Hello everybody.
"And the beat goes on........................."
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
I. Launch of new blog at Center for Cultural Innovation (CCI)
II. Nancy Glaze Exit Interview
III. Advocacy follow up
I. BARRY'S BLOG CCI:
"Now I shout it from the highest hills................"
Several months ago, Cora Mirikitani (Executive Director of CCI) invited me to consider launching a new version of my blog, this one aimed not at arts administrators, but at artists - focusing on issues that were relevant and important to working artists - everything from health care and health insurance coverage issues, to low cost affordable artist living space; from where to get advice and technical assistance on legal issues (contracts and such) to expanded opportunities to perform and exhibit artistic works.
I see this as a chance to build some sense of community among the artists who live in California (as a start). There are an estimated 350,000 to 500,000 working artists living in this state - and many people feel that estimate is conservative and includes only those artists who list "artist" as the source of their income for IRS purposes, and that the number may be closer to one million. Clearly, this is a major community and while the members of this sector are doubtless as different as they might be, reflecting the total diversity of Caliornia itself, nonetheless it IS a real community in the sense that there are shared issues, problems, barriers, solutions et. al that impact (in varying degrees) everyone in the community.
The exciting part of this for me, is the prospect of being able to begin to organize that community (if even only to a limited extent), and the potential to be able to tap into the collective political power and clout that community might have. Not only because of their sheer numbers, but also because it is a highly intelligent, highly creative community familiar with thinking outside the proverbial box, experienced in team problem solving, and able, should it so desire, to create art, perform and otherwise raise substantial amounts of money that might finance whatever (political) efforts they might some day opt to initiate.
I have always thought that two of the missing links of the nonprofit arts sector's attempt to become politically effective and competitive in trying to influence government decision making that impacts the sector have been:
1) A failure to integrate the artists in the nonprofit arts community with the arts administrators and the arts organization infrastructures (supporters, boards, patrons, volunteers etc.) into a single, organized, supportive collective; and
2) A failue to break down the artifical barriers between so called artists in the nonprofit sector' with those in the "for profit" arena. Artists are artists, and we continue in too many ways to segregate them.
If we could somehow finally bring artists (artists under any definition) into the same 'army' as arts administrators; if we could -for the first time - include the whole of the artist community under a common banner, I think our chances of successful advocacy and lobbying efforts would dramatically increase (including our ability to create Political Action Committees and other mechanisms that would allow us to be active political players (thus increasing our chances of getting what we want and need from government - whether more money or health insurance coverage).
To do this, I think it is absolutely essential to address the needs of individual artists. It is folly to expect to galvanize artists to act politically (taking time from their lives and schedules) unless there is direct, immediate benefit to them. That benefit must be more present day "real" than speculative and future tense.
In any event, BARRY'S BLOG AT CCI launched this week.
I hope you will help me and CCI to publicize this new tool directed at working artists by spreading the word and the link to artists associated with your organization or community. The first issue the new blog addresses is one that resonates with artists and arts administrators alike - the health care / health insurance issue and specifically the new legislation being proposed in California to provide some kind of basic universal health care / insurance to the residents of this state (not disimiliar to what is being proposed now in several states). Many people believe some kind of bill will pass this year - the issue is whether or not the provisions of that bill will address the issues particular to the needs of working artists.
Here is the link to the new artist focused Barry's Blog at CCI http://www.cciarts.org/blog/
Please check it out and pass it on.
II. INTERVIEW WITH NANCY GLAZE:
"Talk to me.............................."
After a 23 year career in the nonprofit arts sector, including head of the Packard Foundation Arts Program from its early inception, Nancy Glaze retired last month. Nancy has "been there, done that" for virtually every experience in the arts field. I asked her to share some thoughts with the readers.
Here is that interview:
BARRY: What are the two most critical issues facing the arts right now?
NANCY: One immediate issue is a generational change where a group of people, the boomers, are leaving or preparing to leave their work. This provides an excellent opportunity for us to look at what has evolved during the tenure of the boomers and what opportunities there are for change. Directly related to this generational change in leadership is how art will be produced and distributed in the future. We often assume that nonprofits are the best way to work, but we really don't know. We have a short window to explore the implications of these issues. How we approach these changes could have an enormous impact on the field.
BARRY: We've been focusing on the generational succession issues here in this blog of late. Expand a little on the issues attendant with a change in how art is produced and distributed.
NANCY: Arts organizations operate in a very competitive marketplace and many are having trouble sustaining their current level of operating. To remain viable, organizations must adjust to a changing environment. While this may sound obvious, it is my experience that few organizations face this fact head-on. An organization's vision must be achievable and sustainable as well as appropriate to the community. Changes in demographics, taste, and the delivery of product further complicate this task. Clearly, technology and, specifically, the internet are one of the biggest variables.
BARRY: Ok what did you mean by changes in the delivery of the product further complicate this task?
NANCY: Arts organizations are in the entertainment business and we need to understand the marketplace in order to keep up with the changing habits and needs of our audiences. Much of our work will continue in places that are familiar - symphony halls, art museums, and 500-seat theaters. But there are other places and other ways we experience the arts. Ideally, it will be the art-makers who stimulate these changes. When we encounter powerful art - whatever the medium - we need to create a way to experience it. I believe that is the basic contract between those who create and those who present art.
BARRY: Just three years ago, the Packard Foundation Arts Program’s grant budget was in the neighborhood of $15 million per year. Now it’s below $3 million. What happened and why was it cut back so severely? Now that you are retired, do you think Packard will stay in the arts funding arena, or close down that program?
NANCY: The first grant awarded by the Packard Foundation in 1964 was to the San Francisco Symphony for $250. Since then, the Foundation has supported the arts to some degree. At the height of the "boom" the Foundation's assets were in the $16 billion-range which provided for a significant amount funding across a broad array of programs, including the arts. Particularly for those of us living in Silicon Valley, the "bust" was quite a blow. With a severe drop in assets, programs at the Foundation were trimmed and focused. Three existing program areas were identified as central to the Foundation's work - Conservation, Population, and Children, Families and Communities. Other activities were carried on but on a much smaller scale. While some support for the arts may continue, I do not expect that the arts will advance as one of the primary areas of focus for the Foundation.
BARRY: If you factor in the loss of state funding to the arts ($31 million when I was at the CAC 3+ years ago. Now >$2 million, and California ranks dead last of the 50 states at less than three cents per capita) plus the cutbacks of some foundation support and there has been $100 million less that has gone to the arts in just the last three years. What can we do?
NANCY: I am very encouraged about current efforts to use research and information about the field to stimulate and elevate the discussion about the role of the arts in a healthy society. Americans for the Arts has made major advances in this area with Randy Cohen's fine work. To re-gain public and private support, we must tell our stories in ways that resonate with folks and we must do this at all levels - local, regional and national.
BARRY: You've dealt with hundreds of leaders in our field over the past two decades, who impressed you most and why?
NANCY: As a field we tend to have a very short memory. This is particularly true of our field's development. Why it is the way it is today is important if we are to understand the pressures we face as we move forward. If I were to nominate one person to teach us about our collective history, it would be John Kreidler. John was most recently the executive director of Cultural Initiatives/Silicon Valley - an organization that was in the business to develop and implement visionary initiatives in the arts and culture in and around San Jose, California. Recently retired, John is a wonderful storyteller and brilliant thinker about our past and our future. He should not be allowed to slip from the field without giving us the benefit of his knowledge and perspective.
As an artist, I believe Liz Lehrman is remarkable. A dancer and choreographer, Liz created a company - the Liz Lehrman Dance Exchange - that has taken the role of dance in communities to an entirely new level. How the arts respond to changes in demographics, technology, environmental concern, etc. is a topic of much discussion in our field. I would argue that Liz has, in many ways, paved the way for us. Like John, Liz is another leader whose wisdom and perspective should be captured for the benefit of the entire field.
BARRY: With your retirement, John's retirement, and literally a score of other people recently or soon to retire, I think the field should do something to protect and pass on the collective knowledge senior leadership has. We are in danger of losing some of our institutional memory if we can't figure out a way to tap into the experience and knowledge of those who have spent one, two even three decades in the field. It makes no sense to deny future leaders the benefit of what the current generation has come to understand. If that experience is lost, we waste precious future time re-inventing the wheel. Do you have any thoughts as to how we might protect that vast reservoir of experience so that those that follow can tap into it over time?
NANCY: I think it is terrific what you have done with Barry's Blog on a number of topics, particularly the issue of generational change. Encouraging our colleagues to tell their stories is important, whether through a blog, book, or other form (any one want to write a play?). The work you have done to encourage the arts sector to recognize the importance of getting young adults involved is also very important and I think we do need to get creative about how we bring these two groups together. While much of this conversation could be national, these dialogues should also happen at a local level. Our national conferences might provide a good place to begin.
BARRY: Any regrets during the time you've been involved in the arts?
NANCY: I began my career in arts education as executive director of the Community School of Music and Arts in the late 1970's. California had passed Proposition 13 which reduced property tax revenue to such an extent that the public schools were forced to eliminate many programs including arts education. At the time, many of us were confident that these programs in music, visual art, and dance would be restored through the combined efforts of the arts community, funders, and public schools. While there has been progress over the past 30 years and many model programs exist, including many funded by the Packard Foundation, it is a frustration to me both personally and professionally that we have not made better progress.
BARRY: Why haven't we made better progress?
NANCY: A survey conducted by AMS Planning and Research as part of a cultural plan for Silicon Valley found that 95% of respondents believed that more arts education should be offered in schools. Similar results were found in other communities. Clearly, people believe the arts are important for kids. What we lack is a sustained commitment to building an arts education infrastructure that is can be maintained in the long term. While we have pockets of success such as the Creative Education Program created by Cultural Initiatives/Silicon Valley that is now part of the Santa Clara County Office of Education- many more such efforts fizzled for lack of sustained attention. If we are to create an infrastructure for arts education, we must build authentic partnerships between schools and the arts community. There is no quick fix.
BARRY: Education is (has become) to a large extent, a political issue, with the teacher's union one of the dominant special interest lobbying groups in many states across the country. Are we looking at arts education as a political issue? Should we be? Are we focusing too much energy in this area in telling our story and trying to work within the education arena? Is equality between the arts and other education subject area interests one of the criteria in an authentic partnership? How do we build authentic partnerships if we are not likely perceived on an equal footing with other sectors of the wider education community? We have been designated a core subject for some time now, but we aren't treated like other core subjects by anyone. What do we do about that?
NANCY: While at the Community School of Music and Arts, we started a program called "Arts in Action". We believed the program to be a fix, hopefully a temporary one, for the cuts in arts programs in the schools following Proposition 13. This and other programs started by community arts organizations still exist some 30 years later. While some public school systems have been successfully in creating arts programming that is an integral part of the school curriculum and culture, my experience is that those with the best success rate are grounded in both the community and the school. That way, no one gets off the hook. Both must do their share of the work be it curriculum development, fund raising, advocacy, etc. I have always thought that we have ignored the power of this type of joint effort and that we have kept the schools and the arts community apart in cases when we should have been pulling them together. While not immune to the politics of school funding and subject area priorities, these community / school programs do create a solid framework and reasonably secure mechanism for delivering arts education to young people.
BARRY: What is the biggest misconception about foundation funding?
NANCY: Foundations vary widely in their field of interests and how they conduct their business, so any generalization is tricky. I think I can safely argue that most people believe that foundations, taken as a whole, represent a much larger slice of the philanthropic pie than they actually do. Further, many foundations rarely fund outside of their areas of interest but many potential applicants are convinced that they can change a foundation's mind about its priorities by the power of "the perfect proposal". While some of the blame may lay with foundations that are wishy-washy about guidelines or fund seemingly 'random" activities - most foundations are quite clear about their processes and areas of focus.
BARRY: If you had ten million dollars and had to spend it all in one place in the next month on funding arts programs, what would you do with it to have the biggest impact?
NANCY: I would create an arts advocacy engine for California. It would be built on research--an economic impact study in every county as well as our largest cities. Some of the money would be used to strengthen the local arts agencies and get them schooled in grassroots mobilization. I would build on the Americans for the Arts "Art. Ask for More" PSA campaign as well as paid ad space and Op-Eds in local newspapers. I would focus on both arts education and the economic impact of the arts. I believe an investment in local advocacy will have statewide ramifications and return that $10 million outlay many times over.
BARRY: But if you want to create a real world arts advocacy engine, shouldn't some of the investment be made in setting up the machinery for real world lobbying. I agree with you wholeheartedly that an investment in local advocacy would return many times the initial investment, but would an increased effort to effectively make the case as opposed to creating an effective real-world lobbying capacity be the right approach?
NANCY: I agree that creating sufficient lobbying capacity should be a part of the arts advocacy engine and I believe working through existing infrastructure is a good way to begin. As we know, there is no quick fix or silver bullet. It will require bi-partisan cooperation among multiple constituents. We must have bullet-proof arguments and solid information in order to make our case.
