A GBP 1.57 billion package of funds intended to support the UK arts, culture and heritage sectors during the COVID-19 pandemic was accused of algorithmic "cultural elitism".

The UK Cultural Recovery Fund (CRF)'s distribution process was criticised for favoring larger, well-established cultural institutions over smaller, community-based organisations. Critics argued that the algorithm used to allocate funds inherently benefitted organisations with more substantial pre-existing resources and visibility, thereby perpetuating cultural elitism.

There were also concerns that the fund's allocation failed to adequately address regional imbalances. Some regions with rich cultural heritages and significant needs may have received less support compared to more affluent areas with already well-funded institutions.

Local councils, which are significant public funders of culture, were reportedly not sufficiently involved in the strategic decisions regarding the distribution of the CRF. This oversight potentially undermined the effectiveness of the fund in addressing local cultural needs and supporting smaller, community-focused projects.

The Culture Recovery Board, established to oversee the fund, included various stakeholders from significant cultural bodies and independent members. Despite these measures, the board faced challenges in ensuring equitable distribution due to the inherent limitations of the algorithm and the criteria set for funding allocation.

The Culture Recovery Fund may have provided essential support to many cultural organisations during the pandemic. 

However, the fracas highlighted the need for more inclusive and transparent funding mechanisms - algorithmic and otherwise - that consider the diverse needs of all cultural entities, including smaller and community-based organisations.