Cultural institutions are expected to be welcoming spaces, places of artistic production and dependable public institutions, all at once. Yet as audiences, urban communities and working practices change, a new programme brochure is not enough: time is needed for conversations, staff for additional tasks and political decisions about what should change permanently. Who pays for this restructuring — and what happens when the project funding ends?
The question becomes more pressing with ‘Übermorgen – Neue Modelle für Kulturinstitutionen’ (The Day After Tomorrow — New Models for Cultural Institutions). In the implementation phase, which is now open, the German Federal Cultural Foundation is supporting projects intended to bring structural change to institutions. The application deadline is 12 February 2027. The programme is therefore more than an ideas competition; it is also a test of whether time-limited funding can set lasting change in motion.
More than a new programme
Transformation here means more than a single exhibition, production or series of learning and engagement activities. What is sought is change to the institutional model: for example, in access to and use of spaces, in collaboration with other organisations or in relationships with the urban community. The programme’s exploratory phase has already supported 50 projects with €50,000 each. This enabled institutions to develop ideas, bring in external expertise or temporarily release staff from day-to-day duties.
According to the German Federal Cultural Foundation, up to €10 million is available for implementation between 2027 and 2030. Up to 20 projects can each receive between €300,000 and €600,000; partnerships can receive up to €1 million in total. The funding is therefore substantial, but neither unlimited nor intended as an ongoing subsidy. Institutions that did not take part in the first phase can also apply.
Who sustains the change?
The foundation requires co-financing equivalent to 20 per cent of the amount requested. This can come from institutions’ own resources or third-party funding, for example from federal states or other foundations. There is also a political condition: politicians and public administrations must actively support the project, as evidenced by resolutions or public statements. This is logical, since many cultural institutions are largely supported by municipalities and federal states. A federal programme can fund a process; decisions on posts, buildings and day-to-day operations are often made at other levels.
This means that some of the real work lies outside the funding application. An institution must not only develop a convincing concept, but also secure a shared direction with its governing bodies, public administration and politicians. That takes staff time, coordination and often a willingness to reorganise responsibilities or established routines. Funding can create room for this. But it cannot automatically replace the staff who already keep programming, learning and engagement, and operations running from day to day.
The difficult transition to everyday practice
The crucial test comes after the project period. Applicants are expected to make a credible case for how the new structures can subsequently continue without additional funding from the body responsible for the institution. There is a legitimate expectation here: a change should not simply disappear when the grant ends. At the same time, this creates a tension. If new tasks require staff, space or running costs on a permanent basis, a good project plan alone cannot guarantee their continuation.
This is where the boundary lies between seed funding and replacement funding. Project funds can, for example, be used to trial a new partnership, organise participation or buy in expertise. They are not, however, a reliable substitute for core funding: the ongoing resources required from the responsible body to secure staffing, buildings and regular operations. If additional tasks are expected on a permanent basis without the funding and posts to match, transformation risks becoming extra work within existing operations.
This also affects the question of which institutions are in a position to apply at all. The necessary co-financing is easier to arrange when the responsible body has financial room for manoeuvre. Although the foundation allows institutions’ own resources and third-party funding rather than exclusively municipal contributions, political backing and the prospect of continuation must still be credible. The process therefore does not explicitly favour well-resourced governing bodies, but it does reveal how heavily structural change depends on their involvement.
A programme, not a permanent solution
A look at the federal budget also calls for precision. The German Bundestag puts spending on culture and media in the government’s draft budget for 2027 at around €2.36 billion; the German Cultural Council cites €2.1 billion for the budget of the Minister of State for Culture. These figures cover different areas, and both are allocations in a draft, not evidence of secure funding for every individual institution. The large sums in themselves tell us little about whether a municipal theatre or museum will receive an additional post to support a new way of working.
‘Übermorgen’ can therefore bridge a gap: between recognising that an institution needs to change and arriving at an initial, tested model. Whether that model becomes a sustainable structure, however, is not decided solely at the foundation in Halle or in the application. It depends on whether the responsible bodies and politicians take responsibility once the funding ends — and whether change within regular operations is treated as a task that requires resources, rather than an extra to be handled on the side.
Original reviewed by the editors · 3 November 2026