BARRY: Do you think foundations over-favor funding for big, traditional cultural organizations (at the expense of the smaller, multicultural organizations?) and is that a good, bad or neutral phenomenon?
NANCY: My observation is that the funders, both private and public, are becoming more comfortable funding smaller, less "traditional" organizations. When I entered the field, most foundations required that applicants have a minimum of three years of financials, a paid staff - both artistic and administrative - and a long list of individual donors before they would be considered for funding. As a result, many grantees looked alike - similar size, board composition, staff size, etc. As the sector grew and the composition of our communities changed, a varied group of organizations emerged.
Fortunately, many funders recognized that supporting a range of organizations was beneficial to the entire sector and began to loosen up the guidelines to accommodate the differences in operating styles. While we have a long way to go before I would say that the funding portfolios are balanced, I think we have turned the corner in this regard.
BARRY: Who in our field has got it right and what out there impresses you program wise?
NANCY: One effort that I think is particularly promising is Silicon Valley's 1 ACT. Although Silicon Valley is the home to unprecedented technological innovation and is chock full of creative individuals, support for the arts is not strong enough to support existing organizations let alone foster new activity. Formed by a group of local arts and community leaders its goal is to position San Jose as a creative urban center and to stimulate a climate of increased funding and community participation in the arts. What impresses me about the effort is the willingness of community leadership to view the arts community within the broader Silicon Valley culture by tapping into the creative energy already abundant in the area. The effort reinforces the idea that the vibrancy and "identity" of a local arts community is directly correlated to the characteristics of the region in which it operates.
BARRY: What trends do you predict for foundation funding for the arts in the next three to five years?
NANCY: I believe we will see a decline in the percentage of foundation funding dedicated to the arts. Further, I predict that funding for general operating support, particularly for established organizations, will also decline. Programs and projects with specific outcomes that can be evaluated are the most popular among funders, particularly when a direct correlation between a specific grant and a measurable outcome can be shown. If the arts are to be competitive with other fields such as the environment and health, we need to do a much smarter job communicating the essential role the arts play in our economic and social well-being. To assume that the arts sector is immune to shifts in funding priorities - that others will "pick up the tab" is naive. The nonprofit arts infrastructure that has evolved over the past forty years will continue to do so only with visionary leadership at all levels, including foundations.
BARRY: If we move from the past decades favorite objectives -- "capacity building" and "sustainability" -- to "evaluation" and "quantifiable measurement", won't that likely put the already hard hit mid-sized arts organizations ($500,000 to $3 million budgets) in a further bind? Will linkage between specific operational objectives (e.g., audience development that puts more young people in seats) qualify do you think as a fundable goal as long as there is measurement of the outcome??
NANCY: When there are shifts in funding priorities, many organizations try to conform to new guidelines. They will turn themselves inside out - promising results on projects they often have no business doing in the first place. If these activities are not central to the organization's work they may drift so far off course that they put the future of the organization in jeopardy. This is particularly dangerous for small and mid-sized organizations although I think it is also a problem for larger groups. I do not believe that the shift from a focus on sustainability and capacity building to a results-oriented strategy is necessarily a bad thing, but I think funders need to recognize that organizations are hugely under-capitalized and funding for core operations is very hard to come by. Both need to be honest about the capacity of the organization to carry out what it promises to accomplish - whether it is introducing young people to the theater or proving that arts education helps kids with math. This will become even more important as funding for general operations decreases and groups work even harder to retain what funding they have.
BARRY: The prediction that foundation funding for general operating support will decline is a provocative observation. If you're right, what happens to the literally hundreds of such organizations across the country who are heavily dependent (some would argue too dependent) on foundation support for at least part of their operations? Do you see it as a phase out, or do you think it will happen precipitously? Will there be any warning? What will happen to those organizations that lost operational support money from their state or local arts councils over the past few years? If their foundation support disappears, how will some of the more dependent ones keep their doors open? And if the phase out happens gradually, how do you think arts organizations will replace the operational funds? From what source will operations funding then come individual donations? Earned income? From what?
NANCY: Although foundation funding rarely accounts for a large percentage of an organization's budget, it is an important part of any organizations overall development strategy. Just having a foundation listed as a donor can be worth more than the amount of a grant - the "Good Housekeeping Stamp of Approval" effect -so, it can be a double-whammy to lose foundation support. I don't think there is a simple answer to this. The relationship between the funder and the organization will change - probably for the better in some cases. There is the possibility of more risk-taking on the part of both that, in the long term, might be beneficial for the entire sector. To manage the short-term and prepare for the long-term, I would encourage organizations to spend their limited time and financial resources on connecting with their community, nurturing individual donors, and forming alliances with other nonprofits.
BARRY: What are your plans?
NANCY: I have enjoyed working on this blog and look forward to more opportunities to bring up important issues facing the arts sector. I am on the board of Americans for the Arts and have joined the board of the San Jose Institute of Contemporary Art - both important organizations that I am honored to be associated with. These commitments plus a long list of hobbies including music, golf and sailing - as well as hanging out with family and friends - keeps me quite busy and happy.
BARRY: Thank you very much Nancy.
I hope that you somehow remain involved for some time to come. We need to figure out how we can transition the best of our senior leadership into retirement, but still have access to the treasure trove of their knowledge and experience. We will need and benefit from some kind of ongoing access to the Nancy Glazes and John Kreidlers, as the boomer generation turns over the reins to the next generation in the next decade.
Next interview in July - with Harvey Seifter, Director of the Arts & Business Council's Creativity Connection Program who shares his perspective in a candid discussion of how the arts and corporate America can (and have already begun to) effectively partner for mutual benefit and gain.
III. ADVOCACY FOLLOW-UP:
"I want to thank you, thank you, for letting me be myself.........."
I would like to thank the many people who sent me kind notes in support of my recently published book: Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits (Macmillan & Co. New York, 2007) Click here to go to Amazon.com http:www.amazon.com/Hardball-Lobbying-Nonprofits-Advocacy/Century/dp/1403982023/ref=sr_1_1/103-8626372-6847867?ie=UTF8&s=booksqid=1183669478&sr=1-1
Finally, after nearly three years, the nonprofit arts community in California seems to again be moving towards action to address the state cuts in funding that continue to relegate the state to last place in per capita support. I believe that if the current efforts in Los Angeles, San Francisco and statewide can, in the next two years, grow and thrive and become a rock solid foundation for advocacy in the state, and if we can then complement those efforts by launching similar efforts in other parts of the state - particularly in rural and Republican strongholds including the Central Valley, the Inland Empire and in suburban areas that are currently not organized, that in the third year of a master plan / strategy we will be able to successfully move to establish funding for the arts at not One Dollar per Capita, but at TWO DOLLARS PER CAPITA. As someone with some experience in the past efforts in California and elsewhere, I am almost certain this can be done.
Think what $75 million in annual state support could do for the arts here. Think what we might faciliate. We could re-establish and grow the Artist Presenting and Touring Program - cut three years ago and make some difference in providing new and expanded opportunities for artists to tour and perform live. We could support the infrastructure groups I created at the CAC (the various discipline and diversity based representative groups throughout California)so that everyone again had a seat at the table and could voice the positions and concerns of their constituents. We could again nurture and support multicultural arts in our state and celebrate the extraordinary asset that cultural diversity is - instead of continuing to let it die on the vine as it were. We could re-establish the State Local Partnership Program (once one of the nation's model programs - now decimated through no fault of its own) and make sure every single one of the state's 58 counties had a local arts agency that could act as a hub in each country for arts support. We could provide operational support to hundreds and hundreds of small and mid-sized arts organizations around the state that continue to struggle to survive- allowing them to spend less time fundraising and more time on their programs. We could systemically address marketing of the arts. We could increase access to the arts for the public dramatically. We could coordinate new efforts to re-establish curriculum based, sequential, arts education with standards and assessments in K-12 in our schools. We could allow the big major cultural institutions to again provide certain community and education services many have had to curtail without that extra income. We could, in a score of different ways, again address the needs of individual artists. In short, we could begin to again integrate arts & culture into the very fabric of civic life in our state and become a model for the nation.
I know many people will say this is just 'pie in the sky talk'. But that's what those people told me at the beginning of this century, and back then many of us refused to listen, and we organized an effort that succeeded in bringing state funding up to near one dollar per capita. Our failure was to act to protect gains won, for in politics, especially where funds are concerned, you must have the machinery ready and in-place so that you can always defend what you have won.
There is NO question we can do it again, and this time move to Two dollars per capita (more in line with New York and some of the other leading states). We need to be organized across the state and we need to become more political - but that is not only do-able, the only reason we can't do it would be because we won't. We need to be methodical - build the foundation we need around the state in a step-by-step process - involve artists and arts administrators along with supporters, stakeholders, patrons, volunteers, and the public. But if we start this summer we can be where we need to be in just two + years.
Just think of how $75 million (which, BTW, is a drop in the bucket in a $125 billion a year budget) could help support what the foundations are helping to keep alive (in some cases just barely, even though their money pool is actually increasing)? $75 million a year. It's out there. We can get it.
As Nancy said in the interview above, what kind of result might we achieve if we could invest $10 million in creating real advocacy for the arts in California. That, of course, is my fantasy dream and always has been. We don't have $10 million to invest, but that's ok, we can manage with far less. But we do need to put some money into the effort and we need to accept that at some point we need to raise this money ourselves. And we need to build the machinery. We can do this. Other sectors - with far fewer assets than we have - do it. This is basically the mantra in my book. And, if you might be interested in purchasing a copy or the Companion Workbook (165 pages of guidelines, forms, samples, checklists etc.), OR find out more about the workshops I plan to offer later this year and next on advocacy and on creating a Political Action Committee and other machinery to allow your advocacy / lobbying effort to be competitive with the private sector and for you to see dramatic results - please just email me (at barryarts@comcast.net) and I will send you discount flyers on the book and workbook and information about the workshops.
Have a great week. Check out and subscribe to the artists version of Barry's Blog at CCI http://www.cciarts.org/blog/
Don't Quit!
Barry
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
June 11, 2007
Hello Everybody.
"And the beat goes on......................"
This is a LONG message, and somewhat of a self-promotion. Believe it or not, I tried to keep it as brief as possible, but the subject matter is extremely important in my mind and I hope that you will find the time to read it and consider what we might do to finally become politically successful lobbyists. Our future depends on what we do in the next year or two.
As anyone who knows me can attest - advocacy and lobbying is my real passion. I wrote a book last year that Macmillan & Company (New York) has just published (last week) entitled: Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits
I wrote this book as a "HOW TO" tutorial on lobbying - but found myself including an argument as to why nonprofit leaders should embrace this function. Here's a brief interview I did as to why I wrote the book:
INTERVIEW WITH BARRY HESSENIUS:
Q: Why did you write this book? What is different about this book?
BARRY: I found most of the books on advocacy directed to nonprofit organizations were too simplistic in that they didn't go into enough depth on how lobbying really works. Too often these works assumed that government works the way it is portrayed in high school civics textbooks, and that is not the reality. I wanted to offer the nonprofit sector a serious work that recognizes the role money plays in our political system, and how the private sector special interest groups impact government decision making; I wanted to give the nonprofit universe tools it could use to compete in the real political world, and to explain how nonprofits might avail themselves of the same tools that private interests do not because I endorse the system. I don't. I wish somehow that elected officials made their decisions free from the influence of special interests, but that is naïve and ignores political reality.
For far too long, I think nonprofits have been the Oliver Twists in the political spectrum holding their little bowls meekly in front of them, begging, "Please, sir, can I have some more". A plea, by and large, ignored by decision makers because nonprofits are politically powerless and virtually invisible. I wanted to empower nonprofits to be political players, because I think they can be, and because I think they have to be.
The book started out to be a step-by-step tutorial in serious lobbying as well as an attempt to cover some of the issues involved in mounting such an effort usually ignored in other books on the subject (from how to finance such an effort, to how you motivate people to support you; from how to staff and manage an effort, to building a coalition within each community that will allow nonprofits to be competitive).
Q. How can nonprofits compete with deep-pocket special interest groups?
BARRY: Like it or not, money is the key to access, and access is the key to increasing the odds that any interest can impact government decision making in its favor. We're not talking about Jack Abramnoff and bribery we're talking about legal campaign contributions and how those who contribute have advantages over those who do not. We're talking about professional lobbying vs. well intentioned, but amateur, advocacy. The greatest single mistake nonprofits have made politically is the erroneous assumption that if they only make a convincing case for their value, for their needs, that they will win the day. That belief ignores the political fact that there are more good causes to support, more needs to be addressed than government has the capacity to meet. The pie is too small to satisfy everyone. We are a pluralistic system, and we have evolved (or some would argue devolved) into a situation where getting elected or re-elected is the primary job of every politician, and elections increasingly cost money. Lots of money. The teacher's unions know that. The prison guard unions know that. And both of those interest groups wield political power but they do it by playing the game. They do by digging into their own pockets to pay for a real lobbying effort. The nonprofit sector needs to do the same thing. There is no reason why nonprofits can't raise enough money to be competitive. Crying poverty is just whining and nonprofits have to stop whining. Arts nonprofits can raise a lot of money if all the performance groups will do one benefit for the effort every year or two. Environmental nonprofits can raise the money via online solicitations. We're coming to the tipping-point of funding for nonprofit political activity.
