Leveling the Playing Field

Good morning.
“And the beat goes on...........................”

There has been much discussion this year about equity - particularly in funding support for arts organizations and in access to services.  It is no secret that a disproportionately larger percentage share of funding has for a long time gone to the larger, bigger budget, major cultural organizations across the country.  That those organizations are predominantly euro-centric has raised questions of diversity and fundamental fairness. While shifting demographics continue to accelerate the change in population dynamics and portend for the future changes in where the centers of decision making will lie, and while that landscape will predictably change in time, as 2013 approaches, the playing field continues to favor the older guard pretty much across the board.  Despite all our attempts to deal with it, inequity still exists.

Some of that advantage is attributable to a long and vaulted history of the more favored organizations producing excellent product.  Having done it longer, they are more experienced and have learned over time how to not only achieve excellence in programming, but function as more efficient and effective managers and administrators. Some of it is due to their audiences themselves in a better position to both be an audience and to support the arts organizations that cater to them.   Larger budgets, of course, allow for staffing and attention being paid to details that the smaller, poorer arts organizations can only dream of with envy.  Most of what we classify as major cultural institutions - symphonies, operas, museums, theatre groups, ballet companies - all got bigger because they did things right.  Having worked hard to achieve it, they deserve their success, and that success has benefited the arts on the local and national stages.  But we need to remember that they were able to do things right because they got the lion's share of the available support.

A price was paid for that, for the smaller, newer and the multicultural arts organizations rarely got treated the same.  And their audiences and their supporters were not as able to nurture their existence.

The current tough economic climate hits all our organizations.  It is harder for all to steer a course through the economic minefields, to successfully raise funds and reach financial stability, and to address the daunting challenges of changing audiences and philanthropic giving.

Is this an issue that ought to be further addressed?  Haven't we dealt with it already, and for some time? While I know of no research or data that confirms, let alone measures the extent, that a segment of the arts has suffered because of the playing field favoring some over others, it seems clear to me that, on its face, the anecdotal evidence that there has been, and continues to be, an inequity, is overwhelming and universal.   It is difficult to imagine a convincing argument to the contrary.

For the future, the demographics will eventually favor those multicultural groups once given the short end of the stick.  But for now, the questions arise as to what we should do: (1) should we not try to (finally) do something (more) that will level the playing field, so that those arts organizations in the corners of the field that have for a long time been outside looking in, are, to the extent that is possible, given a chance to grow, expand and thrive on at least a more favorable basis then they have in the past (on a "competitive" level)?; and (2) how can we best create that more level playing field for them, while at the same time not abandoning that which has existed for a long time, nor somehow adopting a reverse unleveling of the playing field by merely favoring a new cohort?

What are we talking about when we reference an unequal playing field?  Here’s a small example:  major organizations have budgets that allow them to provide for at least some professional development / skills training for their managers (senior to middle, and in some cases entry level.  Not that they all avail themselves of the option, but most could if they so desired).  Most smaller, younger, organizations, including many of the multicultural organizations, simply do not have the funds in their budgets to allow them to similarly provide that support to their staffs.  While there are foundation and government programs that recognize the need and offer some specific subsidies, they are not universal, and while some benefit, many others do not (and though I do not know for sure, I suspect much of the funding of many of those programs goes to the bigger cultural organizations anyway). Moreover, more funding means you can hire more experienced people.  Staffs with training options, and better salaries are better positioned to effectively and successfully manage their organizations.  So the rich seem to, if not get richer, stay rich anyway. That is just one tiny example of how the playing field has not been level.

Are we talking about some kind of “affirmative action” or something else?  Is there anything inherently unfair or wrong to try at this point to make up for past inequities by redirecting some of our energies, focus and funds in a campaign directly designed to increase the opportunities for all the arts organizations to survive - focusing specifically on those that have toiled without?  That was, I think, the underlying assumption and justification for a lot of multicultural specific programs we have launched over the past three or four decades.  When I was at the California Arts Council we had several programs that addressed multicultural needs.  I didn’t start those programs; they existed before I got there.  They were well received and succeeded in some ways to level the field in California.  When I first lobbied the legislature for more money, I got an additional two million dollars, with the caveat that the money would be used to address the needs of the state’s various multicultural communities.  Such programs do exist all over the country.  Many have been at the least somewhat successful over time in leveling the playing field.  Yet, when the dollars started to dry up, many of these programs were the ones that went by the wayside.  And while these were, and are still, exemplary programs - they were never universal, and even now the playing field still remains unequal.  The work was started, but not finished.  That is the challenge.

