Post GIA Conference Thoughts

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

Coming off last week's GIA Conference I am left with several thoughts:

1.  My respect for, and empathy with, the funding community continues to grow.  These are smart, dedicated people who care deeply about the health of the fragile arts ecosystem, and are earnestly trying to figure out ways to address the big challenges the whole field faces.  They come up with intelligent, reasoned pilot projects, strategies, and approaches they hope will yield results that can help guide us all in making the difference we want to make.  They aren't risk averse and when attempts to get a handle on a problem don't work out, when well intended approaches fail, they simply go back to brainstorming and the drawing board and reaching out to stakeholders for more input.  It's easy to armchair quarterback every decision, but not particularly helpful.  Still, being on the front lines they are subject to public scrutiny and that's as it should be.

Their efforts are constrained by two realities beyond their control:  1) there simply aren't enough funds in the collective coffers of all the funders to address all the issues for all the community; and 2) they are program directors, not Board members -- and often times their advice and counsel is trumped by Board priorities with which they may not agree, but are powerless to avoid.  That is the reality of foundation and government funding processes.

2.  While strides have been made in ratcheting up the awareness and understanding of both the need for adequate capitalization of arts organizations, and the ways to go about moving in that direction, it is, and will likely remain slow going across the board.  There are two big issues with capitalization: 1) to change organizational behavior, it's necessary to first change organizational culture, and that isn't easy in many cases; and 2) the big obstacle to achieving even half the gold standard of six months operating / reserve capital, is that it is simply a money issue.  You need more money to build the reserves, and more money is axiomatically hard to come by.  You can increase awareness and knowledge, and arm people with the tools to go forward, but you can't wave a magic wand and increase their revenue streams so they can achieve capitalization.  We will continue to make some progress, but unless and until there is significant improvement in our finances, this will be, in many cases, two steps forward, two steps back.  

3.  The big issue of equity - and the specific of fairer allocation of scarce resources - faces another kind of culture that doesn't seem to be changing much at all - and that is the long, systemically established favoritism towards a small handful of large budget cultural institutions in cities across the country.  That the lion's share of arts funding goes to this small cohort of organizations is well born out by the research, and it is structurally part of the arts funding machine.  I don't see much, if any, real movement from that inequitable reality and I don't expect it will soon change.  Before there can be any wholesale change in that allocation system, we would have to change the culture of the Boards that run these organizations and which have sworn allegiance to the way its always been as the admission ticket to a Board seat.  Funding the "haves" that have always been "haves" is not, in itself, totally wrong - as these are valuable assets to any community, and they need every funding dollar they can get.  But on an equity basis it's largely indefensible.  I just don't think the change many call for is coming soon.  And frankly token efforts will not do us much good at all.  

4.  There are a number of areas where the news is nothing but positive, and where great strides are being made with results that promise to be of enormous benefit to us all - including in the arts and aging / healing field, in the research arena, in the policy area,  in placemaking - particularly as the same relates to working with cities, governments and business, and finally (though in pockets - more all the time) in arts education.

Too often people only have complaints against funders.   I would like to thank them.  I admire their tenacity, their positive attitudes and their creativity.

And now that I have thanked them, I would like to encourage them to push the envelope more; to have a sense of urgency about changing the dynamic and move us quicker in the area of equity.

It's frustrating not to move quicker where the need is great.  There is so much that might get done if society had the right priorities and we had the necessary tools and resources.  But things are getting a little bit better all the time.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry

GIA CONFERENCE - DAY 2

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

GIA CONFERENCE - DAY 2

Two sessions today:

I.  Cultural Policy and Local Arts Agencies: At the Nexus of Cultural, Economic and Community Development - featuring the work of the Tucson Pima Arts Council (Roberto Bedoya - Director of Civic Engagement) - shifting policy from grant making to serving the community directly; the City of San Jose Office of Cultural Affairs (Kerry Adams Hapner - Director of Cultural Affairs, Deputy Director of Economic Development), - moving on the challenge of cities to develop talented workforce pools; and the Seattle Office of Arts and Culture (Randy Engstrom,  Director) - emphasizing arts education as a "Creative Advantage" program.

A lively audience discussion followed the presentations centering around the role of the LAA in policy formation, noting the difference between planning and policy, and exploring ways policy might be developed via programming and internal work within city hall.  What we want, of course, are formal policies that the decision makers subscribe to that clearly set forth the value and role of arts and culture in every aspect of the lives of our citizens.  Something that transcends the frequent changes in the political landscape and is lasting.  How we get there is the question.