Q. What are the keys to successful lobbying for nonprofits then?
BARRY: First, raising enough money to mount a professional effort. Successful advocacy must include lobbying, and lobbying is a full time job that cannot be a volunteer, part time effort. Second, lobbying is about building relationships over time with elected officials. Lobbying can't be reactive to this or that crisis - a sometimes activity; it must be proactive and ongoing. Third, an effective lobbying machine is best built from the ground up on a solid grassroots foundation, not something imposed from the top down. And finally, to be successful at lobbying, you must contribute financially to individual candidate's campaigns. If nonprofits would make lobbying part of the job description of all nonprofit leaders, as important as fund raising and program oversight, and make the same time commitment to its discharge, there is no reason why nonprofits can't be as effective as the private sector. Indeed, nonprofits serve a public interest, they have a good product and story to tell, they have media sympathy and built in constituencies, and they are often able to recruit a lot of foot soldiers to support their causes something big industries can't do. But there is a legacy in nonprofits that says lobbying is outside the job description, often even thought of as unseemly or even as something that is illegal.
Q: Are you saying it's legal for nonprofits to lobby, to give money to candidates for office?
BARRY: Of course it's legal. You have to set up the right structures not only 501 (c) (3) organizations, but 501 (c) (4) structures, and PACs and 527 funds but done right (and lawyers and accountants can easily make sure it is done right), and nonprofits can do everything private lobbying efforts for giant corporations and industries can do. They can educate, advocate, lobby for or against legislation, and even support or oppose candidates for specific offices and they need to do all of those things if they are to have any chance to compete for influence in affecting the decisions that are made by government that impact them.
Q: Do you think a sea-change in the way nonprofits think about advocacy and lobbying is really likely to happen?
BARRY: I think it has already begun to happen. I see signs of it in numerous sectors of the nonprofit universe. I see foundations and private money more interested in trying to empower the nonprofit field to protect itself within the political matrix, more nonprofit leaders exploring ways to be more effective politically, more rank and file memberships rallying to the cry to become politically active. I see the internet as a major catalyst in transforming the nonprofit universe into a counter point to the private sector interests that for so long have held political power as their monopoly. I hope my book and the workshops I am offering are a part of what is going to be a dynamic shift in this country in the next decade.
Q: So you are talking about altering the very culture of nonprofits, the way they things. Doesn't that involve fundamental shifts in attitude?
BARRY: The change has already come. We're just talking now about what happens next. How fast do we move from square one to square four. There are a couple of critical variables to motivating people to shoulder new challenges and adapt to new survival techniques: One, you don't want to ask for too much, too often not everything is urgent; two, it's important for people to have victories early campaigns shouldn't be on lost causes. Once people win, it becomes easier to motivate them to change their habits, and winning is itself addictive. These are the kinds of lessons I talk about in the book, and what, I think, makes this book different than previous texts on advocacy and lobbying.
----End of interview.
I was fortunate enough to enlist some friends to write "testimonials" for the dust jacket of the book.
(These are basically when people say how wonderful you are and how great your book is. I mean, the Publisher isn't exactly looking for some truly "objective" critique for potential buyers to read, are they?)
Anyway, here they are (and I thank each of them):
"For those who want to begin a non-profit, I can think of no better guide and toolkit than Hardball. Government students should read this as an insight into decision making, as Barry explains how government and groups interact with one another at all levels. Hardball is definitely not a book to collect dust but one to get dog-eared, highlighted, debated and used." - Congressman Adam Schiff
"This is a powerful, provocative, and daring look at the ups and downs of fighting for beliefs. The book straightforwardly mixes together simple, clear definitions, strong opinions, new ideas, and in your face strategies, all designed to help the good guys win." - Robert Lynch, President, American for the Arts
"Hard Ball Lobbying is an essential tool for every nonprofit leader who wants to see systems change and public dollars flow to the causes they care about. The nonprofit CEO who doesn't have advocacy and lobbying as part of their job description may well be coming up short in pursuit of their social mission." -Dr. Tim Wolfred, Compasspoint
Barry Hessenius learned political advocacy the hard way, convincing the California legislature to multiply many fold its investment in arts funding. In his new book, Barry extracts the lessons of his long experience into a readable and impassioned tutorial that has broad application throughout the non-profit sector." - John Kriedler, Former Executive Director, Cultural Initiatives, Silicon Valley
"Barry Hessenius has never been shy, so this book shouldn't surprise anyone with its provocative and insightful thesis that the non-profit sector has to wake up and speak loudly for its interests. Anyone who knows the law and regulations surrounding advocacy and political speech by non-profits knows that it is a minefield of risk that needs to be approached with care and good legal counsel. But what Hessenius makes a convincing case for is that we have no choice but to get into the game. An excellent read." -Drummond Pike, President, The Tides Foundation
I wrote a Companion Workbook -- 165 pages of guidelines, checklists, forms, samples and other tools to use in forming an advocacy coalition (which I am self publishing) to go with the main title.
My mantra has long been that leaders in the arts (and in every other nonprofit sector) need to embrace the role of advocacy AND lobbying and include it as part of their job descriptions - every bit as important as program oversight and fundraising.
That, unfortuntely, is not the case. Too often, the job of advocate and lobbyist, isn't part of the 'mind set' of nonprofit leadership at all. It isn't even on the radar screen.
Here's an example: I got an email message a couple of months ago imploring the recipients of the message to rally to the defense of the organization (a small opera company if I remember correctly), that had just found out that the money it had expected (had been led to expect as a matter of fact) was not approved by the local city council. The group was frantic, as the amount available to it was not only far less than it had thought was coming, but was, in fact, a significant reduction in what it had previously gotten, and that cut threatened this small city organization's very existence. The email message urged the readers to mobilize and write, call, petition or otherwise demand that the local city council reinstate the funds or DO SOMETHING anyway about the crisis.
My heart went out to this group. Although I wasn't a resident of the local area, I sent an email letter off to their city council. But the problem with this email was that it was a plea for help in reaction to a crisis and that is a very bad way to approach advocacy. To be effective, we need advocacy machinery in place for when crises happen, because crises always happen. But that's not what we do. We react to crises and that doesn't work - at least not often, and not well.
Take the current attempt in California to support a bill proposed by Betty Karnette (AB 1365) that would transfer 20% of the income from the sales and use tax on the transfer of art works to the California Arts Council (estimated to be $30+ million annually.) On its face a very good bill -- no new tax, simply a transfer of a portion of an existing tax - to a government area directly related to the enterprise being taxed -- filling a clear need. Many in the arts community recognize this as the best attempt to move California out of last place of all the states in per capita support for the arts, and have rallied in favor of supporting the bill. The bill was on "suspense" in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, chaired by long time arts champion and supporter, Mark Leno and so the arts community recently urged those in the sector to contact Leno and urge him to move the bill favorably out of his committee. For whatever reason, he didn't do so at this time.
My point is that we would have more likely had a positive result if we had a real advocacy / lobbying machinery already in place; one that was widely supported, had a PAC as one of its components, and was an effort that had a revenue stream and a professional paid staff - at the level that would make it competitive with other special interest groups. We need to be involved as a PAC in supporting candidates with financial contributions. That is what differentiates real lobbying with amateur advocacy. And that is entirely possible if the field commits to that specific goal and, over a year or two, begins to build that permanent machinery. If we were a "player", I would argue that we would likely have had a different result in moving the Karnette bill out of Leno's committee.
I applaud the effort to support the Karnette bill. It makes sense. But this is the first real organized effort in California to support legislation aimed at re-instating funding since those funds were cut -- over three years ago. Why did it take us so long? If the NRA or the pharmaceutical industry had suffered a comparable major setback, would they have waited years before they mounted some new campaign to protect themselves? Not likely. And we can't afford to behave any differently. Can we? No, I doubt we are going to be as successful in raising funds as the teacher union or the correctional officers union, nor are we likely to be as powerful as the NRA or the pharmaceutical industry - but we can be "players" in the system to the extent that we can protect our interests and successfully lobby to win our victories - and that is NOT the case at present folks. It isn't that expensive and we can do it. We aren't, but we can.
We have proof: The Arts Action PAC Bob Lynch at Americans for the Arts started just a few years ago is a prime example of what can be done, and that PAC is still in its earliest stages. The point is it exists and political action can be built on its foundation. It has already established itself in the halls of Washington DC and has begun to have impact on federal issues. It will only grow more powerful if we continue to support it. We must do the same thing at every level - every major city, every state should have an Arts PAC. It takes far less money than you might imagine to have access to elected officals and to be effective lobbyists. The power is in like minded people banning together as a coalition and having their contribution allied with the interests of a given field (like the arts). This kind of political alliance is far more effective than if you gave the same amount of money to a candidate as an individual. Now some people will be concerned that their contribution doesn't go to a candidate with whom they disagree on other matters but THAT kind of thinking is antithetical to the way things really work. Look, for example, I think I have almost nothing in common with Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee - nothing. And I am highly unlikely to vote for him. But I do contribute to the Arts Action PAC, and I think it entirely appropriate, should that PAC so determine, to give money to Mike Huckabee. Why? Because he supports the arts (perhaps the only declared presidential candidate to have a public pro stance on the arts), and THAT is the whole purpose of the Arts Action PAC. That's why I give my money to them; so they will find and support candidates who support the arts. Yes, "politics does make for strange bedfellows".
And let me say that the windfall line item allocation of $105 million in the Department of Education budget for arts education in this year's California budget will, without question, be under attack from any number of quarters in the future - groups and interests within and without the education community who will covet that pool of money and want to see those funds - or at least some portion thereof - moved from the arts to some other area. Groups and interests who will have political clout and lobbying machinery and who will use it to appropriate what the arts will now consider "our money" to "their" purposes. I guarantee that will happen. If the arts don't have some ongoing lobbying machinery far more sophisticated and expansive than what we presently have, then we are likely to be unable to protect that allocation and it will end up being a short-lived funding stream for us. No one should be surprised when that happens. Not if, but when. The system and the way it works isn't rocket science and it isn't a secret. Those who have power and use it, get more of what they want and need than do those who don't. Is that a revelation to anyone anymore????
If we want to be competitive with other special interest groups - this is exactly what we have to do. And we should ALL being doing it. Right now, not next week, or next month. And at ALL levels - from the city to the state levels, as well as at the federal levels. You won't find powerful special interest groups - unions or industries or the NRAs of the world supporting just federal or state or whatever level candidates. It's all part of one big whole, and we have to be involved at all levels.
And YES WE CAN, and NO IT ISN'T PROHIBILITIVELY EXPENSIVE or time consuming. Other special interests (and that's what we are folks - we are a special interest group - nothing less, nothing more) have done it, and so must we.
The nonprofit arts sector lies near the bottom of all special interest areas in its ability to effectively influence government decision making through its advocacy and lobbying efforts local, state or federal - short or long term. Arts advocacy in California characterized, as elsewhere in the country, by voluntary, part time staffing, participation by only a fraction of the organizations in the field, and wholly inadequate budgets and funding streams - is currently anemic at best. That isn't meant as a criticism of those dedicated and hard working people who are trying to organize the arts as advocates at the state and local levels, rather just a factual observation on the level of sophistication we have achieved in the area. The absence of a functional lobbying machinery available to the arts sector is a product of the field's failure to commit adequate resources to the effort (time, personnel, and funds); and the reluctance to make that commitment is, in large part, the result of an organizational cultural legacy that has relegated advocacy to a low priority, and has erroneously cast lobbying as outside the arts administrator's job description at best, and as improper or even illegal, at worst. Other nonprofit sectors are moving to establish real lobbying clout, threatening to leave the arts & culture sector further competitively disadvantaged.
At the heart of the problem in mounting successful lobbying efforts lie three basic principles that nonprofit arts organizations have yet to fully accept: First, advocacy must include lobbying - and lobbying cannot be an unfunded, part time, volunteer effort, with minimal field support; Second, sustainable advocacy and lobbying efforts must be organized from the bottom up, starting at the local level; and Third, advocacy and lobbying must be proactive and ongoing, not sporadically reactive to crises and changes in the political landscape. Successful lobbying is based on relationships with those in the authorizing environment and relationship cultivation takes time to develop and nurture, requiring ongoing, operational structures. Those structures cost money. Like other nonprofit fields, the California arts sector has adopted strategies based on the erroneous assumption that if it can only convincingly make the case for its value (economic, educational, civic), lawmakers will see the light and re-establish (or even increase) funding, and otherwise address the needs of the sector. That naïve, misinformed belief totally ignores political realities, and has relegated the sector to being a virtual powerless sideline witness to the decision-making directly affecting its future much to its detriment and loss.