Obviously there are insufficient funds to provide all things to all organizations.  Reality dictates that there is always some degree of inequality.  Some organizations will get more, some less.  Some may deserve more, others less.  The issue isn’t absolute equality for everyone.  The issue is whether there is equity in the access of all to the pie.  Does the system favor one group over others in its provision to them of benefits that makes it easier for them to succeed?  Whether intentionally, or unintentionally - it doesn't matter.   If the playing field isn’t level, then the danger is the existence of unequal, and unfair advantages for some, that are not available to others.  Without that access, you remain a ‘have-not’.

It isn't just a matter of a new program, nor good intentions.  There are systemic obstacles to leveling the playing field for the ‘have-nots’ - protocols and procedures, rules and regulations, habits and legacies, policies and customs that perpetuate the inequities.   Here are four examples: (i)  protocols and rules that ban organizations with less than two, three, or four years existence from applying for grants (ostensibly and arguably to insure that a grantee will be fiscally responsible and have the capacity to meet its stated intent - but with the net effect that it is axiomatically more difficult to launch new efforts by new organizations within specific communities); (ii) in some instances, lack of a ban of having foundation or government board members also sitting on the boards of major cultural institution grantees (and even where that conflict of interest is resolved by the Board member abstaining from voting, or the ban is in place, the camaraderie of the “good old boy” network insures that everyone’s pet project is taken care of - that is simply how it works), and even where there is no such potential conflict of interest, more of the decision makers come from, or have deep ties to and relationships with, the groups that get most of the benefits;  (iii) inadequate access to limited facilities by the legacy of a historical priority system;  (iv) rules that prohibit grants to organizations more frequently than one every X number of years or back to back grants (again on its face, seemingly designed to actually level the playing field, but the application does the opposite because the amount of the grants going to the “haves” is disproportionately larger than to the “have nots” and so the ban impacts the big guys less).   All of that worked - though subtlety - (and continues in many cases to work) to keep the field from being level.  It isn’t consciously conspiratorial, but it is now built into the fabric of how we do things.  We need to look at it all carefully and fix what is broken.

Blame is not the issue.  Nor is the past.  Justification, rationalization, complaints and grievances - none of that really matters.  The issue is where do we go from here.  And please note that I am not suggesting that in all instances the inequity is so large as to be unconscionable, rather just that the inequities do exist, are pervasive, and need to be addressed.

If you want to talk about doing something about inequity - at least in this one sphere, I  think what is needed is some major, overarching commitment of all the sector’s funders - government and private - and the rest of us -  to work towards a level playing field - however that might ultimately be defined, and however it might be best manifested at a local level.  We need, in my opinion, a LINC type decade long program, a PEW DATA level project (but on an even bigger scale) that will have as its stated objective to make sure that the “have nots”  in our sector at least have more access to moving to become “haves”.  A leveling of the playing field at least in access to the tools and assets that will allow all organizations equal opportunity to be viable arts providers and makers.   Obviously, that kind of effort will take different forms and different directions across different communities.  No cookie cutter approach will likely be possible or even desirable.

And yes, as alluded to above, there are already scores of programs already in existence that seek to do just that.  And many other programs like GIA’s Capitalization project or even the NEA's Creative Placemaking efforts - the net effect of which would be to help level the playing field by coming at it from a different direction - are part of the larger solution.  But too much of our approach to dealing with an unequal playing field is like a crazy quilt of unrelated fabric; the effort is disjointed, and haphazard.  The intent gets lost in the translation.  The effort is backdoor or as a beneficial and positive side effect.  The problem never seems to really go away.

But to give more to some, doesn’t that mean taking away more from others?  I suppose it does, but it is all a matter of degree, and for so long we have been doing just that in favor of some at the expense of others.  Accepting that some will get more, others will get less, that it is impossible to be precisely and always fair and equitable, nevertheless, the time has come to try harder to level that out.

