Blog Forum on the Future of State Arts Agencies and NASAA - Day #2

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

Note:  For bios on the Forum participants, please see last week's blog post (or, if you are on the blog site, scroll down).

Future of State Arts Agencies and NASAA - Day #2

Question:

Some of you on this panel, as well as others throughout the sector, have called for a re-envisioning of the SAAs away from grant making so as to cut the umbilical cord-like connection of their work to unpredictable state funding. Some argue that there are all kinds of initiatives and programs, including case making, convening, research, professional development, and other efforts that would be as, or more, valuable to the arts sector than the provision of direct grants. Others argue that it is the grant making that has been of the greatest value in growing the arts at the state level. Some have argued quite forcefully that our field is overbuilt and that we simply cannot continue the fantasy that this isn't a problem. What are your thoughts?  Please consider the following:

Were SAAs to move away from grant making as their central role, what would the new structure of an agency look like?  What is the role of the state arts agency in supporting or working to reduce in size overbuilt arts ecosystems?  What other ways might a SAA re-envision its way of doing business?

What are the state arts ecosystem political constraints (both within the sector and outside of it) that bear on any kind of re-envisioning and re-organizing of SAA's missions and priorities, and how can they be dealt with?

What is the role of State Arts Agencies, if any, in supporting or working to reduce an overbuilt arts ecosystem, and to what extent should SAAs use their grant making powers to address the increased supply / diminishing demand challenge?   Specifically what ought they do differently, if anything, than they are doing now? 

Is there a better way to balance the provision of grants and the provision of other kinds of services? 

Scott Provancher:
This may sound trite, but any successful organization must innovate or it will die.  Eventually, if new vision(s) and operating model(s) are not sought, the power and impact of SAAs will diminish.

I believe that exploring new models for raising and investing resources is a natural and critical process that should be encouraged.  However, developing the right process for making the decision is, in some ways, more important than opining on what the end answer or solution may be.

The first step in developing any new strategy or idea is to have a thorough understanding of the problem you are trying to solve.  Sometimes during this process of understanding you realize that you are trying to fix one problem (reduction in funding) by creating another (effect of changing a funding strategy).

On the topic of grant making, an important question that I would ask before shifting strategy is, “What outcome am I not getting now that a shift in strategy will achieve?” and “If I had more resources (or the same resources you once had, if you have seen a drop in funding), would I still be considering a shift in funding strategy.”  These two questions, and others like it, can help to define what you are hoping to achieve.

Once you have a clear definition of the goal, you can than begin to develop ideas and test them in the marketplace.  I like to think of this stage of the process as the prototype phase. Not unlike a start-up company testing a new product with its customers, testing your assumptions with small scale experiments can provide invaluable information that can help you to refine your approach.  So often I see organizations go “all in” on a new strategy without ever testing their assumptions, only to watch the organization experience huge negative repercussions that they did not anticipate.

Innovation and new strategy design is too important to leave to chance.  Having a thoughtful process that allows for stakeholder feedback is key to developing the right path forward.


Ra Joy:
There’s increasing chatter these days about how the arts ecosystem is “overbuilt” and the need to "thin out the field” of arts organizations. Taking the view that there are just too many mouths to feed and too few resources, some people are urging arts funders to apply “survival of the fittest” principles to how grant dollars are awarded. Frustrated with the survival crisis in the arts, some of our most prominent and influential leaders are proclaiming: “Let the Hunger Games begin!” Their theory of change hinges on a belief that the supply/demand equation can be brought into balance by forcing weaker, smaller arts organizations to fold or merge with other groups.

I resist the argument that we have “an overbuilt arts ecosystem” for a few reasons. First, my job is to promote the value of the arts to all residents of our state.  I believe our communities are at their best when cultural activities are abundant, so the idea that we can have an oversupply of art simply doesn’t jive with me.  The second reason I have reservations about this argument is because it assumes that you can decrease the supply side of the equation.  In an era where technology is making it easier than ever before to create and share content, you cannot simply cut off the spigot of artistic experiences and outlets.  The third reason I have trouble with this argument is because I believe in the core American value of equal opportunity for all. There are parts of my city (and yours) where the arts ecosystem is astonishingly underdeveloped. Applying a strict “only the strong should survive” frame to arts grant-making can sharply limit diversity, diminish access, and make it more difficult for fresh voices and emerging talent.

Speaking from the perspective of a statewide arts advocacy organization, a better way to right-size the arts ecosystem is to “grow the pie” of arts support from all sources – public dollars, foundations, corporations, and individual donors. Instead of brainstorming about the next new hospice program for arts groups, we should be strategizing about how the sector can collectively think bigger, act faster, and advocate smarter.

According to recent data from NASAA, legislative appropriations to state arts agencies are expected to grow by approximately 20% entering FY15, a projected increase of $61.1 million. We should be fighting hard to protect and grow this important public funding. And, we should be working smarter to win the hearts, minds, and money of decision makers beyond state government. Effective advocacy for culture and the arts is urgently needed in our city halls, in corporate and foundation board rooms, and at kitchen tables across the country.  That’s the only way we can grow resources, expand audiences, and maximize the sector’s potential.

So, that’s my view on the “overbuilt” arts ecosystem question. Instead of thinking small about how the arts sector can continue to do more with less (less money, less ambition, and fewer staff resources), we should be having a conversation that challenges us to think bigger.

I am not naive and I don't have my head in the sand when it comes to the struggle for scarce resources, the need for effective organizations, or the difficult decisions facing arts funders. I simply think it’s misguided to cede the moral high ground on this issue to people who are focused on how more arts groups can “die with dignity.”  Let’s grow the pie so everybody can get a bigger slice.

In terms of this question about grant-making vs. other kinds of services, I think SAAs need to take a both/and, not an either/or approach.

SAAs should maintain the traditional state policy lever of grants and financial support to artists and arts groups. “Don’t quit,” as Barry Hessenius often says.  Direct grants, even when award levels are modest, continue to be one most important ways SAAs can contribute to a vibrant arts scene.

Even within the universe of cultural leaders who publicly champion the importance of grants, there are subtle tensions and debates over how the current pie is being divided. Several arts funders are moving toward larger grant awards to fewer organizations, so they can have a bigger bang for their buck. Some leaders of arts organizations feel they are competing directly with their public arts agencies because the agency dedicates significant resources toward producing and presenting cultural activities at the perceived expense of support for artists and arts groups. Many arts agency leaders are concerned about mounting pressure to use grant dollars to tackle societal problems that go above and well beyond their public missions.  It’s unfair and unrealistic, they say, to ask the arts sector to help reduce gun violence or eradicate poverty when there’s not enough money to help groups stage the next performance or mount the next exhibition. Where possible, SAAs should provide opportunities for multi-year, general operating grants. Funding for general operations remains the “World Cup” of grants because it helps keep access to culture affordable and provides organizations with much needed flexibility to take risks, plan ahead, and adapt to change.

In my view, the most impactful tool public arts agencies have at their disposal, in addition to grant dollars, is the power to convene the field. By leveraging the bully pulpit of state government, forward-leaning SAAs are engaging, supporting and empowering the full spectrum of the creative workforce – from curators and performers to chefs, filmmakers and architects. This “everybody in, nobody out” approach to our arts ecosystem includes for-profit creative businesses, nonprofit arts groups, informal arts activities, and individual artists and makers.