The demand for government to address the pantheon of legitimate needs and causes (at all levels) far exceeds the resources to adequately satisfy those demands. The arts are one among many, many special interest groups; no more, no less. The sector must accept that fact and act, as do others, to vigorously and continuously lobby the decision makers. Participation in the lobbying must be by the entire sector; the weight of engaging in the effort must be borne across the full range of organizations, not just by the few. There is simply too much at stake to continue to merely dabble in efforts to influence government decision making.
As was pointed out at the CAC meeting earlier this year by one of the panelists: Rather than acting like a $160+ billion a year industry, the national nonprofit arts field has ceded the power of its economic clout by its failure to engage in serious advocacy and lobbying efforts in comparison to other special interest groups. Heavily dependent on, and in desperate need of, public funding support, the net effect of its failure to act to protect itself has been to position itself as powerless and politically impotent, with the proverbial result of having reaped what it has sown. That is the case here in California.
I am working on a pilot project to build - from the ground up - real world lobbying machinery in both urban/suburban and rural venues. I plan on doing as many advocacy / lobbying workshops around the country in the next two years as I can, and hope some of you might help me arrange (and host) those. And I intend to keep pushing for our field to join all those other special interest groups that have moved to build real political clout and power as a means to realize their missions. There is no reason the arts can't be highly effective lobbyists at the local, state and federal levels; no reason we can't be very successful at raising the funds ourselves to finance these efforts.
I hope you will all join me and the many, many others across the country who have for some time been involved in moving our field towards being true political lobbyists. The time is right for us to make our move.
For any of you that might be interested in learning more about my book, I would be happy to email you a packet of materials including (for readers of this blog only) discount flyers on the book and the Companion Workbook as well as a brief outline of the Advocacy Workshop I am offering. Just email me a reply to this message. And hey, I hope a lot of you will buy a copy for your organization's bookshelves, and share it with your staff and board members, but whether or not you are interested in my book or what I am doing, I hope you will be interested in the idea of the arts (or all nonprofits, really) developing more political clout to make sure WE have the same access to decision makers that the well heeled private sector has.
Have a great week.
Don't Quit!
Barry
"And the beat goes on......................"
This is a LONG message, and somewhat of a self-promotion. Believe it or not, I tried to keep it as brief as possible, but the subject matter is extremely important in my mind and I hope that you will find the time to read it and consider what we might do to finally become politically successful lobbyists. Our future depends on what we do in the next year or two.
As anyone who knows me can attest - advocacy and lobbying is my real passion. I wrote a book last year that Macmillan & Company (New York) has just published (last week) entitled: Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits
I wrote this book as a "HOW TO" tutorial on lobbying - but found myself including an argument as to why nonprofit leaders should embrace this function. Here's a brief interview I did as to why I wrote the book:
INTERVIEW WITH BARRY HESSENIUS:
Q: Why did you write this book? What is different about this book?
BARRY: I found most of the books on advocacy directed to nonprofit organizations were too simplistic in that they didn't go into enough depth on how lobbying really works. Too often these works assumed that government works the way it is portrayed in high school civics textbooks, and that is not the reality. I wanted to offer the nonprofit sector a serious work that recognizes the role money plays in our political system, and how the private sector special interest groups impact government decision making; I wanted to give the nonprofit universe tools it could use to compete in the real political world, and to explain how nonprofits might avail themselves of the same tools that private interests do not because I endorse the system. I don't. I wish somehow that elected officials made their decisions free from the influence of special interests, but that is naïve and ignores political reality.
For far too long, I think nonprofits have been the Oliver Twists in the political spectrum holding their little bowls meekly in front of them, begging, "Please, sir, can I have some more". A plea, by and large, ignored by decision makers because nonprofits are politically powerless and virtually invisible. I wanted to empower nonprofits to be political players, because I think they can be, and because I think they have to be.
The book started out to be a step-by-step tutorial in serious lobbying as well as an attempt to cover some of the issues involved in mounting such an effort usually ignored in other books on the subject (from how to finance such an effort, to how you motivate people to support you; from how to staff and manage an effort, to building a coalition within each community that will allow nonprofits to be competitive).
Q. How can nonprofits compete with deep-pocket special interest groups?
BARRY: Like it or not, money is the key to access, and access is the key to increasing the odds that any interest can impact government decision making in its favor. We're not talking about Jack Abramnoff and bribery we're talking about legal campaign contributions and how those who contribute have advantages over those who do not. We're talking about professional lobbying vs. well intentioned, but amateur, advocacy. The greatest single mistake nonprofits have made politically is the erroneous assumption that if they only make a convincing case for their value, for their needs, that they will win the day. That belief ignores the political fact that there are more good causes to support, more needs to be addressed than government has the capacity to meet. The pie is too small to satisfy everyone. We are a pluralistic system, and we have evolved (or some would argue devolved) into a situation where getting elected or re-elected is the primary job of every politician, and elections increasingly cost money. Lots of money. The teacher's unions know that. The prison guard unions know that. And both of those interest groups wield political power but they do it by playing the game. They do by digging into their own pockets to pay for a real lobbying effort. The nonprofit sector needs to do the same thing. There is no reason why nonprofits can't raise enough money to be competitive. Crying poverty is just whining and nonprofits have to stop whining. Arts nonprofits can raise a lot of money if all the performance groups will do one benefit for the effort every year or two. Environmental nonprofits can raise the money via online solicitations. We're coming to the tipping-point of funding for nonprofit political activity.
Q. What are the keys to successful lobbying for nonprofits then?
BARRY: First, raising enough money to mount a professional effort. Successful advocacy must include lobbying, and lobbying is a full time job that cannot be a volunteer, part time effort. Second, lobbying is about building relationships over time with elected officials. Lobbying can't be reactive to this or that crisis - a sometimes activity; it must be proactive and ongoing. Third, an effective lobbying machine is best built from the ground up on a solid grassroots foundation, not something imposed from the top down. And finally, to be successful at lobbying, you must contribute financially to individual candidate's campaigns. If nonprofits would make lobbying part of the job description of all nonprofit leaders, as important as fund raising and program oversight, and make the same time commitment to its discharge, there is no reason why nonprofits can't be as effective as the private sector. Indeed, nonprofits serve a public interest, they have a good product and story to tell, they have media sympathy and built in constituencies, and they are often able to recruit a lot of foot soldiers to support their causes something big industries can't do. But there is a legacy in nonprofits that says lobbying is outside the job description, often even thought of as unseemly or even as something that is illegal.
Q: Are you saying it's legal for nonprofits to lobby, to give money to candidates for office?
BARRY: Of course it's legal. You have to set up the right structures not only 501 (c) (3) organizations, but 501 (c) (4) structures, and PACs and 527 funds but done right (and lawyers and accountants can easily make sure it is done right), and nonprofits can do everything private lobbying efforts for giant corporations and industries can do. They can educate, advocate, lobby for or against legislation, and even support or oppose candidates for specific offices and they need to do all of those things if they are to have any chance to compete for influence in affecting the decisions that are made by government that impact them.
Q: Do you think a sea-change in the way nonprofits think about advocacy and lobbying is really likely to happen?
BARRY: I think it has already begun to happen. I see signs of it in numerous sectors of the nonprofit universe. I see foundations and private money more interested in trying to empower the nonprofit field to protect itself within the political matrix, more nonprofit leaders exploring ways to be more effective politically, more rank and file memberships rallying to the cry to become politically active. I see the internet as a major catalyst in transforming the nonprofit universe into a counter point to the private sector interests that for so long have held political power as their monopoly. I hope my book and the workshops I am offering are a part of what is going to be a dynamic shift in this country in the next decade.
Q: So you are talking about altering the very culture of nonprofits, the way they things. Doesn't that involve fundamental shifts in attitude?
BARRY: The change has already come. We're just talking now about what happens next. How fast do we move from square one to square four. There are a couple of critical variables to motivating people to shoulder new challenges and adapt to new survival techniques: One, you don't want to ask for too much, too often not everything is urgent; two, it's important for people to have victories early campaigns shouldn't be on lost causes. Once people win, it becomes easier to motivate them to change their habits, and winning is itself addictive. These are the kinds of lessons I talk about in the book, and what, I think, makes this book different than previous texts on advocacy and lobbying.
----End of interview.
I was fortunate enough to enlist some friends to write "testimonials" for the dust jacket of the book.
(These are basically when people say how wonderful you are and how great your book is. I mean, the Publisher isn't exactly looking for some truly "objective" critique for potential buyers to read, are they?)
Anyway, here they are (and I thank each of them):
"For those who want to begin a non-profit, I can think of no better guide and toolkit than Hardball. Government students should read this as an insight into decision making, as Barry explains how government and groups interact with one another at all levels. Hardball is definitely not a book to collect dust but one to get dog-eared, highlighted, debated and used." - Congressman Adam Schiff
"This is a powerful, provocative, and daring look at the ups and downs of fighting for beliefs. The book straightforwardly mixes together simple, clear definitions, strong opinions, new ideas, and in your face strategies, all designed to help the good guys win." - Robert Lynch, President, American for the Arts
"Hard Ball Lobbying is an essential tool for every nonprofit leader who wants to see systems change and public dollars flow to the causes they care about. The nonprofit CEO who doesn't have advocacy and lobbying as part of their job description may well be coming up short in pursuit of their social mission." -Dr. Tim Wolfred, Compasspoint
Barry Hessenius learned political advocacy the hard way, convincing the California legislature to multiply many fold its investment in arts funding. In his new book, Barry extracts the lessons of his long experience into a readable and impassioned tutorial that has broad application throughout the non-profit sector." - John Kriedler, Former Executive Director, Cultural Initiatives, Silicon Valley
"Barry Hessenius has never been shy, so this book shouldn't surprise anyone with its provocative and insightful thesis that the non-profit sector has to wake up and speak loudly for its interests. Anyone who knows the law and regulations surrounding advocacy and political speech by non-profits knows that it is a minefield of risk that needs to be approached with care and good legal counsel. But what Hessenius makes a convincing case for is that we have no choice but to get into the game. An excellent read." -Drummond Pike, President, The Tides Foundation
I wrote a Companion Workbook -- 165 pages of guidelines, checklists, forms, samples and other tools to use in forming an advocacy coalition (which I am self publishing) to go with the main title.
My mantra has long been that leaders in the arts (and in every other nonprofit sector) need to embrace the role of advocacy AND lobbying and include it as part of their job descriptions - every bit as important as program oversight and fundraising.
That, unfortuntely, is not the case. Too often, the job of advocate and lobbyist, isn't part of the 'mind set' of nonprofit leadership at all. It isn't even on the radar screen.
Here's an example: I got an email message a couple of months ago imploring the recipients of the message to rally to the defense of the organization (a small opera company if I remember correctly), that had just found out that the money it had expected (had been led to expect as a matter of fact) was not approved by the local city council. The group was frantic, as the amount available to it was not only far less than it had thought was coming, but was, in fact, a significant reduction in what it had previously gotten, and that cut threatened this small city organization's very existence. The email message urged the readers to mobilize and write, call, petition or otherwise demand that the local city council reinstate the funds or DO SOMETHING anyway about the crisis.
My heart went out to this group. Although I wasn't a resident of the local area, I sent an email letter off to their city council. But the problem with this email was that it was a plea for help in reaction to a crisis and that is a very bad way to approach advocacy. To be effective, we need advocacy machinery in place for when crises happen, because crises always happen. But that's not what we do. We react to crises and that doesn't work - at least not often, and not well.
Take the current attempt in California to support a bill proposed by Betty Karnette (AB 1365) that would transfer 20% of the income from the sales and use tax on the transfer of art works to the California Arts Council (estimated to be $30+ million annually.) On its face a very good bill -- no new tax, simply a transfer of a portion of an existing tax - to a government area directly related to the enterprise being taxed -- filling a clear need. Many in the arts community recognize this as the best attempt to move California out of last place of all the states in per capita support for the arts, and have rallied in favor of supporting the bill. The bill was on "suspense" in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, chaired by long time arts champion and supporter, Mark Leno and so the arts community recently urged those in the sector to contact Leno and urge him to move the bill favorably out of his committee. For whatever reason, he didn't do so at this time.
My point is that we would have more likely had a positive result if we had a real advocacy / lobbying machinery already in place; one that was widely supported, had a PAC as one of its components, and was an effort that had a revenue stream and a professional paid staff - at the level that would make it competitive with other special interest groups. We need to be involved as a PAC in supporting candidates with financial contributions. That is what differentiates real lobbying with amateur advocacy. And that is entirely possible if the field commits to that specific goal and, over a year or two, begins to build that permanent machinery. If we were a "player", I would argue that we would likely have had a different result in moving the Karnette bill out of Leno's committee.
