow matching of broad public policy objectives. Differences in the way they do this and the inefficiency and effectiveness of some in doing so are addressed under other criteria.

All options and the status quo meet this criterion.

The option will be seen as understandable, inspiring, credible and 'fit for purpose' by most stakeholders and is likely to be welcomed and supported by practitioners and the general public.

This option has a clear and comprehensible distribution of responsibilities and interlinking of functions. It will require clear communication of its integrated nature to avoid suspicions of creating a large centralised, if arms-length, bureaucracy. It removes discussion and decision-making from current NDPBs, with their existing 'clientele' and interest groups into a more coherent structure and, so, requires new relationships between organisations. It retains the generally well-considered arms-length principle.

This option also has a clear and comprehensible distribution of responsibilities, though it is likely there will be doubts about the splitting out of the functions of the CCIE from the functions of CS. Since this represents the option that brings the cultural sector most within the remit of government, it is likely to attract suspicion about centralisation and politicisation of cultural provision.

This option represents relatively minimal adjustments to existing provision, with the exception that it provides a cross-sector role in its version of CS and develops a research function under the CCIE. It is hard to understand its overall organisational philosophy, as it retains some of the confusing diversity of existing provision without creating new forms of synergy or integration and separates research from policy implementation.

While the status quo has the benefits of familiarity, so that practitioners are used to working with it, each in their sector, to achieve their ends, the evidence is of frustration with the diffuseness and lack of clarity and incoherence of current structures. The status quo will be seen as the familiar to be defended, if other options are seen as likely to threaten the cultural good of the nation. The diverseness of current provision and the different ways in which different sectors of cultural provision are treated differently cannot, however, be argued as 'fit for purpose'.

This option will require careful communication of its new underlying philosophy, but is capable of offering a new credibility on the basis of its coherence and clarity of purpose.

This option has an understandable and credible structure, but is open to suspicion of centralising and over-politicising cultural provision.

The option is likely to seem like a halfway house compromise between reforming the status quo and retaining the interest groups that might wish to maintain it. In this respect it is unlikely to offer credibility or inspiration.

The status quo does not fulfil this criterion.

The option would support a citizen-focussed approach to cultural policy; allow Scottish people to shape and design cultural policy and allow the effective implementation of Cultural Rights, Standards and Entitlements.

This option would allow the infrastructure to be shaped and owned by stakeholders, artists and citizens in general at arm's-length from government and able to respond accountably to cultural and community developments as they arise and grow. It offers an inclusive and pluralist democratic system, shaped from the bottom up, that places emphasis on bringing people together and drawing on the advice of relevant professional sectors as well as audience members.

This option would allow the infrastructure to be shaped by central policy decision enabling dirigiste and top-down measures to be implemented. It is dependent on a large governmental agency structure, one that does not have a history of being swiftly responsive to new cultural and community developments as they emerge. It would, instead, be mainly accountable through the four-yearly election system as election decisions came in time to influence the work of the governmental agency.

While this option would allow better co-ordination of policy of NDPBs than at present, it would not improve their responsiveness to stakeholders' and citizens' input and retain the varied approaches of each to citizen-focussed deliberation and decision-making. It would, therefore, not enhance a citizen-focussed approach to cultural policy, although it might allow the meeting of Cultural Rights, Standards and Entitlements in a managerial manner.

The status quo would not improve the current responsiveness of NDPBs to stakeholders' and citizens' input and would retain the varied approaches of each to citizen-focussed deliberation and decision-making. It cannot, therefore, enhance a citizen-focussed approach to cultural policy, although it might allow the meeting of Cultural Rights, Standards and Entitlements in a managerial manner.

This option meets the criterion very well.

This option meets the criterion poorly.

This option does not meet the criterion.

The status quo does not meet the criterion.

Each main organisational component of the structure is absolutely necessary and will contribute directly to the achievement of at least one (or more) of the main objectives of the national policy in ways that are deliverable and verifiable. In this sense, the option, as presented, is irreducible.

The coherence of the structures of this option referred to under criterion 1 marks how this option achieves a lean organisation capable of delivering objectives in a verifiable way. The essential difference in this respect between this option and Option Two lies in its arms-length nature and the coherence of its research and policy development functions.