I believe the strongest SAAs will be the ones that successfully coordinate activities between these interrelated sectors and bridge the boundaries between nonprofit and for-profit creative enterprises. There are many benefits to effectively pulling this off. It allows us to make more meaningful connections to a broad spectrum of public policy issues. It significantly expands the social and economic impacts of culture. From a network and coalition building perspective, this “big tent” approach also allows SAAs to engage a much wider range of people and organizations across generation, geography, ethnicity, and artistic interest.

While the nonprofit and commercial arts sectors may work best when they work together, unifying the two can be messy, difficult, and complex work. From a policy perspective, gains for the commercial arts sector in many states seem to occur at the expense of the nonprofit arts sector. (In Maryland $2.5M in arts funding for nonprofits was recently diverted to support film incentives for Netflix’s “House of Cards.”) From an organizing perspective, it takes time and focused energy to build the bonds of connection between nonprofit theaters, symphonies, dance companies and museums with commercial record labels, architecture firms, and advertising agencies. Building a common agenda and a shared vision for the future doesn’t happen overnight. The SAAs that can get the nonprofit and commercial sectors on the same page and rowing in the same direction will be well positioned for the future.


Anthony Radich:
State arts agencies can become over fixated on grantmaking.  However, the agencies can also use the argument that they can do things other than grantmaking as an excuse to live with stagnating budgets.  Probably the answer to this question is that the agencies need to do both.  However, to do both, they need enough resource to be meaningful either as grant makers or as drivers of non-grant-based initiatives.  With largely stagnant budgets  many are faced with dong neither well.

What is the role of the state arts agency in supporting or working to reduce in size overbuilt arts ecosystems?

Public sector funders of cultural activities have a special responsibility to reduce or eliminate funding to cultural organizations that are no longer audience-viable.  Unless the public clearly indicates it wants its money to be allocated to cultural organizations that are museum pieces, public sector funders need to find the courage--and the bureaucratic skill--to lead in the defunding of nonprofit arts organizations that have outlived their audience base.

The re-envisioning of state arts agencies faces many challenges.  Chief among them are:

1)   Fear of failure within the agency staff and the among agency governing board members.  Arts agency staff usually work for a living and stirring the waters of change always has the potential to cost them their jobs.  In addition, most arts agency governing board members don’t usually sign on to be change leaders tend to be fearful that major change on their watch could blow up the agency and part of their reputations with it.

2)  The lack of a big enough idea has challenged many agencies seeking to re-envision.  A big idea around re-envisioning is not simply more money for a state--unless it is a great deal more money to do some really exciting things!  Even though state governments continue to be somewhat stressed, the leaders in state government still seek out innovative ways to approach challenges.  Especially in times of budget stress, new creative ideas usually get a hearing--provided they are big enough ideas.

3)   For a field of hard working people who fund creative activities, the state arts agency field is actually very administratively and policy conservative.  New ideas do not easily take root in the field and the occasional arts agency director who steps forward with something new is often greeted with blank stares.  The national culture of state arts agency administration will need to change before any kind of field-wide re-envisioning of the agencies can occur.


Randy Rosenbaum:
I don't think we should move totally away from grantmaking.  These grants, and the process by which they are awarded, continues to be important for our field.  Even if the amount is insignificant, the
connotation that this is an organization judged by the state (and their peers) as worthy of support is consequential.  And, to sound just a tiny bit crass, it it important for us to have a mechanism to reward or influence the direction of arts organizations.  A tweet referenced acomment made by Peter Brosius of the Children's Theatre Company at the recent TCG conference:  "We receive public funds, we have public responsibilities."  And that is ultimately good for the arts and for its role in our states and communities.  

If I were to imagine a new kind of state arts agency, I might move away from operating support or even responsive grants.  I would concentrate on funding projects and collaborations that emerged from a collaborative planning environment.  We all come to the table with certain things - some with connections, others with expertise, others with money.  We actually come to the table with all three, but usually the money is the weakest part for us.  It should be as strong as our ability to connect with people and organizations throughout our state, and the knowledge we can bring to important issues.  We should be able to invest in ways to diversify audiences, not just talk about its importance when reviewing grant applications.  We should be able to invest in new works, and the performances and exhibits by major institutions who wouldn't talk the time or risk to present this work on their own.  We should be able to invest in increasing the visibility of the arts, help with professional
development of artists, use the arts to make a difference in economic development strategy in our state.  The state arts agency of the future would be more overtly investment oriented than it is now.

Obviously, we depend on the good will of our elected officials, who determine the budget we have to work with and, to some extent, the conditions under which we operate.  Their good will depends on our doing our job well -- no damaging headlines, no scandalous art funded with the taxpayer's money.  It also depends on the good will of the people in their districts who vote for them.  If we eliminate funding for those people without their concurrence then our lives are in jeopardy.  The challenge, therefore, is to build a new system of funding the arts with their support.  I've found this requires their participation in the construction process.  They may not all think they'll do well (or better) under the new system, but they may agree with it if they respect the nature of the construction process and the need for change.  I haven't quite decided whether the best time to do this is when you have less or little money, or when you've had an infusion of new money.

In Rhode Island I'm thinking about something I'm calling "The Grand Reboot".  I have the general impression that we have locked everyone into a grant amount that no longer has any relationship to reality.  It's not based on the size of the organization or its relative ranking as compared to its peers in our state.  If anything, it's based on what they may have received 10 or 15 years ago, increased or decreased over time as our budget has ebbed and flowed.  The largest organizations do very well.  The small and medium sized organizations, not so much.  Our budget has not increased in a way that we can address this through the age-old remedy of throwing more money at the problem.  So we will have
to start from scratch, a form of zero-based budgeting.  It will be difficult, and traumatic for some, but absolutely necessary.  I'm not sure I agree we have "an overbuilt arts ecosystem" in Rhode Island, but
if we do our little part of the solution might involve the redirection of funding.

Is there a better way to balance the provision of grants and the provision of other kinds of services?

It all depends on what you want to accomplish.  If you can use grants to achieve programmatic needs, that's great.  If we need to get into the direct provision of services, so be it.  But I worry about state arts agencies playing too much of a role a a provider of services.  This is something I think we can only do in limited ways, since other organizations are better suited to running programs.


Anita Walker:
Grant making is the philosophical heart of what we do.  We are the stewards of our states' most precious treasures, our art and our history.  Only an investment of state tax dollars gives ownership of this common wealth to the people of the Commonwealth.  Consider the alternative...cultural nonprofits reliant of the generosity of wealth patrons or corporations.  Then the only art and history we have would be decided by the wealthy few.  Alternatively, art and history funded entirely by the government would deprive us of the risk, experimentation and truth that the wealthy can afford.  Our system is really the best of both worlds.

But our work of beyond grant making is not only something we imagine, it is something we practice.  Our financial investments are core; they give ownership to the citizens in the best we have to offer; they give confidence to private donors and leverage private investment; they connect the field to us and allow us to connect members of the field to each other; and they connect the field to elected leadership and to important policy issues affecting every community.

But our shrinking budget has forced us to consider the levers we can push to enhance the field in the absence of money.  Creativity before capital is our motto.
Case in point:  our cultural district program.  We established the program two years ago with no funding whatsoever.  With no money or grant of any kind at the end of a rigorous application process more than 100 communities have applied for state designation as a cultural district.  Twenty-five have been designated so far. These communities have build strong partnerships, established cultural planning as an integral part of city and town planning, and created a cultural brand that is real, special and authentic.  We are now being approached by legislators looking for ways to provide funding for this program.