I think we need a program that speaks to all that with a single voice on a mega level; one that embodies a commitment of, and to, the field.  I think we need a JFK type “We will land a man on the moon and return him safely within a decade” type commitment - an unequivocal, four-square marshaling of our forces (by the whole of us) to try harder to do one simple thing - whatever it takes to level the playing field  so that the former have-nots can stay in the race with the haves.  And staying in the race is the challenge for many now.

After awhile rhetoric wears thin no matter how eloquent, no matter how impassioned, no matter how true - and people need more than plans, more than promises, more than good intentions - more even than hope - they need something tangible. We need a system in place for the whole of us, not the few.

We need to say out loud that we will level the field.  And then we need to do that.

Have a great week.

Don’t Quit
Barry

The Future of LAAs and the Subsidy Model of Arts Support

Good morning.
“And the beat goes on............................”

New feature:  What Are You Reading?:  Reading something you think is really interesting and would be of interest to others in our field?  Book, article, paper, study - whatever.  Share it with me so I can pass it on.  I recently came across a new Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts called ARTIVATE published by Arizona State University.  Check it out.

REINVENTING LOCAL ARTS AGENCIES?
For decades the Local Arts Agency (LAA) has been the backbone of the national network of arts provision in America.  From just 40 agencies a half century ago, the number grew to over 5,000.  Most of these organizations are nonprofits (2/3), the remainder municipal agencies (1/3) of local government.  While their activities and programs differ from place to place, their missions to provide support and services to local communities for the most part, do not.  Most act as ‘hub’ clearinghouses and central points in those cities and towns, and provide connections, intersections and bridges within the sector and between the arts communities and stakeholders as far ranging as the PTA to local businesses.  Many, if not most, are granting or re-granting agencies that provide direct support to arts organizations and / or artists (According to Americans for the Arts, two-thirds of LAAs have grant programs.)  Most have programs that seek to support arts education in the schools, and a variety of ways to help arts organization managers and administrators - ranging from professional development and training, to internships, to convening, to communications.  Many are directly involved in heritage programs, some manage local facilities.  Many grew quite large, others remain rural, small and grassroots in approach.

What virtually all have in common (with much of the rest of our field)  is that their operational budgets are subsidized - either by local, state or the federal government, or some public revenue stream (a dedicated tax or a percentage of a local hotel tax as an example), or by private foundations and / or corporations.  Very little LAA income can be characterized as “earned” income, very little is in the form of individual donations.  The LAA is the penultimate embodiment of the subsidy model for the arts, but the arts as a whole are a subsidized industry.

The granting or re-granting programs at the core of the services provided by LAAs  range the gamut from operational and program support, to arts education, to underserved populations, to multicultural support, to marketing, to innovative and experimental incubator programs of various types, to professional development, to direct services benefiting artists.  Grants not only go to arts organizations, but schools, hospitals, community groups and more.  Indeed, more out of the box thinking originated in LAA grant programs than almost any other quarter of our sector.    These grant programs helped to make LAAs relevant and important locally, and that in turn helped them to leverage the power of the aggregate of local arts organizations to benefit the community.

In the latest issue of the New Yorker, in an article describing the maturing relationship between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Clinton is quoted as saying at one point that “it takes ten years to recover from a financial crisis that is rooted in a housing collapse."  Ten years -- and we are now in the fourth year of that decade.  Assuming arguendo there is truth to that assertion, and that the current lingering global crisis is even more acute than past downturns,  it isn’t unreasonable to assume that all the pressures that are on LAAs today - tight, penny pinching government budgets, increased demands of arguably higher priority spending (from health care, to infrastructure repairs, to education, to public safety), non-competitive advocacy and lobbying mechanisms where compared to other special interest groups, private philanthropic re-direction of funds and priorities, increased attacks by conservative groups - will all only get more intense.  Already, we see that kind of pressure resulting in the closure or significant downsizing of LAAs across the country - particularly in smaller, less affluent jurisdictions.  And even in larger, wealthier venues, staff, services and granting budgets have been frequently, measurably cut back .