As with Option One, this option offers a coherent structure, but the separation of function between CS and CCIE raise issues about the absolute necessity for such a separation. Assuming such a case exists, the structure proposed is both lean and capable of delivering objectives in a verifiable manner

Because this option represents a compromise between more radical options and the status quo, its primary organisational function is to make that compromise rather than to achieve a lean structure directly related to purpose. As a result it is likely to be unwieldy in delivering objectives and to require additional effort to verify that delivery.

The status quo, because of its various and diverse structures does not deliver objectives in comparable ways and, given the proposals offered under Options One and Two cannot be said to be irreducible. In particular, the variousness of its elements makes it hard to deal across sectors and ensure leanness of provision.

This option meets this criterion well.

This option meets the criterion

This option does not meet the criterion

The status quo does not meet the criterion

The positioning of each organisation in the structure and its strategic and functional relationship to others is clear. The purpose, role, responsibilities and accountabilities of each main component is clear, and clearly differentiated from other components of the structure.

There is a clear interrelationship between the governmental role of the SE, the arms-length role of the CS drawing on the expertise of stakeholders and artists and the SCF working as a financial management and development agency. The linkages with other elements in the system are clear and based on the involvement of artists, stakeholders and audience.

In this option, while there is a clear functional distinction between the roles of the SE, CS and CCIE, CS is clearly beholden to SE. It can be argued to have a potentially unclear line of accountability, given its role as a government agency with a direct line of responsibility to the SE.

The clumsiness of the proposed relationship of CS and the existing NDPBs, each of the latter retaining their differences from one another, means that the roles and responsibilities of the NDPB sector within the overall structure is confused and inconsistent.

There is much scope for overlap and confusion of function within the diversity of the present structures, where each has arisen at a different time for a different original function.

This option fulfils this criterion clearly.

This option fulfils this criterion, but with potential for ambiguity of responsibility between SE and CS.

This option does not fully meet this criterion.

The status quo does not meet this criterion.

The option offers the most appropriate and credible solution for the delegation of authority for decisions on regional and local priorities, strategy, investment and entitlements - and how these will be achieved, within the scope of national policy objectives.

This option offers a coherent and credible organisational structure and distribution of functions in the context of an arms-length structure. The existence of regional officers working with Cultural Partnerships will offer opportunity for both proper delegation and proper consultation.

This option offers a coherent and credible organisational structure and distribution of functions in the context of a government agency solution, although it still is problematic in terms of the separation out of the CCIE. The existence of regional officers working with Cultural Partnerships will offer opportunity for both proper delegation and proper consultation.

This option is piecemeal in its structures and organisation and is therefore unlikely to meet this criterion in the best possible manner

The problems referred to under criterion one disbar the status quo from meeting this criterion.

This option meets this criterion fully.

This option meets this criterion mainly.

This option does not meet this criterion.

The status quo does not meet this criterion

The option will improve opportunities for achieving a better strategic fit between cultural policy and other national strategic priorities and sectors, introducing more cross-cutting initiatives, contributing to innovation in the design and delivery of public services, supporting pluralism and providing best value

This option has a structure designed specifically to provide a better strategic fit between cultural policy and other national strategic priorities and sectors. It does so within an arms-length framework.

This option has a structure designed specifically to provide a better strategic fit between cultural policy and other national strategic priorities and sectors. It does so within a government agency framework

This option does not substantially adjust the status quo in respect of this criterion and, so, will not change the strategic fit between cultural policy and other national strategic priorities and sectors.

The status quo will not change the strategic fit between cultural policy and other national strategic priorities and sectors.

This option meets this criterion.

This option meets this criterion.

This option cannot meet this criterion.

The status quo cannot meet this criterion.

The implications of change from the present state (the current organisational infrastructure in Scotland) will be justified by the scale of benefits the option will realise -in terms of measurable qualitative and quantifiable improvements

Option One aligns functions across art forms and cultural sectors in a consistent manner in order to facilitate coherent strategy and planning. It is designed to enable the development of integrated systems and strategies and develops cultural policy and provision, once established by the SE, within a comprehensible and unified structure .

Option Two provides a coherent structure in parallel ways to Option One, but in the form of a government agency rather than an arms-length organisation. Given this framework, it offers similar benefits to Option One in terms of coherence and the capacity for integrated strategy and planning. The separation of the research and development role function to an arms-length smaller unit, the CCIE, however, creates a disjunction between aspects of cultural provision and the advisory, developmental and mentoring roles retained by CS. It is to be questioned whether this arrangement with its capacity for inefficiencies may reduce the benefit by replicating current discontinuities in the funding system.