• Randy suggested an out-of-the-box idea:  fund a FTE in the city planning department paid for from the arts agency's budget.  The notion of having an arts perspective embedded full time in the city's overall planning mechanism that comes from our side of the fence, moves way beyond having the arts merely seated at a decision making table.  This is perhaps a bold kind of move for our future.
• Laura Zucker suggested that what we need is to work for policies valuing the arts not from an exclusively top down, nor bottom up, effort in city government - but from both - and which will survive the politics of city hall, so that we don't have to continually fight the same fights over and over again when regimes change and new politicians are in office.  
• Jonathan Glus noted that the Houston Cultural Plan includes policies valuing the arts with specific guidelines for other city departments (though the guidelines aren't mandates) it does go beyond the traditional cultural plan "wish list" of inter-departmental collaboration.

There was general consensus that while a national policy valuing the arts is problematic, the next step might be a concerted effort to begin to develop local valuation policies.

Good session.

II.The major afternoon sessions were three hour offsite.   I choose to attend the Digital Media for Arts Grantmakers focusing on the need for grantmakers to learn to deploy digital media to reach and engage audiences and to become fluent in digital capabilities and tools.  

Takeaways:

• Have an articulated game plan, informed by the organization's overall vision strategy.
• Build capabilities, don't just do projects.  Technology is not a project but a process
• Shake up the organization chart with an integration of digital competency positions, including training
• Put audiences first and be prepared for constant change.

This is, of course, a big, complex area where many arts leaders feel lost and / or incompetent and there are numerous obstacles to embracing full digital knowledge.  But as the generational shifts become more urgent, so too is the necessity of overcoming reticence and fears to understand the basics of IT and appreciate the rapidity of change as a constant.  I think the message is to be bold and take risks in digital technology as it relates to our publics - and to do that you have to at least have a working knowledge of the possibilities.  It is incumbent on us all to seek out that training and knowledge understanding.  There are resources out there.

The day ended with a visit to the newly opened BROAD Museum, which is housed in a stunning new building situated across from LA's iconic Disney Hall, and the modern museum, MOCA, along the Grand Avenue corridor -- which must rival, or exceed, any cultural district in the country.  

The BROAD collection is eclectic and varied and the experience is a joy.  I loved it.  There are the expected name collections:  the Warhols, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelleys, Ruschas, Lichtensteins, Koons and Basquiets and more (and while not always the premier pieces in each collection, all are extraordinary).  And there are many more less known including media installations that are provocative and stunning.  As a lay person, I was thrilled.

Have a good day

Don't Quit

Barry

GIA CONFERENCE - DAY 1

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


GIA CONFERENCE - DAY 1

The first day of any of our art conferences seem to always be the longest.

Janet Brown opened the conference with the reminder that the three operating principles of GIA continue to be:  Inclusiveness, Collaboration, and Curiosity.

I.  Recent GIA Conferences have featured Idea Lab - short Ted like presentations by a trio of different working artists.  The first three were all excellent.  The one that caught my attention was Yuval Sharon, founder and artistic director of The Industry, an L.A. based experimental opera company that produces performances that can only be categorized as way outside the box.

He touted three:

• A warehouse based production where the audience was invited to walk all around the actual production and view it from anywhere they choose - in front as an audience, backstage, from the wings.
• An production of a full opera at L.A's downtown Union Station - a working railroad station with arrivals and departures and teeming with travelers.  
• And most ambitious of all - an opera performed in 24 moving vehicles on L.A.'s freeway system called "Hopscotch".  Really, the opera is performed in chapters and people get in these cars / vans for ten minutes at a time.  And then can opt for another chapter.  Each moving vehicle travels to different parts of the city.  Moreover, the "chapters" are live streamed.  LA. has long had a car culture, and this project fits perfectly into the identity of the city. 

This is clearly not your father's opera company.  

II.  Capitalization sessions:

I wanted to focus the day on the sessions dealing with capitalization of arts organizations, so I went to two.  The first one (entitled Along the Capitalization Spectrum) was advertised as:  "an examination of the spectrum of capitalization activities that can be undertaken in order to more fully and equitably support organizational financial health - lessons learned from recent years of capitalization-focused grant making and new directions based on that learning" - featuring presentations from Kresge and Mellon foundations.

