Like many publicly funded cultural institutions, Performing Arts Fund NL operates within multi-year policy periods. While the current 2025–2028 period is still well underway, preparations are already being made for what comes next. Looking ahead to 1 January 2029, several important developments are on the horizon: from a possible legislative change regarding the duration of funding periods and a new policy mandate from the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), to consultations with the sector and the development of new funding schemes.
We believe it is important to offer insight into this process. That is why we are launching a series of articles on our website. In this first instalment, we reflect on the recent round of applications for multi-year production grants.
Applications for the 2025–2028 multi-year funding schemes opened in 2024, following preparations that began in 2023.
For a long time, it remained unclear whether a full application round would take place in 2024, given the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the performing arts sector in 2021 and 2022. At the end of 2022, it was confirmed that a full funding round would go ahead. In light of the pandemic and the prolonged closures that affected many performing arts organisations, State Secretary Uslu (Culture and Media) instructed that assessments should place less emphasis on past performance. Across national cultural policy, greater weight was also given to fair practice, alongside geographical distribution and local context.
The 2025–2028 Multi-Year Production Grant aims to provide makers, companies and ensembles with the opportunity to invest in the development of distinctive and contemporary performing arts and to build audiences for their work. The 2025–2028 Multi-Year Festival Grant supports festival organisations in presenting and developing distinctive and contemporary performing arts across the Netherlands and connecting these activities with diverse audiences.
In total, 376 applications were submitted: 95 for the Multi-Year Festival Grant and 281 for the Multi-Year Production Grant. This represented an increase of 77 applications compared with the previous funding period.
The funding decisions were announced on 3 July 2024. In particular, the decisions concerning the Multi-Year Production Grant generated considerable discussion. This was partly due to the high number of rejected applications, including organisations with a long funding history that had previously received four-year grants.
For those organisations, rejection can have far-reaching consequences and may affect not only the organisations themselves but also the audiences who value their work. We understand why these decisions prompted questions.
The outcomes also raised broader questions about the funding system itself. These issues emerged in discussions between the Fund and the sector, as well as in articles across various media outlets.
Performing Arts Fund NL has since evaluated both the 2025–2028 multi-year funding schemes and the associated assessment and decision-making processes. We have also analysed feedback from the sector, experiences from objection and appeal procedures, and independent advice regarding specific aspects of implementation.
These insights help us improve our procedures where necessary. Below, we share several key observations and preliminary conclusions.
We are seeing growing pressure on the Fund's budget. The number of applications we receive has increased steadily over the past five years, particularly for schemes supporting performing artists and makers, and for schemes that fund the production of performances and concerts.
On the one hand, this reflects a broader political and sector-wide ambition to support a wider range of performing arts practices. We are reaching applicants from an increasingly diverse range of genres, from hip-hop and pop music to musical theatre, and from more locations across the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Kingdom.
However, the success of this growing demand comes with a challenge: when budgets remain unchanged, more applications must be declined.
This became especially visible in the latest Multi-Year Production Grant round. Whereas in previous periods we were able to fund roughly three-quarters of all applications, this time fewer than half could be supported. Never before has a multi-year funding round at the Fund resulted in so many rejections, nor affected so many organisations that had previously received four-year support.
Following the decisions on the 2025–2028 Multi-Year Production Grant, eleven of the 146 unsuccessful applicants lodged appeals. Judgments have now been issued in seven of those cases.
Six of the appellants had received positive assessments but were not awarded funding due to budget limitations. The remaining five appeals were submitted by applicants who had received negative assessments because the advisory committee considered their plans insufficiently strong to qualify for funding.
The number of appeals reflects the number of rejections. We understand why organisations, particularly those receiving positive assessments, choose to challenge decisions when the stakes are so high.
Partly as a result of these appeal procedures, we have identified opportunities to improve the clarity and transparency of both our application and allocation processes. For example, certain elements of the calculation methodology and the way performances in Amsterdam were treated were not sufficiently transparent. In addition, some advisory texts did not always provide applicants with a sufficiently clear explanation of the assessment.
At the same time, the substantive judgments themselves were not found to be incorrect.
We are therefore clarifying procedures and working methods across all funding schemes. Assessment criteria, methods and weighting will be explained more clearly in funding regulations and accompanying guidance. Advisory texts will also be aligned more closely with the published criteria and the specific elements of each application.
We believe that decisions about who receives funding should be based on expert assessment, commonly referred to as peer review. Working with advisory committees is standard practice among public funders of arts and culture.
These committees operate within an assessment framework that allows room for nuance, reflecting the diversity of applications and artistic practices. For each criterion, both strengths and areas for improvement are weighed before reaching an overall judgment. An independent chair oversees the process to ensure it is conducted properly.
Preventing both conflicts of interest and the appearance of bias is essential to the credibility of peer review. Recent court rulings have applied increasingly strict standards regarding perceived conflicts of interest and impartiality.
At the same time, rising application numbers and increasing collaboration within the sector make it more difficult to recruit committee members who are both deeply knowledgeable about the field and entirely free from the appearance of bias or conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, this is a reality with which the Fund must engage.
Since 2017, interdisciplinary advisory committees have been used within several of our funding schemes.
One important reason for this approach is that artistic practices and projects increasingly extend beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries. This reflects broader developments in the cultural sector and aligns with observations made by the Council for Culture.
The approach is particularly suited to assessing proposed plans, where the focus is not on an organisation's position within a specific discipline but on the quality and relevance of its plans.
At the same time, some applicants feel that a discipline-specific perspective is lacking in the assessment process. There is inevitably a trade-off between disciplinary specialisation and interdisciplinary openness. The coming period will be used to further explore this issue.
With roughly one-third of the national performing arts budget, Performing Arts Fund NL is a major public funder, but not the only one.
The Fund was originally established to complement the support provided through the Basic Cultural Infrastructure (BIS). Whereas BIS primarily supports institutions fulfilling functions considered essential to the cultural system, the Fund supports productions by makers with independent artistic practices and distinctive artistic signatures.
As a result, the Multi-Year Production Grant assesses concrete artistic plans rather than an organisation's role within a broader ecosystem.
Changes to BIS over the past period have, however, made the distinction between BIS and the Fund less clear. Since 2021, festivals, ensembles and talent-development organisations have had greater access to BIS funding. At the same time, some organisations can only apply to the Fund even though one might argue that they fulfil a more structural function that could fit within BIS.
The experiences of the 2025–2028 Multi-Year Production Grant demonstrate that different policy objectives can sometimes pull in different directions.
For example, the ambition to improve geographical distribution cannot always be reconciled with maintaining long-term support for organisations in the Randstad. Likewise, creating opportunities for new entrants can limit the possibilities for sustained support of existing organisations. Encouraging large audience reach and investing in artistic development do not always go hand in hand either.
A healthy and resilient performing arts sector requires coherent policy across national, provincial and local government. Thinking about cultural ecosystems—whether disciplinary or interdisciplinary—must take place from the perspective of the sector as a whole.
A clear relationship between BIS and the Fund is therefore essential, as is a policy mandate for Performing Arts Fund NL that matches the available budget.
Alongside this, we are continuing to develop and refine our procedures and working methods, with particular attention to transparency and the clarity of decision-making. Insights from consultations, evaluations, research, publications and court rulings will be incorporated into future funding schemes and implementation practices.
After the summer, we will organise a series of meetings to share knowledge and gather input from the sector. These insights will help us further refine our approach for the policy period starting in 2029.
Through these meetings and through future articles in this series, we will continue to keep the sector informed about progress and relevant developments.