This option engages in adjustment to the present system without fully achieving a clear reorganisation and integration of the system such as would deliver significant benefits. CS would have to seek to work with existing NDPBs with the inertia embodied in their current structures, while the CCIE would be at a remove from both CS and the NDPBs. Their already divided nature is unlikely to encourage integrated research and development; rather it is likely to create a ghetto for this work.

This option meets this criterion.

This option meets the criterion broadly, but may not do so fully in detail.

This option does not clearly meet this criterion

The status quo cannot, by definition, meet this criterion.

Dis-benefits (actual and likely to be perceived) arising from this option have been identified. They will not diminish the benefits the new structure will realise, or impede the achievement of policy objectives. During the transition phase of organisational change, they will not have a damaging impact on the current business operations of key stakeholders, support to practitioners or the level of service to the general public. There will not be a significant loss of expertise or unreasonable damage to careers of those currently working in the cultural sector.

These options will require a restructuring of the cultural provision system. They will require the abolition of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen. The Scottish Museums Council and the Scottish Libraries and Information Council would become professional groups, their SE funding (for leadership and sectoral tasks) and their strategic roles becoming part of CS. Historic Scotland's current position as an agency would have to be reviewed, part of its function being brought within CS and its management of properties in care and conservation and related work being allocated to a body specifically focussed on that role. This represents a significant level of disruption of established organisations spread across three urban locations (Edinburgh, Glasgow and Hamilton) and expert staff. Arguably the level of potential disruption required in order to achieve coherence and consistency marks the degree to which the current position is incoherent and inconsistent. A particular problem under this criterion is the extent to which individuals and organisations may be wedded to the current structures out of custom and practice. The benefits of change will have to be made entirely clear to assuage any possible upset at the changes proposed. There is no reason that, with careful planning, stakeholders, practitioners or the general public should be disadvantaged during a transitional period as either of these options is implemented. It is, however, critical that care is taken to reassure staff about the benefits the changes will bring, and that the expertise they embody is respected and brought into the new structures as far as is possible. Both options carry with them a significant potential for the disruption of the staff. Careful counselling and career development support must be available to both those joining and those not joining the new system.

In this process, it is essential that measures be taken to support morale and to dissipate wasteful infighting and the inertial pressure of older systems. There will be a particular requirement for cultural sensitivity as the different cultures of older organisations are brought together to create a new culture for either of Options One or Two. There must be careful consideration of any new structure to ensure that it takes account of and addresses restrictions imposed by Lottery legislation intended to avoid conflict of interest. Both options have potential dis-benefits identified here that, properly addressed, need not diminish the benefits of the new structure or impede the achievement of policy objectives.

This option involves minimal disruption of existing systems, while seeking, by introducing a stronger element of co-ordination, to address some of the dis-benefits of the status quo. It is likely to bring a dis-benefit of increased bureaucratic management to co-ordinate the new functions of CS and the need to co-ordinate a separate CCIE. It will not involve the large-scale disruption, however, of Options One and Two. This option has the potential to address some of the dis-benefits of the status quo and as a minimum option for reform its implementation would imply minimal dis-benefits, but also limited benefits.

The dis-benefits of the status quo lies in the continuation of existing problems that the current system is perceived as embodying. There would be no disruption of current systems of operation or staff, but the dis-benefit of erosion of morale in the cultural sector by the continuation of current procedures and incoherence would have to be considered. In the short term the dis-benefits of the status quo are acceptable, but as they represent perceived problems that need to be addressed there will be a cumulative dis-benefit arising from inaction.

Subject to careful and caring management, Options One and Two are capable of meeting this criterion

This option would meet this criterion in a limited manner.

The status quo will increasingly have difficulty in meeting this criterion

The option will progressively and measurably increase access to a wider range of cultural experiences by a larger proportion of Scotland's population, year-on-year.

This option provides a coherent arms-length structure that is capable of co-ordinating the development of access on a holistic manner and providing a co-ordinated system of measurement of activity and participation by the public over the years within CS as a single body.

This option provides a government agency structure that separates aspects of the development of access from the system of measurement of activity and participation by the public by the CCIE. It can therefore, meet this criterion, but in a potentially disjointed way.