The question must be asked:  How long will the ‘subsidy’ model of financial stability - at least for LAAs - remain viable?  And if someday in the not too distant future, because there simply isn’t the money available anymore from any level of government, or because other priorities have claimed greater private funding prioritization (even within arts funding), LAAs are no longer in the granting or re-granting business, what might they morph into so as to still have value, relevance to the local arts communities, and impact on those communities?  If the local government entity or a major foundation were to slash support, the LAA may not only be out of the grant making business, it may be out of business altogether.

How could LAAs remain supportive to local arts organizations and efforts in their local communities?  If not money, what could they provide that would keep them relevant and valuable?  What would a re-invented LAA look like, and do they already exist?

Having spent the majority of my nonprofit arts professional career closely involved in the sub-universe of LAAs, I think there are a number of critically important, and continuously relevant roles that LAAs can play in our future (and I am sure many already do some or all of the following):

 First, LAAs are “hubs” - and the role of a locally central point, out from which bridges to all parts of the community can fan, is of critical importance to all manner of needs - from professional networking, to brokering potential collaborations, to communications, to leveraging knowledge, to incubating new ideas, to being the liaison to stakeholders.  Without the LAA all of these kinds of things will need to be housed somewhere, or it will be axiomatically that much more difficult for any of these needs to be met at all.  Perhaps, the new LAA will focus more on its role as a hub and all that might imply.

 Second, LAAs have traditionally played at least a connective role in local advocacy efforts - from organization, to volunteer recruitment and management,  from training to communicating what is happening outside the sector that impacts us.  Even without a grants program, this is an area where a stepped up effort will, potentially, be enormously valuable in the survival of the whole local scene.  I can see the next generation LAA being much more active, and ultimately more powerful, in this arena.

 Third, While, not offering money directly, LAAs can continue to be helpful to local organizations in identifying where funds might be, in applying for those funds, in exploring new options (from technological innovations like Kickstarter to whatever else comes down the innovation pike), in training for fundraising and in exploring as yet untapped new sources.

Fourth,  I can see stepped up efforts by LAAs to be new centers in the effort to better train our administrators and provide professional development opportunities and options, as both coordinator and aggregator to organizing talent within the field to serve the field.

 Fifth, I can see LAAs increasing their role in making the case for local arts, including managing the media and selling the importance of the local industry to business and other communities of interest.

 Sixth, there is a role for the LAA to be more of a center of research - at least in the sense of identifying where current research is and connecting the local field to that research.  LAAs can take on the role of conducting local surveys, holding focus groups, and networking to local universities in more professional enterprises.

 Seventh, LAAs can continue to play a role in supporting emerging leaders, providing internship programs and giving voice to the next cohort of leadership.  Similarly they can continue to act as a lobby for diversity.

 Eight, LAAs are the logical entity to convene a wide variety of local gatherings that will help address local issues - both within the arts community and outside of it.

 Ninth, LAAs can expand their role in championing local artists and nurture local efforts to address artist's issues by giving a voice to that community.  From Open Studios programs to professional development there are countless specific programs LAAs can be a part of.

 Tenth, perhaps the real strength, and the greatest (as yet probably still unrealized) potential of the LAAs is in their acting in concert with each other.  They are themselves a network that can communicate with, unify, galvanize and marshall the entire arts field in ways no other element within our sector can.  The LAAs are one of the greatest "branch office" systems in America in any field.  Imagine, 5000 branch offices!  More than almost any company in America but for fast food and operations like Starbucks or 7-11.  Way more than any retail outlet, way more than Apple, probably more than Fed Ex, way more than most banks even.  We really ought to be tapping more into the potential of that asset than we have been doing in the past.  Back when Americans for the Arts was still NALAA, there was, I think, a greater sense of the locals as a community.

Of course, while this presupposes that LAAs might no longer be in the granting business, all of the above envision that there is still some income flowing into the LAAs and that the subsidy model (for LAAs) is not yet completely dead.  All the above can be done on far smaller budgets than the LAA universe has enjoyed in the past, but I sincerely doubt that it can all be done by volunteers; and it will cost something.  It is theoretically one model of re-invention for LAAs.