By re-designing our grant-making we have uncovered ways to harness the collective capacity of the field and put it to work to raise all boats.  Our operating support program is no longer a competitive grant program.  We provide formula funding to 400 non-profits and require all recipients to participate in building the sector.  All must advocate.  They must participate in site visits to colleague organizations and they are called upon to mentor others.  By eliminating the competition, we are building a true partnership relationship that is honest and supportive.  And this partnership is delivering more innovation and intellectual capital to the field at large than the largest grant could buy.

Is the field overbuilt?  I don't even know what that means.  The field is an ecology.  There are large, mature organizations with deep roots and big endowments; medium sized organizations that struggle to make ends meet with fixed labor and facilities costs...like most middle class families; and there are young agile organizations that may flame out or may become rooted.  All contribute to our cultural landscape.  I haven't the slightest idea how to decide who should live and who should die; who is redundant; who is sustainable.  The "merge or die" message has been sent loud and clear from other funding leaders in Massachusetts.  But the truth is, successful mergers are expensive and rare.  A better message might be "two turkeys do not an eagle make."


Laura Zucker:

First of all, I take issue with the notion that the field is “overbuilt.” As my nephew pointed out when I expressed my fear that as a step grandmother I might be an un-needed extra grandma, you can’t have too many grandmothers!  Grandmothers are a good thing and so are arts organizations! The only people I ever hear complain about there being too many nonprofits are foundation program officers who don’t want to deal with so many applicants. But the reality is that the greater market place, made up largely of individual donors and ticket buyers/attendees, determines if an individual arts organization fulfills a need in the universe, not government agencies or private funders.

I often think there’s a direct line to public funders from the medieval feudal system. From Wikipedia: “An oath of fealty, from the Latin fidelitas (faithfulness), is a pledge of allegiance of one person to another. In medieval Europe, this took the form of an oath from a vassal, or subordinate, to the lord. It also referred to the duties incumbent upon a vassal that were owed to the lord, which consisted of service and aid…Usually, the lord also promised to provide for the vassal in some form, either through the granting of a fief or by some other manner of support.” So the relationship was a two-way street in which both parties gained. 

The California Arts Council (CAC) pioneered what was a groundbreaking program, the State-Local Partnership, back in the 1980s that was fundamentally based on the feudal system. The CAC distributed funds to every one of the 58 county local arts agencies in the state; for many rural agencies it was the lifeline that enabled them to be staffed. In return, the California LAA’s were both a method to disseminate information for the CAC across the state and a way to collect information and send it back up the chain of command. Even though the amount of money was not large for an urban LAA like the Los Angeles County Arts Commission, we knew what was expected of us in return for the grant and it reinforced our fealty. When the CAC convened all the LAAs annually, we were there. Unfortunately this program is a vestige of its former self due to the lack of funding; the current allocation doesn’t provide enough money to insure staffing for every LAA in the state, making the CAC’s job harder by not having boots on the ground everywhere.

Grant programs not only provide necessary sustenance to the field, they create a binding force that enables the arts agency, whether local or statewide, to literally hold things together. It is the role of being a grantmaker that gives the agency the ability to convene all stakeholders, assuring that all summoned will attend, to address field wide issues. Of course, the grant making process must be carried out in an exemplary manner, in a transparent, fair and explicable way.  When the grant making process devolves into political cronyism all credibility, not to mention political capital, is lost and the agency can be irreparably compromised by its grantmaking role.

But without the grantmaking role, the agency is just another service provider-- and we all know what a hard row that is to hoe! Oh wait, that’s one of the questions to come.

Kris Tucker:

Every advocacy message for SAA funding makes me wish we were asking for ten times as much. Why aren’t we asking for $5 million, not $500,000? And if we did get $5 million. . . .what then?

Sad to say, the reality is that our discussions are more often about how to cut another 10% of our budget, not what to do with a new $5 million. Even so, we are afraid to end grants programs. We are afraid our colleagues and constituents would quit caring about us if we don’t provide the same mix of grant funding that we’ve tweaked endlessly over the years. And SAAs fear they don’t have the expertise or resources for a different mix of programs and services. 

“If all that you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” So goes the old adage. SAAs have for too long seen grants as our only hammer – ie the primary tool in our toolbox. Surely we need to see that with limited dollars, general operating support is a much lower priority: GOS disproportionately supports urban organizations that have the best access to other support – and fails to incentivize anything but what has worked on the past. 

Grants can be part of SAA strategy – as incentives, not entitlements. Power2Give and Art Place are two innovations in grantmaking – more should come. 

Every SAA is different, but it’s timely for SAAs to become far more different to meet the specific and unique needs of a particular state with its geography and demographics, authorizing environment, and operating capacity. Bold budgeting may be required so that funds are set aside for initiatives. Contractors may be needed to serve as “experts-for-hire” that expand the skill set and capacity beyond SAA staff. And SAA leaders may need to rethink processes if they are going to take on different roles within state rules and requirements such as for purchasing, contracting, convenings, and product sales. 

Here are a few SAA roles that I see have huge potential and should be priorities in SAA budgeting whether funds are growing or shrinking:

• We can more clearly focus WHAT we do. In some states, that might mean arts education is the primary function, with strategic partnerships, incentives, leadership development.  In some states, it should mean no more grants to organizations, not necessarily because of shrinking resources but because SAA resources are more effective elsewhere. 

• We can rethink HOW we do what we do. Instead of project support grants, use dollars and staff expertise to incubate and nurture local efforts by providing customized support and a well-crafted mix of services. Helping local leaders include the arts in city comprehensive plans is one such opportunity: with a relatively small investment, a SAA could provide professional development such as training sessions, online resources, webinars, white papers, expert consultations, etc; networking of participating communities to encourage self-organized learning and support; research and/or messaging; financial support as a grant to support related project/s or for reimbursement of related expenses. 

• We can expand WHO we work with, far beyond our focus of the nonprofit arts community. How about developing policy partners with colleges and universities, with professional organizations, with economic development offices? 

Mark Hofflund:

Were SAAs to move away from grant making as their central role, what would the new structure of an agency look like?  Perhaps a research institute?  An educational org?  A census bureau?  A marketing and promotional entity?  A visitors’ center?  An immigration office?  What is the role of the state arts agency in supporting or working to reduce in size overbuilt arts ecosystems?  I don’t think it needs a regulatory component; but it could provide information and data that might be useful to businesses, foundations and private interests – in measuring the effective use of civic resources.  What other ways might a SAA re-envision its way of doing business?  Decentralize decisions and funding to occur in as many local areas as possible, while maintaining statewide standards.




What are the state arts ecosystem political constraints (both within the sector and outside of it) that bear on any kind of re-envisioning and re-organizing of SAA's missions and priorities, and how can they be dealt with?  Populist sentiment, recognition, and demand are needed, along with greater and more numerous sources of private support.




What is the role of State Arts Agencies, if any, in supporting or working to reduce an overbuilt arts ecosystem, and to what extent should SAAs use their grant making powers to address the increased supply / diminishing demand challenge?   Specifically what ought they do differently, if anything, than they are doing now?  Create challenging ways to measure (and thereby incentivize) the ecosystem’s contribution to public value.