This option provides a high level co-ordination of current structures, while leaving existing NDPBs much as they are otherwise, with the exception that research and development are separated out. Located in the CCIE, these are apart from the rest of the structure, though they can operate in a co-ordinated cross-sector manner within CCIE.

The status quo had shown evidence of its ability to meet this criterion, but it does so is an uncoordinated and disjointed manner, with little cross-sector research and measurement and with limited consideration of access seen in a cross-sector context.

This option has the potential to fulfil this criterion.

This option has the potential to fulfil this criterion, but may do so disjointedly.

This option has the potential to fulfil this criterion, but will do so in a disparate manner.

This option has the potential to fulfil this criterion, but in an uncoordinated and disjointed manner.

The option will positively influence more effective communications and practical co-operation among organisational stakeholders in the cultural sector through joined up thinking, planning, allocation of resources and joint delivery.

This option is structured very specifically to enable this criterion to be met.

This option would allow the improvement of present communication and practical co-operation, but the separation of the CCIE from CS is likely to present a disjunction in the effective communication process.

This option might result in some improvement in present communication and practical co-operation, but also separates the CCIE from the CS in a way likely to present a disjunction in the effective communication process, while it establishes unclear and potentially long-winded and confusing inter- NDPB communication links.

The status quo enshrines separate institutions and dissimilarities of treatment of different NDPBs and Boards.

The option meets this criterion.

This option meets the criterion up to a point.

This option may meet this criterion marginally, but may bring its own new failures against this criterion.

The status quo does not meet this criterion

The option will improve the level of active stakeholder engagement by ensuring that they are better informed, their interests more appropriately considered and their contributions to the process of policy making and evaluation better enabled and fully acknowledged and generate and sustain community cultural activity.

This option is designed to relate with the stakeholder and community bodies. In itself, this option cannot improve the level of engagement and community cultural activity, but what it offers is a means of supporting that activity in a coherent and co-ordinated manner. The provision of an arms-length model under this option is further likely to encourage stakeholder involvement. Stakeholders will be on the board, represented through the stakeholder partnerships, while there will be an element of peer evaluation and peer judgement in reviews/research projects co-ordinated through CS). Artists are likely to feel engaged through such processes

As in the case of Option One, in itself this option cannot improve the level of engagement and community cultural activity. While it is designed to relate to the stakeholder and community bodies in a new relationship, it involves a centralised body rather than an arms-length body. It is, therefore, in danger of seeming potentially less responsive to stakeholders and to artists if it is seen as central governmentally driven rather than responding directly to stakeholders, artists and community cultural ambitions. In this sense, this option may not encourage stakeholder involvement.

While the creation of an overarching CS in this option, linking the work of NDPBs, is likely to lead to a small improvement through stakeholder engagement and community cultural activity, the option offers four different kinds of organisation, SE, CS, NDPBs and CCIE. The potential for over-bureaucratisation and confusion of channels of communication - and so the diminution of the sense of involvement and the inspiration of community cultural activity - may prove difficult to avoid.

The status quo by definition will not create change under this criterion, although there might be room for minor reforms in structures and communication. Any existing sense of stakeholder alienation will remain much as it is under a continuation of the present system without any modification.

General

With regard to this criterion, a great deal depends on the effectiveness of interaction with stakeholder and community bodies such as sector partnerships, cultural partnerships, local authority links and cultural assembly/ies. In order for the new structure to fulfil this criterion it should facilitate the work of these elements of the overall system.

This option will facilitate meeting this criterion to a very high degree.

This option is likely to facilitate meeting this criterion fairly well, but may lead to diffusion of activity.

This option might permit some small progress against this criterion, but that progress is not certain.

The status quo fails to meet this criterion in full or in a new way.

The option will provide the most appropriate means to promote, support and incentivise Scotland's national companies and collections to achieve ever-higher levels of accomplishment in their creative endeavours and reputations (nationally and internationally), innovation and connections with the people of Scotland.

This option will allow for a co-ordinated and holistic approach to relationships among national companies, CS and SE across all art forms in an arms-length context, while maintaining the benefits of systems of assessment and strategic thinking within each art form as a whole. The national companies and collections in this option will be linked to national systems both of talent development and support and research and of development and so in a clear role in relation to their own sectors. They will be brought together in the Board of National Companies to discuss issues of common interest. This option places all bodies on a common system of governance and funding and so the term 'national' and the responsibilities and privileges that this entails will be defined.