I applaud the effort to support the Karnette bill. It makes sense. But this is the first real organized effort in California to support legislation aimed at re-instating funding since those funds were cut -- over three years ago. Why did it take us so long? If the NRA or the pharmaceutical industry had suffered a comparable major setback, would they have waited years before they mounted some new campaign to protect themselves? Not likely. And we can't afford to behave any differently. Can we? No, I doubt we are going to be as successful in raising funds as the teacher union or the correctional officers union, nor are we likely to be as powerful as the NRA or the pharmaceutical industry - but we can be "players" in the system to the extent that we can protect our interests and successfully lobby to win our victories - and that is NOT the case at present folks. It isn't that expensive and we can do it. We aren't, but we can.
We have proof: The Arts Action PAC Bob Lynch at Americans for the Arts started just a few years ago is a prime example of what can be done, and that PAC is still in its earliest stages. The point is it exists and political action can be built on its foundation. It has already established itself in the halls of Washington DC and has begun to have impact on federal issues. It will only grow more powerful if we continue to support it. We must do the same thing at every level - every major city, every state should have an Arts PAC. It takes far less money than you might imagine to have access to elected officals and to be effective lobbyists. The power is in like minded people banning together as a coalition and having their contribution allied with the interests of a given field (like the arts). This kind of political alliance is far more effective than if you gave the same amount of money to a candidate as an individual. Now some people will be concerned that their contribution doesn't go to a candidate with whom they disagree on other matters but THAT kind of thinking is antithetical to the way things really work. Look, for example, I think I have almost nothing in common with Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee - nothing. And I am highly unlikely to vote for him. But I do contribute to the Arts Action PAC, and I think it entirely appropriate, should that PAC so determine, to give money to Mike Huckabee. Why? Because he supports the arts (perhaps the only declared presidential candidate to have a public pro stance on the arts), and THAT is the whole purpose of the Arts Action PAC. That's why I give my money to them; so they will find and support candidates who support the arts. Yes, "politics does make for strange bedfellows".
And let me say that the windfall line item allocation of $105 million in the Department of Education budget for arts education in this year's California budget will, without question, be under attack from any number of quarters in the future - groups and interests within and without the education community who will covet that pool of money and want to see those funds - or at least some portion thereof - moved from the arts to some other area. Groups and interests who will have political clout and lobbying machinery and who will use it to appropriate what the arts will now consider "our money" to "their" purposes. I guarantee that will happen. If the arts don't have some ongoing lobbying machinery far more sophisticated and expansive than what we presently have, then we are likely to be unable to protect that allocation and it will end up being a short-lived funding stream for us. No one should be surprised when that happens. Not if, but when. The system and the way it works isn't rocket science and it isn't a secret. Those who have power and use it, get more of what they want and need than do those who don't. Is that a revelation to anyone anymore????
If we want to be competitive with other special interest groups - this is exactly what we have to do. And we should ALL being doing it. Right now, not next week, or next month. And at ALL levels - from the city to the state levels, as well as at the federal levels. You won't find powerful special interest groups - unions or industries or the NRAs of the world supporting just federal or state or whatever level candidates. It's all part of one big whole, and we have to be involved at all levels.
And YES WE CAN, and NO IT ISN'T PROHIBILITIVELY EXPENSIVE or time consuming. Other special interests (and that's what we are folks - we are a special interest group - nothing less, nothing more) have done it, and so must we.
The nonprofit arts sector lies near the bottom of all special interest areas in its ability to effectively influence government decision making through its advocacy and lobbying efforts local, state or federal - short or long term. Arts advocacy in California characterized, as elsewhere in the country, by voluntary, part time staffing, participation by only a fraction of the organizations in the field, and wholly inadequate budgets and funding streams - is currently anemic at best. That isn't meant as a criticism of those dedicated and hard working people who are trying to organize the arts as advocates at the state and local levels, rather just a factual observation on the level of sophistication we have achieved in the area. The absence of a functional lobbying machinery available to the arts sector is a product of the field's failure to commit adequate resources to the effort (time, personnel, and funds); and the reluctance to make that commitment is, in large part, the result of an organizational cultural legacy that has relegated advocacy to a low priority, and has erroneously cast lobbying as outside the arts administrator's job description at best, and as improper or even illegal, at worst. Other nonprofit sectors are moving to establish real lobbying clout, threatening to leave the arts & culture sector further competitively disadvantaged.
At the heart of the problem in mounting successful lobbying efforts lie three basic principles that nonprofit arts organizations have yet to fully accept: First, advocacy must include lobbying - and lobbying cannot be an unfunded, part time, volunteer effort, with minimal field support; Second, sustainable advocacy and lobbying efforts must be organized from the bottom up, starting at the local level; and Third, advocacy and lobbying must be proactive and ongoing, not sporadically reactive to crises and changes in the political landscape. Successful lobbying is based on relationships with those in the authorizing environment and relationship cultivation takes time to develop and nurture, requiring ongoing, operational structures. Those structures cost money. Like other nonprofit fields, the California arts sector has adopted strategies based on the erroneous assumption that if it can only convincingly make the case for its value (economic, educational, civic), lawmakers will see the light and re-establish (or even increase) funding, and otherwise address the needs of the sector. That naïve, misinformed belief totally ignores political realities, and has relegated the sector to being a virtual powerless sideline witness to the decision-making directly affecting its future much to its detriment and loss.
The demand for government to address the pantheon of legitimate needs and causes (at all levels) far exceeds the resources to adequately satisfy those demands. The arts are one among many, many special interest groups; no more, no less. The sector must accept that fact and act, as do others, to vigorously and continuously lobby the decision makers. Participation in the lobbying must be by the entire sector; the weight of engaging in the effort must be borne across the full range of organizations, not just by the few. There is simply too much at stake to continue to merely dabble in efforts to influence government decision making.
As was pointed out at the CAC meeting earlier this year by one of the panelists: Rather than acting like a $160+ billion a year industry, the national nonprofit arts field has ceded the power of its economic clout by its failure to engage in serious advocacy and lobbying efforts in comparison to other special interest groups. Heavily dependent on, and in desperate need of, public funding support, the net effect of its failure to act to protect itself has been to position itself as powerless and politically impotent, with the proverbial result of having reaped what it has sown. That is the case here in California.
I am working on a pilot project to build - from the ground up - real world lobbying machinery in both urban/suburban and rural venues. I plan on doing as many advocacy / lobbying workshops around the country in the next two years as I can, and hope some of you might help me arrange (and host) those. And I intend to keep pushing for our field to join all those other special interest groups that have moved to build real political clout and power as a means to realize their missions. There is no reason the arts can't be highly effective lobbyists at the local, state and federal levels; no reason we can't be very successful at raising the funds ourselves to finance these efforts.
I hope you will all join me and the many, many others across the country who have for some time been involved in moving our field towards being true political lobbyists. The time is right for us to make our move.
For any of you that might be interested in learning more about my book, I would be happy to email you a packet of materials including (for readers of this blog only) discount flyers on the book and the Companion Workbook as well as a brief outline of the Advocacy Workshop I am offering. Just email me a reply to this message. And hey, I hope a lot of you will buy a copy for your organization's bookshelves, and share it with your staff and board members, but whether or not you are interested in my book or what I am doing, I hope you will be interested in the idea of the arts (or all nonprofits, really) developing more political clout to make sure WE have the same access to decision makers that the well heeled private sector has.
Have a great week.
Don't Quit!
Barry
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
May 15, 2007
Hi everyone.
"And the beat goes on........."
Welcome to another HESSENIUS GROUP
The participants:
Jodi Beznoska
Moy Eng
Shannon Daut
Nancy Glaze
Judy Weiner
Guests:
John Arroyo - Los Angeles Arts Commission
Rebecca Borden - Americans for the Arts
The topic: GENERATIONAL SUCCESSION
Download the INVOLVING YOUTH IN THE ARTS Report: http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/PerformingArts/Publications/YouthReport.htm
The principal barriers identified in the survey done for the Involving Youth in the Arts Report (i.e., - there is neither enough staff time to oversee, nor funds to support, specific programs designed to recruit the involvement of more young people -- whether as volunteers, interns, future staff, board members, as advocates, financial supporters or new audience members) have resulted in relegating the addressing of the generational succession issues in our sector as a back burner, not a high priority issue.
In the Report we tried to recommend specific actions that arts organizations could implement without great time or expense [i.e.: (1) put the topic on a board meeting agenda to at least discuss; (2) add somebody under the age of 30 (better yet under 25) to your board in the next six months; (3) figure out how to communicate more frequently and effectively with the next generation.]
What else can the sector do as a whole, and individual organizations do by themselves, to successively reach out to the younger cohort?? And what will be the big picture in this area (in your opinion) in the next two years??
JODI BEZNOSKA:
I initially began my comments by typing "as a member of the "younger" generation...", but then I stopped. I had to ask myself - is that true? In whose eyes am I "younger?" Initially I also thought of trying to divide my comments into two veins - younger audiences and younger staffing issues. But they can't be viewed separately. They should be viewed together. So the following thoughts apply to both younger audiences and younger management.
I think it's vital that, over the next two years, arts organizations focus on identification - who is the "younger" generation you are going after - and are you even relevant to them? Have you looked closely at what you do - and have you determined if you can tap into the hopes and dreams of a younger generation? And which younger generation? 18-24? 30-40? And then the biggest question of all - do you want to?
I ask that last question because if you take a close look at the organizational structures of most arts organizations - they are heavily staffed by people who are skilled and equipped to manage an older generation - donors, subscribers, etc. There are lots of people working on taking care of these heavily invested folks, and that's as it should be. But then you throw in the younger people: the ones who can't give thousands of dollars (but could give 50, and be a volunteer, and get their friends to sell tickets), and you have to ask; are we staffed to take care of these people? I would argue, in most cases, not yet.
So coming back to the recommendations made in the report, I think they are a terrific start - especially for organizations that have paid no attention to this issue. But the biggest thing I see missing in all of this is a strong mandate to strategically target a younger crowd. Is going after a younger generation a strategic CULTURAL priority of your organization? If it's not, I think it might be worth acknowledging this, and then deciding if it's worth it to change. Because we only have so many resources. What we shouldn't do is just add a couple of young folks to the board or the staff, and then expect them to lead the charge. How awful would it be to put a young person on a board, and then not listen to them? That's a sure road to burnout and disillusionment. If your organization has a culture committed to younger generations, then all of the wonderful ideas surfaced in the report - the mentoring, the professional development, the balance of life/work, the working with new technologies - those will come to the surface as necessary and vital tools.
NANCY GLAZE:
The Youth in the Arts Report come at a very good time. As the pressure to remain solvent increases as contributed income from corporations and foundations decreases, finding ways to refresh the leadership is very important. I believe this is necessary at the staff, board and patron level. I have always been a fan of internships and believe we can have a huge impact on the direction a young person pursues by providing challenging and meaningful leadership opportunities early... during the first few years of college for example. Youth philanthropy, whether as an intern at "grandma's foundation' or with a local community foundation is a great place to begin engaging young people in their local nonprofit community.
SHANNON DAUT:
My recommendation would be for arts organizations to move beyond placing young arts professionals into what I call a "generational silo." The recommendation Barry made of adding a young person to the board is a great example of the right way to involve young people and to provide them with the opportunity to serve as leaders for an organization. While I can understand the reasoning and benefit behind offering programs or initiatives that are for certain specific age groups, I find that these items can serve to further the "us" versus "them" mentality. If we truly seek to develop a functional cycle of generational succession in arts organizations, programs aimed at specific ages may backfire by creating age-based cohort groups that are not open to, say, those who may be of an even younger generation. As a young arts professional who is engaged in the field of emerging arts leaders, I take it as a personal mission that, when I am retiring, the field isn't facing this same issue. Programs are being developed right now to address issues related to my generation's entrance and growth in the arts field. If these do not continue to regenerate, then, when the Gen-X'ers are retiring, we'll be in the same boat as we are now! I personally strive to remain open with those who are younger than me and do not presume that they have limited capacity with regard to high level work or leadership. Recently, I have begun to have more interactions with people who are categorized as "Generation Y." I constantly check myself so that I am not making assumptions about who they are or how they operate.
The most affordable thing we can ALL do right now is to take a hard look at our preconceived notions of people in younger generations and create environments where they feel respected. Subsequently, we as a field need to listen to and genuinely value their voices and perspectives. Younger people have a lot of great insight into how the arts can advance and connect with new audiences. Let's think about putting aside the little voices inside of ourselves that say "we know better because we have more experience," and truly be open to new and innovative ways of approaching our work.
JUDY WEINER:
In an under-capitalized industry it is easy to make excuses. But if an issue becomes a real imperative, then it moves to a front burner. I believe that taking on this charge is a question of will. I waded into this issue in 2006 attempting to address two pressing issues (after talking about it for a year): the next generation of leadership and the absence of diverse and demographically representational advocacy campaigns.