Arni Fishbaugh:

I think it’s always interesting to envision new realities.  It’s also critical that we have a real bead on the needs of the part of the world in which we work.  At the same time, if we’re working as a state agency, we have to remember that we’re investing state resources, so whatever we do has to benefit the whole state – not one group or another, not one area of the state and not another.  Not just rural organizations, but major organizations, too.  Not organizations alone, but individual artists, as well.  And at all times, we need to ensure that we are sensitive to the diversity in our state and creating a climate of inclusion and equity.  

In our case, our agency aligns all its programs to our strategic plan.  We had over 3,000 people involved in input into this plan (3% of the population of our state.)  I believe it’s critical to utilize public input to shape what we do.

Were the sky to fall and the legislature was to say you’re going to be able to do only one thing with one staff person, I’d seriously consider recommending we turn everything into arts education grants or professional development, based on what we’ve heard from our people in Montana.

What are the state arts ecosystem political constraints (both within the sector and outside of it) that bear on any kind of re-envisioning and re-organizing of SAA's missions and priorities, and how can they be dealt with?

“It’s” never what “it’s” about

Gawd, we could all write a book about this question.  The biggest challenge we have is what it means to work in a political environment. Frequently, decisions are not based on the merit of something in front of the political body, but because someone has an agenda or some legislator or constituent needs to be punished or rewarded.  “It’s” never about what “it’s” about.  The only remedy I’ve found is to carry on, do the best one can, be resilient and remember tomorrow is a new day with a potential new way.  As Barry Hessenius says, “Never give up.”  

I’m just like an old steer…

One of my favorite past council members is a Tea Party member Rick Halmes of Billings, who, when appointed, thought his job was to eliminate this “wacky arts funding.”  Within a year he became our biggest supporter, and we still call on him to help us on many occasions.  He’s a big cowboy, and one of his best commentaries on how he approaches this advocacy work:  “I’m just like an old steer…I just keep trying.”  (For those of you unfamiliar with cattle lingo, a steer is a castrated bull.)

What is the role of State Arts Agencies, if any, in supporting or working to reduce an overbuilt arts ecosystem, and to what extent should SAAs use their grant making power is to address the increased supply / diminishing demand challenge?   Specifically what ought they do differently, if anything, than they are doing now? 

Treating grants like contracted work

This is such a big challenge.  The approach we’ve used in Montana is to treat our operating support grants more like contracts with advocacy deliverables we want, rather than just outright operating support grants.  We contract with organizations to help deliver the public value message.  They have to address how they are using the two of The Three Rs (Relationships and Relevance) to build audience participation and local support.  We then ask them to meet with their legislators one-on-one (not write a letter), as well as their Congressional staffs, to talk about the public value of the work their organization does.  We ask them to report on this meeting, when it was and what transpired.  We also ask them to address in their annual reporting, “If a legislator was to ask you what the return on investment (the third “R”)  is for this public funding, how would you answer that question?”  We ask them to give this to us in the form of a story, not a series of generic facts.  Here is a sampling of answers from the prior year’s Public Value Partnership grantees.

We all struggle with what levels of funding should be allocated, and I don’t have  suggestions to issue as a best practice for everyone.  What we are going to do in our case is determine who did the best job in addressing The Three R answers and our requests to meet with legislators, and make funding decisions based on that.  

Each state is different in how they allocate operating support, but here we copy the Pennsylvania (and other states) model wherein we allocate a set percentage of operating expenses from the prior year’s 1099 at the time of the initial application.  It’s a four-year grant with the same amount allocated each year.  We have a cutoff below which we won’t fund.

Is there a better way to balance the provision of grants and the provision of other kinds of services?  

Connections to the Operating Framework

The way we approach this is to look at everything we’re doing and ensure that each part of our strategic plan has some kind of program or funding component connected to it so that we ensure we are making an impact in that area.  For instance, we have an Innovation frame in the Public Value framework within our Operating Plan.  We weren’t doing any funding or programming in this area, and it seemed a perfect vehicle for Artists Awards, so Artist Innovation Awards were created.  

Capacity/Impact

One of the most valuable tools we learned about in gauging ways to balance grants and services is to test each one on a Capacity/Impact scale.  When looking at our programs and services overall, we weigh them as to how much work they take or how much money they cost (Capacity) vs. how many people or how deeply people are impacted by them (Impact).  Then we are brutal.  If something is a lot of work or costs a lot and it benefits few people, there has to be a very good reason why it stays on our agenda.  

We also use the gauge as we develop our annual work plan, and there are times when we have to say, “This is just too much.  We can’t do all this.”  We have to leave time to address the inevitable unplanned interruptions, challenges and opportunities that arise.

Forum continues tomorrow……………...

Don't Quit

Barry

Blog Forum on the Future of State Arts Agencies and NASAA - Day #1

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


Note:  For bios on the Forum participants, please see last week's blog post (or, if you are on the blog site, scroll down).

Future of State Arts Agencies and NASAA - Day #1

Question:  

For the better part of a decade state arts agencies have been under severe budget pressures. During that period, many of the state arts agency budgets have shrunk.  Meanwhile, in some cases, local arts agency budgets have increased.  In the process, there has arguably been a shift in influence and cultural policy-making power away from the states agencies to the local agencies, or to the philanthropic community.  Do you think that is true?  If so, what do you believe are the implications of such a shift?  To what extent have the state arts agencies seen their relevance diminish, how might they regain their former prominence, and what do you envision as their future role in the overall arts ecosystem?  What ought to be the role of SAAs in developing state arts cultural policy?

Arni Fishbaugh:
Like sands through an hourglass
Influence is ever-shifting.  And what’s true in one place is not true in another.  During the 20+ years I’ve been in this job, the one thing I know for sure is that there is a cycle to everything.  What was once an enormous success can eventually be eviscerated and then later, can rise once again like a phoenix.  So, do I believe that state arts agencies’ relevance is diminished?  No, I believe its relevance evolves and our circles of influence change according to the work agencies do and the political challenges they face.

What works for us in Big Sky Country to retain relevance

Little did we know when the Montana Arts Council (MAC) was chosen to participate in the Wallace Foundation’s START initiative in 2001 that it would absolutely transform this agency forever.  Professor Mark Moore of Harvard totally changed our lives by teaching us his approach to developing public value for government agencies.

Public value defined
MAC defines public value as those programs and services making a positive difference to the individual and collective lives of the citizens of Montana through the arts and worthy of state investment.

There were two statements, especially, that Mark Moore made that changed the way we do business here:
One of the key factors that makes government agencies different from private- or nonprofit-sector organizations/businesses is the fact that we have to deal with our authorizing environment – those people who can give or take away our power and resources.  MAC made a list of everyone in our authorizing environment and came up with over 70 groups.  My God!  We narrowed it to the four we wanted to focus on:  the Governor, the legislature and Congress, economic developers and the education leadership of our state.

Mark also said that in order for managers of public-sector agencies to be successful, they have to spend at least half their time proving or reinforcing the public value of the work their agency does.  This was life-changing.  All of a sudden advocacy was not something we did when we had time, it had to be part and parcel of everything we do.