This option will allow for a co-ordinated and holistic approach to relationships among national companies, CS and SE across all art forms in a governmental agency context, while maintaining the benefits of systems of assessment and strategic thinking within each art form as a whole. The national companies in this option will, however, have to relate to CCIE with regard to talent development and support and research and development processes, so adding a potentially complicating line of relationship as compared with Option One. They will be brought together in the Board of National Companies to discuss issues of common interest. This option places all bodies on a common system of governance and funding and so the term 'national' and the responsibilities and privileges that this entails will be defined.

As compared with Options One and Two this option has an incoherent and diffuse structure and so lacks focus. It will be difficult to find a clear central policy drive and energy within this structure to support and incentivise the national companies. They are likely, in turn, to agitate for direct links to SE, so risking cutting themselves off in developmental and policy terms from the rest of their art form sectors.

The incoherence and lack of co-ordination in the status quo has led to weaknesses in its meeting this criterion. Like Option Three and unlike Options One and Two, this option has a diffuse structure and lacks focus. It is difficult to find a clear central policy drive and energy within this structure to support and incentivise the national companies. They are likely, in turn, to continue to agitate for direct links to SE, so risking cutting themselves off in developmental and policy terms from the rest of their art form sectors.

This option meets the criterion well

This option meets the criterion

This option is, therefore, unlikely to assist in meeting this criterion.

The status quo does not meet this criterion

The option will encourage and support positive cultural and behavioural change throughout the sector.

The restructuring and underlying philosophy of the infrastructure implied by this option, well communicated, will fulfil this criterion well by establishing a devolved, organic system of bottom-up governance, promoting participation and empowering stakeholders and citizens in general.

The restructuring and underlying philosophy implied by this option is based on a dirigiste, top-down infrastructure that is unlikely to engage stakeholders and citizens in an empowering and culturally democratic manner, although it could enforce cultural and behavioural change.

The extent to which this option represents a compromise and partial attempt to reform the system is likely to lead to distracting infighting and conflict of cultures in NDPBs and so for a substantial time would be worse than retaining the status quo

The status quo would produce no change under this criterion.

This option meets this criterion very well.

This option meets this criterion poorly.

This option fails substantially to meet this criterion.

The status quo does not meet this criterion

The option will foster and support a creative environment that attracts and supports creative individuals and creative enterprises to set-up and to work in Scotland.

This option offers means of supporting individual and creative enterprises by establishing a coherent structure that is likely to be able to support co-ordinated thinking and to provide clear avenues of approach which have responsibility across all cultural fields. A key difference between this option and Option Two lies in its arms-length nature. The means by which arms-length bodies can draw on peer group advice may prove attractive to creative individuals and enterprises. Representative artists will be on the CS board and on Sector Partnerships. Artists will have access to co-ordinated mentoring and interventions at various points in their career pathways.

This option offers means of supporting individual and creative enterprises by establishing a coherent structure that is likely to be able in principle to support co-ordinated thinking, though CCIE is separated out from CS in a way that may, in the event, interrupt co-ordinated planning and thinking. It provides clear avenues of approach which have responsibility across all cultural fields. A key difference between this option and Option One lies in its nature as a government agency. The means by which arms-length bodies can draw on peer group advice may not be available in this model, although the direct links to governmental structures may prove attractive to creative individuals and enterprises. Representative artists will be on Sector Partnerships. Artists will have access to co-ordinated mentoring and interventions at various points in their career pathways.

This option meets the criterion in so far as the status quo does. It is likely to meet the criterion of attracting and supporting creativity no more than at present. While there is much creativity in the Scotland, if the aim is to sustain more effective means of fostering and supporting a creative environment, this option is unlikely to do more than the present status quo in this direction since it depends fundamentally on existing NDPBs.

This option can, by definition, only meet the criterion of attracting and supporting creativity as much as it does at present. While there is much creativity in the Scotland, if the aim is to sustain more effective means of fostering and supporting a creative environment, this option cannot do substantially more than at present.

This option meets the criterion.

This option meets the criterion.

This option meets the criterion no more than the status quo

The status quo does not meet this criterion in a new way.

The option will improve the international profile of Scotland and Scotland's culture.