But we ought to also consider the possibility that the subsidy model for the arts in general may at some point no longer be viable.  If Romney, for example were elected, and made good on his public pronouncement* that he would zero out funding for the NEA, that might signal a wholesale attack on any (and every) kind of public arts funding, and while I doubt that would come to pass - dire economic straights would likely make it an attractive position to many - if for no other reason than as a symbol of a growing conservative viewpoint.  So it is also perhaps legitimate to ask what happens if the subsidy funding is no longer available at all? What happens if there is no more government subsidy - none? What happens (for LAAs anyway) if philanthropic support virtually dries up?   In which case, one critical question will be who will take on and provide all those services (and others) that LAAs already do, and might take on?  Nobody?  Then what?

*Note:  Here is Governor's Romney's position on the NEA as reported August 6 in Fortune magazine:
"So first there are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs -- the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf."    

My fear here is that the Governor, in singling out, now on more than one occasion, the NEA for elimination (not cuts), is that he is backing himself into a corner and that it will be (if he is elected) more difficult for him to later come off this position, and that will make our job of lobbying effectively as to why such elimination is not in the best interests of the nation that much more problematic.  

I urge foundations across the sector to consider carefully the critical importance of the continued existence of LAAs to the communities they fund, and to the stated aims and objectives of their own arts programs.  Whatever areas your foundation is involved in, whatever aspirations you have for the arts in your community, whatever programs you seek to support and hope will succeed, the LAA is potentially your greatest partner.  And if your LAA disappears, I can almost guarantee that your programs will suffer.

The really bigger question is whether or not the subsidy model for the whole nonprofit arts in general might ever be so threatened that it collapses?  A time where there is no longer any government money in any meaningful amount at any level; no longer enough private sector foundation and / or corporation money to matter?  Is it possible that someday the arts will need to be funded almost entirely by individual philanthropic efforts coupled with earned income?   What would that look like if subsidy support largely disappeared?  Can we do anything to anticipate and prepare for that partial eventuality, no matter how remote?  Is it something we ought to look at?  In scenario planning, one considers ALL the possibilities, and this one seems less remote to me than some other possibilities  ---  NOT because of the political motivation behind it, but because of the economic reality.  There is ample evidence to suggest that America's share of the world global wealth pie will continue to decline on a per capita basis, as other nation's shares increase.  Even if the pie continues to get bigger, our percentage is unlikely to again support all that our once disproportionately larger share allowed.  Even harder choices loom on our horizon.  And the arts will increasingly be seen as one of those choices.  Eventually, it is possible the powers that be, or the public itself, forced between all the hard choices, will have no choice but to choose something other than us.  So we ought to be talking about the possibility of that kind of (partial) funding stream collapse, and more importantly how we can first prevent that, and absent that, then how we can adapt.

Have a good week.

Don’t Quit
Barry

Interview with Shannon Daut

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on............................."

Shannon Daut is the former Deputy Director of WESTAF and the current Executive Director of the Alaska State Council on the Arts

Here is the interview:
BARRY:  What is your vision for the agency? What are the three things you would like to accomplish in your new post in the next 12 months, and how are you planning to go about realizing those objectives?  Why did you pick the three goals you did?

SHANNON:  Alaska is a unique state, with an incredibly rich cultural history. I am continually amazed by the breadth and sophistication of artistic projects that are happening here. Alaska is also a young state, with an arts infrastructure that is still developing, which I see as a great opportunity for smart, contemporary growth. My vision for the Alaska State Council on the Arts is to be an agent for innovation and effective growth of the sector. I want to stretch our agency beyond just the traditional role of grantmaking (which is important, don’t get me wrong!) and serve as a connector for artists and arts organizations throughout the state so that they can be even more effective in serving their communities and the citizens of Alaska. I also see our agency as having a vital role in helping to grow the state economically, while helping to address and ameliorate some of the social issues we face.

In my first twelve months, I am working to 1) strengthen the arts and community networks across the state; 2) lay the groundwork for an Alaska Cultural Trust; and 3) streamline our grants processes.

