4. Seeing the Numbers

As work continues on shaping what a realistic plan for Liverpool’s dance future could look like, one area I’ve been spending more time on is funding. Not just in abstract terms, but in understanding how dance development is resourced elsewhere and what that tells us about what is currently possible, and what is not, in Liverpool.

Funding is fundamental to any plan. It determines capacity, scale, sustainability and impact. As part of this work, I’ve been looking specifically at funding models for dance development organisations and for artists and practitioners, and I wanted to share some of that context openly as the thinking develops.

I’m very aware that most people will have little visibility of how dance is funded nationally, particularly outside London. I’m sharing this information not to apportion blame, point fingers or suggest that anyone else should lose out. It isn’t an either-or conversation. It’s about context, clarity and understanding the baseline from which Liverpool is currently operating.

Funding conversations can easily become emotive. Dance, like many artforms, often feels under-resourced, and comparisons can quickly slide into criticism. That isn’t the intention here. Instead, this is about setting out what the data shows and being honest about what it means.

As part of the analysis, I looked at publicly available data from Arts Council England, including National Portfolio Organisation funding for dance (2023–2026) and dance-specific Project Grants (2024–25). Arts Council England is not, and should not be, the sole source of income for dance. However, it is the national development agency for the arts and a significant funder of dance development organisations, artists and practitioners. It is therefore an appropriate place to start when trying to understand the national landscape.

While newer data may now exist, and while some dance activity may be funded under broader ‘Combined Arts’ categories, the overall picture remains consistent. Dance in Liverpool, and across the wider North West, is significantly underfunded compared to other regions.

At a national level, the disparity is structural rather than marginal. London and the Midlands receive many times more dedicated dance funding than the North West. Even regions with smaller populations or fewer major cities receive substantially higher levels of support.

To put this into perspective, the total annual National Portfolio funding for dance across the entire North West sits at just over £500,000. That figure is lower than the annual funding received by a single dance development organisation in some other regions. Liverpool, as a major cultural city, currently has no dedicated dance development organisation at all.

Project Grants data tells a similar story. While the North as a whole receives strong investment, Liverpool’s share of dance-specific project funding is minimal. This is not about individual funding decisions, but about long-term patterns that shape what is possible on the ground.

It is also important to be realistic about what different levels of funding actually enable. When Merseyside Dance Initiative was operating, publicly available accounts suggest it delivered activity on a relatively modest annual total expenditure, estimated to sit broadly between £200,000 and £500,000 at different points in its 30yr lifespan. Importantly, Arts Council funding represented only a proportion of that overall expenditure. Even at this scale, the organisation supported coordination, employment, artist development, community engagement, partnerships and a visible dance presence across the city. It was not perfect, but it demonstrates something important: even limited, consistent investment can generate real impact.

The closure of Merseyside Dance Initiative did not result in its funding being redirected into dance elsewhere in the city. When an organisation like this disappears, the resource does not automatically stay within the artform. What is lost is not just an organisation, but capacity. When we look at other dance development organisations across the country, it becomes clear that Liverpool is not asking for something exceptional. It is asking for something typical.

Across England, established dance development organisations receive significantly higher levels of investment from Arts Council England as part of a broader funding mix. Even securing a modest proportion of the average level of investment seen elsewhere would represent a radical shift for dance in Liverpool. It would unlock the ability to support artists more consistently, grow audiences, work meaningfully with communities, collaborate with venues and build a more resilient dance ecology.

None of this guarantees success. Investment alone is never enough. But without it, ambition remains largely theoretical.

Sharing this information is not about arguing that Liverpool should be prioritised over other places, or that dance should be prioritised over other artforms. It is about recognising that, at present, dance in Liverpool is operating from a significantly lower baseline. Understanding that context helps explain why so many of the challenges identified through Liverpool Dances are structural rather than creative.

If we want different outcomes, we need to be honest about the conditions required to achieve them. Visibility matters. And so does resource.

Funding Context and Comparative Data

The figures below are drawn from publicly available Arts Council England data at the time of analysis. They are shared to provide context and visibility.

It is important to note:

• Arts Council England is not the sole source of funding for dance and should not be relied upon exclusively.

• Some dance activity may be supported through broader categories such as Combined Arts, which are not included here for ease of comparison.

• While newer data may now exist, the overall pattern and disparity remain consistent.

Arts Council England National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) Funding for Dance (2023-26)

• London: £18,400,000

• West Midlands: £12,700,000

• Yorkshire: £5,300,000

• North East: £1,900,000

• East Midlands: £1,600,000

• South West: £1,300,000

• East of England: £1,100,000

• South East: £524,000

• North West: £519,000

Percentage Comparison to North West

• London: +3445%

• West Midlands: +2347%

• Yorkshire: +921%

• North East: +266%

• South West: +150%

• East of England: +112%

• South East: +1%

These figures illustrate a significant regional imbalance. London and the Midlands receive a disproportionately high share of dance funding, while the North West, which includes Liverpool, receives the lowest allocation nationally. It is also important to note that some regions host major national dance companies that receive substantial grants as part of the National Portfolio, which contributes to higher totals. However, even accounting for this, the disparity remains substantial.

Arts Council England Project Grants for Dance (2024-25) [roudned]

• London: £2,800,000

• Midlands: £1,500,000

• North (all regions combined): £2,500,000

• South East: £1,900,000

• South West: £725,000

Within the North, Liverpool’s share of dance-specific Project Grants was minimal based on publicly available data, with a single grant of approximately £35,000 identified during the analysis period. While some dance projects may be supported under Combined Arts, this does not offset the lack of dedicated, consistent dance investment within the city.

Dance Development Organisations: Funding Context
Across England, independent dance development organisations receive a range of funding from Arts Council England as part of a broader income mix. The figures below represent annual ACE NPO funding only, not total organisational income or expenditure.

• Fabric Dance: £1,376,001

• Dance East: £825,060

• Dance City: £564,048

• Pavilion Dance: £393,322

• Yorkshire Dance: £331,789

• East London Dance: £245,833

• Cheshire Dance: £89,831

These organisations typically operate with additional income streams, including local authority support, trusts and foundations, sponsorship and earned income. Establishing and sustaining such organisations has taken many years of consistent investment.

In conclusion, this is a complex and uneven funding landscape, with clear structural challenges for dance in Liverpool and the wider city region. Simply pointing out these disparities does not mean that Liverpool will automatically receive more funding, nor should it be seen as an argument for preferential treatment.

What this information does provide is a clearer understanding of the context in which Liverpool Dances sits. It helps inform the ambition of the project and underlines the need to build a plan that is realistic, resilient and grounded in the conditions of the funding environment as it exists.

The next step is to use this insight to shape a credible plan for a new dance development organisation, one that has the potential to unlock investment over time and support meaningful change across the sector. That plan cannot rely solely, or even primarily, on significant levels of funding from Arts Council England. It will need to draw on a mix of income sources, build resources gradually and grow sustainably.

Change of this scale takes time. The challenge now is to align ambition with realism, and to develop an organisation capable of doing both.

The work continues…