BIOME GRANT 2020 REPORT
TL;DR Summary
This report is about the first Biome Collective Grant for digital creatives from under-represented or marginalised backgrounds in 2020/2021. It gave two creatives £500 no-strings attached along with an optional year of membership. The application was intended to be as simple as possible and the Grant was funded by member contributions, in addition to a generous donor from outside the collective who wished to remain anonymous. One recipient, Roz Leahy, joined Biome and the other chose to remain anonymous. For future grants Biome plans to learn from the previous process, with some key points being to make sure there is no pressure on recipients to join Biome unless they would like to and that recipients of the Grant are publicised through Biome social media channels if they would like to be.
We wrote this report primarily as a way of reflecting on the first iteration of the Grant and learning from any mistakes we made. As such, it probably goes into more detail than anyone outside of Biome is interested in, but it is offered in the spirit of transparency.
What is the Biome Grant?
Our original pitch: A no-strings attached £500 grant aimed at supporting Scotland-based digital creatives from under-represented or marginalised backgrounds to support you and your work in whatever way it might be needed - materials, courses, project funding, rent, etc.
We originally announced the Grant on 1st December 2020, with the deadline for submissions set to 8th January 2021.
Our intentions behind the Grant
We initially discussed the idea of the Biome Grant as a way to help to sustain and develop creative practices for people from marginalised backgrounds, and to help diversify the creative industry in Scotland. A lot of us at Biome have experienced the difficulties of finding and applying for creative and arts funding. Especially when it comes to funding for smaller projects, equipment, or to sustain creative practice between larger projects.
And we are keenly aware that it is particularly difficult for people from marginalised backgrounds to access creative funding. Application processes are often long and complicated, and are frequently accompanied by the requirement to write a follow-up report justifying the applicant’s use of the money. All of this is time-consuming and often requires a detailed knowledge and understanding of arts/creative funding vocabulary and procedure. With the end result being that a lot of this funding ends up going to only those who can afford the time to undertake lengthy application processes, and who possess the vocabulary and knowledge required to tailor their application to the specific requirements of funding bodies.
We created the Grant in response to these issues. It’s intended to support creatives from marginalised backgrounds, who don’t necessarily have the time or energy to fill out long applications or write reports, and for whom a small pot of money could help pay for equipment or materials (or even just pay the rent for a month and give them a bit of breathing space).
As such, we tried to design the Grant to be as easy (and quick) to understand and apply for as possible, and to require no follow-up commitment from successful applicants.
As a collective with a wide range of skills and experience we were also aware that we have a variety of connections and knowledge that could potentially be valuable to the people we were trying to help with the Grant. So we also offered successful applicants free membership of Biome Collective if they thought it would be useful. This was always intended to be entirely optional, though in practice we struggled to communicate that (see How did it go?).
The background to the Grant
The Grant was born out of discussions on the Biome slack. The discussion involved which charities people were donating to and ways to support others, and if it would be possible to more directly support artists and creatives from marginalised backgrounds than just donating to a charity. Thinking more along the lines of solidarity than charity. Others joined in the discussion and we realised that Biome had a number of resources (both financial and in terms of knowledge/skills/experience) that could be useful here. Ultimately these discussions led to the creation of the Grant.
It’s important to note however, that in addition to our own experiences of funding and Grant applications, we were very much responding to discussions that were taking place beyond Biome. Other influences include:
The White Pube Writer’s Grant demonstrated a funding model at odds with traditional arts or creative funding practices, and intended to counteract the exclusionary impacts associated with such funding practices. It was a significant influence on the Biome Grant.
Our own Emilie M. Reed wrote an excellent piece on arts funding in the UK as it applies to videogames, and the dearth of small-scale grants as opposed to large, commercially-oriented funds.
The Chump Change zine produced by Aislinn Evans (with contributions from Stephen Pritchard, Raju Rage, Harry Josephine Giles, and Maz Murray) provided a fierce critique of the arts landscape in the UK. Our Grant is unlikely to fundamentally change the system of oppressions and inequalities outlined by the zine’s authors, but this passage from Harry Josephine Giles’ piece ‘Why I’m Giving up Political Art’ speaks to some of our intentions:
“If people want and need to make art then they will make art, as long as they have the resources to do so. If people want to pay someone to teach them skills then they will pay someone to teach them skills, as long as they have the resources to do so. If people want to pay for food before they pay for art, they should do so, and they should be given the resources to do so, preferably by arts funders.” (emphasis ours)
Who are Biome?
Biome Collective is a community of digital and physical creators (people making videogames, installations, music, and visual art), curators and producers.
We operate as a membership based organisation for like minded individuals keen to explore games, art and technology. Within the collective we share opportunities, collaborate on projects and showcase our work in order to support and encourage our individual practices.
https://www.biomecollective.com/
Who were the people who organised and judged the Grant?
Malath Abbas
Susie Buchan
Matthew Cormack
Tom deMajo
Niall Moody
James Morwood
Claire Morwood
Henry Pullan
Emilie Reed
Although not involved in the selection process, Martyna Kubiliute provided invaluable administrative support!
How was the Grant funded?
In total, £1070 was raised, £1000 of which was assigned to the Biome Grant for two creatives to receive £500 each:
£320 from a pot of individual Biome Collective member contributions. Member contributions were capped at £30 each and intended to be anonymous to reduce pressure. £250 of this money was given to the Grant fund, and the remaining £70 was put aside to be donated to a food bank.
£250 from Biome Collective Ltd.
£500 from an anonymous donor.
To explain a bit about Biome, Biome Collective Ltd. is a limited company with 6 directors. Biome Collective Ltd. puts 5% of any profits they make from projects they work on into a collective pot for the collective community. Biome Collective as a community exists separate from but associated with the limited company and has over 25 members who pay a membership fee if they are able to afford it.
What was the process?
As stated, we wanted to ensure the application form was easy to complete & consume as little time as possible on the applicant’s part. This derived from Biome members’ previous experience with other grants; long processes requiring a lot of unpaid work on the applicant’s part which could lead nowhere. For that reason we reviewed our options and decided upon a simple google form with the following entries; name, email address, a short (max 300 word) paragraph about themselves & their practice, and then an optional link to portfolio site or direct portfolio upload. We specified that the Grant was provided with no strings attached, and didn’t want to require that the applicants explain their need for funds or how they would be put to use. Whether they wanted to use the funds for tools & equipment, or just to pay rent, they would have the best understanding of how the Grant could help in their own situation. Email applications were also allowed in the hope that this would increase accessibility and further reduce barriers to entry.
At the end of the application submission period (just over a month), the selection committee reviewed all submissions alone in their own time to come up with their individual shortlists. They then came together in an online group call to discuss their lists and reasons for selecting each applicant. This process resulted in a collective shortlist of 5 picks. Each member of the committee ranked this shortlist from 1 to 5 and came to a clear, unanimous decision on the two applicants who would receive the Grant.
Each of the applicants on the final collective shortlist were also offered additional support in the form of mentoring from members of Biome.
How did it go?
There’s a lot to say about this first iteration of the Grant. Firstly, one of the most unexpected outcomes was that, after we announced the Grant publicly, an anonymous donor came forward and offered to match our £500 funding. After some discussion we agreed that the best use of this additional funding would be to offer the Grant to 2 applicants. Our anonymous donor was not involved in the final selection and did not impose any additional requirements on our administration of the Grant. We are incredibly grateful for their support.
In terms of our process in setting up and administering the Grant, it did feel a bit rushed at times. One aspect of this is that we had a lot of discussion about when to announce it and when the deadline should be. Initially we considered having the deadline before Christmas so that we could get the money to the successful applicants in advance of the holidays. Ultimately though we didn’t have enough time to organise it, and instead set the deadline to be the 8th January instead. In practice this may have been an advantage however, as there usually aren’t many grants or funds with deadlines at the start of January.
We had 66 applications in total and selected 2 to receive the Grant, one of whom subsequently joined Biome (Roz Leahy) and one who did not.
One major failing with the process was that, after we told Roz she’d been awarded the Grant, we accidentally told her that her application had been unsuccessful. This was due to a slip-up with emails we sent to unsuccessful applicants, but it should not have happened. This is probably the biggest mistake we made during the Grant process.
Beyond that, although we always wanted the offer of Biome membership to be entirely optional, that wasn’t entirely clear to Roz, who worried that not joining Biome would make her appear ungrateful. This is something that we discussed when we were setting up the Grant, because we were worried that this might be applicants’ perception of the membership offer. Clearly we still need to work on how we phrase the offer.
One other mistake we made was that we didn’t directly publicise the winners. We did include Roz’s work in our sharing videos on Twitter, but we could have done more to highlight her work (which is amazing! Check it out!). In hindsight, the reason for this was that, after having chosen the winners, we didn’t prioritise the remaining follow-up tasks. It’s probably also a consequence of the fact that we were all working on the Grant in our spare time, each with our own individual commitments, and following the selection process, those commitments took priority for all of us. Again, this is clearly something we could handle better in future.
Given that we are all effectively working on this in our own time, scheduling and communication are probably going to be a recurring issue if the Grant is to continue. We will always be limited in terms of who is available and able to work on the Grant. This is something we will need to be aware of and mitigate where possible in future (see What will we do differently this time?).
Speaking of individual commitments, one small issue that arose during the selection process was that Niall was unable to attend the final selection discussion due to commitments with his day job. Although he had settled on a shortlist of his own, miscommunication meant his shortlist was never relayed to the rest of the selection committee.
In our rush to prepare for the Grant & raise funds internally we threw together a Paypal Pool. Our initial goal was complete anonymity in an effort to avoid putting pressure on members unable to contribute, however unfortunately with this solution members' names were visible to all - along with their donation amounts. This pool was also controlled by one member of the collective rather than being an official collective fund account.
With the donations received from members of Biome Collective, we ended up with £70 over our goal of £250. We took the decision to donate this £70 to a food bank, and although this was discussed we discovered recently that the donation was never actually made. We are currently making arrangements to ensure the donation goes ahead.
Alongside a simple google form, applications could also be submitted via email to make things as easy and accessible as possible for applicants. When applications were distributed for review by the selection committee the email applications were not forwarded to everyone involved. This led to an application received by email almost not being considered. Everyone present was able to read it through before a decision was made but it should have been distributed along with the others.
Several of these communication issues arose, which highlights the need in future for us to take greater care over assigning tasks and following up on them.
What will we do differently this time?
Last time we did not publicise the recipients as stated in our initial announcement of the Grant. This time we plan to give ourselves a deadline for public announcement. This will be purely opt-in for any recipients however we are keen to offer that additional support in terms of publicity through the Biome twitter account and the Biome newsletter.
It’s important to us that we refresh the selection committee each time we run this Grant. However the main organisation/admin work will likely be carried out by the same bunch (those that have the time).
Internally we are rethinking how to accept contributions to the Grant money pool, perhaps removing the previous £30 cap and making those contributions completely anonymous. The cap was originally intended to avoid putting pressure on individual members, however everyone has their own financial situation and some members wanted to contribute larger amounts to allow us to support more applicants. Another reason for keeping this cap on the initial run of the Grant was due to its experimental nature; it was our first attempt at running something like this so we wanted to keep it contained and manageable.
We’ll also be collecting contributions internally via bank transfer this time rather than our Paypal Pools solution last year which was thrown together in order to help us launch the Grant in time.
In order to avoid communication errors and actions such as food bank donations not being followed up on, we will be ensuring that tasks are assigned to specific people, ideally with 2 people per task in case anyone is ill or cannot complete their task.
Who wrote this report?
Matthew Cormack
Roz Leahy
Niall Moody
Claire Morwood
James Morwood
Thanks for reading! Follow the Biome Collective Twitter for more announcements on the upcoming Biome Grant 2021.