I looked to students. College students are a fertile feeding ground for our industry. They have passion, commitment, and a can do attitude without being jaded by experience. We need to find ways to get them engaged. To make a long story short, I developed a partnership with the arts administration program at Teachers College, Columbia University and the Harlem Arts Alliance. We put together a credit bearing advocacy training course for graduate students, placing them in the Harlem community interviewing politicians, artists, arts organizations, meeting with community boards, reporting out to the Harlem community, and ultimately participating in Arts day in Albany. As a result, we had an advocacy day in Albany that was truly diverse (for the first time) and filled with students. Incidentally, I have a couple of students from the group who volunteered to help strengthen our 08 campaign.
Because of this experience, I am going to start a Young Professionals Council, initially comprised of a group of these Columbia student which of course we will grow. We are likely to put one of these students on the board, or at least use the Council as a pipeline. Hopefully, this Council will take on advocacy as their project, probably a pretty good bet because the passion and experience is already there. And not incidentally, we have already put several young professionals (30-34 yr olds) on our board and let me tell you the dynamic has changed! And a great change it is, more exciting, edgier and invigorating.
Perhaps it is a question of faith or a conviction that you can make something happen on the cheap. It worked. And one step is quickly leading to the next. It was not hard to figure out where to go next once we started down that road.
JOHN ARROYO:
The topic of generational succession is one that continues to inform the role of funders, nonprofit arts organizations, and local arts agencies working to sustain and encourage the leadership capacity of our arts ecology.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to recruit board members under the age of 25 or 30, I feel it would be helpful to have a central directory of leadership and board training programs specific to a certain area or region (local, state national). In Los Angeles, one such program is the Riordan Volunteer Leadership Development Program (RVLDP). Individuals interested in serving on a board apply to the program and if accepted, take a series of seminars, meet board members at local nonprofits, and eventually serve on the boards of organizations that meet their interests. The RVLDP trains a new group of board members twice a year, many of which serve at local arts organizations, and provides a dependable strategy and tool for recruiting new board members (especially those under 25 or 30).
Another recommendation would be to work with the public policy, public administration, or business schools at local universities. Many students currently studying the field may welcome this proactive opportunity to put implement their skills and knowledge in the topics of ethics, fiscal issues, marketing, or law.
For funders specifically, I would suggest inviting more individuals from this next generation category to participate as grant panelists. I myself have served on several and I have found it a wonderful opportunity to evaluate organizations from a different perspective, learn about the key factors that lead to successful grants, and network.
On the other hand, fundraising expectations or annual contributions may be a challenge or deterrent for the target demographic. Combining the rising cost of living (without a commensurate salary), I feel many would be hard pressed to contribute even the most minimum of fundraising responsibilities ($1,000 - $5,000). My recommendation is for organizations to revise their Bylaws to allot any annual contribution responsibilities to be optional for anyone 30 or under.
OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS
In the interest of paying off debt, starting families, buying property, or having competitive retirement plan options (any at all for some!), I do think that current arts administrators may be enticed to leave the nonprofit sector for the private sector or independent consulting during the next few years. The ongoing discussion of nonprofits to move away from their initial grassroots structure and into an adapted business model is interesting. Should the majority of organizations be pressed to follow suit, what incentives would a person have to work at nonprofit (working off a business model) over a traditional corporation? Something to think about.
REBECCA BORDEN:
Since 1999, Americans for the Arts has been actively involved in developing the next generation of arts leaders and is currently working on multiple fronts to cultivate opportunities for emerging professionals to see themselves as essential participants of the "arts workforce" people who work in and for the arts. More can be done to help young people see that careers in the arts are possible and that the arts, like the environment, are a lifestyle choice for them.
What Americans for the Arts is doing:
The Emerging Leader Network http://www.artsusa.org/services/emerging_leaders/default.asp is a prominent program of Americans for the Arts. This initiative is designed to engage young professionals by giving them a national forum to share their perspectives, success and challenges. The convention, website, listserv and peer-elected Emerging Leader Council are the communication vehicles that keep this network connected across the country. Locally, emerging leaders are encouraged to develop local networks that can tap into the national dialogue through creative conversations. Last year, there were 56 creative conversations in 26 states and PR many local networks now hold creative conversations year-round and they have become akin to a community's town hall meeting on art (click here to view a teaser trailer from 4Culture in Seattle WA). Based upon our track record with the Emerging Leader Network, the American Association of Museum has asked me to help mentor them as they start to get an Emerging Museum Professional forum off the ground.
In March 2007, Arts Advocacy Day drew over 100 students (grad and undergrad) to advocacy workshops and Capitol Hill meetings. Arts administration faculty increasingly see this event as a valuable educational and professional opportunity for their students. Many campuses sent teams of students to DC to learn the skills of arts advocacy; some, like Drexel University, even held their own student art auctions to raise funds to come to this national event. Several campus chapters of Student Advocates for the Arts continue to have high participation rates at Arts Advocacy Day. At night, the Emerging Leader Reception at Arts Advocacy Day attracted 75 young professionals to come and listen to inspiring remarks by an emerging lawmaker, Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT, aged 33).
Americans for the Arts practices what it preaches with its own Career Development Program http://www.artsusa.org/about_us/internships.asp that includes 3 semesters of 10-week Intern Program, a Summer Scholars Program, and a Career Fellows Program. The program offers undergrad and graduate students real world work opportunities as well as an insider's view of how a national arts organization works to advance the field. Americans for the Arts is currently redesigning its JobBank to make career and internship opportunities all around the country more accessible to job seekers.
What Americans for the Arts has learned:
Americans for the Arts remains committed to playing a leadership role in priming the leadership pipeline. This work is too central to the entire field to be taken for granted and the interest is more than there. About one-fifth of our membership base is made up people who are interested in emerging leader issues. There are over 400 members of the Emerging Leader listserv and the new Student listserv has about 250 members. Nearly 1000 people have registered for the Risk & Reward Annual Convention and 91 of them are self defined as emerging leaders so 10% of convention participants will be under 35 or have less than 5-years professional experience. One of the sessions in the Leadership Track, Technology Adoption in the Arts is a presentation by arts administration students at Carnegie Mellon University.
Americans for the Arts believes that intergenerational diversity is paramount to maintain in all its programs, operations and functions. In October 2006, the Board of Directors approved a Diversity Statement http://www.artsusa.org/about_us/diversity_statement.asp that includes age as one of its criteria. Members of the Board of Directors also include three emerging leaders, all under 35, one coming from the Emerging Leader Council. American for the Arts affirms its commitment to intergenerational diversity by showcasing an emerging lawmaker at the Arts Advocacy Day reception, honoring the recipient of the Young Artist Award at the National Arts Awards, cultivating Young Benefactor Network and working through the Arts & Business Council's Creativity Connection program to partner with the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization and the Young Presidents' Organization.
At Americans for the Arts we feel we are starting to see increased awareness in these initiatives. We no longer have to explain what an "emerging leader" is the way we had to several years ago. People get it and people get that this work is about and that it will always be a dimension of the conversation that all of us are having around how best to develop the next generation of arts leaders and participants.
BARRY:
Let me focus on two issues - one raised by Judy and one by John. First, as we noted in the Report, environmental organizations such as the Rainforest Action Network have very successfully recruited and managed a large bloc of young people to act as their grassroots advocates. In the arts we continue to place emphasis on our advocacy efforts in an attempt to try to win back - or protect - public funding and support for the field. Why have we not done more to create an army of young supporters, boosters, advocates, defenders to help us in these efforts? Aren't we missing a tremendous opportunity to tap into the idealism, passion, energy and ideas of a whole bloc of people? Why?
Second, what can we do regarding compensation to the people we recruit for our staffs? We aren't competitive with the private sector or even some other nonprofit sectors, and, not only does this hamper our recruitment efforts, it has already resulted in numerous mid-career leaders leaving our field just at the time we need them to begin to transition into vacated leadership positions, and, as John notes, we are likely to lose too many of the next generation even earlier in their careers. What can we offer to offset what we cannot offer? When will we address the pay issue and do something to more competitively compensate ourselves? Or is that simply never going to happen?
NANCY:
As a field, I believe we are chronically undercapitilized. If the vision of an organization is not acheivable and sustainable with the human and financial resources available, perhaps we need to ask the question..."are there too many arts organizations?"...gasp!. Difficult to talk about but given the explosion in the number of arts organizations over the past twenty years it may be a question worth asking.
SHANNON:
To follow up on Nancy's comment, I believe that in the coming years we'll probably start to see the "founder-driven" arts organizations fade away as the founders retire. And maybe that's not such a bad thing. More and more younger people are beginning to found their own organizations based on different models, and I doubt that the field can withstand (at least in a healthy way) an influx of new organizations along side the existing ones.
JODI:
John posed a very interesting question in his post: "Should the majority of organizations be pressed to (adapt a business model, rather than the more grassroots model), what incentives would a person have to work at nonprofit (working off a business model) over a traditional corporation?
I think I hear a bit of fear in this question - the fear that if we get too "corporate" we will lose our creativity and freedom. This is the age-old question - and it requires us to train our leaders to navigate these tricky waters.
But imagine getting to do what you love - and getting paid for it! That's the incentive, and it's huge. What would happen if the passion and creativity among young/emerging arts leaders were unleashed, if they had healthy and happy lives outside of work, if they truly could enjoy making a career in this field? I think the results would be remarkable.
Not all organizations can function in this way. In some cases, it's simply not possible, and the grassroots model is necessary. But there are a lot of organizations out there that are limping along, burning out staff and community supporters, and Nancy's point is very well taken. It all comes down to choices - if a new generation of arts leaders is demanding better pay and work/life balance, the field will need to deliver these things, or suffer the crisis of transitional leadership everyone is worried about.
To Barry's question about why we don't pursue a younger generation of arts advocates - I think we do, when we fight for arts education and arts participation for our youth. What we haven't figured out is how to translate that into advocacy. I notice it in my work - we work very hard to reach kids, and our traditional subscribers and ticket buyers, but we leave out the older teens and the 20 somethings, just when they are primed for a cause. It would be really exciting to have a national program of some kind that helps individual organizations form "young advocates" groups. If there already is one - my apologies - and I'd love to hear about it.
BARRY:
I think Nancy is right - there are too many arts organizations. Her observation is a little like pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes on, because for some time, it's been heresy to suggest that anything other than unbridled growth in our sector has been anything but positive. The fact is neither the funding streams available to us, nor the marketplace itself can support that growth and we are all paying a price for such expansion. We would do better to figure out ways to cooperate and consolidate, and we first need to shed ourselves of the notion that such talk is anti-creativity and counter to artistic expression.
I agree with Shannon that founder driven arts organizations (particularly those whose artistic vision is that of the founder) are likely to fall by the wayside as those founders retire from the field. And I think that new organizations - started by younger creative people - based on newer models - will be exciting to see. Who knows where that development will lead us.
I've never been a subscriber to the notion that the arts must avoid the danger of becoming too corporate for fear that they will drive away creative types and inhibit artistic expression. I think savvy business practice can be wed to open, creative expression, so I'm not too afraid that we run the risk of turning off the very people we seek to recruit. I think there are a lot of artistic, creative people who are also smart, business savvy, and likely to be successful entrepreneurs. I think it's kind of insulting to suggest that people who are creative and artistic are all lousy at business and have zero interest in it.
I also think there is nothing wrong with paying our people good wages. I think arts administration, if it is ever to be a viable career path, and compete equally for the best and the brightest, must offer pay packages that are market competitive. I think we have to start to understand and appreciate that we, like all business enterprises (and that's what we are), are talent driven. The people who run our organizations are our talent pool. If we want that pool to be first rate, we need to pay those people decent wages. And that likely means we need to re-evaluate our budget process and our spending priorities. For too long, we have emphasized our "programs" as our number one priority. We may have to re-examine that thinking and allocate a little more of our budgets to talent and a little less to the programs. That won't be easy - we will have to overcome the culture that says people who work in nonprofits shouldn't be paid much - they should do it for the love of the goal. Nonsense.
And while we are potentially recruiting young people as we fight to put the arts back into the schools K-12, we aren't recruiting, training, organizing and mentoring those and college kids to be our active grassroots advocates - not like the environmental movement is doing. And we should do that within the next two years -- locally, regionally, state by state, and nationally.
REBECCA:
One area that could help extrapolate the work from this report is a greater appreciation for the ways that young people vary across contexts and settings. For instance, it is important to consider the real age difference between an 18 year old and a 30 year old. To a young adult, that span represents nearly _one-third_ of their total lifespan. More importantly, the challenges a person 18 or 20 faces are fundamentally different from those that a 24-26 year old faces, and yet they are still only a few years apart; but they are not the same. That's my point. As a former high school teacher and college professor and now as coordinator of the Emerging Leader Network, I know these distinctions really well.
