What does the Private Investment in Culture survey reveal?

1. Public funding is crucial

Before getting into the numbers, the report emphasises the role of public funding in spurring and sustaining private investment. Supported by recent reports like Martin Prendergast and Francis Runacres’ Leading the Crowd, the report reiterates that public funding is a key way to attract and leverage private investment, supporting ‘crowding in’ – the gathering of private investors (both individuals and organisations) – and proving an organisation or project to be a viable cause to support.

“A crucial insight emerging from this research is that public investment remains the catalyst that attracts private money.”

The report does not dwell on this point, instead citing Leading the Crowd for further evidence, but states it forcefully in the introduction and the rest of the report should be examined with this in mind.

2. Private investment is important, but it is not a panacea

The report shows that, over the period studied, annual private income (contributed income) rose year on year, increasing by 16% from £399m to £463m. During this time, income from trusts and foundations made up over half (58%) of all contributed income, with individual donations representing a third (33%) and money from companies just 10%.

Whilst this growth is positive, the report is quick to caveat the increase, noting that contributed income grew slower than total income (18% rise), total expenditure (22% rise), and inflation (20.8%) over the period. Additionally, in 2023/24, contributed income was only 17% of total income for the sector (excluding organisations with £35m turnover or above), with earned income representing 58% and public income 25%.

The 16% increase in contributed income also partially obscures some worrying trends in individual and corporate giving – themes that are identified in the 2025 CAF Giving Report and 2024 Corporate Giving report – seeing corporate giving broadly flatline and individual giving decline before recovering to slightly over 2021/22 levels. Despite recovering, individual giving still fell as a proportion of contributed income over the period.

All of this means that contributed income cannot be expected to solve the financial problems currently faced by the sector. As the report outlines, contributed income comes as part of a golden triangle of funding alongside public money and earned income. In this triad, contributed income is comfortably the smallest of the three income streams and, as outlined above, is linked to the success of public funding.

“Because it is the smallest income type for most organisations, even substantial growth in contributed income is unlikely on its own to match rising expenditure.”

Recent struggles to spur individual giving, increased competition for Trust and Foundation funding, and protests surrounding corporate partners are all reminders that contributed income can be fickle and needs to come alongside public and earned income.

3. Regional disparities exist and small organisations are particularly vulnerable

The report examined contributed income based on artform, region, and organisation size, revealing a particularly challenging landscape for arts organisations with a turnover of less than £100,000.

Having outlined the fragility of contributed income, the report recorded that this income represented 40% of total income for sub-£100k organisations. This proportion decreased as organisations grew in size, falling to just 12% of total income for organisations with £5m turnover or greater. This is an important finding and shows just how fragile the financial position of small organisations can be.

Regional disparities were also drawn out in the report, seeing contributed income driven by organisations in London and the South East, which received receiving 42% (£192m) and 23% (£108m) of all contributed income over the period. In contrast, organisations in the North, South West, and Midlands received 19%, 9%, and 7% respectively.

These figures raise questions about how small organisations can be better supported in this challenging fundraising landscape and what can be done to both redistribute and incentivise private investment across England as a whole. Public funding is likely a key player here, both offering increased financial stability and attracting private income.

“Looking at how income model varies by turnover band shows how small organisations have an entirely different income model to those in other turnover bands”

4. There is a vicious cycle emerging in fundraiser recruitment

The survey found many organisations face difficulties in recruiting fundraising staff. Through the workshops, organisations reported that effective recruitment has been particularly challenging in recent years, with smaller organisations feeling this most acutely. Respondents noted that fundraisers are attracted to larger organisations which have more resources and some are moving away from the arts to better-resourced areas of the non-profit sector.

Fundraisers seeking employment in well-resourced and resilient charities leave many arts organisations in a catch-22 situation, needing additional income to become more stable and attractive as an employer, but lacking the fundraising expertise to achieve this. Arts organisations need support from funders to escape this vicious cycle.

5. Adversity breeds collaboration

The survey found that fundraising struggles had led to appetite for collaboration across the sector, something which should certainly be celebrated and encouraged.

“The survey shows that in the face of this challenge creative and cultural organisations are drawing on their resourcefulness and are developing a more collaborative approach, both to maintain their high-quality output and to attract private investment.”

Organisations in the workshops were particularly keen to build networks where knowledge and resources could be shared to support fundraising, citing fundraising advisory boards and a national campaign for cultural giving as developments which could greatly benefit the sector.

Whilst this desire for a more connected and symbiotic sector should be lauded, it’s important to recognise that organisations cannot achieve this on their own.

Funding pressures are stretching resources and decreasing capacity for networking, with many organisations struggling to just keep core operations going. As such, when the report states “there is room for optimism based on the continued resilience and resourcefulness of the sector”, it is vital that this resilience and resourcefulness is supported and not taken for granted.

Organisations are fighting hard for the future of the sector and it is important there is adequate funding and policy to support their efforts.