Strengthening Networks
In many ways, I see Alaska as analogous to the WESTAF-region in which I worked for over 12 years. Both have tremendously vast and diverse geographic areas to cover--including large swaths of rural areas; also, both have limited resources that must be maximized. Because we can’t be on the ground throughout the state, we rely on strong networks to be able to effectively serve Alaska citizens. I quickly learned that, while the state is geographically enormous, the population base is small and everyone seems to know everyone--especially in the arts. The degrees of separation are tiny. However, during our statewide arts conference in January I learned that a group of filmmakers who were on a panel together had never before met, either “virtually” or in person. This surprised me and made me realize the importance of bringing various groups of artists and arts organizations together to share their work, projects and ideas. ASCA can play a vital role in developing these networks so that our arts community is better connected.

Alaska Cultural Trust
For the past few years, ASCA has engaged with a group of leaders throughout the state to work on developing a cultural trust in Alaska. During this past legislative session, we were able to secure funds to research the feasibility and potential approaches for establishing a Cultural Trust for the state. We envision that the Alaska Cultural Trust can be used to spark a new citizen-wide movement around the arts and culture. One of the primary approaches we are considering is developing a broad coalition of arts and non-arts entities in partnership to address social needs and issues in the state. For example, Alaska has a suicide rate of twice the national average, and the epidemic tends to hit rural villages the hardest. The arts can be a powerful tool to help communities heal from these tragedies, as well as assist in suicide prevention efforts.

Streamlining Grants
At ASCA we have a small staff of six, and we manage 12 grant programs. Our staff time is so precious that we will be re-envisioning our grant programs and streamlining the processes involved in administering the grants.  Giving grants is an important part of our work; however, the administration of grants does not need to absorb the lion’s share of staff time. My goal is to minimize the amount of time it takes to administer our funding programs in order to free up staff to focus their energy more on developing the infrastructure of the arts sector in Alaska, by providing technical assistance, professional development opportunities and non-grant programs that can have a high impact for our constituencies.

BARRY;  As the Deputy Director of WESTAF you've been intimately involved in providing services and counsel to the Executive Directors of the state arts agencies in the west.  Knowing the issues as you do, what do you think will be your biggest challenge in leading an SAA?

SHANNON:  Having worked so closely with SAAs during my time at WESTAF, I had a very good sense of what I was getting into! Yet still, the sheer level and scope of bureaucracy is daunting. I could easily get sucked into the “weeds” and never get around to enacting my strategic vision for the arts in Alaska. So, that is a constant challenge--to keep focused on the vision while learning to navigate the red tape (and then to master it).

The other challenge, always, is that we don’t have the funds to match our big ideas. One of the surprises I encountered was that in state government the budget is capped in terms of what you can bring in--apart from the state appropriation. Coming from WESTAF, where I helped develop a variety of earned income streams, this is a bit stifling. However, we are working to increase the cap so that we can utilize earned income to expand our programs and strengthen the arts infrastructure throughout the state.

BARRY:  Alaska is unique because of its low population base and vast geographic expanses. What challenges and opportunities do you see for unifying a statewide force to bring the entire nonprofit arts sector together and develop a greater “sense of community”.  How might you address that situation?

SHANNON:  Alaska is a really really big small town. And, as I mentioned earlier, everyone seems to know each other--yet I have heard time and time again from arts leaders that they yearn to learn more about what their peers in other Alaskan communities are doing, their successes, their challenges. So we will be enacting a network approach to help connect these communities of artists and arts administrators together. We launched our Facebook page about a month ago (like us at: www.facebook.com/AlaskaArts!) and are trying out some Facebook groups to give different cohorts the opportunity to dialogue with each other. We’ll also be implementing things like webinars, teleconferences, video meetings and the like. I’m a big proponent of technology, but it can never replace the value of in-person convenings. ASCA has hosted an arts conference every three years, and we’re moving that to every two years and will hopefully be supplementing that convening with annual opportunities for people to come together and connect with each other. And lastly, ASCA can expand its role as a connector of people and projects that are happening across the state--by helping people connect with others who are working on complementary projects or goals, we can help strengthen the arts across the state.

BARRY:  You mentioned the Alaska Cultural Trust. How do you plan to advance that effort, and what is your vision for an Alaska Cultural Trust?