How MAC builds public value:  The Three Rs:  Relationships, Relevancy and ROI

Relationships. Building one-on-one relationships with the Governor, legislators, eco devo and education leaders.  We also ask our operating support grantees to do this with their legislators, reinforcing the public value of their and our work, and the wisdom of public investment in such work.

Relevance. Relevance = connection = meaning. Making more significant connections to what has value and meaning to the audience you’re speaking to, or in the case of arts organizations, developing ways to create greater meaning between what you’re presenting to the public and what they value.

Return on investment (ROI).  The Montana Arts Council defines “return on investment” in a broad way. It could mean a straightforward financial return or a return that brings meaning to our lives, or becomes a catalyst for new ways of thinking, seeing and solving problems.  The ROI messages used in the relationship-building efforts are attuned to those that will have the greatest relevancy to the people to whom we’re speaking.

At the end of the day
No matter how many times we’ve tried this tactic or another, I firmly believe that the key to success in building public value and relevancy for any arts agency, whether it be national, state, regional or local, is through one-on-one relationship building.  It’s a big pain in the butt in many ways, because it is so labor-intensive.  But it is essential and it’s the only way I’ve seen for change to occur.

Schedule everything
This has meant that I can’t wait around to eventually meet whom I need to meet, I have to schedule it or it won’t happen.  I do it month by month and set out my year in advance prior to a legislative session.  On this calendar is both who I’m meeting with and who I’m asking to meet with who. Thank goodness for Outlook calendars and the To Do List I’ve invented to keep me honest with all of this.


Mark Hofflund:
No, because there wasn’t much crossover to begin with.  Each was independent of the other.  If one decreased, the other did not gain new influence as a result.  There were simply fewer resources and less influence overall.  Their role is to convene the public, develop partnerships, and gain consensus that is as broad and deep as possible.  …and well projected, measured, and documented.  Their best strategy is to lead by example; and to model practical applications of lean and effective government.


Kris Tucker:
State government can be a hard place to get something done. State arts agencies (SAAs) don’t have the funding, flexibility or authority to achieve an expansive mission – despite all our great ideas! Things have constricted more in the past few years, thanks to tight state budgets, aging infrastructure, partisan politics, anti-tax constituencies and hyper partisan politics.

I see mixed trends among local arts agencies, with significant growth in size, stature and savvy of many urban arts agencies – and vulnerability among many local arts agencies (LAAs) especially in smaller communities and in rural and remote areas. Urban areas may have strong LAAs with secure funding and valued programming; some but certainly not all smaller communities have an arts council (public or private, membership or tax-funded) that offer some mix of programs and services tailored for local needs.

In terms of cultural policy and impact, SAAs and LAAs must play different roles. I think of SAAs as “at the intersection” of state government and the arts, and see the best place to make an impact is smack-dab in the center of that intersection: the sweet spots where SAAs can leverage the connections and influence of state government, geography or influence – and the power and potential of the arts.
When SAAs form strategic partnerships with other statewide organizations, the impact can reach far beyond city/county borders. I’ve been part of targeted efforts with k-12 education, tourism, state parks, and community foundations.

SAAs build leadership in and for the arts through professional development events, smart use of data, social media messaging, networking, and even through well-managed SAA Council/Commission governance.

With a mission to serve an entire state SAAs must have a commitment to equity of access, diverse perspective, fair process. SAAs should be stretching to be more inclusive, to consider and share diverse perspectives, to demonstrate new approaches.

What I hope to see in the next decade is a much broader variety among SAAs. More about that tomorrow.


Laura Zucker:
First of all, thank you for asking me to be part of this blogathon—I have some thoughts on this topic! Since 2008 almost every funder’s budget has been under severe budget pressure; this was the Great Recession after all. It was Jonathan Katz who I saw first draw the lightning bolt shape that is emblematic of state arts agencies’ budgets over time. SAA budgets expand and contract in direct proportion to the economic resources available in any given budget year (see graph link).

So as SAA budgets have shrunk since 2008, they will probably increase, and are already showing an uptick since 2013.

However, local arts agencies will probably always have larger funds in the aggregate than SAAs as they have the distinct advantage of being on the ground in their communities. The arts organizations LAAs serve often have members of their boards who are also active in local politics. It’s a whole lot easier to cut faceless line items in a budget at the state level than funds for the arts organizations whose leadership you know in person or whose performances/exhibitions you attend. It’s for this same reason that the NEA probably will always have less funding than the states in aggregate. As with arts administration, the further up you get in the arts feeding chain, the further away you get from the art and the people behind the art.  As is the case with local arts agencies, getting more funds will take articulating a compelling vision for the services to be provided—it’s just a harder case to make. Nobody is writing blank checks anymore, particularly with taxpayers’ dollars.

I don’t believe there has been a shift from the SSAs to private philanthropy in either cultural influence or policy making. In my experience, foundation agendas are primarily influenced by the interest areas of their boards and program officers; at the end of the day they don’t have to justify their strategies to anyone but their boards. The strategies of foundations large enough to wield significant leverage in the sector are more and more driven by outcomes, the idea of “moving the needle” on an issue rather than public service—two very different frameworks. But it’s worth noting that while private foundations had the considerable advantage of resources automatically rebounding based on the returns of the stock market, they had their share of pain during the Great Recession as well. While this created an opportunity to rethink philanthropic priorities, program officers often have their own internal advocacy battles to fight within their organizations to address multiple priority areas of trustees.

So it all comes down to the individual case that can be made, whether it’s by SAA, LAA or foundation staff. The influence SAAs do or don’t wield within their state relative to their local arts agencies and the private philanthropic sector is different in every state, based on how well they make this case and what role they’ve carved out for themselves in the arts ecology.


Anita Walker:
The State Arts Agency operates at 5,000 feet, developing public policy, advocating for the field, and focused always on public value for the citizens in every circumstance and in every corner of the Commonwealth who deserve quality arts in the same way that they deserve clean air, safe roads and healthy food.  We are concerned with assuring an environment in which the arts can flourish, excellence can be achieved and access can be assured.  I may have a Governor-appointed Council of 19 members, but my real board of directors is made up of 200 legislators overseen by 6 million people in Massachusetts.  We are the only funder that responds to such a large constituency, a constituency that supports us with precious tax dollars.

Our 329 local cultural councils are on the ground.  They are the rich, diverse landscape and their focus is local.  Their grants are small but their impact is large.  Their real power is not in the size of grant but in the fact that the decision-making is owned and operated by volunteers...friends and neighbors who know the community like no other funder possibly can.  Our local cultural councils respond to their elected city or town officials and the people who live in their communities.

Private funders in Massachusetts have been re-prioritizing their investments away from the arts.  But those who still invest tend to drive a specific agenda through that investment.  Rarely if ever is the support unrestricted.  The largest grants are associated with major capital projects. Their constituents are people of purpose but often occupy the board rooms and more elite places and spaces in our world.

While our funding has certainly diminished dramatically over the past decade, it has not been accompanied by a loss of relevance or influence.  I think this is a result of an intentional effort and unintentional consequence.  We have certainly stepped up our efforts to add value to our relationship with the field in the absence of more funding.  But there has never been in Massachusetts and there is not now a robust investment at the local level...in any city or town...in a local cultural council.  We remain the primary funder.  Also, there is no corporation or foundation making the kind of investment that has a major impact on the entire state. (Parenthetically, just today the legislature approved a 50% increase in our draw from the state general fund.  This is evidence of our relevance and impact.)