One of the trends I see consistently with young people is a deep and passionate interest in finding meaning and direction in their lives. They, like all of us, are looking for grounding. I like to refer as many people as I can to Patricia Hersch's (1999) "A Tribe Apart" because it illustrates how disconnected teens are these days and how much they want to be seen and noticed and taken seriously. I find it ironic that we live in an era of such abundance, with such a high quality of life, and yet people feel they have "so little". Why? Esterbrook (2004) investigates this dilemma in "The Progress Paradox" and he concludes that we have too many choices. I would argue the arts are the best remedy to cure both disconnectedness and meaninglessness. If we can be better at communicating to young people how the arts endow a sense of community, a sense of agency, a sense of wonder, a sense of relevancy, we will be imprinting young people not only with the life skills to thrive but the intrapersonal skills necessary to make sense of their career journey along the way.
JOHN:
I believe that one of reasons why environmental organizations have been more successful in attracting new generations is because they have so much current (and unfortunately dismal) research about our declining environmental health to mobilize masses. These days when you open the newspaper or digest information from the media, you'd be hard pressed to not see or hear the words global warming, environment, green or sustainable. Its something that affects everyone, regardless of any factor. This has been on my mind and upon discussing it with non-arts patrons or administrators, the majority feel that when you break it down, if we don't work to protect our environment and have clean air to breathe, will it matter if we have arts experiences or cultural institutions? What can be done to elevate the critical benefits and importance of the arts?
Given the lack of funding and support for arts organizations (when compared to other sectors), our field also has very alarming statistics to report. Perhaps it is the lack of national cultural policy that leads people to believe that mobilizing and advocating for the arts isn't important or critical? As a member of the Americans for the Arts Emerging Leaders Council, an arts administrator, and arts patron, I know that the arts in America are fortunate to have the advocacy and support from Americans for the Arts, nonetheless local or regional advocacy efforts are equally just as crucial. I believe that introducing our target generation to arts advocacy early in their careers would be a great (and affordable) step in the right direction.
[The following is text adapted from a recent posting I made in response to a similar advocacy and the next generation thread on the Americans for the Arts Emerging Leaders Listserv]:
Here in Los Angeles County we are lucky to have a supportive Board of Supervisors that provide over $530,000 every year undergraduate students residing in and/or attending college within Los Angeles County. The internships are full-time and paid for 10 weeks during the summer. Now in its eight year, we've hosted approximately over 130 interns at 90 different performing arts and literary arts nonprofits, presenting institutions, and municipal art departments every summer!. The program is a joint program with the Getty Foundation's Multicultural Undergraduate Program which also provides a similar number of internships (focusing on the visual arts and exhibitioner spaces). Combined, both programs make up the largest arts internship program in the country! We've seen great success in the program providing a needed next-generation bridge to the field. Not to mention, the learning experience has proven to be invaluable both for the interns and the organizations which host them.
Apart from the actual internship, each student is assigned to smaller groups (made up of 10 -12 interns) and led by a Discussion Leader (artist and/or arts administrator). Discussion Leader's provide an additional layer of mentorship and meet with their interns to discuss different topics and assess career opportunities, including the role of advocacy. With the official launch of LA's new ARTS FOR LA (local arts advocacy group), last year we introduced the topic of advocacy during our Arts Congress event. This year we'll also be hosting the topic, focusing on arts advocacy in arts education.
In the time we've hosted the program, we have had many other municipalities express an interest in the program, but unfortunately we haven't seen the model replicated elsewhere in the country. Over 300 students working in arts administration every summer is definitely a good thing! Many of them have progressed to take on full-time positions at their internship location or at similar arts nonprofits (myself included)!
For more information, please visit:
http://www.lacountyarts.org/internship.html
BARRY:
Thank you to all this week's participants. I hope we can continue this dialogue about how we can meet the challenges of generational succession. There is no more important issue facing us.
Have a great week.
Don't Quit.
Barry
"And the beat goes on........."
Welcome to another HESSENIUS GROUP
The participants:
Jodi Beznoska
Moy Eng
Shannon Daut
Nancy Glaze
Judy Weiner
Guests:
John Arroyo - Los Angeles Arts Commission
Rebecca Borden - Americans for the Arts
The topic: GENERATIONAL SUCCESSION
Download the INVOLVING YOUTH IN THE ARTS Report: http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/PerformingArts/Publications/YouthReport.htm
The principal barriers identified in the survey done for the Involving Youth in the Arts Report (i.e., - there is neither enough staff time to oversee, nor funds to support, specific programs designed to recruit the involvement of more young people -- whether as volunteers, interns, future staff, board members, as advocates, financial supporters or new audience members) have resulted in relegating the addressing of the generational succession issues in our sector as a back burner, not a high priority issue.
In the Report we tried to recommend specific actions that arts organizations could implement without great time or expense [i.e.: (1) put the topic on a board meeting agenda to at least discuss; (2) add somebody under the age of 30 (better yet under 25) to your board in the next six months; (3) figure out how to communicate more frequently and effectively with the next generation.]
What else can the sector do as a whole, and individual organizations do by themselves, to successively reach out to the younger cohort?? And what will be the big picture in this area (in your opinion) in the next two years??
JODI BEZNOSKA:
I initially began my comments by typing "as a member of the "younger" generation...", but then I stopped. I had to ask myself - is that true? In whose eyes am I "younger?" Initially I also thought of trying to divide my comments into two veins - younger audiences and younger staffing issues. But they can't be viewed separately. They should be viewed together. So the following thoughts apply to both younger audiences and younger management.
I think it's vital that, over the next two years, arts organizations focus on identification - who is the "younger" generation you are going after - and are you even relevant to them? Have you looked closely at what you do - and have you determined if you can tap into the hopes and dreams of a younger generation? And which younger generation? 18-24? 30-40? And then the biggest question of all - do you want to?
I ask that last question because if you take a close look at the organizational structures of most arts organizations - they are heavily staffed by people who are skilled and equipped to manage an older generation - donors, subscribers, etc. There are lots of people working on taking care of these heavily invested folks, and that's as it should be. But then you throw in the younger people: the ones who can't give thousands of dollars (but could give 50, and be a volunteer, and get their friends to sell tickets), and you have to ask; are we staffed to take care of these people? I would argue, in most cases, not yet.
So coming back to the recommendations made in the report, I think they are a terrific start - especially for organizations that have paid no attention to this issue. But the biggest thing I see missing in all of this is a strong mandate to strategically target a younger crowd. Is going after a younger generation a strategic CULTURAL priority of your organization? If it's not, I think it might be worth acknowledging this, and then deciding if it's worth it to change. Because we only have so many resources. What we shouldn't do is just add a couple of young folks to the board or the staff, and then expect them to lead the charge. How awful would it be to put a young person on a board, and then not listen to them? That's a sure road to burnout and disillusionment. If your organization has a culture committed to younger generations, then all of the wonderful ideas surfaced in the report - the mentoring, the professional development, the balance of life/work, the working with new technologies - those will come to the surface as necessary and vital tools.
NANCY GLAZE:
The Youth in the Arts Report come at a very good time. As the pressure to remain solvent increases as contributed income from corporations and foundations decreases, finding ways to refresh the leadership is very important. I believe this is necessary at the staff, board and patron level. I have always been a fan of internships and believe we can have a huge impact on the direction a young person pursues by providing challenging and meaningful leadership opportunities early... during the first few years of college for example. Youth philanthropy, whether as an intern at "grandma's foundation' or with a local community foundation is a great place to begin engaging young people in their local nonprofit community.
SHANNON DAUT:
My recommendation would be for arts organizations to move beyond placing young arts professionals into what I call a "generational silo." The recommendation Barry made of adding a young person to the board is a great example of the right way to involve young people and to provide them with the opportunity to serve as leaders for an organization. While I can understand the reasoning and benefit behind offering programs or initiatives that are for certain specific age groups, I find that these items can serve to further the "us" versus "them" mentality. If we truly seek to develop a functional cycle of generational succession in arts organizations, programs aimed at specific ages may backfire by creating age-based cohort groups that are not open to, say, those who may be of an even younger generation. As a young arts professional who is engaged in the field of emerging arts leaders, I take it as a personal mission that, when I am retiring, the field isn't facing this same issue. Programs are being developed right now to address issues related to my generation's entrance and growth in the arts field. If these do not continue to regenerate, then, when the Gen-X'ers are retiring, we'll be in the same boat as we are now! I personally strive to remain open with those who are younger than me and do not presume that they have limited capacity with regard to high level work or leadership. Recently, I have begun to have more interactions with people who are categorized as "Generation Y." I constantly check myself so that I am not making assumptions about who they are or how they operate.
The most affordable thing we can ALL do right now is to take a hard look at our preconceived notions of people in younger generations and create environments where they feel respected. Subsequently, we as a field need to listen to and genuinely value their voices and perspectives. Younger people have a lot of great insight into how the arts can advance and connect with new audiences. Let's think about putting aside the little voices inside of ourselves that say "we know better because we have more experience," and truly be open to new and innovative ways of approaching our work.
JUDY WEINER:
In an under-capitalized industry it is easy to make excuses. But if an issue becomes a real imperative, then it moves to a front burner. I believe that taking on this charge is a question of will. I waded into this issue in 2006 attempting to address two pressing issues (after talking about it for a year): the next generation of leadership and the absence of diverse and demographically representational advocacy campaigns.
I looked to students. College students are a fertile feeding ground for our industry. They have passion, commitment, and a can do attitude without being jaded by experience. We need to find ways to get them engaged. To make a long story short, I developed a partnership with the arts administration program at Teachers College, Columbia University and the Harlem Arts Alliance. We put together a credit bearing advocacy training course for graduate students, placing them in the Harlem community interviewing politicians, artists, arts organizations, meeting with community boards, reporting out to the Harlem community, and ultimately participating in Arts day in Albany. As a result, we had an advocacy day in Albany that was truly diverse (for the first time) and filled with students. Incidentally, I have a couple of students from the group who volunteered to help strengthen our 08 campaign.
Because of this experience, I am going to start a Young Professionals Council, initially comprised of a group of these Columbia student which of course we will grow. We are likely to put one of these students on the board, or at least use the Council as a pipeline. Hopefully, this Council will take on advocacy as their project, probably a pretty good bet because the passion and experience is already there. And not incidentally, we have already put several young professionals (30-34 yr olds) on our board and let me tell you the dynamic has changed! And a great change it is, more exciting, edgier and invigorating.
Perhaps it is a question of faith or a conviction that you can make something happen on the cheap. It worked. And one step is quickly leading to the next. It was not hard to figure out where to go next once we started down that road.
JOHN ARROYO:
The topic of generational succession is one that continues to inform the role of funders, nonprofit arts organizations, and local arts agencies working to sustain and encourage the leadership capacity of our arts ecology.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to recruit board members under the age of 25 or 30, I feel it would be helpful to have a central directory of leadership and board training programs specific to a certain area or region (local, state national). In Los Angeles, one such program is the Riordan Volunteer Leadership Development Program (RVLDP). Individuals interested in serving on a board apply to the program and if accepted, take a series of seminars, meet board members at local nonprofits, and eventually serve on the boards of organizations that meet their interests. The RVLDP trains a new group of board members twice a year, many of which serve at local arts organizations, and provides a dependable strategy and tool for recruiting new board members (especially those under 25 or 30).
Another recommendation would be to work with the public policy, public administration, or business schools at local universities. Many students currently studying the field may welcome this proactive opportunity to put implement their skills and knowledge in the topics of ethics, fiscal issues, marketing, or law.
For funders specifically, I would suggest inviting more individuals from this next generation category to participate as grant panelists. I myself have served on several and I have found it a wonderful opportunity to evaluate organizations from a different perspective, learn about the key factors that lead to successful grants, and network.
On the other hand, fundraising expectations or annual contributions may be a challenge or deterrent for the target demographic. Combining the rising cost of living (without a commensurate salary), I feel many would be hard pressed to contribute even the most minimum of fundraising responsibilities ($1,000 - $5,000). My recommendation is for organizations to revise their Bylaws to allot any annual contribution responsibilities to be optional for anyone 30 or under.
OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS
In the interest of paying off debt, starting families, buying property, or having competitive retirement plan options (any at all for some!), I do think that current arts administrators may be enticed to leave the nonprofit sector for the private sector or independent consulting during the next few years. The ongoing discussion of nonprofits to move away from their initial grassroots structure and into an adapted business model is interesting. Should the majority of organizations be pressed to follow suit, what incentives would a person have to work at nonprofit (working off a business model) over a traditional corporation? Something to think about.
REBECCA BORDEN:
Since 1999, Americans for the Arts has been actively involved in developing the next generation of arts leaders and is currently working on multiple fronts to cultivate opportunities for emerging professionals to see themselves as essential participants of the "arts workforce" people who work in and for the arts. More can be done to help young people see that careers in the arts are possible and that the arts, like the environment, are a lifestyle choice for them.