SHANNON:  As I mentioned, we have received funds that will help propel this project forward. I envision the Alaska Cultural Trust as a mechanism to expand the constituency of arts supporters. We are lucky in Alaska that so many citizens and elected officials understand the value of the arts--but I want to develop the Cultural Trust in such a way that it engages people outside of our “camp” to recognize the value that the arts brings to their lives. Recently I struck up a conversation at the Anchorage airport with a gentleman who asked what brought me to Alaska; upon my response that it was to lead the Alaska State Council on the Arts, his immediate--and emphatic--reaction was “the arts are for sissies!” I love these random conversations, because it gives a glimpse into what the average citizen thinks about the arts. So, I asked some follow up questions and, came to find out he had played in the band at his high school and he thought it was important for his children to also learn to play musical instruments. This exchange reinforced for me that the arts are important in people’s lives, but we need to adapt our messaging.

My vision for the Alaska Cultural Trust is to utilize the arts to advance and strengthen Alaska’s communities--be it through suicide prevention, economic development, workforce development, STEAM education, foodways and agriculture, “buy local” initiatives, circumpolar issues, Alaska Native language preservation or any other of the myriad of ways that the arts can help solve our most pressing problems.

BARRY:  There have been considerable resources, time, energy and commitment in the field to the emerging leaders movement in the arts--something I know you have been very involved with.  How specifically will you as the new ASCA Director support and expand those efforts? What do you see as the pressing needs for leadership development in the state?

SHANNON:  We have a unique situation in Alaska, as paid jobs in the arts are not proliferate and there are some real challenges for emerging leaders to have the opportunity to develop an arts career while staying within their community--most importantly if they are outside of an urban area. A lot of our arts organizations are volunteer- and board-run, which presents a challenge for younger people who are looking for paid employment in the arts--at a livable wage, no less. So, one factor in any leadership development program that we enact will be helping arts organizations establish business plans so that they can work towards having paid employees. At the same time, Alaska--like much of the country--has benefited from community leaders who have worked much of their lives to establish and build arts organizations in their communities. Many of these leaders are now considering retirement, so we need to ensure that there is a pipeline of arts professionals who are ready and equipped to take on the proverbial mantle and continue the work.

This issue is not specific to Alaska, nor is it specific to the arts. But there are a number of efforts underway here to provide leadership development opportunities for emerging leaders. ASCA is partnering with the Institute of the North, which has an existing leadership program, to host an arts leaders conversation later this fall. This will be the first of our efforts to establish a leadership development program at ASCA.

BARRY:  If I had asked you six months ago what you thought were the three major issues (other than funding) facing state arts agencies across the country, and asked you the same question now - would there be any differences in your response?  What makes you optimistic about the future of state arts agencies, and what concerns you the most?

SHANNON:  My thoughts on the major issues that SAAs face is not very different from what it was six months ago. To me, the biggest factor is relevance. How are SAAs relevant to the citizens of their state? Also, how are SAAs relevant to the artists and arts organizations they serve and fund? These are two very different questions, both of which I think are crucially important to the future of SAAs.

In terms of relevance to citizens, I believe we need to do a better job of highlighting the ways in which we serve communities--requiring our logos on program brochures doesn’t seem to be doing it. I don’t know the silver-bullet answer, but I believe it requires more than a marketing push. I think a lot of citizens, of all political persuasions, feel that the “Arts” are elitist and that public investments in the arts are not worthwhile--and this, to me, says that we are not doing enough to illustrate the value of those public investments. We’ve made some big strides in recent years on this front, but I think there is more to be done to broaden our coalitions.

In terms of relevance to artists and arts organizations, I think we are relevant but not to the scale that we were during the “boom” years for arts funding. At a recent ASCA council meeting we talked about re-envisioning the way in which we give out grants. A council member mentioned that, in the 80s (which was a HUGE boom in funding for the arts in Alaska, due to the Pipeline) the council was having discussions about whether or not it was responsible for ASCA to be providing over 50% of the organization’s operating budget in operating support grants to organizations. Today, we are in a very different world; our average percentage (to grantee’s operating budget) of operating support funding is around 1-2%. With diminished grant dollars, how are we remaining relevant to the arts organizations that we serve?

I am optimistic about ASCA’s future. In Alaska we have an innovative spirit, coupled with an incredibly strong “can do” attitude. Our arts organizations are not entrenched and ossified, so we are nimble and open to new ways of doing business. ASCA will provide the tools to organizations as they navigate these waters of change and innovation.