There is logic to the arts ecosystem in Massachusetts.  We are seeing the development of a new player, a new advocacy organization, that brings another important dimension to the advocacy effort, reinforcing the work of the Massachusetts Cultural Council and tackling the parts of the political environment that are inappropriate for a state agency.

We remain relevant and effective as a leader because we are always conscious of our unique role in the arts ecosystem and respect and cooperate with our counterparts.


Randy Rosenbaum:
As director of the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts I occupy a different space in the arts funding ecosystem than my colleagues in larger states.  Rhode Island is a small, intimate place.  We are the principal arts funding agency in Rhode Island.  We work closely with local - mostly volunteer - arts councils in a few of the 39 cities and towns, but aside from our colleagues in the City of Providence our work tends to drive cultural policy making in our state.  Our budget has been fairly stable, and I'm convinced it would have significantly increased if Rhode Island's economy was any better.  In the past few years the arts have played a central role in a number of state initiatives promoted by the highest level of our state's political leadership.  We have been incorporated into our state's economic development plans, the sale of art has been declared tax exempt throughout our state, and our General Assembly has approved a voter initiative for the fall that, if passed, would allot $30 million toward capital improvements to cultural facilities.  The State Arts Council is the lead agency in all of these initiatives, and so it's fair to say that our level of influence and relevance is relatively high.

Our colleagues in the City of Providence are well respected within City government, and they have done an incredible job positioning our Capital city as a major player in the creative placemaking movement.  They have received two Our Town grants from the NEA, support and recognition from ArtPlace and others, and the admiration of many around the country for proving what a medium-sized city - short on resources but rich in cultural talent - can do to revitalize a community.  As befits a small state, we participate with them on cultural planning and policy-making, and they cooperate with us in these areas.  But I wouldn't say there has been a "shift" in influence away from the states and toward local agencies.  We each inhabit our own particular areas.

And that, I think, is where we need to be going.  I don't agree that state arts agencies should have a monopoly on cultural planning and policy-making.  I think we all have our roles to play.  In my opinion, we're most effective when we understand the narrow framework of our role, the framework of those around us, and we work and plan collectively.  Our prominence, if that's the appropriate term, comes from the respect others have for the quality of work we do and the people we serve, so that they are willing to plan and strategize with us, rather than at cross-purposes to us.  People allow you to lead.

That is our future role in the overall arts ecosystem.


Anthony Radich:
In recent years, state arts agencies have been less central players in the development of cultural policy.  Instead of leading and/or collaborating in cultural policy initiatives, they have been working to shore up a funding base that has been decimated by the 20 plus-year long decline in state discretionary spending--the part of state budgets most of the agencies are funded from. Simultaneously, the agencies have been trying to find ways to make rigid and highly bureaucratized state work structures deliver what the public wants--and only partially succeeding. So no, in most cases the state arts agencies are not in a place of cultural policy leadership.  Rather, they are dealing with internal issues of survival and relevance.

Ra Joy:

It’s a false argument to suggest that the rise in influence of a local arts agency needs to come at the expense of the state arts agency. In fact, I would argue the opposite. When local arts agencies strengthen their cultural policy-making power it directly increases the relevance, prominence, and reach of SAA’s.

Dr. Martin Luther King famously stated, “I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.” Recognizing the interrelated structure of SAAs and LAAs, we should focus on building the local-state arts support partnership.

Here in Illinois we try to put this “rising tide lifts all boats" approach into practice with our Local Arts Network (LAN). The Illinois Arts Council Agency (our state arts agency) and Arts Alliance Illinois (our statewide arts advocacy organization) work in concert to connect and galvanize the efforts of more than 70 local arts agencies across the state. By promoting collaboration, encouraging statewide and regional communication, and providing LAA leaders with opportunities for peer-learning and innovation, the LAN aims to strengthen LAA’s capacity to serve their communities. In turn, by working closely with the LAA leaders, the Alliance and the Arts Council extend their reach into communities and gain valuable insight into the trends, needs, and challenges facing our sector and the state.    

That being said, I also believe SAAs should take proactive and affirmative action when it comes to advancing cultural policy. SAAs are uniquely qualified and well-positioned to create and seize new policy windows, build stronger cross-sector partnerships, and place the arts toward the top of states’ priority lists. 

For nearly half a century, state arts agencies have worked to increase public access to the arts and push cultural policy initiatives forward that maximize the role of the arts in education, community revitalization, and civic engagement. More recently, SAAs have pioneered creative economy initiatives that focus on the role of the arts as an economic driver. Some of the policy innovations in this arena have included arts districts/cultural hubs, cultural tourism initiatives, creative economy tax credits/ incentives and more. 

By promoting a spirit of civic entrepreneurship, SAAs should continue to encourage states to more fully realize the impacts of culture as a tool for achieving broad social and economic objectives. SAAs of the future will operate at the intersection of culture and the public interest. In addition to placing the arts at the center of civic dialogue and public life, the brave new arts agency of the future will lead silo-busting collaboration across a broad range of issues. In addition to enriching cultural vibrancy, SAAs should forge new partnerships that help communities and their states address complex challenges. Whether it’s promoting interagency coordination to transform blighted areas or creating new partnerships to help maximize life outcomes for low-income kids, SAAs have a powerful role to play in creating stronger, more vibrant states.


Scott Provancher:
The turmoil in the global economy over the past half-decade has affected every corner of every industry.  Non-profit, for-profit and government of all types and sizes have experienced unprecedented challenges to their business model—the State Arts Agency is no exception.

In many cases, we are now just beginning to see which SAAs have adapted and emerged stronger and which have continued to struggle in the “new normal.”  Though some States have merged stronger and others have diminished in size and influence, I do not believe that the SAA community as a whole is any less important or impactful now then it was a decade ago.

However, I think the role of SAAs are changing and the success of the sector will rest on their ability to aggressively define their value proposition to elected officials and citizens, mobilize their constituents around key goals, and adapt to new ways to leverage investment in the Arts (both public and private).

It is natural to look back at the high watermark of funding for SAAs as the “good old days,” but that would be like IBM focusing on how they can bring back the mainframe computer or Kodak developing a new marketing campaign for the Polaroid!  For SAAs to be successful, they must have an opinion on why the arts are important to the growth of their States, what success looks like in the future and how key constituents can play a role in collectively achieving this vision.

In other words, SAAs must lead the change they seek.

Gone are the days, where SAAs or any agency of government for that matter, are given an ever increasing budget to operate a program.  SAAs must inspire investment through their vision for the future and ability to find collaborate solutions to funding them.  The shift in strategy led by Rocco Landesman at the NEA may be a good example for SAAs to study.  Could an effort to develop new programs across departments coupled with outside private sector support be a model for the new SAA?

The only way to find out is to inspire an organization that seeks to understand its true value proposition and is aggressive about leading itself and its stakeholders toward that goal.

Forum continues tomorrow……………………..  

Don't Quit.

Barry

Upcoming Blog Forum on the Future of State Arts Agencies and NASAA

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

A Blog Forum on the Future of State Arts Agencies and NASAA
Having been the Director of the California Arts Council, I am biased in favor of the importance of State Arts Agencies to the health and well being of the ecology of the nonprofit arts field.   Over the past decade, since I left my post, the fortunes of the SAAs have been a roller coaster ride.  Budgets have been slashed, agencies have had to jettison staff and cut programs, while still trying to provide needed services to their fields and stay relevant with their constituents.  Now there may be a rebound.  There has been no shortage of talk in the field about how SAAs must / should / are re-inventing themselves and redefining their core roles.