What Americans for the Arts is doing:
The Emerging Leader Network http://www.artsusa.org/services/emerging_leaders/default.asp is a prominent program of Americans for the Arts. This initiative is designed to engage young professionals by giving them a national forum to share their perspectives, success and challenges. The convention, website, listserv and peer-elected Emerging Leader Council are the communication vehicles that keep this network connected across the country. Locally, emerging leaders are encouraged to develop local networks that can tap into the national dialogue through creative conversations. Last year, there were 56 creative conversations in 26 states and PR many local networks now hold creative conversations year-round and they have become akin to a community's town hall meeting on art (click here to view a teaser trailer from 4Culture in Seattle WA). Based upon our track record with the Emerging Leader Network, the American Association of Museum has asked me to help mentor them as they start to get an Emerging Museum Professional forum off the ground.
In March 2007, Arts Advocacy Day drew over 100 students (grad and undergrad) to advocacy workshops and Capitol Hill meetings. Arts administration faculty increasingly see this event as a valuable educational and professional opportunity for their students. Many campuses sent teams of students to DC to learn the skills of arts advocacy; some, like Drexel University, even held their own student art auctions to raise funds to come to this national event. Several campus chapters of Student Advocates for the Arts continue to have high participation rates at Arts Advocacy Day. At night, the Emerging Leader Reception at Arts Advocacy Day attracted 75 young professionals to come and listen to inspiring remarks by an emerging lawmaker, Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT, aged 33).
Americans for the Arts practices what it preaches with its own Career Development Program http://www.artsusa.org/about_us/internships.asp that includes 3 semesters of 10-week Intern Program, a Summer Scholars Program, and a Career Fellows Program. The program offers undergrad and graduate students real world work opportunities as well as an insider's view of how a national arts organization works to advance the field. Americans for the Arts is currently redesigning its JobBank to make career and internship opportunities all around the country more accessible to job seekers.
What Americans for the Arts has learned:
Americans for the Arts remains committed to playing a leadership role in priming the leadership pipeline. This work is too central to the entire field to be taken for granted and the interest is more than there. About one-fifth of our membership base is made up people who are interested in emerging leader issues. There are over 400 members of the Emerging Leader listserv and the new Student listserv has about 250 members. Nearly 1000 people have registered for the Risk & Reward Annual Convention and 91 of them are self defined as emerging leaders so 10% of convention participants will be under 35 or have less than 5-years professional experience. One of the sessions in the Leadership Track, Technology Adoption in the Arts is a presentation by arts administration students at Carnegie Mellon University.
Americans for the Arts believes that intergenerational diversity is paramount to maintain in all its programs, operations and functions. In October 2006, the Board of Directors approved a Diversity Statement http://www.artsusa.org/about_us/diversity_statement.asp that includes age as one of its criteria. Members of the Board of Directors also include three emerging leaders, all under 35, one coming from the Emerging Leader Council. American for the Arts affirms its commitment to intergenerational diversity by showcasing an emerging lawmaker at the Arts Advocacy Day reception, honoring the recipient of the Young Artist Award at the National Arts Awards, cultivating Young Benefactor Network and working through the Arts & Business Council's Creativity Connection program to partner with the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization and the Young Presidents' Organization.
At Americans for the Arts we feel we are starting to see increased awareness in these initiatives. We no longer have to explain what an "emerging leader" is the way we had to several years ago. People get it and people get that this work is about and that it will always be a dimension of the conversation that all of us are having around how best to develop the next generation of arts leaders and participants.
BARRY:
Let me focus on two issues - one raised by Judy and one by John. First, as we noted in the Report, environmental organizations such as the Rainforest Action Network have very successfully recruited and managed a large bloc of young people to act as their grassroots advocates. In the arts we continue to place emphasis on our advocacy efforts in an attempt to try to win back - or protect - public funding and support for the field. Why have we not done more to create an army of young supporters, boosters, advocates, defenders to help us in these efforts? Aren't we missing a tremendous opportunity to tap into the idealism, passion, energy and ideas of a whole bloc of people? Why?
Second, what can we do regarding compensation to the people we recruit for our staffs? We aren't competitive with the private sector or even some other nonprofit sectors, and, not only does this hamper our recruitment efforts, it has already resulted in numerous mid-career leaders leaving our field just at the time we need them to begin to transition into vacated leadership positions, and, as John notes, we are likely to lose too many of the next generation even earlier in their careers. What can we offer to offset what we cannot offer? When will we address the pay issue and do something to more competitively compensate ourselves? Or is that simply never going to happen?
NANCY:
As a field, I believe we are chronically undercapitilized. If the vision of an organization is not acheivable and sustainable with the human and financial resources available, perhaps we need to ask the question..."are there too many arts organizations?"...gasp!. Difficult to talk about but given the explosion in the number of arts organizations over the past twenty years it may be a question worth asking.
SHANNON:
To follow up on Nancy's comment, I believe that in the coming years we'll probably start to see the "founder-driven" arts organizations fade away as the founders retire. And maybe that's not such a bad thing. More and more younger people are beginning to found their own organizations based on different models, and I doubt that the field can withstand (at least in a healthy way) an influx of new organizations along side the existing ones.
JODI:
John posed a very interesting question in his post: "Should the majority of organizations be pressed to (adapt a business model, rather than the more grassroots model), what incentives would a person have to work at nonprofit (working off a business model) over a traditional corporation?
I think I hear a bit of fear in this question - the fear that if we get too "corporate" we will lose our creativity and freedom. This is the age-old question - and it requires us to train our leaders to navigate these tricky waters.
But imagine getting to do what you love - and getting paid for it! That's the incentive, and it's huge. What would happen if the passion and creativity among young/emerging arts leaders were unleashed, if they had healthy and happy lives outside of work, if they truly could enjoy making a career in this field? I think the results would be remarkable.
Not all organizations can function in this way. In some cases, it's simply not possible, and the grassroots model is necessary. But there are a lot of organizations out there that are limping along, burning out staff and community supporters, and Nancy's point is very well taken. It all comes down to choices - if a new generation of arts leaders is demanding better pay and work/life balance, the field will need to deliver these things, or suffer the crisis of transitional leadership everyone is worried about.
To Barry's question about why we don't pursue a younger generation of arts advocates - I think we do, when we fight for arts education and arts participation for our youth. What we haven't figured out is how to translate that into advocacy. I notice it in my work - we work very hard to reach kids, and our traditional subscribers and ticket buyers, but we leave out the older teens and the 20 somethings, just when they are primed for a cause. It would be really exciting to have a national program of some kind that helps individual organizations form "young advocates" groups. If there already is one - my apologies - and I'd love to hear about it.
BARRY:
I think Nancy is right - there are too many arts organizations. Her observation is a little like pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes on, because for some time, it's been heresy to suggest that anything other than unbridled growth in our sector has been anything but positive. The fact is neither the funding streams available to us, nor the marketplace itself can support that growth and we are all paying a price for such expansion. We would do better to figure out ways to cooperate and consolidate, and we first need to shed ourselves of the notion that such talk is anti-creativity and counter to artistic expression.
I agree with Shannon that founder driven arts organizations (particularly those whose artistic vision is that of the founder) are likely to fall by the wayside as those founders retire from the field. And I think that new organizations - started by younger creative people - based on newer models - will be exciting to see. Who knows where that development will lead us.
I've never been a subscriber to the notion that the arts must avoid the danger of becoming too corporate for fear that they will drive away creative types and inhibit artistic expression. I think savvy business practice can be wed to open, creative expression, so I'm not too afraid that we run the risk of turning off the very people we seek to recruit. I think there are a lot of artistic, creative people who are also smart, business savvy, and likely to be successful entrepreneurs. I think it's kind of insulting to suggest that people who are creative and artistic are all lousy at business and have zero interest in it.
I also think there is nothing wrong with paying our people good wages. I think arts administration, if it is ever to be a viable career path, and compete equally for the best and the brightest, must offer pay packages that are market competitive. I think we have to start to understand and appreciate that we, like all business enterprises (and that's what we are), are talent driven. The people who run our organizations are our talent pool. If we want that pool to be first rate, we need to pay those people decent wages. And that likely means we need to re-evaluate our budget process and our spending priorities. For too long, we have emphasized our "programs" as our number one priority. We may have to re-examine that thinking and allocate a little more of our budgets to talent and a little less to the programs. That won't be easy - we will have to overcome the culture that says people who work in nonprofits shouldn't be paid much - they should do it for the love of the goal. Nonsense.
And while we are potentially recruiting young people as we fight to put the arts back into the schools K-12, we aren't recruiting, training, organizing and mentoring those and college kids to be our active grassroots advocates - not like the environmental movement is doing. And we should do that within the next two years -- locally, regionally, state by state, and nationally.
REBECCA:
One area that could help extrapolate the work from this report is a greater appreciation for the ways that young people vary across contexts and settings. For instance, it is important to consider the real age difference between an 18 year old and a 30 year old. To a young adult, that span represents nearly _one-third_ of their total lifespan. More importantly, the challenges a person 18 or 20 faces are fundamentally different from those that a 24-26 year old faces, and yet they are still only a few years apart; but they are not the same. That's my point. As a former high school teacher and college professor and now as coordinator of the Emerging Leader Network, I know these distinctions really well.
One of the trends I see consistently with young people is a deep and passionate interest in finding meaning and direction in their lives. They, like all of us, are looking for grounding. I like to refer as many people as I can to Patricia Hersch's (1999) "A Tribe Apart" because it illustrates how disconnected teens are these days and how much they want to be seen and noticed and taken seriously. I find it ironic that we live in an era of such abundance, with such a high quality of life, and yet people feel they have "so little". Why? Esterbrook (2004) investigates this dilemma in "The Progress Paradox" and he concludes that we have too many choices. I would argue the arts are the best remedy to cure both disconnectedness and meaninglessness. If we can be better at communicating to young people how the arts endow a sense of community, a sense of agency, a sense of wonder, a sense of relevancy, we will be imprinting young people not only with the life skills to thrive but the intrapersonal skills necessary to make sense of their career journey along the way.
JOHN:
I believe that one of reasons why environmental organizations have been more successful in attracting new generations is because they have so much current (and unfortunately dismal) research about our declining environmental health to mobilize masses. These days when you open the newspaper or digest information from the media, you'd be hard pressed to not see or hear the words global warming, environment, green or sustainable. Its something that affects everyone, regardless of any factor. This has been on my mind and upon discussing it with non-arts patrons or administrators, the majority feel that when you break it down, if we don't work to protect our environment and have clean air to breathe, will it matter if we have arts experiences or cultural institutions? What can be done to elevate the critical benefits and importance of the arts?
Given the lack of funding and support for arts organizations (when compared to other sectors), our field also has very alarming statistics to report. Perhaps it is the lack of national cultural policy that leads people to believe that mobilizing and advocating for the arts isn't important or critical? As a member of the Americans for the Arts Emerging Leaders Council, an arts administrator, and arts patron, I know that the arts in America are fortunate to have the advocacy and support from Americans for the Arts, nonetheless local or regional advocacy efforts are equally just as crucial. I believe that introducing our target generation to arts advocacy early in their careers would be a great (and affordable) step in the right direction.
[The following is text adapted from a recent posting I made in response to a similar advocacy and the next generation thread on the Americans for the Arts Emerging Leaders Listserv]:
Here in Los Angeles County we are lucky to have a supportive Board of Supervisors that provide over $530,000 every year undergraduate students residing in and/or attending college within Los Angeles County. The internships are full-time and paid for 10 weeks during the summer. Now in its eight year, we've hosted approximately over 130 interns at 90 different performing arts and literary arts nonprofits, presenting institutions, and municipal art departments every summer!. The program is a joint program with the Getty Foundation's Multicultural Undergraduate Program which also provides a similar number of internships (focusing on the visual arts and exhibitioner spaces). Combined, both programs make up the largest arts internship program in the country! We've seen great success in the program providing a needed next-generation bridge to the field. Not to mention, the learning experience has proven to be invaluable both for the interns and the organizations which host them.
Apart from the actual internship, each student is assigned to smaller groups (made up of 10 -12 interns) and led by a Discussion Leader (artist and/or arts administrator). Discussion Leader's provide an additional layer of mentorship and meet with their interns to discuss different topics and assess career opportunities, including the role of advocacy. With the official launch of LA's new ARTS FOR LA (local arts advocacy group), last year we introduced the topic of advocacy during our Arts Congress event. This year we'll also be hosting the topic, focusing on arts advocacy in arts education.
In the time we've hosted the program, we have had many other municipalities express an interest in the program, but unfortunately we haven't seen the model replicated elsewhere in the country. Over 300 students working in arts administration every summer is definitely a good thing! Many of them have progressed to take on full-time positions at their internship location or at similar arts nonprofits (myself included)!
For more information, please visit:
http://www.lacountyarts.org/internship.html
BARRY:
Thank you to all this week's participants. I hope we can continue this dialogue about how we can meet the challenges of generational succession. There is no more important issue facing us.
Have a great week.
Don't Quit.
Barry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