The co-ordination and integrated thinking implied in this option is likely to be very effective in meeting this criterion

The co-ordination implied by this option might lead to the fulfilment of this criterion, provided that the role and advice of the CCIE is properly considered. There is, however, a risk that the CCIE will be semi-detached from the implementation processes of CS and SE.

This option has the potential to fulfil this criterion better than at present because of the high-level strategic co-ordination it provides, but the structures remain fundamentally incoherent, so suggesting a clear risk that it will not fulfil this criterion.

The status quo will do no more to fulfil this criterion that it does at present.

This option meets this criterion fully.

This option might fulfil this criterion, but there is a clear risk it will not.

The option is on balance unlikely to meet this criterion very well.

The status quo does not meet this criterion in a new way.

The option will ensure clear and broadly accessible routes to funding.

This option offers the opportunity to establish clearly defined and consistently accessible routes to funding. It provides SCF, an agency specifically designed to handle funding administration and development in a consistent cross art form way.

This option also offers the opportunity to established clearly defined and consistently accessible routes to funding. In this case, it does so by setting the administrative function within CS alongside its advisory and mentoring roles, so complementing its provision of funding. The funding development role, meanwhile, sits within CCIE alongside research and development functions. A case can be made for this separation in day-to-day functional terms, though it may be seen as potentially confusing in strategic terms

This option will do no more to fulfil this criterion than the status quo does at present. Further, by separating strategic funding development out into CCIE, it adds a potential division, as in Option Two, between day-to-day function and strategic development in a way that may be confusing and even downright unhelpful.

The status quo will do no more to fulfil this criterion that it does at present.

This option is likely to meet the criterion.

This option is likely to meet the criterion, but may be strategically diffuse.

This option does not meet this criterion.

The status quo does not meet this criterion.

The option will ensure that the support, contribution and involvement of local authorities is maximised

Because this option envisages CS as having an officer in six regions working closely with local cultural partners, it will facilitate maximisation of the support, contribution and involvement of local authorities. Further, because it see cultural partnerships working across local authority boundaries it will enhance the ways in which cultural provision can be matched across local authority boundaries to enhance equity of provision and cultural democracy.

Because this option envisages CS as having an officer in six regions working closely with local cultural partners, it will facilitate maximisation of the support, contribution and involvement of local authorities. Further, because it see cultural partnerships working across local authority boundaries it will enhance the ways in which cultural provision can be matched across local authority boundaries to enhance equity of provision and cultural democracy

Because this option envisages CS as having an officer in six regions working closely with local cultural partners, it will facilitate maximisation of the support, contribution and involvement of local authorities. Further, because it see cultural partnerships working across local authority boundaries it will enhance the ways in which cultural provision can be matched across local authority boundaries to enhance equity of provision and cultural democracy

The status quo will do no more to fulfil this criterion that it does at present.

This option meets the criterion.

This option meets the criterion.

This option meets the criterion.

The status quo does not meet this criterion.

The governance structure and principles are clear and will enable the overall performance of the new structure to be assessed and the contribution of each main component accurately measured.

This option offers clearly co-ordinated governance structures and principles in a coherent relationship of parts. This will allow a clearer understanding of the ways in which the system is intended to work and so, in turn, enable its overall performance to be more easily assessed. The role of each main component is clearly defined and so its operation can be more clearly measured.

This option offers clearly co-ordinated governance structures and principles in a coherent relationship of parts. This will allow a clearer understanding of the ways in which the system is intended to work and so, in turn, enable its overall performance to be more easily assessed. The role of each main component is clearly defined and so its operation can be more clearly measured.

The only substantial new developments from the status quo in this option are that CS has an advocacy and developmental role across all art forms and CCIE offers a strategic and research and development function also across all art forms. This option, therefore, offers some significant, but limited, advantages over the status quo in terms of co-ordination of governance structures and principles. This option proceeds by leaving NDPBs as they are and adding layers of activity, however, and it is unlikely that new complication of structures will, in itself, lead to a straightforward improvement in assessment of overall performance and in measurement of the contribution of each component.

The status quo lacks clarity or coherence in terms of an overall governance structure or underlying principles. As a result, it is hard to argue that it allows for the overall performance of the structure to be assessed or the contribution of each main component to be accurately measured. While it is possible at present to assess each component in its own terms, each tends to operate in a different way on differing models of structure, so failing to facilitate a coherent pattern of assessment.

This option meets this criterion.

This option meets this criterion.

This option does not meet the criterion.

The status quo does not meet the criterion.

The option is likely to offer - subject to verification of data, when available - scope for introducing efficiencies that will minimise the potential for confusion of identify, duplication of effort and waste of resource throughout the system. Regulation and bureaucracy will be reduced to the lowest possible levels; data quality requirements will be clearly defined and justified; there will be a positive shift from measuring inputs to measuring performance

This option clearly offers such scope.

This option clearly offers such scope.

This option does not offer significant scope for introducing efficiencies, but rather requires additional administrative input vis-à-vis the status quo and may lead to confusion of identify and duplication of effort though the potentially wasteful relationship of the CCIE and the NDPBs in this model.

The status quo does not offer scope for introducing efficiencies on a significant scale and suffers from confusion of identity and role at various points.

This option meets this criterion.

This option meets this criterion.

This option does not meet this criterion.

The status quo does not meet this criterion.

The delivery chain is as short as it can be, with the smallest number of intermediaries between the source of policy and the main points of delivery, i.e. a) citizen, b) creative individual, c) creative organisation.

This option offers a very clear short delivery chain.

This option offers a very clear short delivery chain.

This option offers an extended delivery chain through the intrusion of CS in this model alongside the continuing existence of current NDPBs, which offer an unnecessarily complicated delivery chain with unhelpful variations in models of delivery

The status quo offers an unnecessarily complicated delivery chain with unhelpful variations in models of delivery.

This option meets the criterion.

This option meets the criterion.

This option does not meet the criterion.

The status quo does not meet the criterion.

The option provides a better framework and improved incentives for the public, private and voluntary sectors to cooperate and work together.

Because of its clarity of structure and allocation of functions, this option provides a clearer framework and the potential for improved efficiencies and incentives for co-operation and working together.

Because of its clarity of structure and allocation of functions, this option provides a clearer framework and the potential for improved efficiencies and incentives for co-operation and working together.

This option retains some of the confusing variety of models inherent in the current structure of NDPBs and so does not offer a better framework and so potential for improved efficiencies and incentives for cooperation and working together, despite the introduction of CS as, in effect, an additional co-ordinating layer

By definition, the status quo retains the present framework.

This option meets the criterion.

This option meets the criterion.

This option does not meet the criterion.

The status quo does not meet the criterion.

The option contains specific components and measures that will promote excellence and innovation, and, through national and local programmes, the means to incentivise practitioners to achieve it.

This option contains these elements in a co-ordinated manner and, because it is bottom up, organic and likely to engage stakeholders, artists and citizens in general should fulfil it well.

This option contains these elements in a co-ordinated manner, but because it is based on a top-down structure and is likely to be seen as dirigiste it is likely to have difficulties in engaging stakeholders, artists and citizens in general.

This option contains these elements, but because it represents little more than a compromise version of the status quo is unlikely to incentives practitioners or substantially promote excellence and innovation more than now. It will also have difficulties at least in it win accommodating the clash of cultures between the different NDPBs CS will seek to co-ordinate.

The status quo adds nothing to the current position, remaining un-coordinated and often difficult to understand or approach

Option One meets the criterion well

Option Two meets the criterion, but may have difficulties.

Option Three may possibly meet the criterion, but is unlikely to do so in a harmonious and co-ordinated way.

The status quo meets this criterion at a basic level.

The option will provide the most appropriate, efficient, equitable and accountable means of securing and allocating funds to support Scotland's cultural sector in achieving national policy objectives - including using public spend to lever growth in the total funds available to support individual endeavour and innovation across the sector.

This option will allow this criterion to be met provided the autonomy of the arms-length principle is allowed full freedom. The SCF will be particularly important if this criterion is to be fulfilled

This option will be as sound as Option One in terms of accountability and, so, in supporting national policy objectives. It is less likely, however, given the role of CS as a government agency, to achieve the leverage to be achieved by an arms-length body, and places a particular emphasis on the role of CCIE in levering funding. This may be an over-ambitious aim for CCIE.

This option would add little under this criterion to the status quo.

The status quo adds nothing to the current position.

This option is fully capable of meeting this criterion

This option could meet this criterion, but may have difficulty.

This option does not meet the criterion.

The status quo has no added value under this criterion.