The two Mellon programs caught my attention:

1.  The Zero Loan Fund is a program is designed for organizations principally with temporary cash flow issues, delays in receivables etc. and the program is a form of bridge support, and isn't really aimed at organizations with high risk financial problems.  Loans are to be paid back in one year, and they have had a 96% pay back rate.  They have plans for expansion of the program with larger loans available, and consideration of higher risk organizations as grantees (though they haven't yet determined the exact criteria for the degree of risk.)

2.  The more ambitious program is a pilot initiative that deals with the comprehensive financial health of 70 grantees and is still in the operational stage only halfway through its process, and thus there are yet any firm conclusions about either the approach or efficacy.  They've done extensive diagnostics, and the educational component workshops are still in progress.

These two projects, plus the Kresge work with placemaking as incorporating support for capitalization, point out how slow the whole process of moving deliberately forward with programs that can both succeed in helping organizations become adequately capitalized for financial health, and which might also be replicated - in whole or in part for the benefit of the field.  

What I came away with, was that the realization that there are multiple layers of issues involved in even the attempt to craft programs that might help arts organizations achieve real capitalization, and change structural organizational forms so as to facilitate that achievement - including everything from organizational transparency and truth telling to both funders and to the organization itself, to the possible stigma of asking for even a bridge loan, to the timeline it takes to develop approaches in this area.  

The reality that some organizations living hand to mouth and literally on the precipice of survival might be of great value to the communities in which they operate further complicates the decision process of where to put dollars to help address the challenge of widespread inadequate capitalization among arts organizations.  Even the contingent in the field that supports the notion that some organizations are so far gone as to not be savable, and that some organizations should, frankly, be left to expire without prolonged and likely futile attempts to change their circumstances faces the challenge of which ones fall into that classification.

III.  The next session was entitled Building Cash Reserves in Arts Organizations -- featuring a California Community Foundation 18 month pilot project which sought to help arts organizations build cash reserves (as opposed to basic operating reserves designed to cover base expenses), and involving five small to mid-sized Los Angeles based arts organizations.   

Alas this project pointed up that even in this area of capitalization, there are so many variables and likely unanticipated complications that can undermine the effort that it impossible to consider each individual situation as anything other that completely unique and a standalone situation.  Lessons learned included:

• An 18 month timeline is too short.  A three year timeline is suggested as it takes longer to cultivate existing or new donors (who would give to a reserve fund) and to build the culture of capitalization (and fundraising) within the organization.
• There needs to be a consistency of leadership participation by the grantee and the Board president should be involved from the outset.
• Consider the challenges of whole organizational change and be prepared for different outcomes across the spectrum.
• Assure understanding of all roles and responsibilities of the various participating resources and consultants for the benefit of the cohort and the building cash reserves team.

When I asked about the reality that some arts organization's situations might suggest that scarce resources ought to be deployed where they might have a chance of succeeding, there was the suggestion that the value to a community might trump that consideration.  In subsequent conversations with other attendees, there seems an equally vocal group that rejects the idea that we can save everyone or that - with finite resources -  it is smart to try.  I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle - we need to both consider all kinds of criteria in determining where to invest scarce resources while at the same time accept the realities that things can and do go wrong, and that we cannot always control when that happens nor fix it after the fact.  Every decision funders make, results in a choice to invest here instead of investing somewhere else.  That reality will not change.

The challenges of trying to promote adequate capitalization for arts organizations is daunting and mired with the fact that each organizational situational circumstances are unique, and that each organization's level of financial sophistication varies widely.

IV. The day's last session for me was entitled People of Color and Arts Giving - a 360 Degree View. While "people of color maintain a deep interest in the arts, lead active cultural lives, and want to participate - particularly in art-making and art-learning" there is evidence that they don't yet give in support of arts organizations nearly to the level of their White counterparts.

39% of California's population is Latino/a, but they account for only 6% of arts giving .

The why is varied:

• They do give philanthropically, but to other areas such as churches.
• There are fewer high income members in the cohort.  
• The culture of giving to nonprofits is still developing.
• They have other investment priorities.

The question is how can arts funders promote the message that the arts strengthen communities of color and the answer to that questions will be tempered by:  1) a likely long (generational) timeline; 2) increased involvement of the community in perceived valuable arts activity; 3) arts education.  No answers - just challenges as this stage.

But this is an important challenge for funders.  As communities of color gain local political clout - and exercise that clout in the voting booth - more local government funding can go to arts organizations serving those communities.  That may help.

Have a good day.

More to follow.

Don't Quit

Barry