With the announcement by Jonathan Katz (head of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA - the umbrella service provider for the nation's state arts agencies) that he was stepping down after an almost 30 year tenure of deftly and ably leading his sector and surviving the numerous cycles of boom and bust - it seemed to me like a good time to gather some people together to talk about the future of State Arts Agencies and of NASAA itself.  Note:  I asked Jonathan if he would be willing to do an exit interview sometime before he leaves his post and after this Blog Forum, and he has generously agreed.  I am indebted to him.

So I asked the following people if they would respond to some questions (which questions I hoped would allow for, and perhaps encourage, a discussion of a host of issues that seem involved in any discussion of SAAs), and they accepted:  (I wanted both past and current heads of various SAAs - with geographic, and various budget size representation.  I wanted people who had been on the NASAA Board. I also wanted some representation of a couple of the stakeholders with whom virtually all SAAs interact - including advocacy groups and local city / county arts agencies.  And finally, I wanted some voice from the Regional Arts Organization perspective and some thinking from the SAA council / board group).

Participants in the Blog Forum on the Future of SAAs and NASAA

1.  Arni Fishbaugh:  Arlynn Fishbaugh is the executive director of the Montana Arts Council, a position she has held since 1992.  She received her undergraduate degree in theatre from The University of Montana, Missoula, and a Master's in Theatre Management from UCLA. She's held positions at the Guthrie Theatre in Minneapolis and with Houston Grand Opera's touring division, Texas Opera Theater. She also served for five years as the associate director of Marketing for the Metropolitan Opera in New York City. Following this position, she became executive director of the National Video Corporation's Direct Marketing division in NYC.  She currently serves as the immediate past president of the Board of Directors for the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA) and is also on the board of directors of Grantmakers in the Arts. Arni is the 2010 recipient of NASAA’s Gary Young Award for Outstanding Services to the State Arts Agency field, and is a former member of the board of directors of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters (APAP) and the Western States Arts Federation (WESTAF).

2.  Randy Rosenbaum:  Randall Rosenbaum is the executive director of the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts, a position he has held since 1995. From 1984 to 1995, Rosenbaum served in a variety of capacities at the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, including deputy director and director of the Dance and Presenting Organizations programs. He has a bachelor of music education degree from Temple University in Philadelphia, and has managed orchestras and nonprofit arts organizations in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Ohio. Rosenbaum has served as a site visitor and panelist for the National Endowment for the Arts in the dance, theatre, musical theatre/opera and state and regional programs, and as a panelist for the state arts agencies of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut and Massachusetts, as well as for the Mid-Atlantic Arts Foundation, the Heinz Endowment of Pittsburgh, and Cuyahoga Arts & Culture in Cleveland, Ohio. He has taught arts administration courses, classes and seminars at Brown University and Rhode Island College. He serves on the board of the New England Foundation for the Arts. A practicing musician, Rosenbaum has sung professionally in churches and synagogues, and with performing ensembles throughout the East Coast. He has served on the NASAA Board 2012-2014.

3.  Anita Walker:  Anita Walker has served as Executive Director of the Massachusetts Cultural Council (MCC) since April 2007. Walker is the Commonwealth’s highest ranking cultural official, overseeing a range of grant programs, services, and advocacy for the arts, humanities, and sciences in communities across Massachusetts.  She led advocacy for the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund, which over seven years has invested $70 million in arts and cultural building projects statewide.
Walker also launched MCC’s Cultural Districts Initiative to help cities and towns attract new visitors and commercial activity by focusing on arts and cultural activity. And she led the creation of a new Cultural Investment Portfolio for more than 400 outstanding nonprofit arts, humanities, and science organizations that simplified the state’s support system for the nonprofit cultural sector. Coupled with the Massachusetts Cultural Data Project, it is helping organizations better understand their finances and become better advocates for their work and the sector as a whole.  She led the effort to include the arts as part of the Massachusetts Board of Education’s recommended core curriculum for high school students. She launched the Creative Minds Afterschool initiative, through which MCC has expanded its reach to provide arts education to more Massachusetts schoolchildren outside the traditional school day. She also led a partnership with the Bank of America Foundation to create the Big Yellow School Bus Program, which has helped schools send more than 150,000 students on field trips to Massachusetts cultural destinations.  Before coming to Massachusetts, Walker was director of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs for seven years, serving simultaneously as executive director of the Iowa Arts Council, administrator of the State Historical Society, and the state historic preservation officer. Walker is a native of California and a graduate of Arizona University. She lives in Boston.

4.  Ra Joy:  Ra is the Executive Director of Arts Alliance Illinois, the state advocacy organization.  He has more than 15 years experience as an advocate, community organizer, and coalition builder. As executive director, he sets and implements the organization's strategic goals, manages its operations, and serves as a principal spokesperson. Prior to joining Arts Alliance Illinois, he served as a top aide to U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky. In 2011, he was appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel to serve as a member of the City of Chicago’s Cultural Advisory Council, and in 2013, he was appointed by Governor Pat Quinn to launch the State of Illinois' Creative Economy Initiative.

5.  Scott Provancher:  Scott Provancher is President of provancher+associates, fundraising, social innovation and non-profit management consultancy.  Most recently he was President of the Arts & Science Council in Charlotte, North Carolina where he led efforts to secure over $100 million in public and private support for Charlotte’s cultural community.  Scott is also the founder of power2give.org, a leading crowdfunding platform for cultural organizations that has expanded to 26 cities nationwide, securing more than 17,000 donors.  Throughout his career, which spans CEO roles at the Rockford (IL) and Louisville (KY) symphony orchestras to leading major fundraising campaigns for United Arts Funds, Scott has remained committed to designing adaptive business models and fundraising strategies to ensure cultural institutions remain relevant, accessible and sustainable for generations to come.  Scott currently serves on the Eastman School of Music Deans Advisory Board and has served on numerous foundation and non-profit boards including the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation National Arts Advisory Board, North Carolina Arts Council Board, and the Americans for the Arts Private Sector Council to name a few.

6.  Laura Zucker:  Laura Zucker is Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Arts Commission and Director of the Masters in Arts Management Program at Claremont Graduate University.  The Arts Commission provides leadership in cultural services of all disciplines for the largest county in the United States, encompassing 88 municipalities. The Arts Commission administers a $4.5 million grants program that funds more than 350 nonprofit arts organizations annually; provides leadership and staffing to support the regional blueprint to restore arts education to all 81 school districts in Los Angeles County, Arts for All; funds the largest arts internship program in the country in conjunction with the Getty Foundation; programs the John Anson Ford Theatres; and implements the county’s civic art program. The Arts Commission also produces free community programs, including the L.A. Holiday Celebration, which emanates from the Music Center and is broadcast on public television.

