Has free entry widened access to museums?
6 September, 2010 - 17:27 -- Full Fact team
The introduction of free entry to national museums and galleries has percipitated a sharp rise in visitor numbers. But some have claimed that the policy has failed to widen the social appeal of these institutions amongst lower income groups. What does the evidence say?
There is little doubt that since national museums dropped entrance fees in December 2001, there has been a marked increase in visitor numbers.
According to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), since 2001 there has been a 128 per cent increase in the numbers passing through the doors of museums and galleries that used to charge entrance fees.
However does this mean the policy has been a success?
The Claim
Not according to some campaigners seeking to return admission fees to these institutions. One such individual, Ashford Price of the National Showcaves Centre for Wales, told Radio 4’s Today programme that the policy had failed in its stated mission to increase the number of people visiting museums from lower income groups.
He said: “Ipsos MORI research…still reports that the majority of visitors going to museums are the As, Bs and C1s [income groups] who can well afford to pay the costs.”
However how solid is the research in this area?
Analysis
Full Fact contacted Ipsos MORI to find out more, and a spokesperson pointed us towards their 2003 report ‘The Impact of Free Entry to Museums’.
Whilst the report does note that “the profile of a typical 'population' of museum or gallery visitors has remained relatively stable, and firmly biased in favour of the 'traditional' visitor groups,” there are still a number of reasons to be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from this document.
Firstly, the age of the data gives some cause for concern, and not only because it is now seven years old. A Culture, Media and Sport Committee report of the same year argued that it was “too early to draw firm conclusions about the impact of free admissions.”
As the Ipsos MORI report notes, awareness of the change to entry pricing had permeated to relatively few visitors within the first year and a half of the scheme’s operation. Only 15 per cent of those surveyed were aware of the change and visited museums and galleries more frequently as a result, with some 40 per cent recording that they were unaware of the free admissions policy.
However even within this limited timeframe, the picture that emerges from the available evidence is much more mixed than Mr Price’s statement seemingly acknowledges.
For example, the Culture, Media and Sports Committee report argues that “the evidence suggests that the growth in visits to sponsored institutions by the C2, D and E socio-economic groups between April 1998 and March 2002 outpaced the significant growth in the number of visits overall.”
Partly, this is a fact borne out by the Ipsos MORI survey. Whilst the39 per cent of C2s visiting museums in 2002 remained lower the 53 per cent of C1s and 62 per cent of ABs, the growth in visitors amongst this income group from 1999 - at 34.5 per cent – outstripped the growth in visitors amongst ABC1s (23.3 per cent).
Full Fact contacted DCMS to obtain more up-to-date figures on museum and gallery visitor numbers, and the data provided seems to suggest that this narrowing of the gap between high- and low-income groups has continued since 2003.
According to the Department’s ‘Taking Part’ annual report, in 2005/6 51.9 per cent of those from the higher socio-economic groups had visited a museum within the past year and 28.3 per cent had done likewise from lower income groups. In 2009/10 this had risen to 55.7 per cent and 33.5 per cent respectively.
There was therefore an 18.4 per cent growth amongst low income visitors compared to a 7.3 per cent rise in higher income groups.
Conclusion
So whilst the Ipsos MORI research cited by Mr Price does indeed cast doubt on the success of the free admissions policy in widening access to museums and galleries, subsequent data seems to suggest an improvement in this area.
Liked this? Read these:
Comment is free but facts are expensive!
Full Fact believes in the possibility of accurate and informed debate. Our factchecks look at whether it is reasonable for interested citizens to trust the claims of politicians and journalists based upon the evidence that is available to us. Where we find mistakes, we ask for them to be corrected.
Corrections:
We aim for our factchecks to be as accurate and up-to-date as possible. If you think we have made an error or missed some relevant information, please email: corrections@fullfact.org