BARRY:  In your new position as the head of the Alaska State Council on the Arts, what specific services would you like to see provided by WESTAF, the NEA and NASAA?  Do you perceive any needs that are currently unmet by the services provided by those organizations?

SHANNON:  Understandably I’m a bit biased, but I think WESTAF does a singular job providing extremely valuable services to its SAAs, and public arts agencies across the country. WESTAF has a high bar of expectations and consistently looks toward advancement, not the status quo. NASAA has done tremendous work, most recently on the advocacy/policy front of the 40% of NEA funds that go to states, which I think is a crucial element for showing that public dollars are going into all the nooks and crannies of our country. When people think NEA arts funding, they often talk about “high art” and why can’t high art sustain itself? The appropriation to the states ensures that these public dollars are hitting the ground where the impact of arts programming has significant effects in communities. The NEA funds we receive are crucial to the state allocation that we receive, and I admire their efforts to broaden the coalition of agencies that they work with (USDA, HUD, etc.), as well as their work to advance the conversation around creative placemaking and its importance to communities.

However, as a young-ish person now leading an SAA, I think that the NEA and NASAA could be doing more in the area of leadership development. I worry about the future of the public-sector arts in this country and strongly believe that we need to be cultivating the new leaders to take the helm when so many terrific stalwarts of the sector retire. I also think that the NEA and NASAA need to be focusing on the ways in which SAAs--and arts organizations in general--can adapt to radically changing governmental structures and audience participation patterns. How can we as a field be more proactive in our environments? We are the creative sector, after all, so how can we encourage more creative problem-solving around the issues that our field faces?

BARRY:  Historically the relationship between the state arts agency and the state advocacy group, and to some extent the relationship between the state arts agency and the state arts educational coalition, have been (at best) arms-length, and (at worst) strained and dysfunctional.  What do you think are the keys to making those relationships more harmonious and collaborative?

SHANNON:  Alaska does not yet have a state arts advocacy group, though we do encourage our grantees to educate their elected officials about the value of the arts to their constituencies. We enjoy a terrific working relationship with our Alaska Arts Education Consortium--and partner with them on a variety of activities to strengthen arts education across the state. I think the key to making those relationships work effectively is to coalesce around a shared vision that is strategic and compelling. To ensure that both entities are in alignment with the big “WHY” of what they are doing. So often, advocacy revolves around the dollars--we advocate for SAAs because we receive grant dollars from them, and we want to receive more! Yet this can restrict SAAs from trying out new ways of serving artists, arts organizations, communities or citizens--ways that might help their constituencies create new revenue streams or develop new approaches that would lead to greater success. A shared vision around something larger than grant appropriations--a bigger, bolder vision--is critical to establishing a successful SAA/advocacy relationship.


BARRY:  With Alaska's vast geography and rural nature, what challenges do you foresee in the audience development area?  Do you subscribe to the current "engagement" thinking and how might that theory be applied in Alaska?

SHANNON:  I follow the new trends in community engagement closely. In fact, I teach an online graduate-level course in new models of arts programming and participation. Alaska has some unique challenges with regard to audience development--first and foremost that there is a very limited population to serve. Perseverance Theatre, based in Juneau, did some great work to mitigate this issue. They saw that the bulk of their costs went toward developing and producing the work, so they looked for ways to maximize their investment, which resulted in them bringing part of their season to Anchorage, in partnership with the Performing Arts Center and Anchorage Concert Association. This allowed them to reach new audiences while extending the investment they made in the production of the performances that had previously only shown in Juneau. This creative approach has proven wildly successful, and they have also held community conversations around the state to see how they might broaden their service statewide. So, there are a lot of possibilities for how to use the geographic challenges to our advantage!

In terms of how engagement theories might be applied to Alaska, we have a plethora of professional and amateur artists. I was just in Homer, and the Mayor brought up a community-wide ukulele concert that they started--a perfect example of how new models of engagement are activating communities and encouraging citizens to lead expressive lives. Because communities are so close-knit here, we have a lot of potential to develop new ways of engaging citizens in the arts.


THANKS SHANNON.

Have a good week.

Don't Quit.
Barry