During 2005 Ms. Zucker was on special assignment with Eli Broad to develop and launch Arts + Culture LA, a nonprofit responsible for marketing LA as a cultural destination. Previously, she headed the California Cultural Tourism Initiative, which marketed the arts of California’s three urban regions domestically and internationally. She is the author of a regional study of individual artists as part of the California Arts Council’s economic impact study on the arts.  Ms. Zucker serves on the boards of Grantmakers in the Arts, the Association of Arts Administration Educators, is an officer of the Ford Theatre Foundation board, a member of the Los Angeles Coalition, and was a founding member of the board of Arts for LA.  Ms. Zucker was previously the Executive Director of the Ventura Arts Council and was producing director of the Back Alley Theatre for ten years. She received a B.A. in English from Barnard College and attended the Yale School of Drama.

7.  Anthony Radich:  Anthony Radich has served as the executive director of WESTAF since August of 1996. In that capacity he is responsible for providing leadership to the thirteen-state regional arts organizations’ programs and special initiatives. He oversees WESTAF’s work in the areas of research, advocacy, and online systems development designed to benefit the cultural community. Prior to accepting his position at WESTAF, Radich served as the executive director of the Missouri Arts Council for eight years. There he led the successful effort to create a state cultural trust fund supported by a stream of dedicated state funding. Preceding his work in Missouri, Radich was the senior project manager for the Arts, Tourism, and Cultural Resources Committee of the National Conference of State legislatures (NCSL). As senior project manager, he worked with state legislators from across the country to develop state-level legislation and policy concerned with the arts, tourism, and historic preservation. While working for the NCSL, Radich was appointed by Denver Mayor Federico Peña to chair the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs, the city’s arts agency.  Radich earned a bachelor's degree in physical anthropology and a master's degree in art education from the University of Oregon. He also earned a doctorate from the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the University of Colorado Denver.

8.  Kris Tucker:  Kris Tucker served as Executive Director of the Washington State Arts Commission (ArtsWA) 1999-2014, where she led a staff of 12-18 to provide programs and services including Art in Public places, Arts in Education, grants to organizations, and community partnerships. She served for 14 years as a Trustee of the Western States Arts Federation (WESTAF), served as a grant panelist for the NEA, and was active with NASAA (National Assembly of State Arts Agencies). Kris was previously Executive Director of the Boise City Arts Commission; Arts & Entertainment Editor of the Boise Weekly; and a freelance writer. She earned her MA in Whole Systems Design from Antioch University Seattle, and her BA from Oregon State University. She lives in Olympia WA and is currently vice chair of the Board of the Olympia (WA) Artspace Alliance.

9.   Mark Hofflund:  Managing Director, Idaho Shakespeare Festival.  Mark’s career began at The Old Globe under artistic director Jack O’Brien, producing director Tom Hall, and founding director Craig Noel. Mark acted, directed, produced new plays, held a board position with San Diego Performing Arts League, and edited his mentor Alan Schneider’s memoir Entrances. Joining colleague Charles Fee in Idaho, Mark served as liaison to Idaho Foundation for Parks & Lands and Idaho Department of Parks & Recreation, whose collaboration made possible the Festival’s 12-acre Amphitheater and Reserve at Barber Pool. The Festival’s statewide audience includes 50,000 students K-12 served by two nationally recognized school tours; high school apprentice and community access programs; and a School of Theater enabled by a merger with Idaho Theater for Youth.  Mark served on the WESTAF Board of Directors.  Appointed in 1994 to eight years on the Boise City Arts Commission, Hofflund now serves on the board of the Boise Convention and Visitors Bureau, chairs the Idaho Commission on the Arts, and has completed a presidential appointment to the National Council on the Arts. He holds degrees from Princeton and the University of California, San Diego. (He served on the NASAA Board 2010-2012.

Note:  I also invited former NASAA Board Chair and Executive Director of the Ohio Arts Council,  Wayne Lawson, but unfortunately Wayne hurt his hand on a vacation and had to have surgery.  Wishing you a full and speedy recovery Wayne.  

Here are the questions I put to the participants:

PART I - STATE ARTS AGENCIES:

1.  For the better part of a decade state arts agencies have been under severe budget pressures. During that period, many of the state arts agency budgets have shrunk.  Meanwhile, in some cases, local arts agency budgets have increased.  In the process, there has arguably been a shift in influence and cultural policy-making power away from the states agencies to the local agencies, or to the philanthropic community.  Do you think that is true?  If so, what do you believe are the implications of such a shift?  To what extent have the state arts agencies seen their relevance diminish, how might they regain their former prominence, and what do you envision as their future role in the overall arts ecosystem?  What ought to be the role of SAAs in developing state arts cultural policy?

2)  Some of you on this panel, as well as others throughout the sector, have called for a re-envisioning of the SAAs away from grant making so as to cut the umbilical cord-like connection of their work to unpredictable state funding.  Some argue that there are all kinds of initiatives and programs, including case making, convening, research, professional development, and other efforts that would be as, or more, valuable to the arts sector than the provision of direct grants.  Others argue that it is the grant making that has been of the greatest value in growing the arts at the state level.  Some have argued quite forcefully that our field is overbuilt and that we simply cannot continue the fantasy that this isn't a problem.  What are your thoughts?  Please consider the following:

• Were SAAs to move away from grant making as their central role, what would the new structure of an agency look like?  What other ways might a SAA re-envision its way of doing business
• What are the state arts ecosystem political constraints (both within the sector and outside of it) that bear on any kind of re-envisioning and re-organizing of SAA's missions and priorities, and how can they be dealt with?
• What is the role of State Arts Agencies, if any, in supporting or working to reduce an overbuilt arts ecosystem, and to what extent should SAAs use their grant making powers to address the increased supply / diminishing demand challenge?   Specifically what ought they do differently, if anything, than they are doing now? 
• Is there a better way to balance the provision of grants and the provision of other kinds of services?  

3. What is the ideal relationship between a state arts agency and its principal stakeholders and logical potential partners and collaborators - including state arts advocacy organizations, local city and county arts agencies,  state arts education organizations, discipline based service provider organizations, other state agencies, private sector interests and the philanthropic community - and where does that ideal differ from the current reality?  What needs to be done to move the reality closer to the ideal?


PART II - NASAA

1.  If the SAAs are in a period of re-invention and evolution to a different model, what kind of reinvention and evolution of thinking ought NASAA embrace?  Please consider:

• Should NASAA's role be that of a change agent, or a provider of services to an established practice?  
• What are the key services that are the most needed by, and valuable to, SAAs, and to what extent does NASAA need to rethink how it can provide those services?
• What needs to change in the NASAA business model, and what steps can NASAA take to diversify or expand its income in order to increase the resources available to it to pursue its mission and insure its financial sustainability and capacity to serve its membership?  
• On the other side of the coin, what new kinds of approaches might NASAA take to support state legislative budget increases to state arts agencies?  

2.   What are the innovations in association management that the leadership of NASAA and its incoming staff leader need to consider emulating and embracing, and why?  And what kinds of skills and vision ought NASAA be looking for in its new Chief Executive Officer?

3.   What is the ideal relationship for NASAA and its logical clients, stakeholders, potential partners and collaborators  - including state and local arts advocate groups, local city and county agencies, the Regional Arts Organizations, arts educator and arts education groups, private sector groups, the philanthropic community and various arts discipline service providers and the NEA - and how far is that ideal from the reality?  What needs to be done to make all of those relationships (and potential relationships with asymmetrical organizational partners) work for NASAA and each of those communities?

Beginning next Monday, I will post the responses of all the participants to each of the above questions - one per day - Monday through Saturday.


Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry